Why I Care (And Why You Should Too)

I have been noticing lately that there seems to be certain social taboos around discussing certain topics. The ones I have witness most predominately are religion, politics, philosophy, morality (specifically abortion and gay marriage), medicine vs. alternative medicine and science vs. pseudoscience. On more than one occasion, I have either been told or seen someone else be told to not talk about such issues as the offended individual believed they should not be discussed in polite society. This of course doesn’t sit right with me as these are perhaps my most favourite topics to discuss (and what I write about predominately on my blog). As such, I wish to discuss this phenomenon and offer my take on the situation.

When I have probed individuals who find said topics taboo, the reasons given as to why fall into the following broad categories, to which I will give a response;

• These are topics that are personal in nature; therefore people should be free to decide for themselves what they wish to believe

This kind of objection has a tinge of a superficial understanding of postmodernist ‘relative truth’ to it; it doesn’t matter what individuals choose to believe as there is no real truth. While, to some extent, I believe that this is the case (or more that, we will never be able to determine what the truth is in any absolute sense), these individuals are ignoring the impact that an individual’s beliefs have on those around them. The decisions we make are based on what we believe; for example, if I believe that gays do not have the right to marry, I will not vote for a politician or party that wishes to allow gays to marry, thus affecting homosexuals who wish to get married. As such, while our beliefs are our own, the fact that they have an impact on those around us obligates us to ensure that these beliefs are indeed correct (or, at the very least, defensible). This necessitates discussions on the issues, specifically public to ensure as many people are exposed to all the possible arguments that exist.

• These are topics that people will never change their opinions on

I disagree with this line of reasoning two fold; firstly, I think that people can and do change their minds and often do as a result of discussions of said issues. Hell, even I have changed my mind on these issues; I used to be a pro-life, think evolution was wrong and be against gay marriage. Now, I have the polar opposite view on these topics, as well as minor tweaks to my other beliefs. And I would not have changed my mind on these topics if people hadn’t challenged me and pointed out the flaws in my thought process.

Secondly, if you are having a discussion with someone who states that they will never change their position on the topic, you should bring the topic up with them even more. If you are the type of individual who believes you can never have your mind changed, you are by definition closed minded and need to revaluate your life. If you think you have a perfect understanding of reality to the extent that you can’t be wrong, and as such, do not need to discuss the issue, you are quite arrogant.

That being said, I do believe it is possible to reach a point where discussion of a topic between two individuals becomes fruitless. This generally occurs when it has been identified precisely where the point of disagreement arises, both individuals have explained why they disagree with the opposing point of view and still disagree (agreeing to disagree essentially). However, if the discussion has arrived at this point, it has occurred to a sufficient level as to make the original objection irrelevant.

• These are topics that are too serious to discuss

This objection is often put forward in specific social settings; i.e. Facebook, parties or anywhere where the individual feels should be a causal environment. This objection essentially comes down to taste; what constitutes a topic that is too serious or whether they derive enjoyment from such discussions. I do not find these discussions to be too serious and always enjoy them. As it is an issue of personal taste, there really isn’t much more that can be said other than if you are the only person who appears to find the topic too serious, exclude yourself from the conversation rather than demand others stop for your sake alone. The same is true for the opposite, of course; if you are the only one who wants to talk about these issues, don’t force others to.

• These topics are unimportant to the individual who does not wish to discuss them

Like the previous objection, this one comes down to a simple taste preference. However, often people underestimate how these topics could affect them. To be fair, there are probably some circumstances where the issue is entirely unimportant to a person; for example, someone who is not homosexual and knows no one who is homosexual would be understandably uninteresting in the topic of gay marriage. However, I think situations like this are particularly rare; in that, most beliefs have an effect on the majority of society. And even if they aren’t, they still require the discussion to determine that they are unimportant; effectively, a meta-discussion about whether the discussion is worth having. If they aren’t even willing to engage in the meta-discussion because they think it could never possibly affect them, it becomes the same as the ‘never change opinions’ objection.

I think after reading this, most people should understand where I am coming from. If, however, you feel I have missed an important reason why discussions of this nature should not occur, please feel free to let me know (if you can; I'm unaware if a meta-discussion about a topic you find taboo would be breaking the taboo).

