Five Bad Reasons to Believe in God

by Mike Hall
When: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 8.00 – 11.00 PM
Where: The Vines (aka the Big House), 81 Lime Street, Liverpool

Summary

Apologetics is the systematic defence of a position. Religious apologetics specifically is a field of theology which seeks to present a rational basis for religious faith, defend the faith against objections and support the claim “God exists”. But are the arguments made by apologetics sound?

Mike Hall takes a look at five common apologetics, deconstructing the arguments presented and exposing any flaws.

Biography

Mike Hall is the president of the Merseyside Skeptics Society and presenter of the Skeptics with a K podcast. His particular interests are the existence of God, alternative medicine and Doctor Who. He owns at least two cyberman heads.

• RSVP on Facebook »
• RSVP via Email »

I really can’t get to grips with the psychology at work here. Maybe the newspapers just get bored:

Journo 1: I’m sick of this abuse stuff…

Journo 2: Let’s drown the readership in a load of inane crap about a civil service memo then instead!

Journo 1: Yeah! Woohh! *types on keyboard enthusiastically*

This kind of thing pisses me off. Now, my lack of knowledge about newspaper offices aside, something dodgy is going on here. I don’t care who is responsible, but all I know is that right at the moment when something serious and important is happening in this country, right when popular opinion finally comes into line with reality, suddenly everyone seems to take a left turn and run down the “I can’t cope with this serious stuff anymore” alley of shite:

Citizen 1: Wow, the Catholic Church is really fucked up and corrupt isn’t it? I am so disgusted and angry. They need to do something about it.

Citizen 2: I agree. It is an ancient and unaccountable institution that is completely morally bankrupt, and it is about time that society as a whole woke up to the situation and did something about it.

[pause]

Citizen 1: Being serious has made me tired and uncomfortable.

Citizen 2: Hey, some civil servant made a rude joke about the Pope!

Citizen 1: What a fucker! Someone should do something about this disgusting event!

Citizen 2: I’m going to write an obnoxious letter to the Telegraph… *types on keyboard enthusiastically*

It depresses me, it really does.

For those who don’t know, this “disgusting” memo was circulated through Whitehall by a group of civil servants brainstorming ideas for the Pope’s upcoming four day visit. To me, it seems like a tongue-in-cheek joke, but it could be a genuine result of a “blue-sky thinking” session, where they were trying to come up with as many off-the-wall ideas as possible. Either way, to take genuine offence at the memo requires a serious dysfunction in the reality centre of the brain. And the humour centre. Hell, it requires a serious dysfunction in the brain in general. (I feel I’m really nailing my colours to the mast in this one)

Here’s some of the suggestions in the memo for your reading pleasure:

1 – Starting a helpline for abused children

2 – Opening an abortion ward

3 – Sack ‘dodgy’ bishops

4 – Preside over a civil partnership ceremony

5 – Perform forward rolls with children (?!?)

6 – Apologise for the Spanish Armada

7 – Meet Susan Boyle

8 – Start up his own range of Benedict-brand condoms

9 – Sing a song with the Queen for charity

Now, as I’ve already indicated, the main problem with this whole debacle is that the memo is obviously silly. There should be no “disgusted” response. Even for those suggestions which people may feel skim too close to the Catholic bone, if you look at them objectively without the Catholic overtones they’re quite reasonable suggestions for a high profile and supposedly moral figure such as the Pope: starting helplines for the abused, raising money for charity, preventing unwanted pregnancies… All good things. They’re only bad to the warped priorities of the institution of the Catholic Church. We don’t have to kowtow to those priorities, even if we’re Catholic. Reality is outside the window. Let it in.

I am just angry at the level of offence some people seem to take at this memo, like they’ve forgotten the last few months of abuse revelations. This is not a serious issue: this is diplomats making a gaffe. They didn’t firebomb the popemobile, just their careers. I can understand the Foreign Office making an official apology after the memo was leaked, which they did, but beyond that it’s simply shrug your shoulders time as far as I’m concerned.

But no: Malcolm McMahon, bishop of Nottingham, said the memo reflected: “appalling manners… I think it’s bad that we invite someone into this country – a person like the Pope – and then he’s treated this way.”

What way? The Pope was never supposed to read the memo. Plus, I’m sure he’s got a thick skin. He’s still coming to Britain for his visit, anyway.

Jim Murphy, the cabinet minister overseeing the Pope’s visit, and a practising Catholic, said the memo was: “absolutely despicable. It’s vile, it’s insulting, it’s an embarrassment.”

No, it isn’t. It’s a joke. I think Mr Murphy seems to be confusing irony about an institution’s pisspoor response to the systematic abuse of children with the abuse itself. Even if the letter was meant seriously, there’s nothing remotely at the level of “vile” or “despicable” there. Get a grip. Opening a childline for abused victims of the organisation you are supposedly the figurehead of is “vile”? It’s the least he could do! Especially as he’s done fuck all so far except write an insultingly weak letter which did nothing to address the reality of the children raped under the care of his Church. If the Pope had been the head of a company or a government minister, he would have had to resign by now as a matter of course, as a symbol of the organisation’s shame and its willingness to do something in response to a serious situation. No-one would dispute that decision to resign.

Speaking of the Pope’s letter – a far more “disgusting” document than the memo – in that letter the Pope suggested that the victims of the abuse should seek the comfort of Jesus. That’s all the response he bothers to give them, other than “well, we at the Catholic church will try to do better in the future, honest, guv, we feel really bad about the whole thing… ” The abused children didn’t find the comfort of Jesus in the Church where it’s supposed to be mediated, so how are they going to find it elsewhere? Passing the buck much, Pope Benedict? The letter also makes no suggestion of the abuse victims who killed themselves. Presumably as suicide victims they’re not eligible for Jesus’ love. Now, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Pope is quite literally supposed to be Jesus’ representative on Earth. So shouldn’t he be comforting them himself to start with? Or is he just going to sit there?

