Pat Condell on rioting Muslims

An introduction to Humanism

Yes. This.

The Higgs boson: more real than God

My letter to the Western Mail newspaper got printed the other day. Unsurprisingly, the fact that I asserted that the Higgs boson now has more evidence for its existence than God has apparently ruffled a few feathers,  even though it is a statement of fact.

Here's a reply that was printed in the paper yesterday:

SIR – Barry ****** (Letters, July 10) says the discovery of the Higgs boson (the “God particle”) has nothing at all to do with any gods or religious ideas.

This is surprising since the Bible says that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1.1). By His own word He spoke the universe into being. Creation is attributed to a sovereign God, not any Higgs boson or big bang theory. Science has made tremendous strides but I think that this theory is a non-starter.

As for evidence of God’s existence, Paul tells the Romans: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1.21).

God has manifested Himself in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. The Large Hadron Collider has cost a small fortune. On the other hand Jesus Christ offers us salvation freely having paid the price by His death on the cross.

Professor Higgs declared that he is glad the answer has been found in his lifetime. I pray that both he, Barry ****** and others will find Jesus Christ in their lifetime and see Him with the eye of faith.

CARL HURLEY
Port Talbot

Naturally, I have sent off a response to this letter. The Western Mail has printed plenty of my letters in the past, but just in case this one doesn't get printed, here's what I wrote:

Sir -

In my previous letter I noted that science has at last produced real, physical evidence for the elusive Higgs boson. This is indeed something worth celebrating.

Carl Hurley (Letters, July 13) was seemingly upset by my assertion that the Higgs has more evidence for its existence than God. However, given that apparently the only 'evidence' he can produce is from a book written by pre-scientific Bronze Age tribesmen, my assertion still stands. If that book constitutes evidence for God, then by the same logic Tolkien's writings constitute evidence for hobbits and elves.

As for seeing 'with the eye of faith,' I'd rather base my knowledge and beliefs on evidence. 'Faith' is nothing more than the excuse people give when they believe something for no good reason. It is certainly not a valid basis for making a truth claim of any kind.

If this letter gets printed and there are any more responses, I'll post them on here as usual.

The "not God" particle

Following the predictable media coverage of the probable discovery of the Higgs Boson at the Large Hadron Collider, in which the term "the God particle" is freely used, I decided to fire off this response to he Western Mail newspaper this morning in response to their coverage of this event. Although they don't suggest any link between science and theology, the very use of the term "God particle" is highly misleading and could make people think science is somehow acknowledging a god's existence.

Anyway, here's my letter. It will be interesting to see if they print it - although, to be fair, they haven't shied away from printing some of my other letters in the past.

Sir -

I find it unfortunate that your coverage of CERN's probable discovery of the Higgs boson fell back on the lazy journalistic cliché of referring to the Higgs as the 'God particle'.

This discovery is momentous because it confirms the standard model of particle physics. The Higgs is significant because it gives objects mass. However, it has nothing at all to do with any gods or religious ideas. Thus labelling it the 'God particle' is at best erroneous.

In fact, one could argue that the Higgs boson is far more significant than the concept of God. After all, unlike God, there is now evidence that the Higgs boson actually exists.

On the capitalisation of "God"

One thing that really irritates me in discussions and debates between theists and atheists, of which both sides are often guilty, is the quibbling about whether or not the word "god" should be spelled with a capital G. Although it's irrelevant to the actual matters under discussion, it often generates a lot of heat. Many atheists insist on spelling it with a lower-case g as a mark of disrespect or as a way of belittling the name of a character that they believe is not real. On the other hand, many Christians (the brand of theist with which I am most familiar) often get really heated over insisting that the word be spelled with a capital G because it is the name of their deity and thus should be respected.

In my not-so-humble opinion, both sides are wrong.

I often use the word "god" with a lower-case g when I am talking about deities, whether singular or plural. I do so not out of disrespect or a desire to belittle the object of the word, but because that is its proper usage. "God" is not a proper noun, a personal name. It is a common noun.