Common Questions to Atheists

I found this list of questions on Lady Atheist's blog that atheists are often asked. While I don’t particularly have anything original to add, I think that it is worth answering as it will demonstrate my views on a wide variety of issues. 

Q:  Where do you go when you die?

A:  While I wouldn’t claim to know with certainty, my view is that, upon death, we will cease to exist. From the evidence I have come across, it appears the mind is a function of the brain; so without a working brain, you will have no mind and therefore cease to exist. 

Q:  Aren't you worried that you might be wrong and you might go to hell?

A:  Not at all. Hell was never something I believed in (even when I was a half-assed Christian). Do I think it is possible that I am wrong? Of course. I just don’t think the probability of me being wrong about the existence hell is high enough to worry about. Take for example the chance that I will be hit by a car tomorrow; this is a scenario which I view as quite likely to happen in comparison with Hell being real, yet I’m not worried about being hit by a car. 

Q:  How can you be moral without God?

A:  How can you be moral with God? That isn’t a snide reply, but a serious question. Are you moral with God because God has defined what is good or because God is intelligent and powerful enough to determine what is good? If it is the first one, I would argue that you aren’t moral in any meaningful sense of the word. If it is the second, then you have just answered the question yourself; we can also determine what is good. We may not be able to do it as well as God could (assuming he exists), but being he isn’t putting his two-cents in on relevant issues, we are left to do it ourselves. 

Q:  You're really just angry with God.

A:  Sometimes, but this is irrelevant to why I am an atheist. To be clear, it is possible to be angry at a being regardless of whether it exists or not. For example, I am often infuriated by the character of Nikki on Big Love, yet that doesn’t mean I think she really exists. I am angry at the portrayed actions of her character. This is similar to when I find aspect of God’s personality (as depicted by the Bible) to be immoral/anger-inducing. Again, this doesn’t mean I think God exists; just that I find the actions that are portrayed by his character to be immoral.

Q:  You're really just angry at the abuses of the Church.

A:  Again, while I may sometimes be angry at the actions of Christians, this is irrelevant to my atheism. It may inform the actions I choose to take (e.g. opposing the homophobia of Christians directly), but it isn’t why I don’t believe in god. 

Q:  The church has been responsible for great works of art.

A:  So? There is much art in other religions, so either their gods also exist or inspiration can come from any source, real or imaginary. 

Q:  How do you know the Bible isn't true?

A:  In the same way you know that the Koran, the Tao Te Ching or any other religious text isn’t true; lack of supporting evidence and logical inconsistencies. 

Q:  Isn't it arrogant to presume you're right and all those Christians are wrong?

A:  Why is it arrogant for me to presume I am right, yet it isn’t arrogant for Christians to presume they are right? But I fully admit I may be wrong, but I will only change my position when given a good argument and evidence that my position is wrong. 

Q:  You think you know everything, don't you?  (Also: You think you have all the answers!)

A:  No. Just no. 

Q:  Science can't answer everything.  What about love?

A:  I’m not advocating that it can. Though I do think science can explain love; interactions between memories, emotions and social situations that are governed by neurons and chemicals in our brains. 

Q:  How do you explain the human need to believe in God?  God made humans different from the animals.

A:  I think the ‘need’ (I use quotation marks because I don't think it is really a need) can be explained by a number of facts known about human psychology. Firstly, humans are pattern and agent seeking creatures; our minds are built for detecting patterns and, often, attributing those patterns to an animate agent. An example of this is the thought some people get that their computer intentionally crashes when they haven’t saved; they are detecting a pattern (computer crashing when they haven’t saved) and blaming their computer for it. Now, most of us would agree that this is both not a meaningful pattern (i.e. there isn’t actually a causative effect between the chance of your computer crashing and whether you have saved your work or not) or an intentional act on behalf of the computer. I think this is a similar phenomenon to how humans came to believe in god (mistakenly identifying patterns in nature and attributing them to an agent).

