Save the planet- why?

The cheapest and easiest way to combat climate change, according to a report by the London School of Economics and Political Science, is by sterilisation and abortion. Humans, they say, is the planet’s worst enemy: We are destroying our earth.

 

Which brings me to a question:

Are we trying to save the planet for our children?

Or are we trying to save the planet from our children?

Sex a sin?

Elsewhere on the Internet, on a topic irrelevant right now, I find this sentence:

He was utterly interested in sex, partly for the usual reasons, strengthened by a religious upbringing telling him sex was a sin, ….

And while researching this little article, I find this:

….web sites purporting to advocate … matrimony over the various other alternatives. The trouble is, most of these web sites are heavily slanted towards Christianity…
It seems clear that the purpose behind many of these sites is to prevent people from having sex, from “sinning”.

Yeah, yeah, the old story. The church is, once again, the big villain. But the Christian view is, unlike many believe, NOT that “sex is a sin.” The Christian view is that sex is a very beautiful and special thing designed to keep for someone special in marriage. And, interestingly enough, people who live by that idea, and keep sex for marriage, have happier sex lives and happier marriages, according to statisticians. They and their children are also a lot less likely to be a drain on state welfare agencies (and thus tax payers).

Scandinavia most atheistic? One more reason to doubt Zuckerman

“Theory without data is myth: data without theory is madness.” – Phil Zuckerman

Phil Zuckerman wrote a book about his experiences in Sweden and Denmark, painting it as probably the least religious countries in the world, yet with low crime rates, high standards of living and social equality. A previous post of mine questioned (very much) the accuracy of painting the Scandinivians as the world’s most atheistic countries, and (a bit) if their societies are really all that healthy, and sustainable. And is correlation (many people who don’t believe in God/gods/spirits, and a prosperous society) causality here?
A survey of the European commission collected these statistics of religious (un)belief in Europe. (I do not know what DK stand for.)

According to these, France (33%) has the most unbelievers (People who claim “I don’t belief there is any spirit, God, or life force”) of all European countries, with the Czech Republic (30%) second. (Would Zuckerman study the Czechs as an example of irreligious people next? Or perhaps the Cubans, who are, of course, not part of this European study?) Sweden is 6th and Denmark joint 9th.

In Iceland (11%), Finland, (16%) and Norway (17%), there are, in fact, a less than average unbeliever percentage for the countries surveyed – the European average was 18%. Even if there are a lot of unbelievers in Scandinavia, they are, by all statistics I ever read outside of Zuckerman’s work, a minority. Those who believe in God, a spirit or life force, still outnumber the unbelievers by at least 3 to 1.

And, since Prof. Zuckerman believe that statistics without theory is madness, I would follow it up by my theory: Denmark and Sweden are rather succesfull countries with more believers, albeit of low commitment, than unbelievers. It may even be that their Protestant heritage is partly responsible for their success. No country in Europe is an indicator of what a society of unbelievers will be like, since everywhere in Europe, believers in God, a spirit or life force outnumber unbelievers.

Meeting the Hitchens challenge? Easy!

Christopher Hitchens set out a challenge in his efforts against religion:

“Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”

The point, presumably, is to say that atheists are ethically the same as believers, at least. But his challenge can be debunked as unable to make this point (of unbelievers and believers being similar). Or his challenge can simply be met instead.

Debunking the value of the challenge:

To prove an ethical difference, you need not show an ethical action that one group has absolutely never performed. It is enough to show that one group more often performs the ethical action.
Are there statistics that show an ethical difference between believers and unbelievers? A well-documented fact, for example, is that religious believers give more money to charity, and volunteer more time (even to secular charities) than the non-religious. Other examples could also be mentioned, but this one is sufficient for now.
We can easily conclude that there is, on average, ethical differences between believers and unbelievers. And the Hitchens challenge cannot argue away that fact.
Another thing commonly pointed out on this topic is that atheists, even when doing the ethical thing, cannot logically ground why they do it. They may say “this helps rather than harm humans” but why, logically, should humans not be harmed, unless some higher power exist who say they should not? 

 

 Meeting the challenge:

Before meeting the challenge, let’s first examine what counts as an ethical statement. An ethical statement is a statement like:
“It is ethically wrong to do [x]” or “[y] is a good moral deed.”
Therefore, any ethical statement which only believers can make will have unbelievers protesting something like:
“It is not ethically wrong to do [x]” or “[y] is not a good moral deed.”
It will, for the purpose of the Hitchens challenge, be an invalid protest. In fact, it will prove that there are indeed moral statements only believers can make.

And now, for an answer: The first ethical law, according to the Christian world view, is “love the Lord your God with all your heart and your soul and all your mind.” It is an ethical statement that unbelievers cannot make. It is an ethical action which unbelievers cannot perform. Christianity thus meets the Hitchens challenge head-on: Not with an obscure side issue, but by their biggest commandment.
(Do you want to protest that unbelievers do not find loving God an issue of ethics? You can’t. As I explained in the previous paragraph, that protest is a clear sign that the challenge was indeed met.)

