The Atheist Blogger » belief

The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’

Adrian Hayter — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:07:39 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

So a Times Online article, written by religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill, broke the ‘news’ over the weekend that the children featured in the new BHA billboards are ‘evangelicals’. This article has so many falsehoods and misrepresentations (not to mention completely missing the point of the adverts) that I’m afraid I’m going to have to go through it a paragraph at a time.

The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

It boggles the mind as to how Gledhill managed to come to the conclusion that this is the “perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted”. Come on Ruth! In the same sentence you describe the adverts as “new atheism”, you wrote the slogan of the campaign: “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”. Tell me, how on earth does that slogan have anything to do with belief or disbelief in God?

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.

So? Like I said before, this isn’t an advert about atheism, this is an advert about calling children “Christian child” or “Muslim child” when they are clearly too young to understand and make a rational decision for themselves on what they believe. When I was Charlotte’s age, I could too be described as a “Christian child”, except I really wasn’t. I believed in God and Jesus not because I had considered the subject, but because my parents told me that’s what we believed. Indeed, it wasn’t until later that I started considering the issue for myself, and first described myself as an atheist.

My personal story aside, there isn’t anything wrong with featuring children of religious parents in this advert. In fact, the whole point of the advert is to show that all children are equal, free, and shouldn’t be called by the religion of their parents. A religious couple’s children would be perfect for such an advert.

Their father, Brad Mason, is something of a celebrity within evangelical circles as the drummer for the popular Christian musician Noel Richards. Now a web designer and photographer, Mr Mason has been supplementing his income for years by providing photographs to agencies who sell them on to newspapers and advertising campaigns.

I say ‘perfect’ a bit more timidly now. Evangelicals are a different kind of religious believer, more intent on proselyting that having an active discussion about anything concerning their beliefs. Still, the fact that the children in the photo are the children of an evangelical Christian has nothing to do with the advert itself, which is, afterall, asking parents not to label their children.

He said: “It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

Yes, I suppose it’s kind of ironic that the children chosen for an advert about not labeling children were in fact, children who have been labeled by their father. The again, it adds a little humour to the advert from a humanist perspective; these children are now ‘asking’ their father not to label them, and to let them decide for themselves. I wonder if he’ll listen?

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.

I reckon it does show that the children have been brought up in a good way, and they do look very happy. Nobody has said that being brought up by Christian parents (or any religious parents for that matter) means that you will be unhappy. I was perfectly happy as a child of religious parents, and I’m sure many are. The only thing shining through here is the happiness of the child, which has more to do with their upbringing than the religion they most likely do not understand.

Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mr Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, said: “I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

The only thing ‘hilarious’ about this is that it has revealed how needed the advert is. Both the journalist who wrote this piece, the father, and the church leader quoted above have referred to these children as ‘Christian’ when they are not. They are children of Christian parents, they come from a Christian family, but you cannot expect an 8 year old and a 7 year old to understand the complexity of the Christian belief system. These are children who in all likelihood still believe in Santa Claus (if their evangelical parents do that sort of thing that is), and the Easter bunny. You can tell a child of this age anything and they will believe it; they have not yet developed the reasoning skills or the understanding that adults can be wrong.

The British Humanist Association said that it did not matter whether the children were Christians. “That’s one of the points of our campaign,” said Andrew Copson, the association’s education director. “People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts.

“The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.”

Finally, the voice of reason appears in the form of Andrew Copson. It’s a shame that it took the entire length of the article before reaching some actually truthful comment, but I guess you don’t sell newspapers any other way. Luckily, in only two paragraphs, Andrew dispels all previous misinterpretation, ignorance, and blatant lying that the previous six contained.

So, are the children in the advert ‘Christian’? No.

Are they children of Christian parents? Yes.

Does it matter that such children are appearing in an advert? Not really, no.

Problem solved, crisis over. Let’s see who can misinterpret the billboard next! I can’t wait, but to fill the void, here’s a lovely quote from writer Philip Pullman, who supports the billboards and actually bothered to read them.