The second point I would bring up would be that this pattern seeking behaviour increases when we find ourselves in situations that are out of our control. There is a good, evolutionary reason for this; our ancestors found themselves frequently in situations that were out of their control such as attacks from predators. Now, increased pattern detection in such situations would aid in survival as these individuals could determine any activity they are engaged in that is affecting the attack rates of predators. For example, it could be noticed that if meat is left uncovered for too long, predators are more likely to attack. Thusly, this would lead to the covering of meat and decreased predator attacks as a consequence. This fact could also be used to explain another fact about our current world; the countries with the highest societal health (which is a good proxy for control over our situation) have the lowest levels of religious belief and vice versa. 

Q: What about the miracles of the Bible?

A: What about the miracles of the Koran? The Baghavada Gita? 

Q:  [insert seemingly miraculous prayer story here]. How do you explain that?

A:  I normal take a two pronged approach to such questions; firstly, unless it is an event that personally happened to individual telling me this story, the question of authenticity is one that is hard to answer. Secondly, I ask why there is the need to explain some fortunate event with references to the supernatural. An example I have had presented to me is one of a family had their unborn child diagnosed with a serious condition (unspecified as to which), the prayed and when the child was born, they had no problems whatsoever. The issue here is when you realise that most, if not all, medical tests have an error rate; that is, a percentage of test results are either false positives or false negatives. This is often quite small, but when applied to a large population size, is not an insignificant number. To demonstrate this, let’s say that the test in question had a .1% false positive rate; .1% of the time, the result indicated they had the condition tested for when they really didn’t. If this test is administered to all pregnant mothers (roughly 300,000 in 2010), then we can expect 300 false positives for 2010 alone. That is, 300 mothers will be told that their child has that condition, only to find at birth that they don’t. Not really miraculous at all. 

Q:  Christianity has been around for 2,000 years.  How could it survive if it were false?

A:  How has Hinduism survived for 4,000 years if it was false? 

Q:  There are millions of Christians.  They can't all be wrong.

A:  Yes, they can, just as the billions of Muslims and Hindus can be wrong.

Q:  Nothing can exist without a creator, so the fact that things exist proves there's a God.

A:  If nothing can exist without a creator, then neither can God. If things can exist without a creator, who is to say that the cosmos isn’t one of those things? 

Q:  You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

A:  And you can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist too. I am not an atheist because I think God has been proven not to exist, but because there is no evidence to prove that he does. 

Q:  If you're an atheist doesn't that mean that you don't believe in anything?

A:  I believe in things that have evidence that prove that they exist. 

 Q:  If you don't believe in God, that means you want to be God.

A:  Depends what you mean by that statement; if you mean I want humans to fulfil all the functions that have normally been attributed to God (morality, purpose etc.), then yes. If you mean I want to be a dictator in the sky, then no. 

Q:  You just left the Church because you want to sin.

A:  I was never really in any church. 

Q:  So then your life has no meaning?

A:  Yes and no. I do not believe life has any inherit meaning. But that is different from saying it has no meaning. Life has the meaning that I (and all of us) choose to give it.

Book Review - ‘You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think’ by Ray Comfort

This book stands out from others that I have read in that it is one that I purchased expressly knowing it had a premise that I disagreed with. If anyone is familiar with Comfort, they might accuse me of intentionally picking someone who has a weak counter-position to my own. This may be true, but I first wish to acclimate myself with the ‘every man’s’ argument for Christianity. To me, this should be the one worth listening to, especially if Christianity is meant to be a belief system for everyone, not just high-end theologians with weird esoteric views of what God is and wants.

Unfortunately, Comfort is more ‘preaching to the converted’. Many of his arguments require that you accept certain premises which he fails to prove or give valid reasons of why we might consider them. Another important point is that many of his analogies are painfully flawed. Not in the sense that the analogy doesn’t hold true when viewed in high detail (as all analogies break down when viewed under a microscope), but they often don’t even hold true on the most basic level. One of his favourite is the ‘creation is proof a creator’ argument, in which he uses the example of a painting; if you see a painting, you know there must be a painter because paintings don’t just create themselves. He then attempts to link this up to humans/the Earth/the universe; because these things exist, they must have a creator i.e. God. The problem is two-fold; firstly, we have no evidence of a natural process that can create a painting, but we have some evidence of natural processes that can create humans (evolution) and planets (stellar formation). The second problem is that he is jumping to his preconceived conclusion. The best we could say is that the universe had a cause, not that it had a creator. Using the term cause doesn’t rule out creator; it is just more inclusive of natural possibilities which we have yet to discover. Comfort instantly jumps from ‘cause’ to ‘Christian God’ (arguably because he was already at that point).

