Looking around and trying to understand

Here Peter T. Chattaway, film critic, interview Philip Pullman on “His Dark materials” books and the new “The Golden Compass“ movie, based on it. The interview statements seems to be a bit more toned down than Pullman’s earlier admission: “My books are about killing God” - Philip Pullman

I know that reviewers find the ‘Golden Compass’ movie not even entertaining. And readers say the first book of the ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy is well-written, the second less well-written, and the third book (the most anti-religious of the three, in which “God” is killed) is very disconnected, failing to satisfactorily conclude the lofty themes promised in the first book.. Jeffrey Overstreet suggest some questions that you can ask in a discussion with children who read the book. (They are in the “Okay, so we shouldn’t start boycotts and complain.But what should Christians do?” section under “equip yourself and your kids ….. section of this link.)

Some of Pullman’s anti-religious remarks in the interview have led me to comment on the interview’s site.

Pullman: “If there is an exclusively religious sin (not exclusively Christian, but certainly clearly visible among some Christians) it is the claim that all virtue belongs to their sect, all vice to others.”

Me: If that is true, why does the “His Dark Materials” series put all virtue in the actions of unbelieving characters, and almost all vice in the believing characters? It would seem that this sin is not so exclusive to religious people, but appears in Pullman’s mind as well.

Pullman: “It [the claim that all virtue belongs to their sect, all vice to others] is so clearly wrong, so clearly stupid, so clearly counter-productive, that it leads the unbiased observer to assume that you’re not allowed in the religious club unless you leave your intelligence at the door. “

Me: Yeah, that’s the same thing that puts me off about Dawkins, Hitchens and the like – this “so clearly wrong, so clearly stupid, so clearly counter-productive,” view that all belief in God, and believers in God, are evil and/or stupid, and atheism the clever, moral thing. It “leads the unbiased observer to assume that you’re not allowed in the anti-religious club unless you leave your intelligence at the door. “

Why is it that some people are very critical of flaws they themselves share, but they only notice those flaws in others? There is no reason to think that prejudice is exclusive to believers- not if you have read anything by today’s most prominent atheistic writers, that is.

I got a confession to make: I started the calculations below with the assumption: “Genesis should in some places be read figuratively. Now what objective way can I proof that to other Christians? I know! I’ll show them how it is mathematically impossible for the earth to repopulate quickly enough after Noah!” Oops. When I finished the sums, the result did nothing to prove my stated objective. Here are my calculations:

Why these calculations will be inadequate:

a) Many believers hold that the flood in Genesis could be correctly understood as a local, instead of global flood. As such, it may not have been needed to repopulate the world from the few women on the ark.

b) The geneaologies of Genesis mentions very long life spans, and men who apparently still fathered children for a long part of those centuries. It don’t mention women’s ages in those geneaologies. It is very likely to assume, though, that if men in those times literally stayed reproductive for centuries, that women could have done the same. That means that each of them could have concieved many more children than in the calculations below.

c) Some Bible scholars also believe that the Hebrew word for “son” could also mean “grandson,” “great-grandson,” etc. In that case, the earth had even more generations to repopulate before the Tower of Babel or before Abraham encountered other nations.

However, here are calculations using my modern assumptions on how long woman can stay fertile, and assuming the fewest number of generations: These two assumptions are as strict as can be. If I assumed longer fertility times (argument b), or more generations (argument c), I would have made the job of proving the Genesis account a lot easier.

(It may seem strange to assume that a woman can have, on average, 3 or 3,5 daughters in a lifetime - thus 6 or 7 children. But in the times before birth control it was not rare for woman to have much larger families than that. One of my grandmothers married at 28, the other at age 30 - yet they each gave birth 6 times.)

The numbers below only represent the girls and women of the new generation. You could assume that there are still older woman too, and about as many men and boys as woman and girls.

SCENARIO 1: Each woman has, on average, 3 daughters who reach adulthood, and get her girls on average at age 25

From the ark comes 3 woman of child-bearing age =3

25 years later: 3×3 young woman/ girls of next generation.

50 years later: 3×3x3

100 years later: 3 to the power of 5

200 years later: 3 to the power of 9 =19 683

350 years later: 3 to the power of 15 =14 348 907

650 years later: 3 to the power of 27 = 7 625 597 484 987 (About as many young woman and girls as there are people in the world now.)

SCENARIO 2: Each woman has, on average, 3,5 daughters who reach adulthood, and get her girls on average at age 25 (Rounded off to whole numbers.)From the ark comes 3 woman of child-bearing age =325 years later: 3×3,5 young woman/ girls of next generation =10 or 1150 years later: 3×3,5×3,5 = 37100 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 4) =450

200 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 8 ) =67 556

350 yr.: 3x(3,5 to the power of 14) =124 186 354

575 yr.: 3 x(3,5 to the power of 23) =9 787 826 778 918 (More young woman and girls than there are people in the world now.)