I wonder.

The Pope could actually step down if he wanted. There’s nothing in the Church’s rules that says he can’t. No Pope has stepped down in 300 years, but that would just make it a more profound gesture. Considering the gravity of the situation, it would be perfectly appropriate. Any gesture would do, really, considering the lack of them so far. To go back to the memo’s suggestions, opening a childline would be a minor act of kindness, not something “vile”. It would be a charitable act. It would make Jesus proud. Maybe the Pope could man the line himself, being Jesus’ representative.

To me, the daftest thing to have come out of all this is the Foreign Office’s response to the staff involved in writing the memo. It sent them on ‘diversity training’. Diversity training. What for?

A Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“The idea is to instill in people the need to treat others with respect, whatever their background.”

This isn’t about background, it’s about ideologies. The memo took the piss out of  what are dangerous and morally bankrupt views held by the Catholic Church. It did not disrespect the Pope’s background. If this is an issue about background, then so is any joke about anyone ever: everyone with an opinion has a background.

Ultimately, my concern is with perspective. If something so serious can be deflected by something so trivial, then something is very wrong with our collective sense of perspective. Hopefully, the real issues will come back to the forefront and not just float away. I don’t know, but I hope.

Seventies rocker Gary Glitter yesterday spoke out against the ‘petty gossip’ surrounding his convictions for child molestation, while announcing his surprise conversion to Catholicism.

Speaking at a lavish baptism ceremony, the paedophile singer decried the idle chitchat regarding his many proven offences against children from the UK, Cambodia and Vietnam.

“It saddens me that my critics feel the need to tarnish my name with this petty, entirely-accurate and demonstrably-true gossip regarding my repeated crimes against children.”

“Just because something terrible definitely happened, doesn’t give you the right to go on and on about it all the bloody time.”

Conversion

The announcement of Glitter’s new-found devotion to the Pope and all things ‘Catholic’ may come as something of a surprise to his legions of fans.

Having already been found guilty of abusing minors, a religious conversion appears to make almost no sense at all to those who have followed his career.

But, as the singer explains, the more he read about the modern Catholic Church, the more he knew it was the one for him.

Glitter explained to waiting reporters, “I’ve never really been a religious man, because I’ve never before felt that religion really gets my way of life and who I am.”

“But now, I realise what I’ve been missing: the peace, the love, and – above all – the no-questions-asked protection the Catholic Church can offer.”

Glitter, who sought refuge in Asia following discovery of his extensive child pornography collection in 1999, also took time out from the baptism ceremony to formally confirm details of an upcoming comeback tour.

“Having been off the tour circuit for a while, a comeback is long overdue. I’m thinking Germany, Ireland, Austria, Italy, Malta and the US before ending with a spectacular finale in Vatican City.”

“From what I’ve read, I think I’ll be welcomed with open arms, not least by the leaders of my new faith. Pope Benedict – I definitely want to be in YOUR gang,” concluded Glitter.

This article also appears on the excellent satirical news source NewsArse.

Your New Facebook Profile Photo

With the coming of a very low-key, very gentle pro-atheism awareness campaign on facebook in ‘A’ week (http://www.aweekonfacebook.com/, Facebook event, #aweek Twittertag ), I’ve been reminded of the hesitation that many atheists feel towards the promotion of atheism in any way. Talking about any type of promotion or advocacy in favour of atheism as annoying because “this is the sort of thing that X-, Y- or Z-ians/-ists/ers do” may not be exactly how the majority of atheists feel, but I’d say, and only from my own feeling (not very skeptical, but still), that a large majority of atheists either couldn’t care less in trying to spread ideas and grow our mostly merry, but sometimes quite grumpy band of disbelievers, or are very uncomfortable with the thought of trying to actively or passively win people over to the idea that, maybe, they should give up the idea of an invisible Daddy In The Sky who grants wishes a little less frequently than you see the evil evidence of His Divine, or more humanly – if not humanely – divined, Will

But when you see the damage that religion does, and the toxic effect that a supreme, unquestionable authority and unquestioned afterlife can bring – from the banality and stupidity of the penny candle, crap wine and drain-filtering devices (pieces of The Christ’s Holy, suspiciously bread-like, Flesh must be saved from the insult of the sewers) of Catholicism (though after 2000 years on a bread and wine diet, I’m certain Jesus could make excellent use of modern facilities) to the horrendous tradition of wife-burning in Hindu ‘Sati’, thankfully both illegal and much reduced in modern India, or the unholy union of extreme Christianity in demonising a contraceptive layer of latex that could do so much to help the AIDS crisis – doesn’t this, shouldn’t this drive anyone with a rational bent and compassion for humanity towards doing what we can to reduce the influence of The Beast, even to simply kick the giant’s toe?

I can understand that being an atheist-in-practise and technical agnostic in a theist or desperately-wanting-to-believe world soaked in a steady stream of pap-filled, infuriating pamphlets, preaching and priests can be a frustrating existence, but to turn around from this and in that frustration deny to rationalism in general, or your rationalism in particular, the weapons of the battleground of ideas, the modern tools of marketing and persuasion, and give all the ground to fight for over to theists is to stop kicking the giant’s toe and take a gun to your own.