So, would I recommend this book to others? In a roundabout way, yes I would. Not because it contains any points of intellectual value (though it is a good mental exercise to see if you can see how he is wrong), but simply because it is an insight into how fundamentalists view the world.

1.5/10

Another Your Say Letter... This time about gay marriage!

If anyone can grab a hold of the 3rd of December, 2010 copy of the Geelong Advertiser, they can read the letter to which mine is responding to (entitled 'Same-sex marriage against beliefs'). For those of you that can't, the general tone of the letter is a 'the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I believe the Bible, therefore I win' type argument. This I couldn't let slide. Here is my response:

"In responding to Dennis Irvine’s letter regarding gay marriage (3/12), it is hard to believe that a person could be so disconnected from the facts.

Firstly, a literal reading of the Biblical account of creation (i.e. Adam and Eve) has been disproven by science. The evidence shows that humans evolved from, and still are, animals.

This does not disprove God, of course. It merely disproves that the Bible has an accurate portrayal of the origins of humanity.

The second point worth mentioning would be that it appears that Mr. Irvine is being selective in what he takes from the Bible.

In the same book that prohibits homosexual interactions, it also prohibits trimming the sides of one’s beard.

I doubt Mr. Irvine would write such an impassioned objection to the ‘immorality of beard trimming’.

The more relevant correction would be that there is no evidence that raising children in a same-sex environment is detrimental to their development.

It appears that the more important factor is whether children are raised in a loving environment, regardless of the gender of the parents.

Finally, it should be noted also that our society is a secular one. As such, our laws must have a reason that is not specific to religion. The justification must be relevant to all individuals, be they religious or non-religious.

Secularity is the only way in which a society that is comprised of religious and non-religious individuals can interact without the oppression of one group or the other.

Therefore, if you wish to argue that the law should not recognize gay marriage, a secular justification needs to be provided, not one based on personal religious beliefs."

As always, if I get a response, I will post more details.

A Response... But No Apology

For those who did not see the opinion piece published by Peter Kavanagh in response to my letter, you can find it here.

Needless to say, I still was not impressed with his superficial analysis of the issue and that he had ignored my discussion on secularism. Rather than write into the Advertiser again (that word limit is a bitch), I decided to email him directly. If you feel like doing the same, his email address is: peter.kavanagh@parliament.vic.gov.au But please, keep it civil.

Here is my own email response:

"Greetings,

My name is Jason Bishop and I was the one who responded to your letter regarding atheism’s connection to the governments of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pot. I read your response today and felt I had to reply once more. However, given the amount of time it takes for a reply and the word constrains on letters into the Advertiser, I thought email would be the best approach.

Hitler’s religious beliefs may not be known entirely or accurately, but he was most definitely not an atheist. He may not have believed in the Christian God, but he most certainly believed in a Creator. Unless you define atheism as ‘not believing in Christianity’, which would be ridiculous, he was not an atheist.

While I would definitely agree that Hitler expressed mixed messages regard the Catholic and Protestant churches, this does not mean he was an atheist. The reason why this is the case is that being critical of a religious organization does not mean you are critical of the religion; just the way they practice it. I have heard and read many complaints from Baptists about how the Catholic Church has it all wrong and visa versa, with every denomination.

Communism may have a more superficially plausible connection to atheism, yet I hope to demonstrate why it wasn’t their motivation. Most Communist regimes were based the works of Karl Marx, who wrote that religion is a tool utilized by the ruling classes whereby the masses can briefly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions, thus preventing them from questioning the real source of their suffering (the upper class and the economic system according to Marx). He refers specifically to religion, not a belief in God. While you may see it as splitting hairs, I do not. I know many people who dislike religion, yet still believe in a God. They see religion as a institution.

