Bible Dragons

My pick for the next big creationist issue?

Dragons.

Sounds crazy right? (of course it is) But that wont stop bible literalists from claiming that all the talk in the bible about dragons is actually talk about dinosaurs.

It's another attempt to represent the confused mysticism of the bible as accurate scientific observation.

Another fantastic example of hindsight allowing a re-interpretation of the text to say it was true all along.

What I find disconcerting is that creationist literature is sounding more and more reasonable... not the arguments they are still crazy or just plain wrong, but the presentation is getting better.

If I had to attribute a cause I would say that the creationists have been learning from the climate change deniers. They are coming into the game with a lot of polish now and some very reasonable sounding people are realising just how much money can be made by telling people what they want to hear.

I don't for one second think that everyone espousing these view points actually believes them, mostly because much of the arguments being made are deeply flawed and that the way they are being presented shows an understanding of those of flaws and how best to hide them.

So when I see interviews like this

I have to consider that at least some of these people know what they are saying is false, but they have chosen to perpetuate a false belief system either for some emotional comfort or for monetary gain and given that these people make a direct living from presenting these beliefs I think the latter is more likely.

They even mention in this interview that there is no word for dragon in hebrew, that the word used can have several meanings including whale. And yet they use the current visual imagery of a dragon that not only did not exist until well over a thousand years AD but that has a clear and obvious evolution in western art.

Go back historically along the artistic representations of St George and the dragon (possibly the most iconic reference to any such creature) and you'll find that early images of a dragon look nothing like our current idea of the flying fire breathing beast. If anything they look more like a large lizard (don't forget that St George was actually a roman soldier from the middle east).

To assume that our modern image of a dragon is anything like the images in the minds of the biblical authors is not just a stretch It's obviously not true.

How long before the whole Jonah story gets reworked to include a dragon? Bible literalists will explain that it wasn't a whale because the actual text reads "great fish". This is mostly because it's physically impossible for a whale to swallow a person - even the biggest whales actually have tiny throats and can't swallow anything larger than a orange, plus the biggest whale stomach would not allow a human to stretch out much less stand up.

Fish don't score any better but they can always claim there is something we've never discovered yet living at the bottom of the ocean...

Of course "great fish" is only a short step away from "great serpent" and thats obviously a dragon right? Watch this space, I see a profitable book in the works for the first person to string that argument out to 80,000 words...

If, like Darak Isaacs, you can ignore the truth and have a good presentation manner about you then you too may have a long career ahead of you selling comforting lies about the bibles documentation of dinosaurs as "dragons" to gullible christians.

The daily crazy from AIG

Wow, the guys at Answers in Genesis just keep the hits coming...

Yesterday (26th April 2013) the dream team of Ken Ham, Steve Golden, Jeremy Ham, and David Chakranarayan published a discourse on the bibles instructions regarding the judgment of others specifically, its the habit people have of quoting Matthew 7:1 at christians arguing against same sex marriage abortion and any number of other personal freedoms:

"Judge not, that you be not judged"

Because of course you cant have christians being held to their own standards right?

In fact the article make some pretty impressive claims:

• That the words of the bible are only wrong when "unbelievers" speak them.
• That anyone who doesn't believe can't point out where AIG are wrong.
• That even christians who dont agree cant point out where AIG are wrong.
• Thats its loving to tell people they are wrong and stand in judgement of them.
• That any judgment you tie back to the gospel makes it the judgement of god so you're not being judgmental really anyway.
• and finally that christians can not be tolerant because they are following the truth of god.

The last one really scares me because it has that crazy kind of absolutist ring to it...  If you think I'm already over-reacting go to their article and jump to the end to read their conclusion.

"You cant use that book, thats our book!"

They leap right in saying that peoples claims against judging others are:

"...to excuse their actions when they are presented with the gospel and the plight of sinners for rejecting it."

Gotta love that, instant dismissal that anyone might have an alternative opinion, different moral values, or just be willing to suspend judgement until more evidence is in.

To be clear the above statement actually refers not just to the claim of with holding judgement, but any and all quotes of bible morality made by a secular thinker.