The argument that people should be left alone to find their own path, free to decide without coercion is, firstly, to deny that massive pro-theist coercion is out there, all day every day, not to fight against that tide is to resign the game. Secondly, it strikes of a high-handedness that’s quite prevalent in Buddhism, in my opinion, but without the necessary element in Buddhism of what is called ‘skilful means’, the art of manipulation over the long-term…

It’s with this in mind that I offer you, gentle reader, this parody of a pretty famous anecdote in the world of Zen:

A: Tell me, B, of this Atheism, this acceptance of the overwhelming probability that there is no supreme creator, no divinely-ordained purpose to the existence of every particle and person, no will to bend our souls to…

B: I know not of this Atheism. I cannot breathe of what I accept as truth, for this will inevitably influence your biases towards what would be your own internal outcomes… Yay, I decry the Dawkins and the Sagans of this world for their petty, insolent meddling in the minds of others. There should be those things left to monks and priests and dress-wearing men of every shade or stripe, every colour and complexion. We, WE have a very, VERY high horse upon which we sit and cannot be seen to enter into the arena of ideas with those of such trivial notions of idealistic fancy. Truly, it is a shame we cannot live without air and alimentation, for the foul believers indulge in these earthly, despoiling pursuits also.

A: But B! I’ve seen you chuckle at the Holy Men! I’ve seen you! You mock them! You do not go to the temples as other men, you prefer to sit with Dostoevsky, or a little light Kafka splayed upon your lap! Tell me! Show me the way that you take!

B: I cannot behave as the priests do. They take your hunger and feed you themselves… I leave you to feast upon yourself. Let your chips fall where they may.

A: Please! I beseech you! In the name of Pedagogy!

B: No.

A: An idea! A sign! A Symbol! Anything!!!

B: Have you finished your porridge?

A: I have. I HAVE!

B: Then wash your bowl.

–

Easter is based on a beautiful, empirical, scientific scheme – The first Sunday after the full moon (The Paschal Moon) following the Vernal Equinox – and is a picture of the lack of divine influence in the universe. Why not take this event, this year as the chance to express to the people who know you, the people who may be vulnerable at the moment, to say to the people who may be tempted (link NSFW: Swearing) to celebrate the death and resurrection of a Jewish Carpenter by telling children that a giant bunny left chocolate eggs in the night, to tell the people who will be influenced to even a tiny degree by your choices that you choose reason, you choose a life without a manic-depressive divinity pouring over every detail of you life – especially your sex life and pig-eating habits – and that you openly, unashamedly, staunchly reject giant bunny rabbits with the lock-picking skills of a cat burglar bringing chocolate eggs to the bedrooms of our children in the night.

Don’t get me started on Santa.

Come on!

Go get the A.

Upload and set it to your profile picture.

Post a status update: “rejects giant bunny rabbits with the lock-picking skills of a cat burglar bringing chocolate eggs to the bedrooms of our children in the night.” (or something similar)

Tweet your support!

Pop Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK’s Equality Bill with “missionary zeal”. – Source: BBC Online

Yep, the Holy One believes that a bill aimed at protecting people from discrimination based on sexuality and gender is an evil law that must be fought with the kind of zeal missionaries have. I’m not 100% sure what missionary zeal is – I think it’s where the zealot is on top and the infidel is underneath, thus allowing the zealot to look the infidel in the eyes while he fucks them (metaphorically speaking). I do think it worth pointing out that had a leading figure in the Muslim faith uttered the phrase ‘fight with missionary zeal’ we’d be talking terrorism – but because the only people the Pope is condemning to death are countless Africans (more of that later) we see him as something of a weird but harmless old man. Go figure.

What’s more, the Pope has said the legislation “violates natural law” – a pretty clear reference to the fact that it would allow homosexuals more freedom from discrimination from, say, religious organisations. The very use of the phrase ‘violates natural law’ is immensely telling, if you ask me – it’s so homophobic I’m surprised Jan Moir hasn’t had it tattooed across her forehead.

In a speech he made in Rome, Bene/Ratzy told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales:

“Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

“In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

The statements have rightly caused an uproar, as has the planned official 4-day visit the Holy Father intends to make to our unGodly and equality-seeking land. At a cost of £20million of tax-payers money. That’s £20million that could be better spent… on homeopathy, bankers’ bonuses or MPs expenses, for example. It’s certainly £20million too much – a view shared by over 12,000 protesters, who’ve signed a petition to appeal to the Prime Minister to have the Pope’s club (worldwide Catholicism) to foot the bill, rather than the UK Government. The petition states:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ask the Catholic Church to pay for the proposed visit of the Pope to the UK and relieve the taxpayer of the estimated £20 million cost. We accept the right of the Pope to visit his followers in Britain, but public money would be better spent on hard-pressed schools, hospitals and social services which are facing cuts.

If you agree with the cause, feel free to sign the petition online.

This isn’t the first outrageous statement God’s representative on Earth has made of late. On March 17, 2009, Pope Benedict flew to Africa to visit Cameroon and Angola. During the flight, he was asked about the Catholic Church’s stance on AIDS in Africa.

Pope Benedict gave a lengthy response, detailing many of the Church’s humanitarian efforts to help people with AIDS in Africa.

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it.”

That’s right – condoms help spread AIDS, says the leader of the Catholic Church.

Obviously, this stance from the head of the Catholic Church has been met with unprecedented levels of condemnation – most recently by Harry Knox, who serves on President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. On Tuesday of last week Knox reiterated his stance that Pope Benedict XVI is “hurting people in the name of Jesus.”

“The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus.

