Thursday, December 17, 2009

Personal Correspondence with an Irish Bibleist


I received this message this morning:

I came across your web site the atheist missionary and was just wondering if you would be interested in a reasoned discussion by email on all things pertaining to God, religion , evolution, etc.

I am a 47 year old Irishman who isn’t a catholic, doesn’t drink , smoke or fight, and is not overly fond of potatoes. But I do believe in God and that the bible and the bible alone is God`s word.

If you are interested then the first salvo would be is do you think that you can have morality without a moral law giver?

I would be interested in your response no pressure or need to reply only if you want to.

My response:

Hi [name witheld]. Thanks for visiting The Atheist Missionary.

You say that you believe in a god, the Bible and that the bible is the word of your god. As far as your belief believing in your god is concerned, I would be interested to know why. What facts or reasoning, if any, do you rely on to support that belief?

You mention evolution in your message and, of course, evolution contradicts two fundamental tenets of your Bible: 1. the earth is only about 6000 years old; and 2. humanity was created by your god and did not evolve from eukaryotic cells. Of course, this is why fundamentalist Christians seek to discredit the "theory of evolution". Is this your angle? If so, I suggest that you read Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. There is about as much debate about the theory of evolution in the scientific community as there is about gravitational theory. Are you familar with the concept of mitochondrial DNA? Have you read Richard Dawkins' The Ancestors' Tale and The Blind Watchmaker? Quite frankly, if you can reject the fact of evolution, you are probably willing to believe anything. Please don't tell me that you believe the story of Noah's Ark. Do you think fossils were placed by Satan in order to deceive mankind?

To answer the question posed at the end of your message, yes - I am convinced that we can have morality without a moral law giver. If you follow my site, you will see that the suggestion that we derive our morality from a deity is one of my favorite targets for criticism. Do you really think that baby rape is only wrong because your god says so? Would it become right if he said so? Of course not. Once you admit that god could not make what was obviously wrong right, you have to admit that morality must exist independently of your god (British philosopher Colin McGinn, does an excellent job of explaining this in his lecture series The Modern Scholar: Discovering the Philosopher in You which can be purchased through iTunes). Have you read Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, Peter Singer's How Are We To Live? or (my favorite on this issue) Hugh Mackay's Right & Wrong? Much greater thinkers than I have considered this issue at length and have determined that human morality is an evolved sense that is conducive to propagating our genes. However, if you reject the fact of evolution, I can see why you might have trouble accepting that line of thought.

Finally, I take it from your message that you consider the Bible to be a worthy moral code. This begs the question of whether you have read it in its entirety. If you haven't, please do. There are plenty of nasty parts. How do you decide what to reject (for example, stoning adulterers and homosexuals) and what to accept?

I will be posting your note (omitting your name to protect your privacy) and my reply. Please feel free to respond in the comment thread below the post.

Best regards, TAM.
Posted by The Atheist Missionary at 8:46 AM
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

23 comments:

  1. (grabbing some popcorn)
    This should be good.
    Can't you come up with a pseudonym for him? "Name withheld" is so boring.
    ReplyDelete
  2. We'll call him Paddy. This was his response:

    Dealing with just the moral question for now, we may believe rape is wrong, or murder is wrong, but what about alcoholism, drug taking, abortion
    Cheating on your wife or husband. In Ireland being a drunk is no big deal but ask the wife or children of an alcoholic father if its ok.
    But the real crux is if we are just animals just a random collection of atoms that just happen to take this form how can we say what is
    right or wrong in any real sense, if any animal kills its or another`s young we don’t call it murder what is different for us animals. And even dawkins has to admit we are no more than animals.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Paddy, Paddy, Paddy. I have no doubt that you have a delightful accent that I would like to listen to for hours, but it does not carry over into the typed word.

    Therefore, you need to do better than that mess up there. That's just sad.
    ReplyDelete
  4. I can see why you would want to dodge the issues of why you believe in your god and why you (apparently) deny evolution.

    You ask: if we are just animals just a random collection of atoms that just happen to take this form how can we say what is
    right or wrong in any real sense?    .

    The answer to this question is that we make up our minds based on our evolved (i.e. instinctive) and learned sense of what is right and wrong. Most of us (sociopaths excepted) would agree that killing an innocent puppy is wrong. The majority of us have no problem with killing an innocent cow so we can eat it. I happen to disagree with that view on ethical grounds. Your god says eating animal meat is ok. He also says that homosexuals should be stoned. Once again, how do you pick and choose the morality which your lord had laid out for you?