It is true, however, that the Communist regimes of did have state supported atheism. The link though between atheism and the genocides committed is still non-existent. The logic behind this is that atheism by itself wouldn’t have lead to these atrocities. It had to be coupled with another belief system (Marxism) to lead to those outcomes. Marxism can lead to genocide, if interpreted as that all the groups he mentioned (upper class, intellectuals, religions, ethnic groups etc.) stand in the way a society in which everyone is happy. The problem isn’t that Marxism was tied to atheism; the problem is that people mindlessly followed the dogma of Marx without thinking about it. Atheism has no dogma to follow. It is a position on one question; do you believe in a god?

The more important part of my response was the part about secularism and why it is not the same as atheism. Our government is secular, as stated in Section 116 of the Constitution:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

This part of the constitution is incredibly important; it is what keeps the religion that is held by the majority (Christianity in Australia) from imposing its will on the minority (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists etc.). Statistically speaking, the amount of representatives in the government would more or less reflect the averages of the population; we have a majority of politicians being Christian. If it were not for this law, there would be nothing stopping them from passing laws that restrict other religions and promote Christianity.

The same goes the other way of course. In Japan, where around 65% of the population is non-religious, they are prevented from passing laws that restrict those who are religions by Article 20 of their Constitution:

“(1) Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all.
(2) No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.
(3) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.
(4) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.”

This is the fairest system one can have in place, as it prevents any majority, be it religious or atheist, from imposing their views on the minority. This a major problem with any dictatorship, be it an atheist or religious one.

Thank you for your time,
Jason Bishop."

Let me know if you think I missed anything or have incorrect information.

Lord Bishington.

Peter Kavanagh: Immoral Man?

Last night, I returned from Melbourne after having just finish my GAMSAT (went well, if you were wondering). I decided to have a read of the paper, as I do almost every day. When I reached the ‘Your Say’ section, I came across the following monstrosity of a letter:

“Anti-religious calls not new.

Contrary to common presumptions, demands for anti-religious governments by atheists are nothing new.

Such movement resulted in places like Auschwitz, the gulags of the Soviet Union, famine and extermination campaigns in China and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Among the ideological underpinnings for these massive atheistic slaughters was surely the belief that human beings are not creations of God.

Assumptions of intellectual superiority by atheist are not restricted to Melbourne’s recent ‘Atheist Conference’.

I have found few atheists have even considered why, if religious convictions of others must have no influence on government policy, their own political convictions (based on anti-religious beliefs) should not also be ‘separated from the state’.

Peter Kavanagh
DLP, Western Victoria”

Suffice to say, this motivated me to write my own response (and if you feel as outraged as I do, I suggest you do the same). Here it is:

“I was shocked and disgusted by the blatant dishonesty displayed by Peter Kavanagh (GA 20/3) in suggesting that the atheist worldview is responsible for the worst genocides of the last century.

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of these horrible events could see why Mr. Kavanagh’s view is flatly wrong. For those of you who do not, here is a quick overview.

Hitler, the main individual responsible for the Holocaust, considered himself a Catholic. He also believed that his ‘final solution’ was ‘God’s will’. He was most definitely not an atheist.

The slaughters committed under the rule of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were done in the name of Communism. Their suppression of religion was based purely on the fact that religious organisations posed a political threat to their regimes, not because they didn’t have a belief in God.

Mr. Kavanagh goes on to confuse the distinction between secular and atheist. Secular, which is what our government is, means that you do not take a side on religion in official policy. It is a private matter for each individual to decide upon for themselves, not to have dictated to them by an oppressive government.

The ‘intellectual atheists’ Mr. Kavanagh refers to support secularism. While they would rather each individual rationally looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion they have, they are not trying to invoke policy to make religious belief illegal.

I demand that Mr. Kavanagh make a public apology for his misrepresentation of history. Not to me, not to atheists, not to everyone who support secularism, but to the millions of individuals who died under the dictatorships of the previously mentioned individuals. He has disgraced their memory by distorting the motivations that lead to their deaths, all to bolster his own position.

He should be do the right thing and apologise.”

At the time of writing, it has yet to be published, so keep a look out for it. If I get a response from Mr. Kavanagh or anyone else, I will be reproducing it here.

Lord Bishington.