It is absolutely right that we shouldn’t label children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

Possibly Related Posts:

What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:00:21 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

This is a question posed by the blog “the BEattitude“, which has recently gained over 1,000 well deserved comments on a post concerning losing religion. The author’s personal answer, he says, is very simple:

I expect God to do for me what he did for virtually every Bible character.

In other words, he wants God to show himself, which shouldn’t be a difficult task to fulfill for such a being. He also shows how the Apostle Paul is being hypocritical about telling believers that faith is all you need, as Paul only became a believer after Jesus appeared to him as a blinding light. Are we really expected to have faith in Jesus Christ, when the founder of the Christian church itself could not do the same?

Faith is the most important requirement of any religion, because with faith you cannot distinguish between what cannot be seen and what does not exist. Without faith, your eyes are finally opened to all possibilities, and reason ultimately prevails.

For me, the question has an equally simple answer. I would expect the Bible to be filled with unambiguous, literal, truth.

Any God that is worth worshiping should be able to make sure that their holy book was completely accurate, doesn’t contain contradictions (or ambiguity), and can be read and understood by anyone. It doesn’t take much effort (for an omnipotent being) to correct the scribe who makes a copying error, or to protect the books from damage as believers are persecuted, or to write everything as literal fact that cannot be observed in nature.

This is what any rational person would demand of any other claim, so why can’t it be done for religion? The pseudoscience of homeopathy is less ambiguous than current interpretations of the Bible, yet more people reject the former. It is clear to anyone that the Bible is not true, and yet instead of giving up on Christianity, the believers can do nothing but lie and make excuses about the mistakes.

In the scientific community, when you are reduced to this level of dishonesty, your reputation is destroyed. In the religious community, you are held as a warrior for faith. I don’t know about yourself, but my mother taught me to never trust people who lied or made excuses for their mistakes. It seems only the scientific community has taken this to heart.

How about you? What would it take for YOU to believe in God?

(via theBEattitude)

Possibly Related Posts:

Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:00:42 +0000

: Our Lord & Saviour, the Jaffa Cake

Now that Cassie from Teen Skepchick has written about this subject, I ought to post something as well about the church I helped to form. It all started with a Jaffa Cake fixation, shared by skype friends including myself, Lucia, and Andrew Milne. Numerous times we phoned up the McVities Careline, trying to talk to someone about the awesomeness of McVities Jaffa Cakes, but each time they hung up on us. So we decided to turn to Twitter, only to discover that someone had already beaten us to it.

C. Margery Kempe, a writer of romantic erotica, had already posted using the #JaffaCakes hashtag, the first person on Twitter to do so:

dreams of Jaffa Cakes and convinces herself to get back to work and stop thinking about Jaffa Cakes #JaffaCakes

Immediately we named her our prophet, and the Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit was born. Ever since then, we have spread the word of the church through Twitter hashtags (#JaffaCakes), bringing more people under our fold, with promises of a revolutionary new church (the most progressive out there today). We also formed a facebook group, and started translating our holy book (the Jaffable) into English. All members of the church (Jaffalots) believe in the power of Jaffacakeology, which central tenets include:

We believe in the one true McVities, accept no substitutes.
We believe that @cmkempe is our prophet, delivered to us by McVities to provide romantic erotica.
We believe that Jaffa Cakes are the most delicious snack.
We believe that all people of every creed (except Norwegians), color, gender, and sexual orientation go to Heaven, but only those who accept Jaffa Cakes as their Lord and Saviour go to the Land of the Eternal Jaffa, a kind of super Heaven that has a water slide.
We believe that in stark contradiction to the above, if you are a really naughty person you will suffer for all eternity in Norway.

So don’t be a fool! Accept Jaffa Cakes as your Lord and Saviour today! To join the church you only need to say our prayer of acceptance:

Lord McVities, I have sinned against You and Your smashing orangey creation. I repent my sins. I ask You to come into my mouth and wash me with Your smashing orangey bits. I make Jaffa Cakes my Lord and Savior.

Oh Lord McVities, You are now more than my God; You’re my smashing orangey Father and I’m going to serve You all the days of my life. Jaffa Cakes are Lord.

JaffAmen.