On a continent where millions of people are infected with HIV, it is morally reprehensible to spread such blatant falsehoods. The Pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”

Condemning the third world to an AIDS epidemic isn’t the only blotch on the past record of il Papa. In May 2001, Ratzinger issued an order ensuring church investigations into child abuse by members of the clergy would be conducted in private. The letter from the then-Cardinal stated that the church has jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’, and stressed a policy of ‘strictest’ secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse, threatening those who speak out with excommunication.

The order also calls for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials.

The victim.

Just to be completely clear, the current Pope specified that an abused child must take an oath of secrecy, lasting until 10 years after the child turns 18. Breach of that secrecy is met with excommunication.

I’m going to talk about football.

I know, I know, IknowIknowIknow. You guys, our lovely readers, are scientists, science fans, and generally science types. As am I. But when I’m not talking Cold Reading with psychics, organising mass non-suicide or generally being a good-for-nothing skeptic, there are few things I love more than settling down to a good match. The poetry of movement, the grit of teamwork, the drama, the excitement, the cliches.

Oh, and the batshit lunacy.

I’ve spoken elsewhere about the superstition rife in football (it was my handy hook to hang the story of Arsenal striker Robin Van Persie’s horse placenta treatment on, you may recall. If you can’t recall, please head over and have a read. Horse placentas. Lol. Etc.), but this time I’m bringing things back home. We are, after all, the Merseyside Skeptics Society, and no amount of International campaign-running (yes, I’m going to milk 10:23 for all of the kudos I can get, what of it?) will change that. Which is why when I was sent this article by a listener to our podcast, I just had to take a look at it.

A struggling football club has resorted to asking a priest to bless its pitch in a bid to stop a run of bad luck

Yep, this is 2010 and we’re still asking the clergy to bless this mess and give us good luck. So, what kind of demonic bad luck have the Marine boys been having? Did centre forward Liam Rushton get tripped over by a ghost when clean through on goal, without so much as an indirect free-kick? Did ‘keeper Tim Dittmer get distracted by a succubus during a crucial counter-attack? Did centre back Michael Jackson (no, not THAT Michael Jackson) turn green, rotate his head 306 degrees and do unspeakable things with a crucifix? Well, as the BBC puts it, not quite:

So far this season three Marine FC players have hobbled off the pitch with broken bones.

And during a game which Marine were winning 2-1 at their stadium in Crosby, Merseyside, the floodlights died – cancelling the match.

Ah, so it was pretty standard footballing fare, then. Still, having a priest come over and do his whole il nomine thingummy bit could only improve matters…

Father John Ealey, of St Aloysius in Roby, said a prayer and poured holy water on the turf on Tuesday… Chairman Paul Leary said if it took banishing demons to improve their season, he was willing to give it a go.

Personally, I’m a big fan of the Football Manager series, which strives at every turn to replicate every subtle nuance of the Beautiful Game (TM). I therefore can’t wait for the option in FM 2011 to invite a local priest over for a spot of chanting and splashing.

Manager Kevin Lynch spoke to the club’s website about the helping hand of God:

Our form has not been great at home and we have had an horrendous injury list – I just feel that there are a couple of demons out there we need to get rid of.

I have known Father Ealey a long time, and for me personally, I will feel better that the pitch has had the blessing of God. It makes me feel a lot better in terms of my own faith.

Since the blessing, Marine FC have suffered defeats at the hands of Retford United and Bradford Park Avenue. I guess God really is a Red around these parts.

However, this year, one advert in particular is causing a real storm – the ad (or ‘commercial’ as those other-side of the road, elevators and sidewalkers like to call them) is a short ad from the evangelical Christian organisation ‘Focus on the Family’, showing one of the teams’ star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. The ad in particular focuses on Pam’s decision to ignore medical advice to have an abortion – stressing the anti-abortion message of the religious far right in America.

Aside from stirring up the obvious anti-abortion debate that’s been raging in the US for years, the affair has surprised many, and the controversy has been summed up well by Clay Travis, an author who has written extensively about Tebow:

“It’s such a flashpoint subject and I’m surprised that CBS would go there after the fuss that was caused by Janet Jackson’s nipple. It’s not even a matter of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, I think most people would find an advert dealing with abortion to be out of place during the Super Bowl,”

The star of the ad, Tebow, is a home-schooled son of missionaries who takes his religion seriously enough to go as far as wearing black make-up with references to biblical passages during games. He’s also repeatedly talked about his “mission”, noting that football enables him to spread “God’s word” and making it clear that his talent at the sport is secondary to his religious beliefs. Hard to see how a bastardised form of Rugby interrupted every 5 seconds for adverts enables God’s word, but He of mysterious ways etc etc.

The Superbowl has a history of being the target of controversial adverts, with advocacy groups and religious groups aiming to cash in on the wide audience to spread their messages. Previous ads that were rejected include an anti-abortion ad showing President Obama alongside the slogan ‘Life. imagine the Potential’, as well as ads by Animal rights extremists PeTA and other religious affiliations. Those ads were rejected due to the policy of CBS to refuse advertising that “touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance”.

This also isn’t the first time Focus on the Family Action have been in the headlines, having run an ad on its website last year calling on members to pray for “a rain of biblical proportions” during Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. The rain – biblical proportions or otherwise- didn’t come. Perhaps God’s a Democrat.

As we’re increasingly seeing in the wake of these natural disasters, the internet has proven to be a great source of aid and fundraising, with appeals instantly springing up on Twitter and Facebook to raise funds for the distraught citizens and destroyed towns.