Creationism and the spreading of misinformation

A few weeks ago, I attended a screening of ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ at the local Baptist church. I knew what the premise of the movie was and had heard/read various criticisms of it, but I had held off viewing the movie/forming an opinion as I wished to take my own notes and come to my own conclusions. In hindsight, I think I wasted 97 minutes of my life. It was possibly the most horrid movie I have ever seen. And no, I don’t mean just the message itself; I have seen other intelligent design/creation/anti-evolution movies that were ‘worth’ watching (The Voyage That Shook The World was bearable). It was the tactics the movie employed in delivering the message. I found this to be quite amusingly contrasted with the statement the pastor made before the movie: “This is an academic topic and to ridicule Intelligent Design advocates is dishonest to academic truth” or something of that effect. For those of you who have seen the movie, you will know what I am talking about. For those of you that haven’t, many actual scientific ideas such as the ‘Clay Theory of Abiogenesis’ were mocked by Stein as being science fiction, when, in reality, many tests have been done that demonstrate that it is at least a possible avenue by which life could have arose.

After the movie, leaflets and books were handed out with more information about the issue. One was just a summary of the points made in the movie (didn’t really need it, as I wrote around four pages of notes while watching it), the other was a book entitled ‘Answers to the 4 Big Questions’, made by Answers in Genesis. The four ‘big questions’ they ask, and supposedly answer, are ‘Does God exist?’, “What about Evolution?’, ‘Where did the ‘races’ come from?’ and ‘Who was Cain’s wife?’. While I happen to disagree that these are the most important questions we could have answers to, that is a topic for discussion at another time. I decided to put my complaints about the questions aside and see what they had to say. I made it through three lines before putting the book down, in fear I might have a stroke. I will replicate here those three lines:

"Once great nations are in social decline. Family breakdown and crime are increasing. An epidemic of youth suicide afflicts nations where there would seem to be everything to live for. What accounts for this?"

Literally the first sentence of the whole thing made me cringe. I mean, people could and have written entire theses, taking them up to a year to write, on the topic, debating all the factors. And yet, Answers in Genesis feels they can make a single statement on the issue and that is that. Not to mention that a lot of people feel the exact opposite. After a few minutes of not reading the book, my blood pressure had returned to normal and I decided to continue reading. I wanted to know what they thought was responsible for this (I already had an idea of what they might say, but I wanted to confirm it). And low and behold, I was right: evolution is to blame. More accurately, that we are teaching evolution to our children; that they came from ‘monkeys’. As I read on, I began to notice a common trend: just as with the introduction, wide sweeping statements were made on complex issues/ideas, usually glaringly wrong to anyone with even a mild understand of the topic in discussion. A single sentence that they made could require reading an entire book to demonstrate why it is wrong.

As I have a moderate level of knowledge of arguments and tactics used by both sides in the evolution/creation debate, I recognized this ploy immediately. It is colloquially known as the ‘Gish gallop’, made famous by the creationist Duane Gish. It is where, during a debate, you make so many simple statements that are wrong and require lengthy responses that your opponent is either unable to respond to most of them or gets bogged down trying to and doesn’t get to address your actual argument as they are too busy trying to show why your points are wrong. It is even more effective when the topics being discuss are issues your target audience is more than likely not familiar with (that way, they have no means of determining the validity of what you have said, it will more than likely accept it as truth, especially if it supports their currently held worldview). While this isn’t so much of a problem in book form, as you have all the time in the world to write a counter-argument, I do think it presents a problem.

As humans, we tend to accept information given to us by authority figures; our parents, teachers, preachers, politicians. Sometimes it is good to accept what an authority has to say with minimal self-investigation (i.e. asking a lawyer for legal advice), other times it is a bit murky (i.e. listening to a politician say a certain policy is ‘for the best’). As the writers of this book have science degrees, they do give off an air of authority. But when they say things like ‘mutations only lead to lose of information, not increase’, a stark contrast to what most biologists say, it does becomes questionable. It is even worse when you realize that there are many examples of mutations that have benefited the organism and increased the information in its genome, so it seems like they are outright lying.