Even in modern editions of the Greek New Testament, the word for god, θεος (theos) is not capitalised, whereas personal names are. In the original Greek, the deity is often referred to as "the god" in the passages in which "God" is used in English translations. The word "God" is not used as a name, but rather to refer to "the god" who has a name that is deliberately not used because of an ancient Jewish tradition that it is too holy to be uttered. That name in Hebrew is יהוה (YHVH), which has been given various English pronunciations (Jehovah, Yahweh, Yahoo, Yahveh). It's a fact that many, possibly even most, Christians don't know the name of their own god. They think "God" is a name. It is not, any more than my name is "Man".

So when I am in conversations with Christians and I use terms such as "your god" or "the god of the Bible", I am not stubbornly refusing to capitalise the word out if disrespect. I am simply using the word correctly. On the occasions where I use the word "God" as a proper noun, in accordance with common usage, I capitalise it, but otherwise I do not.

Yes, this is a side-note to the real debate, a pointless grammatical rabbit-trail that leads away from the important issues, but for some reason it really irritates me.

The meaning of life

I wish I could have a penny for every time a theist has said that atheists must be sad and lost because we have no meaning to our lives. The statement also assumes the converse, that the speaker's co-religionists have meaning because of their god.

Firstly, whether or not atheists have meaning in their lives is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a god. Secondly, of course atheists have meaning in their lives.

It's important that we establish that, since there is no god, our lives do not have an externally-determined grand design, plan or divine purpose in the sense that theists often mean when they use the word "meaning". The same holds true for theists; since there is probably no god, their belief that their lives have this kind of meaning is a delusion.

The only externally-determined meaning our lives have is a Darwinian one. We, like all other organisms, were designed by the non-random process of evolution to do one thing only: to survive long enough to reproduce and pass on our genes to the next generation. That is the only externally-imposed meaning we have, and not all of us either choose to, or are able to, reproduce. So does that mean that child-free people are without meaning in their lives? Of course not. It simply means that any meaning or purpose beyond the strictly Darwinian purpose of reproduction is determined not by some external power, but by myself. Just as I am responsible for my own actions, I am also responsible for deciding and determining the meaning and purpose of my own life. There are no gods to do it for me.

The idea of a life given meaning by a god may be comforting to theists, but to me it just sounds like an abdication of responsibility for one's own life, for one's own actions. It is the life of a slave. As a free man, responsible to no higher power, I create my own meaning.

My life has meaning if I make someone else's life a little better. My life has meaning if I am a good husband, because it has meaning to my wife. I give my life meaning by being a good friend, by making people think, by passing on knowledge, or any of a thousand other things. My life has meaning in as much as I touch the lives of others.

If I can leave the world as a slightly better place than it was when I came here, even if only for a few people, then my life will have had purpose and meaning.

It's also worth noting that since I take responsibility for my own actions and my own meaning, rather than abdicating them, in favour of an imaginary meaning imposed by a god, I can also take the credit for any good things I do because it was me that did them, not a god working through me.

So what is the meaning of life? I've described what it is for me. For you it may well be different. Whatever the meaning and purpose of your life are, though, it is you who have the responsibility for creating it. There are no gods to do it for you.

A letter in support of same-sex marriage

I had a letter printed in the Western Mail newspaper today. That's nothing unusual, because I often write letters to the editor on political and religious issues (which, sadly, are all too often often the same issues).

This one was a bit different, in that it's the first letter I've written to the newspaper in defence of the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Here's the original letter that I was replying to:

SIR – Lynne Featherstone, the British government’s Equalities Minister, who is leading the Government’s campaign for same sex marriage, told Parliament recently that: “Religious people may continue to believe that marriage can be only between a man and a women. That is not the state’s view. We do not take the Orwellian view that ‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others’.”

Mrs Featherstone has made an absurd gaffe regarding George Orwell’s Animal Farm and its relevance to the definition of marriage.

The whole point of Animal Farm is a condemnation of arbitrary redefinitions by the state of fundamental norms in order to serve vested interests.

This is exactly what Ms Featherstone is guilty of in her proposed rewriting of the centuries-old understanding of marriage in order to serve the vested interests of the homosexual lobby.

NORMAN PLAISTED
Newport, Gwent

And my reply:

SIR – In response to Norman Plaisted’s views on marriage (Letters, May 3), I would like to point out a fact that should be obvious: allowing same-sex couples to marry will have absolutely no effect on heterosexual couples.