Once you have said this, your sins will be forgiven, and you will live forever in Jaffa Cake heaven. Both atheists and theists are welcome, as long as you accept McVities as Lord, and Jaffa Cakes as both Lord and Saviour. Norwegians are banned from the church, since they are an abomination in the eyes of McVities. Similarly, the church has decreed a Jafwa (holy war) upon the so-called “Pastafarians” for idol worship and the heretical belief that pasta is somehow tastier than Jaffa Cakes.

Possibly Related Posts:

An Evening with Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:00:47 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

If you live near Fremont in California, you might want to free up your evening on Friday 6th March, because Michael Shermer is going to give a talk there on why people believe weird things. Admission is only $10, and Michael Shermer is a great speaker. His talk covers the following topics:

Is ESP real?
Does “alternative” medicine really work?
What causes mass delusion?
What’s up with UFOs sightings?
Why are people so gullible?
What’s the evidence for Near-Death Experiences, Alien Abductions, Recovered Memories, Creationism, Holocaust Denial, Race, or God?

Should be very interesting! The talk is being organised by the Ohlone College Psychology Club.

Possibly Related Posts:

March 6th – Think Negative

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:49:55 +0000

Oh dear, oh dear. It seems like a consortium of deluded fools are going to try and tap into all of Britain’s positive energy on 6th March at 11am. The “event” website has this to say on the choosing of the date:

March 6th has been chosen as Faith of Britain Day because March is a time of seeing light emerging from the darkness of Winter, therefore emphasising hope in an unsure world. Numerologically this date is symbolic because the 3rd month, the 6th day and the 9th year are all multiples of 3 which is about balance – which is what we strive to achieve as humans. The time, 11.00am is a master number, or a powerful 2 (1 + 1) which is the duality of the inner and outer self, encouraging us to look within to find solutions.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such numerical nonsense in the same paragraph before…but wait! There’s more!

How do I take part?

At exactly 11.00 am on March 6th 2009, we ask that you stop whatever you are doing for just two minutes. Take that time to concentrate your thoughts on overcoming a particular difficulty or solving a problem that has affected your life. It may help to say quietly or aloud “I have faith” while you are thinking about this difficulty.

Why will this work?

It is a proven scientific fact that thinking about something often causes it to happen. Some call this quantum physics. Others simply call it “faith.” We ask that you open your mind to joining in with a unique psychic force that will change our lives through the power of thought.

I’d really like to see the scientific research papers they have been reading. Of course, as soon as I read all this, I knew somehow the freethinking community had to act. So I hereby declare March 6th “Think Negative” day. Do as much as you can to thwart the evil positive energy by being generally grumpy and negative. Some ideas:

Email the organisers (info@thefaithofbritain.com or support@thefaithofbritain.com) and have a good moan at them about their lack of science skills.
Find a psychic and proceed to predict “terrible happenings” for them within the next year.
On March 7th, contact the organisers again to complain about the number of things that went wrong for you on March 6th, say you hold them personally responsible, and that you plan to sue them.

Have fun abusing all the negative energy!

Possibly Related Posts:

Laci Explains the Atheism / Agnosticism Relationship

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:51:49 +0000

: Image via CrunchBase

Whilst I vehemently disagree with her deterministic worldview, and find her arguments in support of it almost laughable, Laci (gogreen18) has put together a fantastic video demonstrating the difference between atheism and agnosticism to the YouTube masses. She also delves into the “quad” structure I described in a previous post. Although I would say that her definition of agnosticism is far too narrow and doesn’t include the property of “provability” which is so important to it, the video is a step in the right direction.

Possibly Related Posts:

Atheist Ads Are 100% Legal

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:03:54 +0000

After 326 complaints, numerous calls of “blasphemy” by Steven Green of Christian Voice, and a bigot who refused to do the job he is paid for, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have decided that the current atheist adverts are not illegal and do not break advertising code. Let’s look over some of the claims made:

“The wording is offensive to religious people”

Response: The wording told you to “stop worrying” and “enjoy your life”. It didn’t say there was no God, nor that you are a fool for believing in God, nor that religion leads to evil. The message was clear; people shouldn’t spend so much time worrying about their “afterlife” when it might not exist, and spend more time having a good time.