Thats right - They are starting with the assumption that any time a non-christian reminds a christian of the standards by which that christian claims to live it can be ignored because they are just doing to excuse their own actions.

This is worst kind of argument ad hominem! Following this logic only someone who agrees with them can point out their own hypocrisy. They are basically saying "you have agree that I'm right to tell me I'm wrong" - With an ability to twist logic like that, if Ken Ham wasn't so busy lining his pockets with money from the faithful he'd have a great future in used cars...

Ken says god is not the final judge anyway.

Their next step is point out that god is not the final judge anymore, he handed all that responsibility to jesus.

So right there any attempt to say god will judge just shows how ignorant the secularist really is because we all know that god and jesus are two entirely... different... things... err... right?

Anyway,

Judgement means different things and different standards depending on whose being judged!

You'd never judge a christian by the same standards you apply to non-christians right?

Apparently "unbelievers" need to be judged to "know christ", and christians need to be judged to "grow in christ". And apparently that means different kinds of judging. I think...

So you're an unbeliever? Ken has some bad news...

According to Ham et al all people have already been judged by god as sinners - sorry it's in the book (actually it says all men but I'm going to assume that Ken is a progressive guy and that he extends this assumption of evil to both genders and anybody finding themselves in the middle somewhere...)

Here we get the thrust of Ken et al's argument: The whole Matthew 7:1-5 is being taken "out of context to support [their] fallacious claims". You know, silly claims like everybody has the right to be in a mutually loving relationship, and you have the right not to die simply  because the dead and now septic foetus in your womb still has an autonomous heart beat.

You see apparently Matthew was just saying dont be hypocrites... forget the generally accepted interpretation that you should not attempt to even point out the problems of others until you dealt with your own much bigger problems... Ken and his mates are ready for that too:

"As Christians, we should be living godly lives so that we can first concentrate on our own repentance of sin. Sanctification is a lifelong process of being transformed every day into the image of Christ. Without this, we have no place in helping another brother or sister."

As christians they have accepted that they are sinners and as long as they are repentent, they have dealt with their sins and can now happily settle down to telling others how to live their lives. Even better ONLY those who repent their sins to god and sanctify themselves daily towards the image of christ are even in a position to pass judgement on others.

So just to paraphrase again "you have agree that I'm right to tell me I'm wrong"

I'm sensing a pattern.

So you're christian, Ken still has bad news...

Just when you thought Ken was about to let other christians off...

"Now, the ministry of Answers in Genesis acknowledges that there are many Christian pastors and leaders who sincerely have a love for the Lord Jesus Christ. These men have led many to Christ, work diligently with much perseverance for the kingdom of God, and minister to the hurting and sick—all because they have been transformed by the finished work of Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection from the dead. However, just like the rest of us, they are fallible and can fall into error, even regarding the issue of origins."

Yup, everything thing you do thats good is because of god... but you're wrong if you dont agree with us!

The authors of this little gem seem totally oblivious as they list multiple biblical examples of gods followers being wrong and only finding out later that the AIG themselves may possibly be wrong.

Ken et al claim in this part of their article that they are being loving to others by attempting to correct their error:

"Are we being loving if we allow our fellow brethren to remain in error and even deceive others? Of course not. Loving others requires that we graciously correct them when they fall into error (Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians 1:11; Galatians 6:1). Those who err do not necessarily know they are in error; they are possibly deceived or ignorant. So we gently and carefully correct the error in regard to teaching, no matter what the situation."

Their only concession to the chance that they are capable of making mistakes is to return to the "truth of scripture" as their authority. So the bible, with it's omissions, contradictions, morality plays, parables, allegories, translations and (lets be honest here guys) out right errors - Needs to be taken as the absolute word of god.

Luckily the guys at AIG know exactly how to tell parable and allegory from fact and historical record... although apparently any christians who disagree with them on interpretation dont have that special skill.

So we find ourselves back at that standby attitude "you have agree that I'm right to tell me I'm wrong"

If nothing else they are consistent in their message.

Now they wrap up by saying that as long as they make "righteous judgments so that we can point people to the gospel" then they are being righteous people and following gods word.

