AW! Epistles
From Eric
Abstract
Sunday, September 24, 2000
I have the following comments on: God’s Truth. Science or Religion? Christianity or Nature? Your page is interesting. Unfortunately, it is in the old school of "when you are very sure shout your opponent down." Fundamentalists are people who don’t admit that others even have ideas, and your way of giving such short shrift to anyone with religious belief carries on the tradition admirably. A little bit more of "I’m willing to listen and learn " would be helpful in getting your point across. There is too much use of accusations of lying and deliberate concealment, and after awhile everything sounds very shrill.
A few months ago in the UK a woman killed a little girl in her care claiming she was possessed by the devil. She professed to be a devout Christian, and sat trial with her bible to hand. You are welcome to listen and learn from this woman and people like her—I am not willing to. If I sound shrill, it is because everyone has traditionally given Christians the benefit of the doubt. They do not merit it. The time for politeness is long gone. Should we be polite to Nazis or to the Knights of the Bushido? Christians have committed equivalent crimes by the million in the name of God. To become a Christian therefore is like becoming a Nazi, you have to ignore a history so wicked, it is unmentionable.
As for shouting down opponents, I cannot see how it is done on the internet, and indeed, judging from the mail I get, it is my opponents who want to shout me down. Nor do I think what you say about other peoples’ ideas has any weight. I am not arguing against empty space, but against their ideas. I suspect you mean I should accept them in some way. I say that Christians lie and conceal because that is what they have always done, and I offer plenty of evidence, though no one should need any. They can see it every day of their lives. Christians simply cannot distinguish between truth and lies when they think it is for the glory of God.
It’s not that I disagree with you entirely. However, the truth is that not only Christians and not only religious people have lied and hidden the truth from themselves. That’s the point that I want to make, and the rather unquestioning certainty that you project places you in danger of doing the same thing. Besides, whether or not you think that Christians lie and cheat, it would be better to give them the benefit of the doubt. You can’t surely believe that Christians lie and cheat all the time. You cannot take the woman who professed to be a devout Christian and kiled a little girl as the norm of Christian discourse. Your position would be strengthened, not weakened, but taking up a rational position, in which a willingness to listen is paramount.
Now, of course it is not only Christians who lie and cheat, but the point I am making is that Christians do it as a matter of faith. They simply do not realise that they are lying as long as the intent is piety. That is why one of my pages is called ’God’s Truth, Pious Lies’. They are the same thing. There is therefore a fundamental difference between Christians and those who consider lying is generally wrong and undesirable in honest and moral societies. There is also a fundamental difference between those who value the world we live in and those who disdain it at the most basic level. What people do not value, they destroy, and that is what is happening.
Finally, you are repeating your mysterious point about ’projecting an unquestioning certainty’ and ’taking up a position’ of ’willingness to listen,’ implying also that I am irrational. It is Christianity that is irrational, as the child murderess shows. I am not arguing against empty space. How can I argue against the Christian position without having read (or heard) it? And, having come to conclusions after considering the evidence, am I to suggest to readers that I am nevertheless wrong? Is this a rule that all advocates should take up, or Christians for that matter?
If Christians treated their faith as their own personal delusion, then there could be little objection to them, but they have always foisted it on to the rest of us. It is time we objected with enough rancour to make Christians take us seriously.
Let me try to explain my point, which I think still stands. You say this: "Now, of course it is not only Christians who lie and cheat, but the point I am making is that Christians do it as a matter of faith. They simply do not realise that they are lying as long as the intent is piety." It is quite true that, sometimes, when Christians or religious people in general, say something which they believe is at the heart of truth for them, they do not see that their piety is a shelter for lies. No doubt about that. The easiest thing in the world is to say that God told me to do it, and not recognize that it is simply the person him or herself who has done it from motives they are too blinded by religious zeal to see. That’s quite true. So far I agree with you. But to go on to say that Christians should "treat their faith as their own personal delusion, " is going much too far. I believe that religion probably does and will continue to play and important role in people’s lives. For all that I believe that religion, like any other philosophy or belief, is created by human beings. So religious people have a deep responsibility for what they say about God, a very powerful symbol which can, misused, do a great deal of damage. On the other hand, used responsibly, this symbol can be not only very powerful, but very fruitful.
If it is to play an important role in people’s lives, that is fine so long as they keep it in their own lives. Christians cannot. People of other religions such as the Parsis can. What consenting adults do in private is no concern to any of us, but when they constantly solicit you with their views and then impose them on to you, they ought to be considered a public nuisance. As for the symbol of God, I cannot distinguish between it and the institutions that foist it on to us. The damage they have caused is singularly theirs, whereas any half decent psychology could relieve most of the problems that people feel that God can solve.
You say that I am accusing you of being irrational. No. That’s not what I said. What I said was that you weaken your case when you do not listen to things that are contrary to your beliefs and ideas. You say, "It is Christianity that is irrational, as the child murderess shows." No, all that shows is that that woman is irrational. I don’t think you’d find many Christians who would uphold what she did as being God’s will.
"Your position would be strengthened, not weakened, by taking up a rational position," seems to say I am irrational, but I’ll accept its is only a question of phraseology. But now you say that I "do not listen to things that are contrary to my ideas." What basis have you for saying this? I get thoroughly cheesed off by people writing what they think have a smart refutation of some small point, when the point is thoroughly explained on the pages. They do not read what is there but tell me I am wrong and ignorant. I assume these are Christians since they think they are ahowing me the errors of my ways. They are the ones who should listen. I repeat again, how can I argue without first having heard the views I am seeking to refute?
The woman who tortured her little ward to death was not so irrational that she did not try to impress the judge with her profound piety. It is a common enough ploy to get leniency here but is probably much more widespread in the US. The corrupt politician, Jonathan Aitkin, one of the Beaverbrooks, succeeded in getting a light sentence by telling the judge he had found God through the error of his ways, and I noticed only a few days ago, that the drunken yob, that gashed the air hostess with a vodka bottle in mid-flight over France giving her 40 stitches, tried the same defence, but the French judge would not wear it, and gave him four years anyway. Lastly, despite your plea for Christians not generally supporting what the woman did, I have heard no roars of outrage from the majority of Christians that others among them still believe that people can be possessed by devils that must be driven out by torturing their supposed victim. You will see why I put the irrationality on the church. The little girl need not have died if the guardian had not been taught this irrational delusion by the church.
One of the most terrible things about religion is that it did not allow for differing opinions, and tried to put itself forward as the only truth. I think that is something that you need to beware of doing, and are, I think, clearly in danger of doing, and then you become not much better than the supposed enemy you oppose.
Well, you put up a brave defence of the enemy I oppose, but truth cannot be equated with falsehood in the interests of parity. I regard religion as being a world view—a set of beliefs by which we can make some sense of the world. I can see no reason at all why these beliefs must today be irrational or supernatural. The supernatural might serve as an explanation of complex matters for unsophisticated people, but in our modern well educated societies, there is no room for irrational religions. They are so dangerous they might lead to the death of us all. Christians will welcome it because they imagine they will all be in heaven for the rest of eternity!
