Sabbathh School 28/01/12 - Wishing ain't gonna make it so

So my parents were playing last week's audio Sabbath School lesson last Friday. It could not be avoided - I had to stick around and listen as well. The title for the lesson was "The God of Grace and Judgment", and it had so many things wrong with it I simply could not pass it up. They did creation/evolution two weeks ago, but they said the same old doo-doo they always say about it. I've covered that before, and I don't want to sound like a broken record criticising the same crap over and over again.

Anyway, the lesson began with an illustration which went thus:

A soldier stood next to an old man about to be executed. He was guilty of being the “wrong” race and religion, nothing more. As the soldier raised his gun, his victim said, “Do you know that there is a God in heaven who sees all this, and who will one day judge you for your actions?”

The soldier then shot the old man dead.

This is, in many ways, a prime example of a secular society. Not a secular government (a government that does not promote one religion over another), but a secular society, one in which there is no higher standard than the rules of the society itself. It’s a society with no sense of transcendence, no sense of a higher authority, no sense of God or of a moral standard greater than anything human. It’s a society where humans take the place of God, a society where the only judgment one faces is the judgment of one’s peers or of one’s own conscience (whatever’s left of it, anyway).

According to the Bible, however, the old man was right: there is a God in heaven, and He knows all things and He, indeed, will bring everything into judgment.

I don't know about you, but I was personally offended when I heard this. I do not see how a person shooting another person who said there is a god is in any way illustrative of a secular society. What if the shooter was serving his own - wait, that is the crux of my argument against this idiotic, piece of crap illustration, I'll get to it later. Let me pick on this first:

It’s a society with no sense of transcendence, no sense of a higher authority, no sense of God or of a moral standard greater than anything human. It’s a society where humans take the place of God, a society where the only judgment one faces is the judgment of one’s peers or of one’s own conscience (whatever’s left of it, anyway).

Well, I suppose anyone who's read this blog before should know where I stand on this - no, there is no transcendence, no higher authority and no god! There is no evidence for any such thing, and sincerely wishing for them will not make them true. That "humans take the place of god" line is a meaningless cheapshot, and the fact is that the only judgement we can ever face is that which society hands down upon us.

I understand why one would wish for more. Some may find it impossible to face each day without the assurance that the injustices of this world are ultimately going to be repaid in kind. Human beings can’t see everything, and not every wrong done is going to be revealed and punished, and it’s tempting to want to believe there is some entity that exists outside the timeflow that notices everything and will mete out the punishment mortals were unable to. But no matter how hard one may wish for it, no matter how hard one may clap their hands, there facts of this reality will still remain. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and running to the insubstantial comfort of imaginary entities, why not resolve to stand with your fellow human beings and resolve to work together to root out the injustices and bring the collective judgement of society down upon them. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, standing in the way of the progression towards a more just society.

The sort of “only God can judge” mentality fostered by the mindset shown in the above excerpt (note: I am not saying that that is what is directly espoused in the excerpt, only that it is a natural progression of it, one which is followed all too many times) has some directly harmful consequences too. Deep Thoughts catalogues numerous cases every week of sexual abuse by so-called holy men: pastors, youth leaders and the like. Nearly always, the most damning thing about these cases is the reaction of the churches these criminal excuses for human beings led. Instead of co-operating with authorities, condemning the offenders’ behaviour or even simply apologising to the victims, they most often choose to maintain total silence, sometimes even expressing their outright support for the offender and wilfully hindering the authorities. And this isn’t just the already very well-known and widely publicised Catholic clergy scandals and subsequent coverups I’m talking about: most of the cases Mojoey covers are mainline protestant denominations(including Seventh-Day Adventists. Read the comments section of that link). But it’s all good, hey? God is going to judge them, so what does it matter if they escape Earthly retribution?

Now comes my real sticking point over this particular illustration. The author gives the story of the old man being shot for being “the wrong race and wrong religion” as an example of a secular society. Question: in which secular society has this ever happened? Each and every time in history people have been killed for being the “wrong race and wrong religion” it has been at the hands of another group of religious people who themselves believed they were doing the bidding of their god. More particularly, the most prominent example of this which has happened during the time since firearms were invented is most obviously the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. Even if it was not the example the writer wished to put forward, the Holocaust no doubt sprang to the fore of most peoples’ minds due to the widely spread misconception people seem to have that the Nazis’ philosophies were atheistic. And yet, as most skeptics and anyone who has properly studied the history of Nazi Germany will tell you, the Nazis and Hitler himself were, if not directly religiously motivated, made use of religious propaganda and the churches to stir up hatred for the Jews, the Roma and other “undesirable” minorities.