But aid from charities like Unicef, The Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Disasters Emergency Committee (please donate to any one of those) isn’t the limit of the help offered to those suffering the effects of the disaster – instead, smelling the desperation and sensing a chance to convert, religious organisations and dangerous cults have descended upon the troubled isle to hoover up the hopeless into their organisations.

First up, Christian group ‘Faith Comes By Hearing‘ got involved, declaring on their website:

“Faith Comes By Hearing, the world’s foremost Audio Bible ministry, is responding to this crisis by providing faith, hope and love through God’s Word in audio”

That’s right – they’re going to help fight the rampant poverty, disease and homelessness via spreading the word of God.

“We already have 600 Proclaimers on their way through our ministry partner, Convoy of Hope,” said Jon Wilke, Faith Comes By Hearing’s spokesperson.

At first I was confused – I mean, I remember the Proclaimers, and there was only two of them, and quite how a ginger Scottish pop duo could help an entire nation, I couldn’t fathom. Fortunately, it seems I’d been mistaken, and the real ‘proclaimers’ were only slightly less ludicrous as forms of aid:

“These portable, solar-powered Audio Bibles will be given to local pastors so people can hear God’s Word in their own language—Haitian Creole.”

The group explain on their site how these proclaimer units, digital Bible-verse-spouting units which they describe as ‘a gift from God’ after they came up with the idea following a three-day fast, will be doled out to pastors who can use the devices to ‘minister to groups of hurting and wounded people who need the Word of God in their heart language’.

Wilke continues:

“There is an immediate need for another 3,000 Proclaimers. We want to equip short-term groups, disaster relief teams, church teams and other ministries with the Word of God in a format the people can use. Haitians will need that long-term hope and comfort that comes from knowing God has not forgotten them through this tragedy… Imagine the change in atmosphere if God’s Word is there, playing in their language, reminding them that God is with them.”

Where God was when the earthquake happened is anyone’s guess, but my imagination must be a little off, because I can’t really imagine just how a Bible-verse-filled MP3 player will change the atmosphere in shell-shocked Haiti more than, say, food or clothing or medicine or structural rebuilding.

Still, the Xtians aren’t the only ones smelling opportunity, as news broke that the island of Haiti will also be visited by the Xenutians that are the Scientologists. The cult of Scientology – and I believe, in Haiti, it IS considered a cult not a religion – have form for sniffing out disaster and inserting themselves into the process, having been present in the aftermath of the London bombings in July 2005. This time, they’re going to Haiti, courtesy of John Travolta, who recently told US Weekly:

“I have arranged for a plane to take some some volunteer ministers and some supplies and some medics.”

The completely-not-gay Hollywood actor then added:

“My church has also arranged for 80 medicos and 33 volunteers to go down. I hope that inspires others as well.”

Just to clear up any confusion that may arise from things getting lost in translation, by his ‘church’ he means his scientology group. I thought this worth pointing out to our largely UK-based listeners, given that Scientology is not a religion here in the UK. Or in Haiti. Or in France, for that matter. ‘Fraud in an organised gang’, I believe the French judges ruled…

So, what will the cult of Scientology be doing in Port Au Prince? Well, if it’s anything like their showings at recent disasters, we can expect a cavalcade of pseudoscientific healing techniques heavily attached to proselytising their ‘fraud in an organised gang’ organisation. The website ‘gawker.com’ offers a rundown of previous Xenu-aid:

- The “Purification Rundown”: After 9/11, Scientology set up a clinic in downtown Manhattan where firefighters sat in saunas, worked out, and took niacin and other vitamins, a regime that toxicologists have derided as “quackery.”

- “Touch Assists”: Scientologists descended on India in the wake of the Tsunami to save lives with “touch assists,” which, according to this Washington Post story, consisted of a mechanic from Michigan touching people and saying “feel my finger” over and over and over again.

- “Locational Assists”: After traumas, people sometimes forget where they are maybe? To remind earthquake victims that they are still stuck in Haiti, volunteer ministers will be performing this vital medical procedure, quoted here verbatim from the Scientology Handbook:

5. Continue giving the command, directing the person’s attention to different objects in the environment. Be sure to acknowledge the person each time after he has complied. For instance, you say, “Look at that tree.” “Thank you.” “Look at that building.” “Good.” “Look at that street.” “All right.” “Look at that lawn.” “Very good.” You point each time to the object.

6. Keep this up until the person has good indicators and a cognition. You can end the assist at this point. Tell the person, “End of assist.”

- “Nerve Assists”: This is basically a back massage, which if performed properly will dislodge the “standing wave” of trauma that is preventing horribly wounded and completely bereft Haitian earthquake victims from leading normal, satisfactory, psych-free lives.

Talking Bibles or pseudoscientific cult-babble – it’s good to see religion and quasi-religion still has a part to play in the recovery process.

The truth is, no music is the Devil’s music. I don’t say this because of my lack of belief in the Devil – I recognise a useful metaphor when I see one – I say it because I think that kind of statement has a nasty quality to it, and in turn it speaks volumes about the person using it. It says: I detest the music you like; it is evil and corrupt, and therefore you are too, for listening to it. And, of course, the only person who ends up looking ‘evil and corrupt’ is the person speaking against this music in the first place.

(On a side note, I am not fond of the term ‘evil’ either, a dehumanising and imaginary concept if ever I heard one, despite what George W. Bush would have us believe. But that is another blogpost for another day)

My point is that this kind of rhetoric reeks of the judgemental. It speaks of intolerance and ignorance; it speaks, ultimately, of fear. I recently blogged about a website called ‘Objective Ministries’, which purports to be a fundamentalist Christian site. It is most likely a hoax, but links to several other ‘Christian’ sites. Which of these are also hoaxes and which are genuine I find difficult to tell, but I’m not worried about that so much for now. One of these sites is called: ‘Zounds! – Youth Rock Ministry’. This site (whether real or imaginary) is a vehicle for Christian-themed music, mainly aimed at teenagers.