Kens conclusion:

Quoting the whole "judge not" thing is always out of context according to Ken et al and just shows [you] "are not using sound thinking" which is of course AIG code for "stupid, because you disagree with us". "Sound thinking" or indeed any expression of rationalism is something that the AIG authors seem utterly incapable of in relation to biblical issues.

They go on to say that because they use the gospel to make their judgements from, they are always right and tolerance is impossible. Yes you read it right tolerance is IMPOSSIBLE for a christian - in their own words (not taken out of context):

"Their call for tolerance is impossible because as Christians, we are called to judge righteously, and judging between right and wrong is something we do every day—and it should be a part of biblical discernment in every believer’s thinking. But it is God’s Word that makes the judgment on morality and truth, not our own opinions or theories."

There is no point debating people who start from the position that they already know the absolute truth of the universe and any argument or evidence to the contrary is just lies, or misinterpretations. The AIG crowd are either world class scam artists playing on the gullible, or crazy beyond the point where they should be let out unattended (they probably have people from both camps).

These authors leave themselves literally no room for movement, no scope for error or interpretation at all.

If they honestly believe that no rational argument, no logic, no reasoning, no external evidence, indeed nothing their own minds can conceive or undertand should ever override their current interpretation of the gospel, then they are beyond help, and the best we can hope is that they dont ever reach the point where they consider dissenting thought as harmful enough that it requires a physically response - although it seems this point has already been reached if they feel it necessary to put guard with tasers in their "creation museum" to prevent dissent being expressed in the building...

Baby and Bathwater...

The other day I reasoned that Ken Ham was afraid of the implications that the bible might not be totally true. I stand by that.

I also explained why the ten commandments were not the best of moral codes (or even in the top 5 for that matter), and I stand by that.

But I also believe in not throwing out the baby the bathwater.

Someone sent me a link to a video of Ken Ham saying that if the bible was wrong on astronomy, geology and biology then why should he trust what is says about morality and salvation.

A: Because they are separate claims made from separate positions.

I'm far from the first person to point out that not all the morality in the bible is good, infinite punishment for finite crimes is just one of the many things I dont agree with, but just because the book has many errors, does not mean it cannot also contain truths.

Kan Ham's desperation to defend the bible as absolute truth flows from his fundamental error in thinking:

"If it's partially wrong then it must be entirely wrong"

When all you can really say is:

"If it's partially wrong then it might be entirely wrong"

And while, as I said, the ten commandments are far from perfect, I dont think "thou shalt not kill" is wrong just because I dont agree with "thou shalt have no other gods before me".

Kens thinking seems to be stuck in all or nothing mode. It''s all right or it's all wrong.

I am worried that other creationists share his point of view, they seem to think that by accepting that one part of the bible may not be totally true they must throw the rest of it out too... Thus they lose the baby with the bathwater.

I'll be honest and say that I think treating the bible as an interesting book instead of the word of god would be the best possible outcome, but I dont think they need to go that far in one step, and I certainly dont think they need to assume that if the bible is wrong then the oposite of the bible must be right.

Even if the bible got creation wrong, killing is still not a good thing.

Even if mankind evolved from primate forebears, does not mean we should not be tolerant with each other.

Many christians are able to reconcile their faith without believing the bible as entirely literal truth, and many people who believe and understand the current state of science are able to get comfort from the bible without losing their understanding of the world. I dont think that christians fundamentalists can be helped however, as they are looking for a certainty and absolute truth they will not find it in more moderate churches.

But isolating christian fundamentalists will not help either, if any of them are to be saved from a life of fear induced radical misbelief then it will be because they can see another way, because moderates and atheists demonstrate that the world does not collapse or become a dark place when you allow yourself a little human doubt.

It's easy to shut the door on people with radical misguided beliefs, to stand back and assume that they cannot be salvaged. But as humans we need to be there and help them, we need to accept that they may find wisdom in strange places. But most of all, we need to show by example that there is another way that preserves the core ideal of "being good people".