The fact that the Sabbath School Study Guide’s writer, Cliff Goldstein is himself Jewish only serves to exacerbate the scale of this example’s error. It sounds to me very unlikely that Goldstein was unaware of the facts of what happened during the Holocaust, or of the obvious link to it people would draw regardless of whether or not he was directly referring to it. Whichever way one cuts it, this example is, consciously or unconsciously, slanderously dishonest.

The second issue I have a problem with comes in the study section for Thursday. In this section, we see this being said:

Looking around at the world, we shouldn’t have a problem understanding the idea of judgment and condemnation. One doesn’t have to be a believing Christian to realize that something is radically wrong with humanity. Who can’t see what a royal mess, even disaster, we’ve made of things? Maybe we cry so hard at birth because, instinctively, we know what’s coming. “I cried when I was born and every day shows why,” a poet wrote. Who can’t relate? Who hasn’t himself or herself been the victim of just how greedy, selfish, and mean people can be? Or who hasn’t at some point been the greedy, selfish, and mean one?

You know, all sorts of people, from friends to strangers, Christians, Muslims, so-called “agnostics” and less strident atheists ask me all the time why I’m so vocal in opposing religion. Simply put, it’s attitudes as expressed in this excerpt, and various overtones laid throughout the lesson. The vibe you get from reading it is one of defeatism, of ultimate unfaith in one’s fellow human beings, the feeling that society is in a downward spiral from which it can never pull up. Well, first of all, this view of humanity is factually wrong. Humanity is now as it has ever been: capable of both good and evil. The decay envisioned by many religious conservatives is in equal parts imagined and the consequence of greater connectivity and communication. News travels fast nowadays, and shocking news is by far the most popular and therefore we tend to hear more about it. We think murder, rape, violence and sundry other crimes are increasing in frequency because the frequency of which we hear about them is increasing. And yet, per head, there are fewer people dying violently today than in previous eras.

The media’s sensationalism is causing the rise in alarmism,...yet I welcome it. I welcome that we get to hear about the crimes which were so studiously hidden and never spoken about in ages past. I welcome it, because it brings them to the light, gives us reason to be outraged by them. I welcome it because it enables us to see our enemy, so that we can work to defeat it and to change our circumstances.

And yet, that excerpt tells us that we cannot change them. It forces on us a spirit of defeatism and complacency, for if only God can change us, what reason do we have to even try? Why should we work for global peace and unity if some magic man in the sky is going to wiggle his fingers and do it for us? That is my greatest gripe with religion, that it breeds malignant mistrust in those it infects, and that it turns them into the biggest stumbling block to ever changing the situation we find ourselves in. I’m not saying that once religion dies the path will be clear, no. Other sources of herd-mentality intolerance and alarmism will remain, as well as humanity's own capacity for both good and evil, which we probably will never be able to fully banish. But the mountain in our path will have been worn down and we will be able to glimpse the brighter future that lies ahead of us.

Sabbath School 26/02/11 - It's the Devil's Work Part II

I know, I'm posting this a little late, but I had to make some finishing touches on my entry to the fiction competition I'm participating in before the deadline, then when I got round to writing this I had to keep pausing to play some death metal in order to bleed off some of the rage caused by watching the videos I talk about here. This last blessed Sabbath's lesson was one I simply could not pass up the opportunity to comment on. The title was "Self Esteem", and the lesson touched briefly on the issue of origins. Frankly, I wasn't much surprised by the treatment the issue was given, but thought it worthy of mention.

The lesson itself presents the usual strawman of evolution we see from religious sources, using such charming terms as "pure chance", "cosmic accident" and "we just happened to come into existence". Note that it does not even attempt to adress any questions of evidence: all the counterarguments are emoti0nal, mostly focussed on how we eviutionists live purposeless lives and that believing the magic man blew on a pile of mud to make us gives us soooo much more self esteem. The series of lessons is centered on emotions anyway, so I won't hold that against them. It's the validity of the arguments that I have a problem with. (I'll address that later)

The exegeses of the lesson given on the Church's two main media conduits was, however, nothing short of delirious. There are two main programs that go over the lesson every week, one on each of the two major Adventist satellite channels, 3ABN and the Hope Channel, called Amazing Facts Central Study Hour and Hope Sabbath School respectively. I'll start with Central Study Hour.





Origins is addressed only on one day - sunday - one seventh of the total lesson. When Doug Bachelor attacked it, it ended up becoming a rant that took up almost half the lesson time (From the 16:38 mark to38.30). And damn me to the void if there's anyone more adept at building a strawman than Pastor Doug. He began by giving a beautiful, flowery picture of what life as a creation of God is like, so much so that I almost found myself wishing I was one of them (no, I lie. But it sure must have worked on the faithful). Then he proceeded to build up his combustible, very well ventilated man of straw, douse it in petrol and set it alight.

