You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2009.
Okay, I know my last post was supposed to be my – well – last post, but I thought those of you who take a passing interest in my life might be interested to hear that Babyshui No. 1 arrived in the world this afternoon, at 6lb 7oz. Mother and baby are both fine after a rather unexpected C-section – turns out Babyshui was breech and had been for months, in spite of the palpations of three midwives and a GP… Everything went safely and well, and, since in this case my opinion is going to be unfailing subjective, I can safely say that she is the most beautiful little bit of life in the world.
Right, now I really am signing off – these pink BabyGros aren’t going to sort themselves, you know!
I’ve decided to take a bit of a sabbatical from blogging – with a new baby due any day, severely curtailed internet access and, frankly, little to add to what I’ve posted over the last year or so, it seems prudent to put Right To Think on hold for a while. I may recommence writing next year, when Wifeshui goes back to work and I become a full-time house-husband, but for the time being, you’ll have to manage without my outpourings of snark. No promises though – this could spell the end of my career as an atheist blogger, for reasons not dissimilar to those the Exterminator gave when he bowed out of the game last December. Arguing the toss with theists, whilst fun, has ceased to seem like a worthwhile use of my energies. There was a time when I thought the question, “Does God exist?” was the most important one a human could ask, but now I realise that it’s on a par with “Does the Loch Ness Monster exist?” it seems far less relevent. The question, for me at least, is answered, and I see no real reason to carry on defending my viewpoint to all and sundry.
Never say never, though; Right To Think may return at some point, so keep your RSS feeds tuned! In the meantime, feel free to browse through the archives on the left, and I’ll no doubt see you on the comments thread at someone else’s blog.
All the best,
yunshui
As anyone whose made even a cursory critical study of the Book of Mormon (ie. not Mormons) knows, the text is riddled with anachronisms, errors, contradictions and logical impossibilities. If you haven’t yet taken the time to acquaint yourself with some of these howlers, let me direct you to the Skeptic’s Annotated Book of Mormon, which will fill you in. In spite of Mormon insistence of the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith didn’t invent the entire thing himself, spinning a tall tale of “Golden Plates” and “Seeing Stones” to make his account seem more – ahem – realistic. However, it’s not the Book of Mormon I want to have a giggle at today, but rather one of Smith’s other confabulations – sorry: “discoveries” – namely the Book of Abraham, a later addition to the Mormon canon. Although it still resides today between the covers of The Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham stands out as Joseph Smith’s most obvious and embarrassing fraud.
Published in 1840, the Book of Abraham purports to be a translation of some ancient papyrus documents, which Joseph Smith came into possession of in the 1830s. It is apparently a text in the hand of the patriarch Abraham himself, telling the story of his time in Egypt, and as such, is quite the archaeological find. Egyptologists and biblical historians the world over would love to get their hands on such a document – it would rank in importance with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Code of Hammurabi or the Rosetta Stone. Why then, has there not been more investigation into this remarkable discovery? Well, Joseph Smith made one big mistake with the papyri – rather than conveniently losing them, as he did with Moroni’s Golden Plates, he left them in the public domain, where actual Egyptologists could examine them.
Although the Rosetta Stone, which enabled the translation of hieroglyphics, had been discovered in 1750, by the 1830s little progress had been made in recovering the Egyptian written language. Smith clearly realised that almost no-one at the time would have been able to understand the writing on his fragments of papyrus, and thus felt safe in claiming them as the source for his Abraham fiction. He used his Urim and Thummin, the same “seeing stones” as were used to translate the Book of Mormon, to “decipher” the text, and produced the hilarious text of the Book of Abraham. I don’t want to bore you with a critique of the entire book, but to give you a taster, here’s a little story from Chapter 1, in which our intrepid hero is about to be sacrificed by the nefarious priests of Elkenah…
“And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.
It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of;
And this because they have turned their hearts away from me, to worship the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; therefore I have come down to visit them, and to destroy him who hath lifted up his hand against thee, Abraham, my son, to take away thy life.
Behold, I will lead thee by my hand, and I will take thee, to put upon thee my name, even the Priesthood of thy father, and my power shall be over thee.
