Faith cant prove a negative either.

One argument you'll see often is that you cant prove a negative. I've already pointed out in a previous post that this fundamentally wrong and at best you can only assert that you cannot disprove a claim that has no testable qualities.

This means that you cannot prove there was no creator standing behind the big bang because we have no way to test that claim.

I cannot disprove that some god created the universe.

I also cannot prove that some god created the universe.

And of perhaps greater concern for people of faith the inability to disprove one creator (especially when evidence that contradicts the creation myth is dismissed as intentional by the creator) equates to the inability to disprove ANY creation myth from the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime to the Mesopotamian myth of creation.

Why god? Why a single god? There are many discussions on this topic, but deeper morality issues like freewill and the problem of good and evil actually get easier to counter if you have more than one god. Mesopotamian creation gives as much scientifically accurate information as genesis and neatly explains how not everything in the universe seems to go to the plan of a single good loving god.

Why not spirits that become alive, waking into physical forms, becoming the material from which the universe was created? The Dreaming offers more coherent answers to questions like good and evil by explaining that the creators did think or live in such simple bipolar terms.

The christian creation myth is not even consistent, with two conflicting descriptions of genesis. For a widely accepted religion it falls far short of meeting any burden of proof.

At least the Dreamtime doesn't attempt to include a timeline for the creation of the universe... especially one that that fails as badly as genesis to meet the facts. Ask a young earth creationist how we can see light from stars so distant that it must have taken more than 6000 to reach us when the universe is only 6000 years old?

Actually dont do that - especially not from answersingenesis.org whose ramblings will rapidly muddy the water with ideas like:

• "observational science" vs "historical/origins science" (Which is nonsense, science is a method pure and simple - there are different areas of study but there are not different ways to do science other than good science and bad science. You would not trust a doctor who said he would cure you with "elf science" that he got from a book on elves, or "better luck next time science" where his cures have always killed the patient but "he's got to get lucky sooner or later right?").
• The idea that the universe was created "fully mature" like Adam was! (This would only make sense if the universe was like adam and one of many we could compare to determine what a "maturity" universe is)
• That the speed of light is widely variable (While it does actually change depending on the medium, its not by much and if it did change that much we would see evidence in comparing closer stars with ones further away)
• That time is not rigid (Sorry... this one is totally laughable given that the whole premis of young earth creation is based on a day in the bible being a single normal 24 hour day as we know it.)
• Finally they will probably wrap up with some poorly and incorrectly explained physics - If you want to know what a big bang physicist says then ask one directly the web is full of really good explanations - try starting here). 

None of these arguments actually work, AIG just includes as many as possible to make it look like there is a lot of doubt on the issue - which there isn't.

Every time a testable quality of a god claim is removed or watered down or described as a special case (special pleading) they weaken their own argument and god moves further from an actual claim to a vague idea.

But best of all every time a religionist dodges the question and refuse to make testable claims about his god and his creation myth he strengthens the claims of every other creation myth and any creation myth you care to make up on the spot. They are all as testable and verifiable as each other.

Religionists weaken their own ability to tell fact from fiction when they use these arguments or claim that even a tiny chance that something might be true in some form means that it is totally true.

You'll find evidence for this in the number of people who believe in ghosts, spirits, white witches, and other forms of mysticism in addition to a claim to follow christianity or other faith that do not actually support those beliefs.

Religionists need to stop hiding in doubt and bring their arguments and claims into the light. I dont agree with the AIG guys but at least they clearly communicate their claims and dont shy away from them just because they are manifestly wrong.

It's foolish but it has a certain integrity.

Now if only they could stop misrepresenting science, quoting out of date research and reciting logical fallacies then there might be hope for them.

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.

Interfaith

There is a word in common use today that many people should be ashamed to use:

Interfaith

We hear a lot about interfaith councils, about interfaith charities, and interfaith movements.

It is is possible the most intolerant word I think I have ever heard.


I have to be clear I am NOT attacking the good that interfaith groups do in the world - a great deal of very good charity and cross cultural communication gets done under their auspices, but the approach is flawed and in many ways biased.


I first realised this while talking to a methodist minister in the UK. We had spoken for an hour or so on issues of faith, I had interviewed him about his faith, where it began, how it had developed, it's values etc, and had consented to answer the same questions from him about my beliefs.

Near the end we were discussing other faiths and he mentioned that he was on the local interfaith council but that he thought it was a bit of a sham, I was surprised and asked him why...