So on one side of the coin, we have experts saying that evolution is correct. On the other side, we have ‘experts’ saying that evolution is incorrect. How is your average individual, with very little understand of how science actually works, going to be able to tell the difference between the two? From the laymen perspective, it could seem like scientists are ‘divided’ on the issue of whether evolution is right or wrong (more accurately, indicated by the evidence or not). This is possible the main reason I choose to speak out against creationism/other pseudoscientific claims whenever I get the chance; it spreads misinformation among the general population. And being most people have very little time/interest in going to check if a claim is true (assuming they would even know where to start), a fair number of individuals will accept what these groups say as truth.

Being ignorant of a subject is bad enough, but lying to disprove it is infinitely worse.

A compilation of my 'Your Say' letters

Occasionally while reading the Your Say section of my local paper, I find a letter that just gets under my skin. Usually it is some gross misrepresentation of the facts or outright lies. I figured I would make a compilation of those letters for those who either missed them or never had the opportunity to read them at all. I must point out that there is a word limit, so my responses are not as extensive as I might have liked.

06/02/09 – This letter was in responses to one that was complaining about ‘Satanism’ being part of a human rights declaration protecting religion.

“RE: Freedom of Religion (GA, 6/2). I always find it amusing when I hear or read people like Mr. Clapinski’s misguided views on Satanism.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that I am not a Satanist, or ever have been. If questioned, I identify myself as an ‘agnostic humanist’. I just like to know about viewpoints other than my own.

A Satanist, as it was originally envisioned by Anton LaVey, is an individual who follows a belief system that in no way involves an attack on Christian beliefs. In fact, one of the main doctrines of Satanism is tolerance (Rules 1 and 11).

Another common misinterpretation is that Satanists actually worship Satan. In actuality, most Satanists are atheists or agnostic. The ‘Satan’ of their religion is more a symbol of their beliefs (individuality, self indulgence etc.), rather than an actual being.

I will concede that there are some followers of Satanism, albeit, misguided ones, who think that it is the goal of their religion to undermine and destroy Christianity. But these are extremists, in the same way that Islamic terrorists use their religion to justify their actions. You wouldn’t say that Islam should be excluded from the HREOC because of the actions of a minority?

I understand that Christians may feel a certain level of fear from Satanists, being that many of their beliefs are in direct opposition. But trying to bad mouth and exclude them from things like the HREOC will only lead to more ‘extremists’.”

NOTE: I have since changed my how I convey my position. I now identify as atheist, not an agnostic. My views have not changed, just my interpretation of those words (thanks Non-Prophets).

14/03/09 – This letter was in response to an individual comparing Barrack Obama to Osama bin Laden. This was just after Obama announced he was lifting the regulations Bush had put in place regarding abortion. The comparison was that Obama would be killing more people than Osama, so he would be remembered as the worst of the two.

“RE: Who will leave the worse record? (GA, 14/3). I found Mr. Westaway’s comparison of U.S. President Barrack Obama to terrorist Osama bin Laden to be quite crude, and frankly, downright inaccurate.

The topic of abortion will always be controversial, but blaming it all on Obama is unfair. The global abortion rate has been estimated at forty six million a year. However, only twenty six million are performed legally. So it appears to be quite clear that abortion will happen, regardless of its legal status.

Even if those twenty six million abortions could be stopped by Mr. Obama changing his position (which they couldn’t, because a lot of them are European countries that the US
has no control over), that still does not make him solely responsible for them. The choice to have an abortion still rests with the individual, as it rightly should.

As to Obama ‘forcing’ medical workers to provide information on abortions, regardless of conflict with their own beliefs, this is already common practise. It would be entirely unethical for a medical worker to leave out information of any kind, based on their personal beliefs. They should, and as far as I know, are required by already existing law, present patients with all their options. This allows the patient to make an informed decision based on their own beliefs, not those of the medical worker.

I personally think the world will be a better place when Barrack is done in the oval office, so I would say Osama will be the one who leaves the worse record.”

NOTE: After this letter and another two expressing similar sentiments, the Your Say section was full of letters for the next few weeks in dealing with the whole abortion issue.

19/04/09 – This letter was in response to a specific letter that attacked my position directly, imply ideas along the lines of ‘repent or burn’.

“In Mr. Guinane’s letter to the Your Say section (GA, 9/4), he states that individuals who support abortions are forgetting the rights of the child. I think there are a few scientific facts that he, and the public in general, should be aware of.