    I choose not to eat meat while others choose to do so. Who is right and who is wrong? It all depends on the base of your moral conscience (I find the concept of sentience and the avoidance of suffering to be quite persuasive starting points).
    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Paddy, Thank you for entering into this debate, where your reliance on one single book, which has been widely discredited by almost all intellectuals and philosphers as a work of fiction shows a huge leap of faith but a complete failure to understand that we were NOT made in god's image, but god was made, by us, in our image to explain things we were at the time unable to understand. Oh now bad things are happening, it must be the devil/evil witches/god's will to punish sinners etc. Good things are happening, yey! let's praise god with ritual and worship and festivals.

    Over the millenia god has been used as an excuse for people to hate, kill and eat each other, to rape and murder children, to sacrifice animals, to burn women at the stake, drown anyone who has a different belief system and to fight amongst the various cults of the "one true God", be he god, jehovah or allah. God has become a justification to hate, and is in fact not a moral guide, because if he is real and is listening, he clearly doesn't care that his name is used by people as a justification to kill others. Something athiests don't do. Who are the moral guides now? We are. I choose my own moral and ethical lines to take, I don't eat meat, I do believe in a woman's right to choose, I don't believe in the death panalty, but I believe that child rapists should NEVER be allowed in wider society. I don't steal, but I forgive those who steal because I understand the circumstances that forced them into it. A person's sexuality is an incidental fact about them and doesn't preclude them from enjoying all the advantages of citizenship that "straight" people enjoy. My colour is not a "god given" excuse to enslave, abuse and terrorise me in my home country. God doesn't care if America controls all the oil on the planet by bombing muslim countries back to the stone age. God doesn't exsist.

    Sorry rant over.
    ReplyDelete
  6. The fact that people like The fearless threader drop by from time to time is reason enough to maintain this site. Great comment.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Paddy: those of us loyal followers of TAM know what happened the last time a Bibleist was engaged in debate on this website. His name was Da. He is likely somewhere in South America roving the countryside aimlessly, Bible in one hand, Peruvian scripture in the other, and a mouth full of sour grapes. He quit a few exchanges in.

    I know that you will do us Irishmen proud and put up a much better fight. You have an edge because TAM seems preoccupied with veganism these days. Your opening is there. Give em shit.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Paddy replied again:

    Still have not got an answer to how we decide what are acceptable moral standards is lying right or wrong? Is stealing right or wrong? , is hatred right or wrong,? and who decides?

    Someone posted we all know killing puppies is wrong, that person has never been to parts of Africa, or Korea. But once again, who decide, in many tribal area of south America, Africa, Asia is acceptable to raid the next village and steal their livestock and kill the opposing tribe if need be, but then again maybe the white man is more evolved than this I don’t think so. Let's be honest, we all have our own view of right or wrong, good or bad but these just change to suit us and our moods, because, if you ask most people, do they consider themselves good or bad people - its very rare you get a response in the negative but take a look at the world and you decide who is being honest.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Paddy, I suggest that you spend more time studying moral philosophy and less time reading the Bible.

    The examples you provide are strongly suggestive of moral relativism and certainly do little to support the moral absolutism that you appear to prefer. Personally, I swing all the way between value pluralism to moral nihilism. My problem is that I am dumb as a post and find it hard to follow the reasoning of some of the world's greatest thinkers on this issue. My concern is that you have arrived at your view without even bothering to consider the alternatives.

    To answer your question, yes - each individual ultimately decides what is right and wrong for them. In the hunter gather societies where our ancestors evolved, the genes of those who acted in a reciprocally altruistic manner (i.e. loved their neighbours) were, on average, more successful in advancing to future generations than the genes of those who did not act in this manner. It makes perfect sense if you give it some thought.

    By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain how you decide which parts of the Bible to accept and which parts to ignore. Also, where does God say it's wrong to butcher puppies and why? Why is it wrong to butcher a puppy but ok to eat veal?
    ReplyDelete
  10. Paddy's latest:

    I am having a problem replying via the thread so for now I will just have to e mail like this. The point of you and everyone else doing what is right in their own eye at any given time is right. That’s exactly what we do, and that’s why Hitler, Stalin, the Catholic church, most if not all Fundamentalist so called Christian church`s in the USA, and most governments and people worldwide can justify their actions, well it seemed right to me they say. And this is exactly what the bible says in proverbs 21; verse 2 every one does what is right in there own eyes but God weights the heart, in other words he knows our motives. So war, murder, rape, stealing land or oil, and lying about it is all justified as being right in my eyes so it must be ok.