I'm really not swayed by the extreme contrast presented by Pastor Doug. In fact, I can give an even better one supporting and evolutionary perspectie. Here goes:

"One paradigm says that you are the product of an epic and grand story stretching back billions of years and are intricately connected to your surroundings and the universe as a whole. You know, someone asked me, "are we really products of the Universe?" And I said hell yes! He said, "How do you know," and I said we are made of exactly the same elements as the rest of the universe and in the exact same proportions. I think that's rock solid proof. Our body chemistry isn't based on, say bismuth. We're exactly the same, and we share this similarity with all the life forms we know here on Earth. Look at that paradigm, that would give us a sense of wonder and humility and an almost spiritual connection with all that exists. (see )

"Compare that with the other paradigm that says that some invisible magic man made us from dirt and that our first ancestors damned both themselves and all their descendants to a life of misery and death by eating a fruit given to them by a talking snake. It says that we are all sinners from birth and our lives have no purpose but to atone and suffer for that sin, and when you die, depending on if you accepted this far fetched (and I'm being nice here), unverifiable story you will either spend eternity glorifying and praising the magic man who put you in that situation, or if you didn't you will be cast into a lake of burning sulphur to die a horribly painful and final death (the Adventist doctrine on hell)."

There's more to be said about emotional arguments against naturalism and evolution, and I shall adress it later. Pastor Doug then went on to state that belief in evolution correlates with suicide, stating that the high suicide rates observed in adolescents is due to questions regarding origins. I don't think that's entirely correct. It's true, higher suicide rates are observed among those without religious affiliation, but I doubt very much that it's because of evolution. I'm more for the theory that higher suicide and depression rates are the result of a lack of a social support group as is present in religious congregations (pretty much the only thing we secularists need to learn from them). A whole hunch of arguments not really worth rehashing followed, including his own personal story, the argument from design, conflating Nazism and eugenics with evolution, invoking a scientific conspiracy (*facepalm*) and a modified argument from morality (if we are animals, we should act like animals).

There are a couple of other points I do find worth mentioning, though. One is Pastor Doug's assertion that a lot of smart people can be wrong about something. They once were, a few centuries ago, when they worked exclusively from a divine assumption. When they realised that the facts did not support their assumptions they changed their tactics, finding facts to draw assumptions from, instead of trying to find facts to fit with their conclusions. For example, the Old Earth theory was formulated by religious geologists who originally had the intention of finding evidence for a recent, global flood. When they did not fnd that evidence they changed their conclusions to ones that were supported by the facts. (reference)

The second point I found highly ironic. I don't remember the point he was making (and I'm too lazy to hunt for it in the video), but he said something about how prisoners who are so used to a life of crime often relapse after they have been released. I found this to be quite synonymous wiith what happens all too often with religion. A person has taken their first tentative steps towards freedom from religion, but because they are so used to religious life, be it because of vigorous indoctrination and brainwashing, sudden loss of the social framework or simple fondness of tradition they end up falling back into the pit they were trying to crawl out of.

(http://media.forestlakechurch.org/content/media/2011q102-26-self-esteem - the Hope Sabbath School video)

Next, I'll talk about Hope Sabbath School. Not much was covered here that wasn't already spoken about in CSH - social Darwinism, lack of accountability etc, plus a few Creo favorites: a perversion of my previous point about presuppositions i.e. that evolution works upon the presupposition that there is no God, that evolution requires faith to believe and that we cannot create life from non-life/we do not observe this happening today therefore it cannot have happened in the past.

But Derek Morris (who is such a great singer) and his audience didn't dilly around, virtually stating right out that they would ignore evidence for evolution in favor of what the bible says. Morris gave an anectote about a buddy of his who said something to the tune of, "I have some unanswered questions but I choose to believe what the bible says." That wasn't all, though. He went on to say that if God gave us all the answers we wouldn't understand them, and that Jesus will tell us all about it when he comes. This perpetuation of ignorance is why religion still survives. First of all, I will say that evolution does not rely on faith but on evidence, like any other science. There will always be uncertainties, but they are not simply left as is but actively researched into and ironed out. That's how science in general works, and if you are going to reject evolution, you might as well reject the rest of it as well. Second, I want to ask, if we must simply accept things on faith without giving mind to evidence, what's to stop me from going to any of the other religions that exist? What's to stop me from simply adopting a pantheistic religiosity that gives equal credence to all religions? According to all indicators, Christianity is simply another religion thought up and written by men and with the same shortcomings as all other religions. Therefore, I say there must be some more objective way of determining these things, and empiricism is that way.