Before I do though, I would like to say that I personally do not support abortion (as in, I would never suggest to a partner that they should have one). I think that people should more take care to avoid unwanted pregnancies. I do, however, respect a woman’s right to choose.

The first fact I would like to bring up is that up until a certain time, foetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb. So, if a woman doesn’t want to have a baby, she would be forced to carry the baby to term, causing unwanted emotional and psychical problems.

The second fact I would like to illustrate is that the subject of fetal pain is, at best, debatable. Much scientific research has been done, with the general consensus being that fetus does not develop the ability to perceive pain until near full-term. The movements of a fetus during the early periods are no more than reflex actions (i.e. a movement that is not controlled directly by the brain). Being that pain is perceived in the brain and that the connections to brain are not developed until near birth, the fetus would not be capable of feeling pain.

The final, and I believe most important fact, is that not everyone follows your religion (which I am guessing is Christianity). Yes, from your point of view, God is the creator of all laws. But not everyone shares your view.

My point through all of this is simple: if you don’t support abortion, don’t get one.”

19/04/09 – Every response to the letters I and others expressing a pro-choice viewpoint was along the lines of ‘God forbids abortion’. This is why I chose to respond in this way.

“In the letters I have written into the Addy over the past few weeks, I have avoided comment directly on religions. This is because I respect that individuals are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. However, every letter that has been in response to mine and others who have written that women have the right to choice in having an abortion has ignore the facts and arguments we have put forward and simply return to the argument that ‘God does not want it’.

I have had many discussions with Christians about why they believe what they do. Some have actually thought about it and even agree with me that it is impossible to tell if what they believe is right. Others, however, maintain that they are 100% right. Even I don’t claim to know for certain that my belief is perfectly accurate (that there is no god).

When I ask these ‘devout’ Christians how they know that God is real, the most common response is ‘because the bible says so’. This no more proves that Christianity is true than it proves Islam, Judaism or any other religion with a sacred text is. And even if we could somehow eliminate all the other religions from being true, there is still the issue of authenticity.

For example, in 200 years, someone could read the Harry Potter books and decide to believe that it is based on true events. When told it was written as a fictional story, they would counter with “no, JK Rowling was really a witch writing about her own world”. When asked to prove that this is true, they could respond with “If I gave you proof, the wizards could make us all forget because they can do magic”.

The bible doesn’t prove anything, so if you are going to believe, at least think about it rationally.”

01/05/09 – This letter was in response to a letter suggesting that I enjoy the idea of ‘innocent babies dying’. I’m not entirely sure if this was actually publish or not, but I will still include it.

“In Mr. Guinane’s letter (GA 1/5), he suggested that I supported abortion by supporting a woman’s right to choose and that I should further investigate the subject of fetal pain.

Firstly, my position of not personally supporting abortion, but still believing that woman have the right to choose is because I believe that, in any free nation, we should not be able to impose personal views on others who do not share them.

The more important point is that neither Mr Guinane nor I are female. How can we, as men, tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body?

The reason I don’t support abortion personally is that, if I was in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, I know that, given my situation in life (financial, family support etc.), I would be able to give the child a decent life.

Secondly, my source of information regarding fetal pain is a meta-study (i.e. a review of all the other studies that had been done) conducted by the American Medical Association, entitled “Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence”.

The conclusion of this review was that fetal pain was not likely to be developed until the 29-30 week mark. Being that the current Victorian law allows abortions up until 24 weeks, this gives a five to six week margin of error.

I would actually have to agree with Mr. Kavanagh (GA 28/4) in that, until we know for certain, pain relief should be given as a precautionary measure.

My point, as it has always been, is that it is up to individuals to make the choice themselves.

I would also like to add that I will no longer be responding to letters in relation to this topic, as I feel I have addressed all the relevant points.”

As a final point, I have actually changed my views on abortion slightly. Not only do I think that it is a choice that everyone women should rightly have, I think it would be a more preferable option to adoption. My reasoning for this is that the world is beginning to overcrowd as it is. We face a future where one-child laws like China has may one day be the international standard. I would much prefer that people practise safe-sex than to have an abortion, but it is definitely the preferred option once conception has occurred (again, I still think it is a choice that we should leave up to the women involved).

Lord Bishington.