I feel I should mention that I am talking here about fundamentalist Christianity, which to my mind is a very different beast from your average, run of the mill, moderate Christianity. I don’t see the two as interacting together in any real sense. Fundamentalists view reality in a very different way from the rest of the population, religious and non-religious alike. Fundamentalism – of any kind – is a seperate world entirely, and is a serious issue of its own. Fundamentalist Christians are fundamentalists because of the way they view the world, not because they are Christian. There are a million outlets for fundamentalism, and I would not want anyone to think I am condemning Christianity in this post, because that is not my intention. My problem with the ‘Zounds!’ site is not the site itself, but the issues it brings up about the whole notion of ‘Christian’ music, which has always bugged me.

It is an old fundamentalist cliche that rock ‘n’ roll is the Devil’s music. It talks about, and uses, the human body; it celebrates areas that fundamentalist religion sees as taboo: desire, sexuality, youthful discovery – it’s all there, in the lyrics and the music. Rock ‘n’ roll is either talking about sex, or – shock horror – making you dance in a way that suggests it (except for Bon Jovi – they have the opposite effect). This threatens the self-appointed moral-arbiters of fundamentalist religion, who get very upset when humans remember they have genitals. This is the reason viewers of the Ed Sullivan show could only see Elvis’s third appearance on the show from the waist up. It is the reason 1960s parents whined endlessly about The Beatles and The Rolling Stones ‘corrupting’ their children. How on Earth celebrating a human function we all enjoy and harms no-one can be considered dangerous, I’ll never understand. As far as I can tell, the only dangers to human beings regarding sex are lack of education and repression. Teenagers fall pregnant generally because of insufficient knowledge about contraception. Sex abuse happens because people’s natural sexuality is repressed or they were abused themselves. No-one ever became a rapist or abuser because their sexuality was allowed to develop naturally. It seems to me that lack of education and repression are actively promoted by those who have problems with anything vaguely sexual in music. They seem to be saying: let’s keep it down, let’s pretend it doesn’t exist. Is it me, or is this the more dangerous influence? What do I know, I’m just an average human being with a sex drive and a brain. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by suggesting it’s ok to use both of those things.

So, back to Christian music. I’m not talking about hymns. That’s a phd in itself: “Let’s remove all human feelings except shame and devotion! Let’s sing about them in a cold, dead, impersonal building in the fervent hope that God won’t kill us on a whim! Praise Jesus before the depression sets in!” I’m talking about Christian ‘rock’, that vacuous, rictus-grin-wearing, disney-fied attempt to appeal to children by convincing them that not having fun is somehow more fun than having it. At some point, it seemed to be decided by some that the best way to deal with the Devil’s music – rock ‘n’ roll – was to bleed it dry and wear its corpse. So they took this kinetic, immediate and physical music, and replaced its lyrics with exhortations to be moral, i.e: celibate, devoted to the lord, repressed and bored. Sexual awareness and exploration becomes not a natural part of growing up, but an ‘unnatural’ influence to be avoided.

It is this that concerns me. It’s not just rock music that is mutilated: all kinds of music considered to be youthful or corrupting (or simply exciting) is taken and plastered over with prudish and terrified ‘morality’. Check out the song ‘Christian Side Hug’ for a tongue in cheek take (at least I hope it’s tongue in cheek) on what could be done to gangster rap (I personally think this song is a hoax, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not). The Zounds! site contains many examples of these Christian songs, some of them actually quite enjoyable until you realise what they’re singing about. The principle is the same in each of these songs: they are saying your natural feelings are wrong. They are saying don’t think for yourself, let the Lord do it for you. They are saying pour those emotions you’re feeling into worship for the Lord, and don’t dare express it with a real flesh and blood person. At their best, these songs are laughable, at their worst they are attempts at brainwashing. It is manipulative in the name of education, simultaneously trying to deny human nature and impose a made-up ideal in its place.

The most distressing thing is that it is often honestly meant. They think they are helping. I’m sorry, but we’re supposed to be moving forward as a species, not backwards. These songs are just one aspect of a larger fundamentalist push that includes abstinence-only sex education, which we know doesn’t work, yet is promoted anyway because it is seen as what God wants. Fundamentalist groups tour US schools promoting abstinence-only schemes using these songs. Maybe I’m getting slightly paranoid, but education should be based around the facts of the reality we live in, not the ideals a particular relgious group holds. Denying the sexuality of human beings and trying to push it into a religious box is dangerous to the emotional development of young people. Some people might be perfectly happy to wait until their wedding night, but most will just be miserable and repressed. When did the human body become thought of as dirty? Sexual thoughts are not dirty. Sexual acts are not dirty. Telling people that these things are dirty is irresponsible and untrue.

Going back to Christian Side Hug – a song I’m still convinced is a prank – we find these lyrics:

“Gimmie that Christian side hug! That Christian side hug! I’m a rough rider, filled up with Christ’s Love! Gimmie that Christian side hug! That Christian side hug!”

A Christian side hug is apparently hugging someone with one arm from the side, so that the fronts of your bodies cannot touch and potentially cause sexual feelings or – heaven forbid – sexual thoughts. So these lyrics are basically saying to the teenage listener to avoid any human contact which might create sexual thoughts, in case it leads them into sinful behaviour. It’s not warning against the consequences of the behaviour or even asking kids to respond responsibly to their feelings, it’s saying don’t put yourself in any position where it might even cross your mind; because, as we all know, kids can’t be trusted with thoughts!