Civilisation will not collapse, people will not start lobbying to be allowed to marry goats and people will not be forced to be gay. My wife will not suddenly leave me for another woman. All that will happen is that more people who love each other will be able get married.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry is not a case of serving the vested interests of a so-called homosexual lobby. The right to marry is a fundamental human right.

Appealing to tradition to support the denial of human rights is a rather feeble tactic. We have a moral responsibility as a society to get rid of bad traditions.

I understand that some people have religious objections to same-sex marriage. They are free to believe what they like. However, that does not give them the right to impose their anachronistic views on others.

In conclusion, if you are opposed to same-sex marriage, just don’t marry someone of the same sex.

You may wonder why I am posting about homosexuality and same-sex marriage on a blog about atheism. Well, apart from the fact that it's my blog and I can post whatever I want to, this is an issue on which I once held the opposite view, based solely on my religious beliefs. Now that I no longer have those beliefs I can see this for what it is: an issue of human rights being blocked by religious bigotry.

Did I think I was being a bigot when I was religious? No. In fact, I didn't even take personal responsibility for my belief that homosexuality was wrong. Whenever anyone challenged me about it, my reply was always something to the effect that it was God's decision, not mine, and I believed it because the Bible said homosexuality was wrong.

These days, having given up religion altogether, I no longer have the luxury of delegating my moral decisions to a higher power. I realise that the buck stops here with regard to my beliefs, actions and decisions. When I became an atheist, the issue of homosexuality was one of many issues that I had to re-examine in the light of my new understanding of the world.

I saw that there is a minority of people in this world for whom it is as natural to be attracted to and love people of the same sex as it is for the majority to be attracted to and love people of the opposite sex. I no longer believe that being homosexual is an unnatural aberration caused by the inherent sinfulness of humans; in fact I no longer believe in "sin" at all, as it is a religious category that is ultimately meaningless.

So if homosexuality isn't "sinful" and it harms no-one, who am I to deny the gay minority the same rights as the straight majority?

These days, I'm about as pro-gay as it is possible for a straight man to be. I have gay friends and gay family members, and it bothers me not a jot. After all, why should it? I have had some apologies to make to gay family members who I hurt badly because of my former beliefs, but they were very gracious about the whole thing and those relationships have been repaired, I'm happy to say.

I only wish there was some way of convincing religious people that it's OK to be gay, but I suspect that we'll just have to be content with trying to limit their influence on society and on legislation so that gay people are afforded the same rights as everyone else despite what most religious people think.

One final point: if you're in the UK, please take a moment to visit the Coalition for Equal Marriage and sign their petition in support of the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair, after all.

To the anonymous person who bought me a Christian book

Recently, I received a book through the post. It had clearly been sent by someone who knows me and knows that I am an atheist, because it was a book about the Bible.

Since I don't know who sent the book to me despite my enquiries, I can't respond to that person directly. Instead, here's my response to my anonymous book donor in the form of an open letter.

An open letter to the anonymous person who bought me a Christian book


Dear friend,

I don't know who you are, but clearly you are a Christian who believes that I, as an atheist, am in the wrong. It is also clear that you want me to come back to Christianity because the book you sent me, Nothing But The Truth by Brian H. Edwards, is meant to explain and defend the inspiration, authority and history of the Bible.

I don't blame you for wanting me to return to Christianity, because your religion asserts that unless I do, I will be damned for eternity. If our roles were reversed, I'd probably want the same thing. However, sending me a book anonymously isn't necessarily the best way to go about it.

First, let's look at the kind of book it is. This book is clearly written for a Christian audience. Its aim is to strengthen the faith of those who already believe. As such, it takes the same things for granted that most Christians take for granted. That won't work with me, I'm afraid, since I am not a Christian and do not share those pre-assumptions.