    I don’t believe in evolution because I don’t see enough evidence to support it so when you
    have a minute please email me just 3 of the best supporting evidences for evolution and a possible mechanism to change one basic type of creature to a totally different type of creature.

    And lastly be careful using the generic term paddy for an Irishman it can offend some. Not me as I am have irish and half welsh so half paddy and half taffy. I was born of mixed parentage --- a man and a woman ha ha

    Rest assured that I will be replying to this but others may beat me to it.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Paddy:
    Human beings are evolutionarily "hard-wired" to try to choose (where a choice is possible) that potential outcome of his/her behavior that he/she feels is most likely to be "good" for him/her or least likely to lead to a "bad" outcome. Newborn humans are supremely selfish. As they develop and mature, they begin to perceive that they are not the center of the Universe and that they will want or need certain responses from other beings. Gradually, they realize that if they want certain "good" outcomes from their actions, they are much more likely to get them from others if they are, in turn, considerate of the wants and needs of those others. Initially, the others are their parents and siblings; eventually they may expand to their tribe, neighborhood, city, state...... and ultimately to all other humans. Thus, the Biblical commandment to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" is simply a concise expression of the fact that successful human beings learn to sometimes subjugate their immediate desires in favor of long term benefits to themselves and their larger sociological groups.
    Humans are, in fact, animals who only sometimes differ from all others because of greater intellectual capabilties. Otherwise, our on "purpose" on this Earth is to survive long enough to procreate and then enough longer to nurture those offspring until they, in turn, are able to procreate. If one can recognize these ideas as representative (more or less) of reality and accept them, one has no need to posit some deity or creative force that will reward/punish "moral" behavior.
    ReplyDelete
  12. "I don’t believe in evolution because I don’t see enough evidence to support it so when you
    have a minute please email me just 3 of the best supporting evidences for evolution and a possible mechanism to change one basic type of creature to a totally different type of creature."

    Paddy:
    You are herein revealing your rather abysmal understanding of evolution. Nowhere does it suggest that one animal "changes" into a completely different animal. Rather, mountains of archeological and genetic evidence clearly show that very gradual changes in DNA/RNA, most of which mutations are either lethal and thus are not propagated to future generations, or which do not impart any particular long term benefit to the ability to reproduce successfully, take place frequently enough that over millennia some of these genetic mutations result in changes in physical characteristics of a few of these offspring. When these offspring are better able to cope with environmental changes or stresses, they are more likely to succeed in propagation of their species than other, unmodified individuals. Eventually, over thousands/millions of years, these successful offspring will differ materially and physically from their ancient forebears.
    "Believing" in evolution, is , in fact not the issue. Having "faith" in the Bible is necessary, because there is no way to verify or otherwise support that scripture. Evolution (or any other scientific endeavor) can be verified, tested and retested until an individual can decide whther or not htere is enough evidence to agree that it makes logical sense and can, thus, be "accepted" rather than "believed.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Ok Paddy, you seem to be at odds with yourself. You accept the Bible on faith, but want proof of evolution. Make your mind up! Secondly, if you want to see evolution in action you only have to observe the actions of African elephants. For thousands of years the biggest be-tusked males were the ones who were the most desirable to the females. But these males are no longer desirable as they keep getting killed. The females now only mate with non tusked individuals in some areas, evolving out the tusks in an evolutionary response to poaching and killing by humans.

    There are examples of moths living in cities which have evolved the correct colouring for begrimed and polluted cities which differs drastically from the colouring of the same species living in the countryside or non polluted areas. I can go on, but I'm sure in you faith blindness you will reject these as proof on a daily basis of evolution at work. Why ask for debate when you clearly aren't able to understand the concept. Oh and as for not being able to post directly, you can get on to the internet can't you? I think the immediacy of the debate makes you afraid and you only wish to participate by email.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Paddy, you wrote: I don’t believe in evolution because I don’t see enough evidence to support it.