The message here is clear: rather than teach children that these feelings are inevitable and natural, subsequently helping them to navigate the minefield of life responsibly and without shame, it is saying that we should teach them to avoid and deny them instead. To me, this means that natural human emotions are being portrayed as abnormal things to be avoided. These songs may not explicitly say “You are bad for feeling this”, but they do say “You are bad if you let yourself feel this”, which in a way is worse, because when children do feel these things, they’re going to think they have somehow failed to do the ‘right’ thing. It sows guilt where there should be no guilt.

These thoughts are natural. Teenagers will have them despite what the songs say. These songs are quite clearly political. They aim to attempt to rewrite biology in the heads of impressionable children. Rock ‘n’ roll may have its faults, but at least it’s honest. It doesn’t deliberately paint a false picture, like these songs do. Is it too much for me to accuse these songs of lying? Isn’t that why fundamentalists called rock ‘n’ roll the Devil’s music in the first place, because they think it lies? If I were to flip the metaphor back onto where it originated, then by its own logic, isn’t Christian rock/gangster rap the Devil’s music?

As I said at the beginning, I don’t want to use that phrase. Especially considering that these songs can be honestly meant. That doesn’t mean that they’re not delusional. My question to those musicians is this: are you sure your worldview includes the whole world, or just the part of it you live in? The world is big and complicated Maybe fundamentalist ideas – about life, sexuality, whatever – appeal because they simplify things. That doesn’t make them true or fair or right. I’m simply asking that you imagine, if only briefly, that you might be wrong about your moral ideals. Let yourself imagine that they’re not true, just for a moment. Don’t worry: if your views are right, you have nothing to be scared of, they won’t fall apart. But let yourself imagine for a moment that they’re not. Look at things afresh. How does the world look now?

Apologies for ranting. Now give me that Christian side hug!

So there I was, roaming ‘teh interwebs’ one last time before entering an extended Christmas weekend and going off radar, when I came across a link tweeted by a fellow Skeptic. It referred to something called ‘Project Pterosaur’. Interesting, I thought. I wonder what that’s about? So in the interest of simple human curiosity I clicked on the link.

Oh, and what glories did I behold! This site is the most fantastically bonkers and bewildering woo-stew I have ever seen. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, vacate the Earth or simply join in the fun these people seem to be having.

The main site is something called objectiveministries.org, and it is an ‘educational resource’ for Creation Science. These kinds of sites are everywhere, the most well-known being answersingenesis.org. They’re all attempts to push very skewed versions of reality onto the public under the pretense that science is some kind of ungodly blight that hides the ‘truth’. This site is no exception. The link above takes you to a particular article on the site, detailing the aforementioned Project Pterosaur.

So, what is this project? I’ll let Dr Richard Paley, the leader of the project explain it in his own words:

“The goal of Project Pterosaur is to mount an expedition to locate and bring back to the United States living specimens of pterosaurs or their fertile eggs, which will be displayed in a Pterosaur Rookery that will be the center piece of the planned Fellowship Creation Science Museum and Research Institute (FCSMRI). Furthermore, the rookery facility will establish a breeding colony of pterosaurs in order to produce specimens that could then be put on display by other regional institutions or church groups.”

Yes, you read that right. Project Pterosaur is an expedition to kidnap living pterosaurs – a clade of creatures the fossil record implies hasn’t existed since the cretaceous period - and put them in a special zoo. Presumably with a big sign saying: “Nur nur! Silly Evolutionists!”

Once the sensation of being in the wrong universe wore off, I was obviously filled with questions. The main one was ‘why do they think pterosaurs even exist in the first place’, quickly followed by ‘what are they hoping to achieve by doing this, anyway’. I’ll come back to the first question - clearly the most important one! – in a moment. The second question is soon answered on the website. The three main goals of Project Pterosaur are:

1. Support Creation Theory by showing the incorrectness of the philosophy of Evolutionism.
2. Educate the population about Creation Science.
3. Create excitement about Creation and the Bible in the public.

As fantastic as a living pterosaur specimen would undoubtably be, it wouldn’t remotely do what Objective Ministries are claiming it would. It would not promote Creation Theory and it would not disprove evolution. Creationists tend to believe that dinosaurs (I know that pterosaurs are technically not dinosaurs, but I’m simplifying for brevity) lived in harmony alongside humans until ‘The Fall’, when they were promptly drowned in the flood due to a typical Yahweh hissy fit. This, they say, explains the fossil record. It doesn’t explain why there are no dinosaurs roaming around now, however. Wouldn’t they have been on the Ark? What about all the flying ones? And this, presumably, is why finding a living pterosaur is so important to them. They think it will make their ‘theory’ look more credible.

Except it wouldn’t. Let’s imagine for a moment that they’re right, and pterosaurs do exist. In terms of ‘proving’ biblical stories it is irrelevant. It just means that pterosaurs still exist. It says nothing about whether its ancestors lived on a boat, just that a particular clade of animals have survived longer than previously thought. The entire span of current scientific knowledge already disproves Creationism. Finding an animal that is unusual doesn’t change that. The existence of the Coelacanth hasn’t put biologists out of work, it just made their work more interesting.

That is also the reason it wouldn’t disprove evolution either. The principles of evolution are sound and proven. The discovery of pterosaurs wouldn’t damage it, it would just make biology more exciting. Objective Ministries seem to think that the theory of evolution would wither and die in the spiny face of the pterosaur, when in fact it would be rejuvenated. Scientists would love this kind of opportunity.