“The advert is misleading because you cannot prove there probably isn’t a God”

Response: Neither can you prove there probably is. If Christian adverts can get away with claiming that not only is there a God, but said God will send you to hell for eternity for not believing, then atheist adverts can get away with “there probably isn’t”. The advert isn’t meant to prove anything; it is an opinion on the existence of God, and so like the infamous Carlsberg “probably the best beer in the world” adverts, it is void from objective substantiation.

“The adverts cannot be held as opinion because nobody is attributed to them”

Response: Actually, three groups are held as attributers in the form of links: humanism.org.uk, richarddawkins.net, and atheistcampaign.org. The advert is clearly the opinion of those groups and whoever supports those groups (or agrees with the advert itself). There is no difference between the opinion stated in this advert and the opinions stated in Christian adverts which are attributed to the Bible. Oh wait…there is a difference; the atheist adverts are accurate reflections of reality.

Sorry Christians, better luck next time.

Possibly Related Posts:

Scale of Belief, Knowledge, & Certainty

Adrian Hayter — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:12:24 +0000

Ever since I came across Richard Dawkins’ scale of belief in The God Delusion, I disagreed with the way it was set out (I found it a rather too simplistic way of determining positions on an important question) . When I fully understood the true meaning of agnosticism, and how it is not a “on the fence” or “I’m not sure” position, I rejected Dawkins’ scale completely. Any scale concerning the belief in God that puts agnosticism as a dead centre position is completely misunderstanding agnosticism. Agnosticism isn’t concerned with the belief in God; it is concerned with knowledge. Namely, whether or not a god can be proven. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions, as they are positions on different areas.

In my opinion, when considering the question of God there are three aspects that must be addressed: Belief – Whether or not you believe in God, Knowledge – Whether or not you claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God, or claim God can be proven in some way, Certainty – How certain you are of your beliefs (of disbeliefs). Although the three aspects are closely related, they are exclusive to one another. That is to say, one can believe in God, not claim absolute knowledge, and also be relatively uncertain of their belief.

The difference between knowledge and belief is subtle but explainable. Knowledge can best be seen as a subset of belief, and this can be demonstrated by the fact that someone can believe something that is provably wrong (such as someone claiming they believe 1 + 1 = 3), but they cannot know something and hold a disbelief in it. I cannot disbelieve that 1 + 1 = 2 because I know it to be true. Of course, one could argue that a person might lie, but this doesn’t change the fact that when answering truthfully they would admit belief. This argument also does not allow for people who are willingly ignorant for obvious reasons.

Once the difference between knowledge and belief is fully understood, the difference between knowledge and certainty should be quite easy to see. I have explained this to quite a few people when talking about my position on gods, and the best way I can explain it is with the following problem:

Suppose you are alone in a dark empty room. You can hear the pitter patter of raindrops on the ceiling above you. With this limited observation, (a) could you know that it is raining outside the room?, and (b) could you be certain it was raining outside the room?

Rational people would answer a definite “no” to (a), simply because there are an large number of explanations for the sound other than “it is raining outside”. Friends usually have some fun coming up with alternative explanations, such as a sound system, a mental delusion, a hallucination, etc. The answer to (b) really depends on the person, and answers vary along a large range. Most people come to the conclusion that they would be “pretty certain” it was raining outside, and that this decision is based on previous experience of listening to rain on a roof. If one were to plot a probability distribution of all the possible explanations, “it is raining” would be the highest bar. It is simply the most likely explanation for the sound. They key thing to remember about certainty and knowledge is that you can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong. I am 100% certain that I’ll be alive tomorrow, but that won’t stop a stray car or my heart suddenly having an attack.

The relationship between certainty and belief usually depends on the type of belief. For example, I’m a “believer” (not the best word) in the theory of Evolution, and I’m 100% certain that it is true. I’m also a “believer” in the Higg’s boson, but not as certain about it (although I’m certain enough to have a bet with a friend over it). Believers in God are usually quite certain, if not 100% certain about their beliefs. I’d say most atheists were also quite certain about their beliefs.