In conversation with several Christians lately I have had the feeling that they think I abandoned my former Christian faith and became an atheist because I was taught wrongly, or didn't understand something. It's almost as though they are saying, "If only you knew Christ like I do, or experienced the kind of Christianity that I have, you'd believe." I get that same impression when someone sends me a book like this (especially when that person remains anonymous). That idea is, however, completely wrong. To assume that all I need is the correct explanation or interpretation of Christian beliefs, or that I was somehow "led astray" by reading books that promote a message contrary to that of Christianity, is to insult my intelligence. I do not take books at face value, nor am I swayed by every argument that I see in print. I am quite capable of thinking things through for myself. In fact, it was the process of weighing various teachings up against the real world I see around me and finding them wanting that put me on the path that ultimately led to atheism. Nor was that a short path; it took me several years of wrestling with the Bible, with what I believed, and with the cognitive dissonance that resulted when what I believed contradicted what I saw in the real world, before I reached the point of abandoning Christianity. This was not a step I took lightly, but it was a step I had to take because following the evidence wherever it led was the only intellectually honest thing I could do. In the end the evidence led me firmly in the direction of atheism.

Edwards' book is basically an apologetics work. Christian believers tend to think of apologetics as arguments to use to bring unbelievers into the fold, but in reality apologetics achieve nothing more than to give those who already believe an excuse to suppress their doubts and keep on believing. To an outsider, particularly one who used to be a Christian and has a good understanding of Christian beliefs, they are pretty much universally unconvincing.

And yes, I do have a good understanding of Christian beliefs. After all, I was a "born again" Christian for over twenty years and I have a degree in Theology and a Diploma in Evangelism. I have studied both the Bible (in its original languages as well as in English and Welsh), and the historical background to its contents and its composition, for many years. That process neither began nor ended while I was in theological seminary. I was constantly striving to know and understand the Bible - and through it, God - more fully.

The Edwards book is a popular-level work. In other words, it is aimed at the interested layman. The problem is, I am not a layman. I have a far more in-depth knowledge of the Bible and the history surrounding it than the average Christian does. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that I have a better knowledge of both the Bible and theology than most ministers I have known. The simplistic arguments contained in a popular-level book simply don't cut any ice with me. The problem isn't that I don't understand them; the "problem" from your perspective is that I understand them too well and can see the flaws in them.

Much of the book seems to try to prove the Bible using the Bible. The average believer would think that made sense; after all, what better way could there be to interpret God's Word than in the light of God's Word itself? To the outsider, though, this technique is utterly ridiculous. It's the exact equivalent of trying to prove that, say, The Lord of the Rings is the Word of God by quoting The Lord of the Rings. It doesn't matter how many times I quote Gandalf, or interpret the sayings of Elrond in the light of what is written in The Lay of Leithian, the fact remains that all I am doing is using circular logic, i.e. assuming the conclusion to prove my premise. That, in essence, is what Edwards does in his book. In trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible, he is using circular logic. In so doing, he fails spectacularly to convince me, or any other educated atheist.

When I received the book I resolved to read the whole thing as an intellectual exercise, with an open mind, even though I knew I was under no compulsion to do so. It is good to read and understand the arguments of those whose perspectives differ from one's own. However, I hadn't even got past the first chapter before half-truths, mischaracterisations of opposing positions and even blatant untruths began to raise their ugly heads. A skim-reading of the rest of the book only confirmed my suspicions that this book is not only written in order to preach to the converted, but it is badly written at that. I have decided to go back on my original intention to read the whole book in detail, as I would probably end up throwing it at the wall in frustration.

I'm sorry, but your intentions in sending me the book have backfired badly. Not only am I just as unconvinced of the truth claims of the Bible as I was before, but you have managed to confirm my suspicions as to the weakness of my opponents' arguments.

In closing, let me say this. If you want to convince me of the truth of your religion, you need to show me the evidence. Don't send me any more books anonymously; if they are anything like this one I simply won't waste my time reading them. Rather, talk to me in person and if you think a particular book will help illustrate a point you have made, by all means offer to lend me the book or buy it for me. I will happily reciprocate by lending or giving you some books that illustrate my own point of view. However, if the book is written for a lay audience and/or it reiterates an argument that you have made that didn't work, don't bother. The bottom line is evidence. Show me actual evidence for the truth of your religion's claims, not books filled with half-truths and propaganda. Should there be no direct evidence ("faith" and subjective personal experience do not count as evidence), perhaps it is you who should reconsider what you believe.

Regards,
Barry.