For their part they have to realise that the world is uncomfortably complex, that while the simplest solution is the best the simplest available answer is not always a solution. And that being wrong on one issues does not mean you need to throw out all your values and start from scratch, only that you have to be willing to look at each belief honestly and judge it for what it is.

Ten Commandments

When discussing/challenging a persons belief in christianity especially when the morals of the church come into question, the most common come back is to say something along the lines:

"But what about the ten commandments? don't you agree 

they are a really good basis for a moral life?"

No.

I don't agree.

The ten commandments are a thin and flawed set of rules to live by that falls far short of the precepts of most other systems of ethics (including those around prior to Jesus).

Most of the people who cling to them can't even remember all the ten commandments. When I challenge those who claim to live by them, they are able to list only a few like: "Dont kill, dont steal, dont lie, dont covet... um..."  This is not made any easier by the fact there are several different "official" versions depending on what church you follow. But even so, if it is such a great and simple moral code, why is it so hard to remember?

Because the first four commandments have NOTHING to do with morality... They are all concerned with enforcing religious observance, (I'm using the ten commandment read from the King James Bible because its a very common translation easy to recognise by people who dont read the bible regularly).

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Religious practice and ceremonial dogma - none of that is morality. The fifth commandment is not strictly religious but still entirely about authority:

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

This is not a moral precept, but it is perhaps a worthwhile value if your parents deserve it. However it is hardly something requiring devine inspiration. It is also a one way respect, it does not say that a parent has a responsibility to their child or must treat their child well. And given the many examples of children in the bible being mistreated by parents I would think that this commandments biased nature disqualifies it from being a good moral tenant.

That leaves us with only FIVE commandments that directly relate to how humans deal with other humans on equal terms rather dealing with religion and authority figures.

6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house [wife, servants, ox, ass, etc].

I will grant that killing, stealing, and being unfaithful are all things that should be included in any moral code.

So this is not a bad start... but it's just a start. For example, killing and harming are two different things, so these laws say you could beat people if you like. Threats and intimidation are still ok in the right circumstances. In fact domestic abuse, rape, child abuse, and slavery are all acceptable under the commandment of "thou shalt not kill".

Outright theft is condemned but not manipulation for gain. The bible, for instance, talks about slavery (even of other followers of god), and says that after 6 years you must set them free... however Exodus 21:4-6 actually includes a loophole, give the slave a wife and let him have children! That way he must leave his family or agree to be your slave forever. Not really theft, blackmail perhaps?

And for all those who say the example is poor because "slavery is wrong", please notice the commandments dont say that. The people who followed the commandments didn't think it either. The commandments failed to prevent it, even for a people who took them far more seriously than most people do now.

Adultery is an interesting one because it is so specific "sex with someone other than your spouse". This gives no guidance against sex outside of a relationship, or other commitment. It also does not include anything about the conditions under which marriage may be established or dissolved. Nothing to stop a young woman being given as bride against her will, nothing allow the dissolution of a marriage if one side becomes abusive.

The truth is that these commandments are pretty poor representations of these ideas, in fact they are all stated much better by the Five Precepts of Buddhism.

Not killing is replaced with not causing harm (to humans and animals), simply not stealing is replaced by not taking what is not given (covering theft but also slavery because the service is taken not given), adultery is broadened to sexual misconduct in general (not too much, no rape, dont cause offense with it, etc) and finally do not lie is replaced with avoiding false speech, which would include unwarranted gossip, and deliberate omissions, promises you intend to break...

So what little the ten commandments do say about morality, they don't say very well.

Of course it's worth pointing out that there is no commandment saying thou shalt not lie... You'll notice that commandment nine only talks about bearing "false witness". It is not a general commandment, they actually went to the trouble of narrowing it down to a specific case of law and left other lies un guarded. Although elsewhere in the bible this is corrected, you again would think a commandment from god would be a little clearer.

So we come to commandment ten. This is not an ethical or moral value, it's a thought crime. This commandment is all about suppressing the "yearn to possess what others may have", lets be generous and call it a commandment against jealousy. But it does not censure any action, only the desire. This is telling you what not to want. Do not desire what others have.

Why?