 The Hitchens challenge is misleading, since the only valid type of answer sounds inadmissible at first glance. (Did Hitchens set his challenge up in a misleading way on purpose, perhaps?)

Yep- Sharing the Christian faith with your children is not child abuse

I already wrote a pair of articles (here) about the (unscientific) Dawkinsian notion that religious instruction to children amounts to child abuse. But there are more evidence than I mentioned, from larger test groups. Here, Tom Gilson points out what a large study concluded. He believes this should “cast serious doubts” upon the credibility of Dawkins’s best seller, “The God Delusion.” (Another author who casts serious doubt upon Dawkins etc. is Vox Day, who’s book ”The Irrational Atheist” is downloadable free of charge here.) Gilson also asks, here, why no scientist took the Oxford “Professor for the public understanding of science” to task for his anti-science conclusion. Are scientists being consistent?

There are times in the Bible when God orders the killing of people. Is that cruel? Does it contradict “thou shalt not kill”?

To understand my answer, take the following situation: An artist buys some expensive watercolor paper. He tells his young children not to cut it or draw/paint on it. Some days later, he himself take the paper, cut it up into the sizes he wants, and paint on it. Was he then “unfair” or “not practicing what he preach?”

No, he was not. The reasoning behind “do not draw on this paper or cut it” was not: “This paper has to remain in this condition forever.”

It was: “This paper is set aside for a purpose. I can use it for that purpose. My children cannot.”

 

Similarly, God made humans for a purpose. If we disobey God and kill, we kill people whom God could still have used. When God chooses to end a life, it is his perfect time. He made humans, he can take them into another realm when the time is right.

 

Superficially, preschoolers drawing a paintbrush over paper, and a skilled artist making a detailed painting, are both painting.

Superficially, God killing and humans killing are both doing the same thing.

But in both cases, only one of the two has a master plan.

Highlight: 20 February: Anne

I’ve been feeling depressed lately and I thought about having to notice the good things in life.

So, I made a resolution to sometimes mention highlights of my life as they happen.

Yesterday, the highlight was speaking to a Christian giant named Anne. Now, Anne is a widow with 3 sons: One at a private university, one in high school and one in primary school. They do very well. I know her youngest son, who is bright and well-behaved. Anne also runs a preschool and after-school-centre in her neighbourhood, and a Sunday school.

There is something I forgot to mention here, before you get a wrong impression: Anne’s regular income is hardly enough to pay university tuition for her eldest, much less tuition, room and board for him, a place to live for herself and the other two sons, food, etc. She lives in a place – Reahola- that used to be a mine hostel, but is now divided into 405 family units.

Her preschool is not a source of income. The children in her preschool mostly have high school mums who cannot pay her at all. She runs the preschool, the after-school centre, and the Sunday school as a labour of love. She trusts God for funds for her son’s university fee. This far, it came in every month. She was praying to God for money for a fence around her preschool/ after-school study centre. Yesterday, some American Christians phoned and said they will build not only a fence, but a whole playground! The Americans are coming in March.

When I hear about the Checkers “Woman of the year” competition again, I’ll nominate this remarkable woman….

Second biggest highlight:

Anne contacted us some time to give a Good News Club (a weekly Christian meeting for kids) in Reahola. We were there to teach it, and some little kids came to hug us. One little black girl told me: “Teacher, you’re beautiful!” It’s great to hear. As a single woman, people don’t often call me “beautiful.” But I think they are beautiful: All those little black kids who welcome us into their hearts and neighborhood to teach the club. And I wonder if they realize how priviledged they are to have the “beautiful” – not outside, but inside- Anne among them…..

About prejudice, Philip Pullman , Dawkins and Hitchens and the like

 

 

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.

 

Explanatory post: Not everything is true in Mella-Milloo

 

I have spoken to some people on the ‘net that left me totally exasperated. (And I don’t want to link to their forums either.) They make statements about their world view. (For example the statement “No New Testament writer knew Jesus” to defend a non-Christian world view.)

 

I then research and cross-reference to sources to show them their statement is untrue. (In case of the example, by any standard used for accepting historical writing, you have to accept that several New Testament books was written by eyewitnesses.)

 

When I do that, they claim things like: “Who is to say that what is true for you is true for me?” Now, that kind of argument is perfect for things like “Are Crocs ugly or not?” If I think Crocs are ugly shoes, and you do not, your opinion is as worthy as mine. But if one of us think that Leonardo da Vinci never existed, and one of us insist he did, one of us is right and the other wrong. If one of us thinks Jesus rose from the death and one of us do not, we are not both equally right. (Lionel Luckhoo- possibly the greatest lawyer ever – he got “innocent convictions in 245 murder cases in a row – said that the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection is overwhelming and leave no room for doubt.)