So, we have three aspects of a position on God to create a scale out of. Belief, defined through one’s atheism/theism, Knowledge, defined through one’s agnosticism/gnosticism, and Certainty, defined through “Strong”/”Weak”. I’ve used the Strong/Weak terms out of their original definition simply because they are good words to use for the aspect of certainty. To clarify, someone who is “strong atheist” in this scale would say they are 100% certain about their disbelief in gods, and a “weak atheist” would be someone who is not 100% certain.

The Scale

Strong Gnostic Theist - Believes in God, holds God as provable (or proven) and is 100% certain about its existence.
Strong Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) but is still 100% certain about its existence.
Weak Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) and is uncertain about its existence.
Apatheist – Could be described as 100% uncertain about their beliefs. Usually agnostic, and with a distinct sense of apathy on forming any opinion on the existence of God.
Weak Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is still uncertain about its non-existence.
Strong Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is 100% certain about its non-existence.
Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.

Note that there are no places for Weak Gnostic Theism or Weak Gnostic Atheism, since to “know” something immediately nulls any form of uncertainty on it.

In case any of you were wondering, I rank myself a 6 on this scale. Any comments concerning my arguments on the philosophy of knowledge are most welcome. I know (at least in the non-absolute sense) this is a well debated problem amongst philosophers.

Possibly Related Posts:

Short Story: An Atheist on Judgment Day

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:13:49 +0000

A member of my forums, Dotard, has found an imaginative story about an atheist on judgement day, written by Adrian Barnett. It does beg the often asked question, “What would you do if you met God once you had died?”.

The line seemed to stretch back forever. Hundreds of millions of souls, waiting patiently for their turn before the throne. The date… Well, the day is Judgment Day, so you won’t find it on any calendar. The queue of people winds its way down the mountain, through the valley and off into the far distance. Everybody in the queue can see the final destination at the mountain peak. A hundred miles away, they can see it perfectly clearly. And they wait, moving forward a couple of steps at a time. Towards God, and the Decision.

At the head of the we find a young Christian, wearing an expression of awe and joy. Behind him, an atheist, looking slightly astonished, examining a leaf she has picked from a nearby bush, trying to decide if it is real or not. Heaven, she thinks, should be whiter, with more dry ice swirling about; not look like a Welsh hillside on a hot day.

The Christian steps forward for judgment.

“Hello Martin”. God’s voice is calm and gentle as He speaks.

“Erm.. Hello. Lord”. Martin’s voice is nervous, as a dozen emotions fight for room in his mind at once.

“This is it. This is where I decide what shall happen to you, Martin. In life, you were a Christian”. It was a statement, not a question.

“I was, Lord. I still am. I have been all my life. I have dedicated myself to your service.”

“Tell me, Martin. Why were you a Christian? Why did you believe in me?”

“Why? Well… Because you are God! I’ve always believed in you.”

“That is not what I want to know. Why did you believe?”

“Because I knew it was true. You were always there for me. You helped me through the bad times. You answered my prayers. You gave me the strength and courage to get through life. I could feel your presence with me all the time.”

“No.”

“Pardon, Lord?”

“I said no, Martin. I have never helped you. You seemed to be doing perfectly alright by yourself. I heard your prayers, but never answered a single one. Your belief in me definitely helped you on occasion, but I have never intervened in your life. Certainly, you gave me credit for all the good times, but they were your own doing, not mine. You did not feel my presence, because it cannot be felt. The only actual proof you have that I exist at all is here and now. Again, tell me why you believed.”

“I.. I had faith, Lord. Since I was a child I have been to church, prayed and sang every Sunday. My faith in you never wavered. Even when my mother died, I had faith that it was your will, that it was a blessing from you that she passed peacefully. I was raised to believe in you, and as I grew I read the Bible for myself, and learnt of your miracles, and all the saints and martyrs, and the good done in your name. I read the works of great philosophers and they merely strengthened my faith. I knew it was true. ”

“No, Martin. Your mother died of natural causes, and she died peacefully because of the actions of the hospital. I watched and saw, but that is all. As for the rest – the saints, martyrs and philosophers had similar reasons for their belief in me, just as dictators and murderers have had. People have done great good and great harm in my name, and in the names of a thousand false gods. The Bible was written about me, not by me, and was written by people who had similar reasons as you for their belief, just as a thousand other Holy Books have been written about the false gods, or different versions of myself. I ask for the third and final time. Why did you believe in me?”