So, back to the first question. Why do they think pterosaurs still exist? It seems to be a mixture of wishful thinking, the twisting of myths and some blatant weird assertions. An example of the latter would be statements like this one:

“[Pterosaurs] were a constant presence in the skies over Eden, where they peacefully ate fruit and plants. After the Fall, many of their descendants degenerated to a carnivorous diet and became feared by man. … Various Pterosaur kinds were common throughout Eurasia and Northern Africa up until the early Middle Ages and interacted extensively with Man. Today, although Evolutionists falsely insist that they are extinct, pterosaurs can still be found, hidden away in the unexplored wilds of our world.”

So now we know. They’re so confident! Personally, I’d love to know the biblical verse that states:

“And Eve was again left hungry when the twelve foot pterosaur stole her apple.”

All I see in Genesis is Adam and Eve and some trees. No massive flying reptiles like in this picture:

Notice the conveniently placed wing and beak

I also don’t seem to remember pterosaurs cropping up in history lessons on the middle ages either. Maybe I was ill that week.

Other sources of ‘proof’ include Hebrew/Egyptian myths of a creature called the Saraph, the works of Cicero and Aristotle (!), the Native American Thunderbird myth, Mayan myth (Quetzelcoatl) and of course, the Bible. They even claim that mummified pterosaurs were found in Tutankhamen’s tomb only to be promptly and conveniently stolen, possibly as part of an Evolutionist conspiracy!

Their use of the Bible is hilarious. It’s not worth me paraphrasing, as this is pure gold on its own:

“The danger of these creatures is evident when Moses — later leading his people out of Egypt — was unable to use the protection of ibises, resulting in the Jews being tormented by pterosaur attacks throughout the 40 year Exodus. The attacks were brought under control only after the Lord instructed Moses to create a pterosaur effigy on a pole to scare them off (Numbers 21:6-9, Deuteronomy 8:15).”

I’m pretty sure that never happened in the Bible. I’ve read it. I’d remember Moses scaring off pterosaurs with a special shining staff! It really is unbelievable. I recommend after reading this blog you go away and look at the whole site for yourself. Believe me, I am only giving you a taster of the sheer wealth of nonsensical wonders that site contains.

Charlton Heston didn't do this!

One thing which caught my imagination on this site was their  belief that the Native American myth of the Thunderbird was based on sightings of pterosaurs. Now, I’m going to be slightly less dismissive for a moment and go out on a limb. It is not impossible that in extremely remote environments creatures may exist which are very similar to their distant ancestors. They would most certainly have to exist in a remote environment if they are as large as these creatures are supposed to be, otherwise we would know about them (new species are discovered all the time, but tend not to be large animals, most of them have been already discovered). In addition, it’s not impossible that local myths may reflect sightings of these creatures. I can completely understand people becoming fascinated with these myths and can even appreciate people believing it. That doesn’t make it likely to be true, however. What I found really interesting with regard to the site’s tying together of the pterosaur with the Thunderbird myth, was this picture of a photograph, supposedly from about 1860:

After cartoons of Moses and Adam and Eve, this one did startle me a bit. I had not seen this photograph before. I am not an expert in photography and am completely unable to offer any suggestions regarding how it was created. It purports to show American Civil War servicemen standing proudly around the corpse of a ‘thunderbird’ that they have shot down. I was really intrigued by the photograph so attempted to do some research (yes, this means surfing the net. Buggered if I’m going across the water to the Liverpool library in this weather!). It turns out that there is a couple of these photographs knocking about. At least one is known to be fake, and one is talked about but doesn’t seem to actually exist in reality. This photograph in particular doesn’t seem to be traceable, and as such I could find no information on whether it has been debunked or analysed in any way, although it is not given much shrift by skeptics. It is also apparently similar to a fake photograph created for the series FreakyLinks, by the makers of The Blair Witch Project, which certainly doesn’t bode well for it being a genuine photograph. So, as interesting as the photograph is (even if it’s fake, it’s a great photograph), given the lack of any other evidence whatsoever, I’m going to have to wield Ockham’s Razor like some maniacal ‘thirties gangster and move on.

It doesn’t stop with pterosaurs though…

Dr Paley and his fellow Creationists also believe that apatosaurs are living in the jungles of the Congo, claiming they would attempt to bring back a specimen, except that they are too large for the proposed enclosure. Aswell as apatosaurs, they also believe plesiosaurs exist (they’re probably thinking of Nessie), trilobytes and velociraptors. They claim that velociraptors are actually the fabled chupacabra and that – I’m serious here – they guard the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat.

At this point, I’m thinking the website must be a hoax. So I researched that, too (yes, the internet again – leave me alone, I’m sensitive), and it seems that no-one else is quite sure if this is a piss-take or not either! If it is a hoax, it is the most detailed and thorough hoax I have seen, and a lot of time and effort has gone into making it look real. Yes, it is ridiculous, but only slightly more ridiculous than genuine Creationists I’ve met!

That said, there  is that other part of the site about putting a giant cross on the moon… and the man who fights Satanists along with his cat, Milton…  oh, and the Youth Rock Ministry containing songs such as “Who Let The Praise Out!”… the bit about catching the pterosaurs by disorienting them with a frankincense smoker was a bit weird, too…

Can it be real? I’m not sure I recognise this universe anymore! Help! I recommend you all go and visit the site right now to see for yourselves the genius of Objective Ministries’ Project Pterosaur!