 

One of the things that inspired “Not everything is true in Mella-Milloo” was the view that truth is not relative. Everybody is not equally right. (If you want the non-relativity of truth discussed more deeply, this page explains how 15 things need to be true before anyone would utter the statement “There is no truth.”)

 

The other inspiration was Aaron from “The Wardrobe Door” asserting that we need to express our world views more creatively.

More creatively? That made me think of Dr. Seuss’s great story “The Lorax.” (“The Lorax”, and Dalene Matthee’s “Kringe in ‘n Bos”,which translate as “Circles in a Forest” are the best works I ever read on the tragedy of destroying the environment.)

It also made me think of all the other funny, rhyming stories I read as a little kid: Lots by Dr. Seuss. One Afrikaans book named “Die Appeltwis” about a crazy argument between two kings: An apple tree standing on the edge of one kingdom was shedding apples into the other… And one named “To think what I saw on Mulberry street.” (How a plain horse and a wagon on Mulberry Street/ changed into a story that no-one could beat.)

 

So here is my attempt at a kid’s story. I envisioned it with Dr. Seuss-like pictures, but I can’t draw them.

Not everything is true in Mella-Milloo

By Retha Faurie 

Here in my town of Mella-Milloo

I go off to school, just like any of you.

But something is strange at the Mella-school.

Some kids say things that just are not cool.

Some kids here think everything is equally true.

They say: “I am right, and so are you.”

 

When I say the sum has the answer three,

they say five is what it turns out to be.

When I say our teacher is wearing green,

they say her purple dress is the ugliest ever seen.

 

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -

 

Yesterday Susan came by on her bike.

(She always says funny things that I like.)

She stopped, and said “hi.”

We played, and then we said “Bye.”

 

At school I tell the other kids out to play

that Susan was riding her bike yesterday.

“No,” Mike said, “it wasn’t a bike.

She had a flying saucer, and an alien was following

on a four-winged trike.”

 

“But,” argued I, “a flying saucer she did not drive.

And I saw no alien, nor on a tricycle or doing the jive.”

“Hold your tongue,” say Mike to me now.

“It doesn’t matter if it was a saucer, a bike or a cow.

Just about everything is equally true.

I am right, and so are you.”

 

I said to Mike: “Only some things are true.

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

Some things are true and some are not.

I saw what she rode. A bike she got.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

“And,” added Joe, “I saw her too.

She was riding an elephant from the Mella-town zoo.”

“But Mella-town don’t have a zoo,”

I said, “and Susan fear big animals too.”

Joe say: “It depends how you feel

I feel she rode one, I believe that it’s true.

If you don’t believe it, I am just as right as you.”

 

I said to Joe: “Only some things are true

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

Some things are true and some are not.

I saw what she rode. A bike she got.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -

 

Last week Martin was away from class.

This week he told us where he was.

He and his mother flew over the sea

to visit the country of Medda-Callee.

Martin showed his photos to us

of him and his mum, touring on a big red bus.

 

Mike say Martin was in a hospital ward

with a toe that was swollen large and hard.

A tarantula bit him, and his toe swelled large as a TV screen.

Martin’s toe was the largest that Mike ever seen.

 

“No,” I said, “his toe is okay.

Nothing is wrong with that toe today.”

“Shhht,” say Mike: “Just about everything is equally true.

I am right, and so are you.”

 

I say to Mike: “Only some things are true

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

His toe is all right, no tarantula was there.

He went overseas and has the photos to share.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

Then Joe chipped in with another tale:

“Martin had a ship that set for sail.

He found an island – what a pleasure

‘cause on the island he found a chest full of treasure.

Pirates came, and then he guessed

that fighting them off would be the best.”

 

“But,” say I, “how can one little boy

fight off pirates, with his sword a plastic toy?”

Joe say: “It depends how you feel.

I feel he did it, I believe that it’s true.

If you don’t believe it, I am just as right as you.”

 

I say to Joe: “Only some things are true

God gave me a brain, and a pair of eyes too

so I can see and know what is true.

So I can understand, and know what to do.

I saw the photos and the tickets for the plane.

If you think he fought pirates, why, that is insane!

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”

 

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -

 

My mother say that Jesus died.

Came alive again, He never lied.

He said He would die and then rise again.

He did that 2000 years ago, that’s when.

 

Now some people say “It depends how you feel.

If you feel he did, then believe that it’s true.

I don’t believe it, and I am just as right as you.”

 

But either Jesus died and then he rose.

Or else it’s a story, no truer than Joe’s.

It just cannot both be equally true.

It cannot be true just for me or for you.

 

I can say to them: “Only some things are true.

God gave us brains, and pairs of eyes too

so we can see and know what is true.

So we can understand, and know what to do.

The people saw him die, then saw him alive again.

They wrote what they saw, and kept saying it then.

God gave me a brain to understand.

And to look for truth, is what He command.

Not everything is equally true.

What is true indeed, should be true for you.”