    What I suggest you do is this: take 30 Euros and buy yourself copies of The Ancestor's Tale and Why Evolution is True. If you can read those books and still have any doubt about the fact of evolution, there is nothing that will convince you. I can't show you evolution in slow motion photography. However, your mitochondrial DNA can be traced back, concestor by concestor, in a manner which conclusively proves that humans share genetic concestors with every single living organism on the face of the planet.

    I look forward to receiving your answers to my previous questions.
    ReplyDelete
  15. I have a quick question for The Atheist Missionary, is there anything you'd suggest if I wanted to do some studying of moral philosophy? Any books, general literature I can obtain? If you have suggestions I'd be grateful, as someone interested in expanding my reading list having mostly grown up on the bible and not knowing where to start
    ReplyDelete
  16. Natalija, I recommend the following:

    "Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy" by Tom Beauchamp; and

    "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Paddy is still in the game:

    Just as I expected I asked for 3 only 3 good supporting evidences for evolution and got zero. Harvey tells me I don’t understand evolution - one animal does not change into another animal. It doesn’t work like that - there are mountains of archeological and genetic evidence to support evolution, but then fails to give any of this evidence. It is difficult to debate and discuss a subject if your opponent won't present any evidence in support of the subject in question. If the bible is a faith issue and evolution is a fact issue, please show me the scientific tests, and verification of same to prove evolution.

    The fearless threader states I accept the bible on faith but want proof for evolution. I should make up my mind, if what he is saying is that both God and evolution are faith issues then we have no argument I agree completely. The discussion is then which of these two positions of faith is the most reasonable in view of the available evidence.

    If we go out and take a look at the real natural world and see what we find, we see life only ever coming from life. We have never ever seen not life give rise to life, even the greatest scientific minds in the world with the best and most advanced equipment available to them cannot make life, but we are to assume it somehow happened by itself. Even Francis Crick of helical structure of DNA fame called it almost a miracle and suggested the earth must have been seeded from outer space moving the evidence to where no one can test or examine it.

    When we also view reproduction we see cats , dogs, tigers, snails, etc. all reproduce offspring which are cats, dogs, tigers, snails , etc. If you have a mechanism which somehow changes this please let me know. If you are suggesting random mutation coupled with natural selection, boy your ideas are
    bankrupt. Random mutation are basic copying errors at a genetic level which have never been shown in any scientific test to produce the new information required to change a monkey to a man or a reptile to a bird over any period of time, no matter how long.

    Scientists have mutated fruit flies over and over again literally hundreds of thousands of generations and at the end of it all they ever got were mutated fruit flies and the reason is the genetic make up of the fruit fly in its DNA is fruit fly - no amount of mutations and mistakes will ever change that. And let's be honest - if you wanted to get a book translated from French to English you would never do so by constantly making mistakes and if you had a million books (i.e. different animals) how could you ever hope to improve them by making mistakes?

    If I don’t reply to updated arguments it's because I am on Christmas vacation which is one if possibly te only good thing the Catholic Church gave us.

    By the way, Christmas is not from the Bible - it's just a made up feast by the Catholic Church to keep up with the pagan feasts at the time.
    ReplyDelete
  18. Paddy, you are typical of all faith driven, electively, selectivly blind religious types. You chosse to see what supports your faith, but refuse to see what contradicts it, claiming falsification of evidence and not enough evidence, or even, the evidence isn't evidence! You asked for 3 pieces of evidence of evolution, then stated that what had been offered wasn't evidence enough, it doesn't prove anything. Why enter into a debate when you clearly have no intetion of listening to the opinions, evidence and proofs of which you demand? The DNA changes are not "mistakes" they are mutations, changes in the DNA as an accident, or response to changing conditions either locally or globally. Just as Sickle Cell Anaemia is the result of the human body developing a natural defense against mosquito bites and the parasites which cause malaria, but has the unfortunate effect of causing a serious blood disorder if two people wiht the same genetic components have children. This is evolution in action, but you refuse to accept anything which shows evolution in action because it doesn't turn one animal into another immediately. Patience is a virtue, and evloution requires great patience, millions of years of it. I would have thought your catholic upbringing would have taught this important lesson to you. Or are you just picking a fight for the sake of it, to sit in smug contemplation of how right you are and how "wrong" we are because we don't believe in the magical, mystical invisible being that you so naively believe in.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Paddy, what is your god's explanation for sickle cell anemia? The "theory" of evolution, of course, explains it perfectly. Just like the theory of evolution explains every fossil that has ever been found.