Thinking about what others have or at least what you do not have, has been one of the driving forces behind our development as a species, a culture, and as individuals. My desire to learn got me through school, my desire for a nice house got me on the property ladder, my desire for love helped me get up the courage to ask the most wonderful woman in the world if she would marry me (she said yes :).

Desire is not an evil itself - you only have to talk to christians to see that they all desire to do the right thing, they all desire to have gods love, and interestingly they all desire you to have it to.

This cannot in and of itself be wrong, and telling people not to want something others have is going to fail. Full stop end of discussion. The only way to live with number ten would be to not desire anything, not just anything worldly, but anything at all.

I'm not saying desire and jealousy cant and doesn't lead to other crimes, but I'm saying it also leads to some great ideas and great achievements. In fact most people in the US would claim that competition between peers is one of the things that drive innovation and contributes to the power of their economy.

A better statement would be "Feel no ill towards people who have what you do not", it's still a thought crime but at least this is one people can strive towards. It lets people keep their drive and ambition but not at the expense of others.

So now we come to the elephant in the room. When people talk about the commandments, they always seem to skirt around whats missing. The bible is full of horror stories and christianity/the new testament seems, at least in part, to be an attempt to correct or extend the moral/ethical framework into something more workable.

It's interesting to reflect that in the century or so prior to Jesus coming onto the scene, Stoic ethics were well travelled and established. There are a great deal of similarities between the "christian" ethics and that of the stoics. In fact the people who actually write the gospels lived mainly in lands dominated by stoic ethics. Some people have claimed that christianity was basically a revision of an existing belief system to be more in line with the accepted ethics of the time - replacing stoic fatalism with a God who would no longer be swayed by burned offerings...

However the ten commandments are still considered the core value

So what is missing from the ten commandments?

1.  Thou shalt not keep slaves
2.  Thou shalt not beat children
3.  Thou shalt allow that when children come of age they may leave their parents house without debt of any kind
4.  Thou shalt respect women and men equally
5.  Thou shalt not let another suffer for any sins but their own

These are basic and obvious to anyone. and none of them are contradictory to the ten commandments. The last one however is a problem for christians, because the basis of their faith is that we are all guilty for the sins of our fathers and mothers all the way back to Adam and Eve. We are also to be forgiven for these sins we did not participate in, by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus.

I cannot accept that.

I will not punish someone for something they did not do. I will not blame a child for the crime of their parent, I will not send a man to prison for the crime of his brother, and I will not allow someone else to suffer for my mistakes. It is unjust by definition, and even if it is allowed by law, to actually accept such a generous offer is a morally bankrupt act.

So I say again: No.

The ten commandments are not enough, they are poorly phrased, they contain omissions, they are full of dogma and ceremony, they are biased towards authority and most importantly... they failed. The people god gave his commandments to were not good by todays standards, they were not moral, or kind, or generous. They were cruel, they kept slaves, and they sacrificed animals, using the blood of others to wash their hands clean of sin.

Only someone who has never considered the question of how to improve them would think it could not easily be done.

Fear Drives Them

The other day I had a blog post by Ken Ham brought to my attention, Ken basically describes teaching creation to some 1500 kids at a church event.

It had 2 quotes that really stood out to me:

I just love teaching the children the truth about dinosaurs—that they were made on the sixth day of creation alongside Adam and Eve.

And:

I was able to ask students to name some things that are fiction—meaning “not true.” They called out the following: "Millions of years", "Evolution", "Ape-like creatures turning into humans".
Yes, they know now these things are fiction.

He then goes on to ask the reader to pray for these children and I really wish I could, because if their parents are exposing them to this man then those children will need all the help they can get.

Ham is an intelligent man despite what you might think from his claims, he holds a degree in applied science, he taught science, he is able to run a business, etc, etc.

He is also very, very, frightened.

It's the same fear that drives so many christians to turn to full fundamentalism, the fear that drives them to defend it so vigorously, the fear that stops them from accepting scientific fact, the fear that makes  them stand on street corners and preach, the fear that makes them want to change the education standards so all children will think as they do, the fear that drives them not only to build christian theme parks but to visit them and call it "education".