Martin looked shocked and ashen, but pulled himself together. His Lord was testing him, and he had lived his entire life for this moment.

“I believed because I could feel in my heart it was true. You sent your son to die for us, and I gladly accepted Him as my saviour. I.. I just knew it was true, and now that I see you, my faith has been vindicated. I no longer need to believe – I can see for myself the truth and majesty of my religion.”

Quietly, God spoke again. “Martin, you have impressed me”. He paused.

“But… not enough. You believe because you were taught to believe. You believe because you mistakenly attribute to me anything positive that has happened in your life, and discount anything negative. You believe because it is comforting to believe, and because you are frightened of the consequences of my not existing. You believe because… you believe. I’m sorry, Martin, but there is no place for you here.”

God gestured briefly with his fingers, and Martin vanished. His shadow lingered where he had stood, fading rapidly to nothingness.

The atheist, somewhat shaken by what she had just seen, stepped forward.

“Hello Eve. I like that name.”

“Ah. Hello, God. Thanks”, said Eve, not entirely sure how to address a being she had, until now, considered fictional.

“Yes, you may call me God. Eve, in life you were an atheist. You doubted my existence, even objecting to the very concept”. Again, a statement, not a question.

“Yes, I did. Clearly, I was mistaken.”

“Clearly. Tell me, are you still an atheist?”

“I suppose not. I’m not a Christian, Jew or anything else. I guess I’d have to be called an involuntary theist. Ah ha ha”, Eve laughed nervously, hoping the very real and solid-looking deity before her had a good sense of humour.

“Mmm… Tell me, Eve. Why did you not believe in me?”. God’s voice was kind and gentle once more.

“At one point I did. I was raised as a Christian, and often went to church, and prayed every night before bed. When I was feeling down I would read the Bible. The act of reading it seemed to comfort me, even though the words themselves didn’t seem much help. I think, like Martin, I believed because I believed.”

“And then you lost your faith? You decided I did not exist, and you knew better than those around you? You knew better than your pastor and family?” The voice was losing its kindly edge a little.

“That is one way of looking at it, yes. What I believed did not seem to fit with other things I knew. The Bible clearly could not be literally true, word for word. I knew from biology and paleontology that humans had evolved like all other life, and were not special creations. How life or the universe began, I still don’t know, but could not just merely accept ‘God did it’ as an explanation. I learned about other religions, and how they all claimed a monopoly on truth, happiness and morality. I saw the good done in your name, but I also saw the oppression, genocide and wars. I saw that if people were in need, it was up to us to deal with it, not to rely on heavenly aid.”. Eve felt a little braver, but was expecting the traditional thunderbolt any moment. The people behind her, now at the head of the queue, were slowly moving backwards, trying not to draw attention to themselves.

“Yet here you are, before your God, on the final Day of Judgment. Why should I allow you in – a heretic, a disbeliever, an infidel – when your predecessor, devout and faithful, full of love for me, was consigned to Oblivion? Tell me why. Justify your entry to my Paradise.”

Eve straightened up, looking God in the face. “Why should you let me in? Because I am better person than you.”

If Eve had looked round, she would have seen the entire line of souls, perfectly still and wide-eyed, staring at her in shock.

“What did you say?”, enquired God. His voice, though barely audible, caused tremors in the mountain.

Surprised at still being alive, her mouth dry, Eve continued. “I said, because I am a better person. You have shown it yourself already. You told Martin that you watched as his mother became ill and died. You destroyed him for believing for no good reason, when his whole life had been shaped by that belief. Your preachers on Earth encourage unquestioning faith, yet you do not tell us whether that is what you want. You give people no rational basis for belief, and then when they make up their own that is not good enough for you. You listen to our prayers, yet do not answer, leaving people to rationalise events for themselves. People kill and slaughter over trivial differences in doctrine, and you look on. In the churches and temples raised in your glory, children are mentally and physically abused – in your so-called House! All over the world, throughout history, people have murdered each other for believing the wrong thing about God, for believing in the wrong God, or for not believing in any God. The poorest and most helpless people are relentlessly targeted, being told to give what little they have now, for the promise of eternal bliss later. When a person is at his lowest ebb, that is when the smiling missionaries appear, knowing that his life will probably get better naturally and they can give you the credit. In your name, the ends justify the means as long as souls are saved”. Eve paused for breath, and continued.