Then came the actual Sabbath School on Saturday morning. In contrast to the "pros" the section was given just the time it deserves, but the reactions were no less extreme, if a little less informed. I heard such genius gems as: "God spoke. Monkeys don't speak. Therefore we did not come from monkeys", "have you ever seen a monkey loving another like itself?" (this question could be answered "yes", though I can't find any links supporting it), "my bible is my professor", "who has been redeemed by a monkey/ a scholar?", "If evolution is continuous, why have we stopped evolving?" and so on ad infinitum. Then came the very crux of the whole anti-evolution movement. The teacher simply didn't hold back, stating out-and-out that "Darwin was a servant of the Devil!".

Overall, this lesson was handled in a manner typical of that always used by Adventists: make emotional arguments backed by the bible or prophesy and ignore all evidence. Of course, they do have their creation "science" disinfo programs, like the Celebration of Creation series on the Hope channel, and I've caught a number of documentaries on 3ABN spouting the "Australopithecus was fully ape" claim and they also sometimes play Robert Gentry's long debunked videos. In reality, they are really vanity affairs simply affirming what the Big Guns say - it is the main church body itself that has the last word. When you see pastors telling biology professors how to do their job, you know they've strayed from fact and truth.

As I have stated before, emotional arguments hold no water in the light of evidence. The gist of this whole lesson was "creationism makes me feel good, therefore I will believe in it". Well, geocentricism may have felt good in the 16th century, but that still did not make it correct. Evolution is a matter of science and says nothing about self worth, self esteem and stuff like that. You may take what you like from it, but don't say it forced it on you. I don't think these fellows realise that as much as they deny the fact that we each make our own purpose in life, they are themselves making their own purpose by accepting their religion. One would think that if Christianity was the one true religion and Christian creationism the one true doctrine, then members of other religions would be suffering the same "insecurities" and "low self esteem" we atheistic evilutionists do. But they don't (and we don't), therefore it is easy to deduce that all religons have the same merits. Once again, it boils down to a social support structure.

As my earlier monologue demonstrated, it's all a matter of perspective. But I will still say that if there is any self esteem destroying belief system, it is Christianity. One of its core tenets is that we are all dirty, worthless sinners because of the actions of a distant ancestor we've never met and all deserve to suffer and die. And boy am I glad I stopped believing in that a long time ago.

***

This post from Pharyngula very aptly describes my experience regarding Adventists and Evolution. All baseless assertions and no science.

Oh the sneaky sons of bastards

So I was planning on refreshing my memory a little and searching for any new advances in astronomy, and so googled "big bang theory". Under the results for the (amazingly funny) sitcom and the Wikipedia article was a promising link: big-bang-theory.com. I click it. Read a bit...some things raise a few warning flags, but I read on...surely the science is still yet to come. Ah, finally, a link. But wait, it says "Does God Exist?". I click, but with a measure of trepidation. The site it leads to uses the domain "allaboutphilosophy.org". By this time my interest has been raised. What are they driving at? By the time I read their "Things to consider" section, I haven't a shadow of a doubt. These are Jesus-folk.

But I just gotta go on. Little to my surprise, the next section is "Holy Bible - God's Word". Obviouser and obviouser. It tries to pretend once again to be impartial and objective, but the fanboyishness becomes glaringly obvious. Nevertheless, I continue to the next section. Reading the title of its first subsection almost makes me gag. I can take no more. But I have a suspicion just where this is going. I keep skimming through each section, noting how each is drawing deeper and deeper into Jesustian lore(and refuting in my head each of the arguments I pick up). Finally, I reach the end, and my suspicions are confirmed. The title of the page? "Become A Christian" (The domain name is now "allaboutgod.org", having gone through "allabouttruth.org".

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this was not a scientific site, but an attempt to evangelise and proselytise. Really couldn't help but feel cheated of my valuable time and bandwidth.

This site is obviously misleading: it turns up fifth in the search page and is the first result which isn't a Wikipedia article or about the sitcom, so I'll bet it must get a lot of hits from people just out to discover more about the theory. And if the searcher isn't that well versed in the science of the theory, nor the dishonest arguments used by these fellows, they might leave deceived, or worse, they might be - *gasp!* converted!

I guess I should have heard the warning bells when they called my good buddy Bob Gentry's kookery an "attractive theory" (I'm currently conducting research on his claims with the aim of compiling a de-bunking of one of his videos. Watch this space) right there on the first page. But the prehistoric, recycled arguments in the "Things to consider" section of the next page are what revealed their true colours (idiotic probability calculations being among one of them). The third page, talking about the bible and all, goes on to proclaim the accuracy of the bible and straight out lying that ancient and more recent manuscripts agree with each other(see here). At the end of the jouney, when you click "No" to "Have we managed to suck your brains out yet?", they say "oh, man, we were just like you once, atheists and skeptics and all". That's inconsequential, but I find myself doubting the veracity of that statement.

All in all, a very sneaky, pretty clever ploy by the owners of the site. Still dishonest, though, and misleading, on top of using flawed arguments that have been debunked already at least a million times.