The fear is... that they just might be wrong.

And that is a terrible fear indeed, especially for someone with a science education like Ken Ham, because he knows that what the bible claims is not consistent with the world we live in. He knows why carbon dating works, that tectonic plates move slowly, he knows that a flood leaves graded sediment, not stratified sediment, but worst of all... he knows that if any part of the bible were considered non-literal then ALL of the bible would come into question. Including the bits about God and Jesus and being saved...

In fact the more you know about science the worse it gets, because if the bible is even a little wrong, then its A LOT wrong.

From believing the bible is the literal word of god to believing it's an interesting book with some good ideas and some very questionable morality plays is not just a a slippery slope, but a straight drop down a shear glass wall  covered in grease.

The three things he cites that children know are "fiction" are very telling:

"Millions of years"

You have to understand that for fundamentalist christians this a scary concept, they dont just think in terms of general salvation, they want to be personally saved, and the concept that the universe has been around for millions or even billions of years means it's just possible they may have to wait a while before that happens.

"Evolution"

This is a biggie, and atheists tend to overlook how scary this is for a person of faith. Evolution is a process of change - and change is something that should not be able to happen without the creators design, after all, cars dont drive themselves right? If they did why would you need a driver...

"Ape-like creatures turning into humans"

My personal favourite. Did god love the "proto-man" as much as he loved us? The promise of god and the bible and indeed all religions is that we are special, we are the chosen, the faithful, the few, the true... Non of those statements sounds as impressive when you understand that we all share a common ancestor. Do our closest evolutionary cousins also have a soul? will our descendents still have souls if we continue to evolve as a species?

Conclusion:

I think, in the end, that people like Ham and others know deep down that they are wrong. They know the bible does not make sense. They know it is self contradictory. They know genesis is a really poor description of how the world came into being, yet alone the universe... but they attempt to indoctrinate as many people (children) as possible to help convince themselves they are not being self delusional.

Misery loves company and it's easier to tell yourself you not being stupid, irrational, or crazy, when you have lots of friends all agreeing with you.

The bible is a finite state machine.

The other day I was watching the movie "Collision" featuring debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson (watch it, it's awesome).

One of the topics debated was that of morality.

Most arguments or debates on morality between christians and atheists come down to the question of where morality comes from.

In the debate, the christians claim was that god is the source of objective morality and that such morality is communicated through the bible.

The idea of an objective morality is hard to support, because each human is (by definition) their own subject, and any objective morality interpreted by a subjective human must result in a subjective application.

Objective + Subjective = Subjective

This is not to say that the result of an objective moral judgment and subjective moral judgement must necessarily be different. However the deistic purity of the objective morality claimed by christians is subject to subjective distortion via the many and varied humans performing the interpretation.

The atheists claim in the debate was that morality is innate, either as a result of evolutionary imperatives or from an intellectual basis (such as enlightened self interest).

(please excuse my gross simplification of the arguments for the purposes of this post)

I'm going to avoid a deep discussion of the sources for human morality for another (much longer) post.

What neither side seemed to raise in the debates, was the limitations of the bible as a tool for determining morality. Specifically that the bible is a finite state machine.

By finite state machine, I mean that there are a limited number of parables, morality plays and direct behavioural edicts in the bible, all of which were written between 1.8 and 3.5 thousand years ago.

So it would be reasonable (read necessary) to expect that not every possible modern question of morality is dealt with in those pages.

Therefore in such situations where a clear and definitive moral ruling is not supplied, or where multiple conflicting moral laws seem to apply, christians must use their best judgment to determine how to interpret the bible.

Best judgement using their intellect and innate morality, any such interpretation made by a christian must eventually rely on those faculties.

Thus the arbiter of any moral ambiguity in the bible for a christian is same as the starting morality for an atheist.

I'm not saying that there is no morality in the bible - I think the bible contains great morality as well as great immorality. What I am saying is that human morality is useful without the bible but the bible is not useful without human morality. The same can be said of any finite text claiming to be the laws of god. In the end all moral decisions are human ones.