“And you? All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing? You just sit here and you watch it all… Any person in this line, had they your power, would show greater compassion and morality. You may be God, but you are far from Godliness.”

God smiled. “Are you finished? Good. Eve, you have impressed me”. He paused. Eve held her breath, shoulders tensing.

“You have impressed me a great deal. You may have believed in me for all the wrong reasons, but you disbelieved for the right reasons. You led a good life, and used the intelligence I give to everybody in the correct way. Even though you came to a conclusion about me that was hopelessly wrong, you came to it in a way that cannot be faulted. You may pass into paradise, Eve, with my blessing.”

Eve did not step forward. Instead, she spoke once more. “No, I will not”.

“No? You refuse Heaven? You defy my will?” The smile had left God’s face again.

“Do you think I would want to spend one more minute, let alone eternity, in your company? You allow people to suffer, sometimes for their entire lives, for no purpose, and then judge them on their reaction. You hide yourself from the world and allow your creations to persecute each other over differing interpretations of the lack of evidence. You see all the pain and ignorance caused in your name, and just sit there as this queue grows daily? And then you have the audacity to punish good people for believing in you ‘for the wrong reasons’?”

“Eve. Enough of this. The gates to Paradise are open to you. Be silent now, and enter.”

“No. If it is a choice between oblivion and an eternity with a monster like you, I gladly choose oblivion. I ask only one thing, before you destroy me.”

“And what is that?” asked God, getting impatient.

“That, if you can, you look me in the eyes as you do it.”

Shortly afterwards, the next person in the queue stepped towards the top of the mountain, and Judgment.

The story can be found here, along with a second story “Unwelcome Contact or In space, no-one can hear you preach” (No guesses on the setting for that one).

Possibly Related Posts:

When Are Scientists Not True Scientists?

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:18:14 +0000

I had an interesting conversation with an atheist friend on mine over IM the other day. They were arguing that scientists who had religious beliefs couldn’t be “full” scientists because of their irrational belief systems. I pointed out that this accusation was bordering on the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, because it doesn’t properly consider the definitions involved.

Firstly, a scientist is someone who furthers human knowledge by experimentation and observation. Of course this definition does not quite cover it, as it can also mean someone who uses the scientific method (observing, forming hypothesis, testing, forming theories etc.). The question remains is how some people can fit religion into this picture.

I argued that the majority of theistic scientists find ways to separate their religious beliefs from their science. They understand that their work reflects the observable world, and maintain that their religion reflects the unobservable. Others hold that without their religious beliefs, none of what they do would make any sense. They claim that the world just makes more sense with a God in the picture. I can understand this viewpoint, although obviously I disagree with them.

My friend countered that there were also scientists who did not fit in the above category. People like Michael Behe or Guillermo Gonzalez certainly do not hide their religious beliefs, even if they try desperately to in order to force I.D into public schools in America. However, even in these cricumstances I would say Behe and Gonzalez are “true” scientists. Sure, they might contribute some wacky ideas to the scientific community, but they have in the past contributed some good ideas (in order to get to where they are in the first place). Anyway, the whole point of science is to separate the wrong ideas from the right ones. Of course both Behe and Gonzalez are very unscientific in their denial that I.D is all but dead and buried in terms of actual scientific accuracy.

In the end, we agreed to disagree on the subject. My friend couldn’t see how scientists can be so rational at work and so irrational in their own time, but I guess you’d have to ask a theistic scientist that. I know Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic, so I guess that means he thinks God sent his son down in the form of the most advanced species on Earth. To me (and all atheists I presume) this makes absolutely no logical sense, but it does make for interesting conversation.