As it was with Noah so shall it be with thee; but through thy ministry my name shall be known in the earth forever, for I am thy God.
Behold, Potiphar’s Hill was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea. And the Lord broke down the altar of Elkenah, and of the gods of the land, and utterly destroyed them, and smote the priest that he died; and there was great mourning in Chaldea, and also in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.” Abraham 1:16-20
As you can tell from the first verse quoted above, Abraham even had the foresight to draw a sketch of the event, which is reproduced in The Pearl of Great Price, and also below.
Now there are a few textual problems with the verses above. The god Elkenhah, for example, will be new to anyone who has studied Ancient Middle-Eastern pantheons in any detail. Hardly surprising, since it’s a Hebrew proper name (meaning “God has redeemed”). The other gods or place-names – Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash – also appear nowhere else in the historical record. Chaldea and the Chaldeans are mentioned, even though Chaldea didn’t exist until about 1000 years after Abraham’s time. The reference to Potiphar’s Hill is odd, given that Potiphar is an Egyptian, not a Chaldean, name (see the story of Joseph in Genesis 37:36), and wasn’t in use in Egypt until about 900 years after Abraham. Nonetheless, though, the main objection raised by Egyptologists to this passage is that the text above bears no relationship whatsoever to what the papyri actually say.
What Smith didn’t apparently consider was the prospect that some day, someone who could actually read hieroglyphics might get their hands on the original papyri. Once they did, the scam became apparent. The picture above, for example, does not show Abraham bound on an altar with a row of heathen idols in front – it shows the god Anubis mummifying/resurrecting the body of Osiris, a common theme in Egyptian art. (Anubis is commonly shown with a jackal’s head: the original papyrus is missing this portion, so Smith filled in the lacuna with a strange elfin face.) The “idols” are the canopic jars which contained the deceased’s internal organs. The text surrounding the image describes the burial ceremony for a priest named Hor, and shows that the papyrus as a whole was part of a rite to allow Hor’s resurrection in the next world. In other words, the entire story above is utter nonsense, concocted by Smith’s imagination alone. The same argument applies to the other ten papyri which have been subjected to scholarly scrutiny. Even the age of the texts is wrong – the handwriting dates from the second century BCE, almost two millennia too late for it to be Abraham’s.
With this book, Smith is conclusively shown up for the charlatan that he was, yet Mormons still continue to revere both this and his other works. Proof positive, if proof be needed, that when it comes to matters of religion, faith trumps reason, every time.
These days, I’m involved in a regular exchange of e-mails with Debra Rufini, whom some of you may remember as the author of a couple of rather ill-advised e-mails to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. These were soundly fisked across the atheosphere, not least on this blog. Debra is, contrary to popular belief amongst those atheists who have heard of her, actually a bright and engaging conversationalist, and we’ve been chatting back and forth for a few months exploring our different viewpoints. Recently, we got into a discussion in which she noted that we both take our positions from different sources – she from, for example, Lee Strobel, and me from, for example, Charles Darwin. In doing so, Debra cited the story of Lady Hope and Darwin’s deathbed conversion as an example, pointing out that, since neither she nor I was there at the time, we can’t possibly know for certain what happened. I saw this as a good opportunity to look at ways one can assess a piece of evidence, and so composed the response that follows:
“With regards to the veracity of a source, firstly, one has to consider the quantity of evidence. In this particular instance, there are four main sources: the account of Lady Hope, printed in the Watchman Examiner newspaper, the writings of Darwin himself, and the seperate claims by Darwin’s son Francis and his daughter Henrietta that Lady Hope embellished or invented the story. To begin with, then, we have a single account in favour of the story balanced against three sources which contradict it. That in itself is relatively minor – after all, if truth was determined by majority, we would all be Chinese. However, it does demonstrate that there is only a single source to back up the story – if there were additional sources (say, a statement by another witness who was present, or some documents authored by Darwin in which he expressed similar views to those related in the story) then we could consider it substantially more plausible.