The bible first mentions contact with other nations again, after the flood, at a time when Abram was older than 75 years. (Before that, it mentions nations in 2 ways: Mostly in the sense of “So-and-so was the forefather of this nation.” Secondly in the story “the tower of Babel,” an explanation why the one group split up into nations.)

Since the exact ages of Abraham’s forefathers are mentioned when they became fathers, it could be calculated that more than 367 years have expired from the ark until the date Abraham gets into contact with other nations. By either of my scenarios, there could have been more enough people on earth for different nations to exist.

The descendants of Noah could well have splattered into several large nations by the time Abram encounters other nations.

Conclusion: It is possible to believe that the earth could have repopulated from a 3 woman in a few centuries. It may not be necessary to assume that it happened (other options are mentioned in the “Why these calculations will be inadequate” paragraph), but it is possible.

Militant atheists try, these days, to convince people that religion is bad for children. (Obviously, they quote no studies. They back it up by emotionalism, sophisticated word choices, and whatever negative anecdotes they can find.)So I hope to compile a real list of studies that say something on the topic.Studies that compare, statistically, children who believe the christian claims and those who do not, and who measures the results to things generally regarded as good, even by unbelievers.

Like this example :

Positive Life Outcomes
Moreover, that religious participation seems to be having a positive effect on youth. The researchers noted, “In general, for whatever reasons and whatever the causal directions, more highly religiously active teenagers are doing significantly better in life on a variety of important outcomes than are less religiously active teens.”…………Data suggested that, compared to their less religiously active peers, more religiously active kids were less likely to engage in illegal substance abuse; use the Internet to view pornography; get lower school grades ; get suspended or expelled from school; be described by parents as fairly or very rebellious; lie to parents; or to have engaged in sex before marriage. Less religious involvement also correlated to a poorer self-image, greater sadness and feelings of depression.Conversely, Smith and Denton said, the more religiously devoted teenagers were, the less likely they were to believe in relativistic morality, and the more likely they were to say they cared about the needs of the poor and the elderly, as well as “about equality between different racial groups.”

While admitting that other factors may enter into this equation — such as personality types — the researchers stated: “Something about religion itself causes the good outcomes for youth. By general implication, teens who increase their religious involvement should, net of other factors, reduce their chances of experiencing negative and harmful outcomes,” and vice versa.

And in a report called Third Millenium teens, brought out by the Barna Research group in 1999, the following statistics was found:

Research shows that when young people lack a basic biblical belief system, it negatively affects their attitudes.

As a result they are:

• 225% more likely to be angry with life
• 216% more likely to be resentful
• 210% more likely to lack purpose in life
• 200% more likely to be disappointed in life.

The research also shows that our young people’s failure to adopt a foundational Christian belief system negatively impacts their behavior:

• 48% more likely to cheat on an exam200% more likely to steal
• 200% more likely to physically hurt someone
• 300% more likely to use illegal drugs
• 600% more likely to attempt suicide.

Quoted in Josh McDowell’s book, “The Last Christian Generation.”Just a word of caution: “Having a Biblical belief system” goes a lot deeper than merely professing Christianity. Thus, the mere fact that a child calls himself a Christian do not mean he is that much better off in statistical terms.I’d appreciate some help in this endeavour, since I do not even know where to look for this kind of statistics. Perhaps someone who read this knows:

Do anyone knows of psychologists who witness that religion is good for children? And what good mean to them in that regard. (I know I once read in a magazine that a psychologist recommends that even atheist or agnostic parents tell their little kids -tots and preschoolers and early grades- there is a God who cares for them and look after them, since it has an enormous benefit in making them feel safe and loved. I cannot remember who it was or where I read it.)

Studies that show religion is good for humans (make them happier, make them live longer, make them healthier) apparently also exist and I’d like to know where.

So, I’d appreciate it if any of you can give me internet links to any study that shows ways in which religion has a positive effect on humans. If it shows a positive effect on children, specifically, even better. But remember: For the sake of the kind of argument I am trying to make, being more religious or living closer to God is not, in itself, a positive effect.

The point of this:

If you are a parent, please work hard on teaching your child Christian values. Read up on how to best teach it to a generation who might even misunderstand basic words like “truth”, “judgement”, “God’s love” etc., due to their cultural conditioning. If you are a Sunday school teacher or youth worker: Please be encouraged: Do even more to teach real Christian values- not water-down-for-kids versions of Christian values.

Whoever you are, if you meet or read the sort of bigoted campaigner who try to tell you that teaching kids about God “corrupts their innocent minds,” or whatever, tell everyone how ridiculous the campaigners are. They are trying to “protect” children from a world view that apparently gives purpose, lessens anger and dissappointment with life, improve their school marks, protects them from drugs and keep them away from suicide.