"Because everyone on that council with the possible exception of the Buddhist monk thinks everyone else is going to hell."

I'll be honest his reply shocked me a little.

Over the past few years I've thought about what he said a great deal an while I think many members on interfaith councils are of more moderate views and probably expect the other members to get pretty good judgment because they were at least acting from good intentions, I do think that any movement, action or body labelled interfaith is a concern.

The reason is simple by identifying themselves as Interfaith they are citing the only or at least in their mind most important thing they have in common... their faith.

If I started a charity to feed starving children I would think a fundamental belief that children need to be fed would be more important than faith in a creator.

If I started a council to help different cultures integrate and get along I would think a respect for, and understanding of individual rights and heritages would be more important than faith in a creator.

But thats not what interfaith implies. Interfaith says "yes we want to work together to save the child, but only with other people who also believe in god"

Interfaith is NOT an inclusive term, it is an exclusive term. Like "Mens Tennis Club" is not considered inclusive because it means all men, it's considered exclusive because it specifically discounts those who are not men.

Anything that is interfaith by definition does not include nearly 1 in 5 Australians (18.7% as of 2006).

What I find most disconcerting is that interfaith groups hold contradictory views, they disagree on fundamental issues of human rights, laws, even separation of church and state. However, they are more willing to meet and seek common ground with someone who may have diametrically opposed political and civil ideas than they are to sit down with an atheist.

A secular movement by definition is one "separate to" any issues of faith. Anyone including people of faith can support a secular charity or join a secular debate on morals, laws, and rights. Because secular just means leave the dogma at the door it does not mean you must abandon your principles.

To use the example of a tennis club from above, a secular movement is the equivalent of a "Mixed Tennis Club" where gender is not checked, or filtered when you go onto the court. No-one thinks that you stop being boys and girls, you just dont assume that it is either a requirement or disqualification from playing tennis...

At this point some of you feel I am being unkind, you will be pointing out that interfaith councils are most often set up to help people of different faiths understand each other.

You're right thats the reason most interfaith councils are established.

And that the problem - Christians and Muslims are happy to meet and find out what other group believes and discover that they many many of the same values, but their understanding and tolerance often stops at other faiths.

Cultural inclusion as long as your culture meets our criteria.

Atheism itself is not a belief system, in the same way "off" is not a tv channel, but it does not mean that atheists or people of "no-faith" do not hold to one or more of the many non-faith philosophical systems; humanism, objectivism, altruism, confucianism, etc, etc. Definitely not faiths but philosophies excluded by words like "interfaith".

I have lost count of the times I have heard someone of faith claim that Atheists have no morals, or that we dont believe any anything at all. Claims actually perpetuated through their religion.

I think if christians want to learn and find out that Buddhists dont worship Buddha, and that Muslims done worship Mohammad (both claims I have heard made) they should also learn that scientists dont worship Darwin or Hawking and that Atheists dont worship satan (another claim I heave heard too often to be funny).

I believe in lots of things like family, love, shared human values, charity, human dignity and even religious freedom. I personally believe that I am responsible in this life for anything I do wrong and have only this life to make up for it.

But you wont here Atheist morality being discussed at an interfaith council.

Like holding a mens forum to discuss human rights... something/someone would be missing and the debates on abortion and body rights might not be as balanced as they could be.

Again I probably come across as a bit strident, but I have read the Qur'an (three translations of it anyway), I have read the bible (King James and new international), I have read a separate translation of the Torah, I have also read books on Buddhism and several Hindi faiths. I make a conscious effort to understand the way other people think and what is important to them.

But while "no-religion" is a larger slice of the demographic pie in this country than, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism combined (or any of the individual sects of christianity outside the catholics and Anglicans)... I dont see a proportional attempt to understand the values that make "no-religion" work.

Again I need to stress that I am NOT attacking any specific interfaith organisation, indeed most of the ones I know deal with cross cultural issues and strive to understand that not everyone is a person of faith, but they are - their world view is inherently biased towards values of faith and despite the best intentions in the world they cannot claim to be truly cross cultural as long as they do not represent a sizeable portion of the cultures in question.

The sad thing is that many people reading this article will think it just a semantic question and they would be right, so why are they not called "inter-cultural", "inter-society", "cross-philosophy", or "shared-value" councils instead?

Because they are formed by religious organisations within a religious perspective and operate from within a religious context, valuing religion and faith more than any other tenant of society. They can try to be understanding, they can try to think outside the book as it were, but until they actively try to include those people with really differing views they will be truly representative or any culture including their own.