The Church of St. Cool Dude

"There's no party like a Holy Ghost party!"
"Awesome worship!"
"Messy Church!"
"Extreme encounters with an extravagant God!"
"21st Century Church!"
"Come and meet the risen Christ!"

If you have ever been part of the Pentecostal or charismatic variety of church, as I have, or if you live near or have friends who go to such a church, slogans such as those above will sound familiar. It seems that these days every church and every para-church organisation is trying to package itself as an exciting, edgy, enjoyable place where the party never ends.

The message seems to be that it's cool and edgy to go to church. The trouble is that if the same rules were applied to churches that are applied to retailers, they would be in trouble with the Advertising Standards Agency. Most churches, no matter how young, funky or cool their worship group may be, no matter how contemporary their music style, are nevertheless boring. They may have a boring and long-winded preacher, or the hymns may be slow and dirge-like, or they may use boring and impenetrable liturgy, or whatever. But most churches are, for the most part, dull and irrelevant.

However, there are some churches that manage - by virtue of having a charismatic preacher, a professional-quality worship band, high-quality lighting, clever manipulation of crowd dynamics, large, modern buildings or whatever else - to be interesting, exciting and fun. Some of them even border on cool places to be.

There's just one problem, though. One nagging, persistent issue that just won't go away. No matter how appealing the medium may be, there's a problem with the message. It's blatantly false.

Whether it be claims that their god will heal you, or claims that you will have a life-changing encounter with the risen Christ, or even the basic claim that prayer works, the only thing that you will actually find is delusion. All the data shows that prayer does not actually have any effect on reality at all. Any life-changing encounter you may have will be with the power of suggestion and crowd dynamics, not the power of God.

That's why, despite the sometimes desperate attempts to reinvent themselves, the churches continue to haemorrhage members. People are realising that the advertising is false and the claims are empty.

To any Christians who may read this, here's what you will have to do to persuade me to come to your church and accept your beliefs as true. Forget making your services more modern or your building more inviting. Forget the fake smiles and the claims that you love me even though you know nothing about me. Forget about trying to entice me inside with good music. It makes no difference how good the packaging is if the product inside isn't real. There is only one thing that will make me accept your religion, and that's actual evidence that your core message is true and your god is real.

That's the bottom line. Take a long, hard look at what you believe and ask yourself: is there actually any evidence to support this? If there is, show it to us. If there isn't, have the courage to do what so many others have done over the last few decades and walk away.

If the Christian God is real, no façade of coolness is needed. If the Christian God is not real, no amount of coolness will be enough.

Pro-secularism letters

The strategy of the Christian propagandists that involves making people confuse the terms atheism and secularism and portrays every attempt to combat unfair religious privilege as terrible persecution of the religious has hit the Western Mail newspaper.  This letter appeared three days ago:

Hug a Christian

SIR – It must be strange being a militant atheist. I can understand those who campaign to feed the hungry, free the prisoner or even save the whale, But I confess to finding it difficult to understand someone who campaigns to stop others practising their religion.

I wouldn’t campaign to stop an atheist being an atheist or to ban a humanist service. I’ve always thought it proper to behave sympathetically out of respect for the organisers of the latter. I wouldn’t have claimed that a public humanist service violated my individual rights as a Christian, felt outraged at the Godlessness of it all or sort out the nearest lawyer.

Apparently, that’s not the way a militant atheist thinks. He’s deeply offended by any public display of religion and prepared to stand on his rights to get it banned. They’ve just had a recent victory too.

At enormous expense and after extensive legal wrangling the High Court has ruled that Bideford Town Council has no power to allow prayers to be said before meetings.

The poor will continue to starve, political prisoners will still sweat it out in jail and, as recently revealed, whales are highly stressed by the noise of ships’ engines – but Bideford Town Council is safe from prayer. Austerity notwithstanding, corks must be popping at the National Secular Society in celebration.

On the other hand, maybe not, they probably have a down on celebration too. My advice to the triumphant secularist: lighten up a bit, go hug a Christian and remember, God still loves you.