    I found an interesting discussion on the Panda's Thumb website about a 2005 debate at Boston University surrounding the issue of whether Intelligent Design should be taught along with evolution. Someone who attended the debate noted the following:

    I was disappointed that the pro-evo side did not make a strong case for what evolution does explain, and beautifully. Why mammals have a common blood structure (Types A,B,O also in chimps) based on cells, in contrast to circulating proteins (cf. hemocyanin, a copper-based porphyrin oxygen-carrier found in e.g. lobsters). How human embryos have tails until late in development. How large mammalian herbivores could only develop after the evolution of grasses. There is a wonderful story of what evolution does give us an understanding of, and the legalisms (nonsense about complexity; specified, irreducible complexity, supernatural interventions, biology as distinct from chemistry, etc.) of ID short-changes us.
    ReplyDelete
  20. I also composed a Natural moral philosophy book list on my blog at:

    http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2009/12/advocatus-atheist-to-rescue-secular.html

    From Kant to the Buddha, Peter Singer to Richard Carrier, A.C. Grayling to Richard Holloway. Happy reading!
    ReplyDelete
  21. Interesting to note that Paddy has gone quiet for the festive season, too busy proclaiming the birth of a man who, all real evidence suggests was actually born in late March. Empty festivals celebrating and invisible/imaginary friend?
    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm not sure how many are still following this thread but, in any event, here is Paddy's latest missive:

    Reply to fearless threader: Jesus was a real person , only the really desperate try claim otherwise. I don’t celebrate Jesus`s birthday because the bible does not command me to do so . It's just so much superstitious stuff has gotten into so called Christianity, praying to saints, praying to Mary, holy water, holy places, visions ,moving statues, popes, etc. not one of which is Bible based so have no place in Christianity.

    To answer TAM and FT, sickle cell anaemia did not come as the body`s response to malaria but its resistance to malaria is just a by product of its weakness. Which makes it less able to carry the parasite which causes malaria. Mutations are mistakes - when cells reproduce they are supposed to copy themselves exactly but because of perhaps radiation or ultra violet light the new cell is mutated as with sickle cell anaemia an amino acid ends up in the wrong place on the chain in the protein molecule. Thus it’s a mistake or accident if you wish to call it but calling it an accident instead of mistake changes nothing. Would you hope to create anything complex by a series of accidents?
    Also, mutations are not a response to changes globally or locally. Mutations just happen when the cell being reproduced is damaged by ultra violet light, etc. And then by natural selection if one of these mutations are beneficial it survives and may be passed on to the offspring. I am afraid you have it back to
    front.

    TAM, your section on the panda thumb website all of the information are as easily explained by being designed that way as opposed to evolving that way. You just need to know the difference between evidence and interpretation of evidence. Human embryos don’t have tails. That old theory of embryonic
    recapitulation was a fraud put forward by Ernest Haekel - just google this and you can see this is so.

    Lastly, please never use dark and light coloured moths as evidence for evolution. At the start, there are both light and dark coloured moths. In certain conditions, light coloured thrive, in other conditions dark coloured thrive , and in the end you have light and dark coloured moths. Please tell me where the evolution is .


    Before you invoke the fossil record, just note that 99.99% if not 100% of fossils are easily shown as non-transitional. Just look for some honest talk from Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, etc. who state plainly that transitional fossils do not exist, so please tell me which fossil exactly did you have in
    mind to support the theory of evolution.
    ReplyDelete
  23. Paddy, please don't peddle ignorance (and arguments from ignorance) on this site. There are two problems with your approach.

    First of all, the questions you pose should be posed to biologists and only after you have bothered to read the latest literature on these topics. I assure you that if you educated yourself, you would answer 90% of the questions yourself and the other 10% could be answered handily by someone such as Jerry Coyne (author of one of the most accessible works on evolution, described in the above post). You see, the funny thing is that scientists will usually respond if they are presented with academic questions that actually have merit. Your suggestion that 99.99% of fossils are "non-transitional" would not fall into that category. Might I turn that question around for you: of the millions of fossils that have ever been found, please point me to one that is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Also, please read The Ancestor's Tale.

    The second problem with your approach is that even if you could point holes in the theory of evolution, where does that get you? Does it make your supposition of a magic want any more likely? Also, please consider the following quote by Dr. Nick Gotelli:

    Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't [proponents of intelligent design] publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)