NORMAN PLAISTED
Newport City

Naturally, I had to respond, and so I fired up my trusty steam-powered smart phone and fired off a reply. They printed it in the paper today:

Belief and the state 

SIR – Norman Plaisted, like so many who are too willing to listen to religious propaganda rather than check the facts, is completely misinformed about what atheism and secularism really are (Letters, March 17).

Firstly, they are not the same thing. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods; secularism is the political belief that the government should remain entirely neutral with respect to religion and not favour one group above all the others. Historically, most secularists have actually been Christians who saw the sense in freedom from government interference in religion.

Mr Plaisted also has his fact wrong with regard to council prayers. Nobody has banned prayer or said that councillors cannot pray before meetings if they so wish. The Bideford case simply involves not having those prayers on the agenda as part of official business, thus making them compulsory for all whether or not they happen to be Christians.

The outcry against the cessation of this practice is not about fairness; it is religious privilege defending itself. The fair thing to do is to make prayers optional and not part of the formal agenda. That’s fairness. That’s secularism.

As a secularist and an atheist (again, not the same thing), I have no wish to take away anyone’s freedom to follow their religion, as long as it does no harm to others – and as long as it is not forced on others.

Finally, in response to Mr Plaisted’s closing remark that “God still loves you,” all I can say is that his statement falls flat without evidence to support it.

BARRY TAYLOR
Pontllanfraith, Caerffili

But that's not all! Evidently there were others who were moved to put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard. Brian Pearce of Secular Wales also had a letter printed on the same subject:

Better to be neutral

SIR – I wonder whether I might be able to reassure Norman Plaisted, who seems to be feeling upset by the deluge of misinformation issuing from some of the tabloid press regarding secularists and atheists.

I assure Norman that I support all the causes he quotes. Furthermore I have not spent all my spare time over the years plotting against religion but have spent some of it (like many other atheists and Humanists) volunteering for charities such as Victim Support, Drug Aid, and Cruse Bereavement Service. I also worked part time in prison chaplaincies for eleven years. I might add that in my younger days I served the trade union movement in a number of voluntary capacities.

Hopefully I can convince Norman that even though an atheist all of my adult life (I am approaching 72) I do not want to stop others practising their religion. I have never interrupted a Christian funeral or any other religious ceremony.

I have also out of friendship and respect attended three priest ordinations (two C of E and one Catholic) although I must admit I did not join in the prayers or partake of the wine. This Easter, although an unbeliever, I will be consuming my usual quota of hot cross buns. How’s that for tolerance and inclusiveness?

Christians, and for that matter those of any other religion, are free to hold prayers before meetings. What we secularists object to is having prayers imposed on the official agenda.

Religion has often played a divisive role in society and being a man of peace that is something I deplore.

Surely in a society with many faiths and none it is better to be neutral in political and civic affairs with equality and respect for all. That is the meaning of Secularism.

Well, all the best, Norman, and lots of hugs....

BRIAN PEARCE
Administrator for Secular Wales, Cardiff

Two letters about secularism and/or atheism in the paper on the same day? Unheard of! But wait - there weren't just two! This letter by Margarita North was also printed:

It’s about privilege

SIR – Norman Plaisted seems to have misunderstood the issue at stake. So called “militant” atheists do not campaign to stop others practising their religion.

What they object to are the special privileges granted to Christians which others do not have.

Maybe, as Mr Plaisted says, he would not campaign “to ban a Humanist service”. But what would his attitude be if the boot were on the other foot and it was taken for granted that town councils, disregarding any Christians present, started their official meetings with a declaration that God is a figment of the imagination?

Mr Plaisted also states that the High Court has ruled that Bideford Town Council has no power to allow prayers to be said before meetings.

The High Court has done no such thing. No one objected to those who wished to do so saying prayers before the council meeting officially started.

What was being discussed was whether such prayers should be part of the official proceedings.

MARGARITA NORTH
Caernarfon

I doubt our friendly, Christ-like, rabid militant Christians will see the point we're making, but I'm sure anyone who is either on the sidelines or part of a more reasonable Christian  group will understand.

We're making two simple points: secularism is not atheism, and secularism is the only fair system. You'd think such clear, unambiguous points would be self-evident, but you can never underestimate either the willingness of the militant Christian propaganda types to twist the facts or the gullibility of those who are willing to listen to them.