Second, we need to consider the motivation behind the source. The original story, published in an American Christian magazine with a distinct, conservative, anti-evolution slant was anonymous – it has become associated with Lady Elizabeth Hope purely because she was the most likely candidate for the “consecrated English Lady” of the story in Britain at the time. Assuming that Elizabeth Hope was the Lady in question, she herself was known to be (from various independent sources, including Burke’s Peerage) a fervent evangelical. Proving that Darwin had made a deathbed conversion would have been a potent weapon in the evangelical arsenal, so there is a clear motivation on the part of both Lady Hope and the publisher to emphasise and embellish the story. If true, it would be a real feather in their cap. By contrast, Francis and Henrietta (both members of the Church of England) published their claims in response to the story, rather than loudly trumpeting Darwin’s faith position at all opportunites – there’s no great gain for them to be found in proving their father an agnostic, especially since they lived in an era when atheism was still the mark of a social pariah.
Thirdly, we consider the content of the source. Here, there are notable discrepancies between Lady Hope’s account and what we know from independent verification to be true. She writes that Darwin asked her to hold a service in his summerhouse, “which seats about thirty people”, yet no such summerhouse existed on the property. There was a conservatory attached, but it would have held maybe ten people at a squeeze. There is no evidence (from parish records) that such a service ever took place. The language she places in Darwin’s mouth (in direct quotations) is at odds with his written works. All in all, the text of the article reads as though it were composed by someone who did not know Darwin intimately, and had little knowledge of the layout of his home. We should also take account of the fact that Darwin’s wife Emma habitually attended his bedside when he had visitors, and she was clearly not present at this meeting – an unusual (though not impossible) state of affairs.
Darwin’s own writings show that he was at least a convinced agnostic:
“By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, – and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, – that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, – that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events, – that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses; by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.”
To find Darwin reading the Bible, expounding on its text with the learned disposition of a clergyman, and requesting Christian services be held on his property is highly at odds with what we know of the man from his own writing. If Lady Hope’s account is true, Darwin never spoke of these ideas to anyone else (including his immediate family) and never wrote about them. Why would he make his deathbed confession to a woman who was, if not a complete stranger, at least no more than a vague acquaintance, and then never mention it again before he died (the Lady Hope story takes place on “one of those glorious autumn afternoons”, but Darwin did not die until April, so he clearly survived for several months after her visit)? The account was not produced until more than 30 years after his death – why would Lady Hope have waited so long before revealing such a bombshell of a story? It makes more sense to consider the idea that she waited until long after any contradictory accounts could have arisen, and until she was in a different (and more sympathetic) country before telling her tale.
When all of this is taken into account, it seems highly unlikely that Darwin’s “conversion” ever took place – indeed, it seems rather implausible that he was even visited by Lady Hope (his daughter Henrietta claims that she never visited him during his last illness). The most likely explanation is that the story is a misremembered concoction written for the Christian equivalent of a tabloid – not a source in which one could place much credence.”
Last night, a friend was telling us about a talk she attended on the subject of atheism. The panel were apparently keen to distance themselves from the “New Atheist” movement, particularly Richard Dawkins, as they felt that the movement’s direct and aggressive tactics were not conducive to opening up a dialogue with believers. Our friend got the impression that these three were trying to put themselves across as “cuddly atheists” (her words); harmless, innocuous, respectful of the rights of all people to believe and practice whatever crazy shite they might choose. In this way, the argument ran, they would be able to communicate to the religious that atheism is not a threat to their religion – far from it, in fact; we atheists are all about freedom of belief and expression. So, be you Catholic, Wiccan, Buddhist or Jew, we respect your choice, and we want you to know that we support your right to practice whatever religion you see fit.
Bollocks.
When your religion supports the murder of those not associated with it, I do not respect your religion. When your religion covers up an endemic culture of child abuse, I do not respect your religion. When your religion insists that you have a “God-given” right to occupy other people’s lands and kill the occupants thereof, I do not respect your religion. When your religion denies medical treatment to sick children, I do not respect your religion. When your religion dictates that a quarter of your population are sub-human untouchables, I do not respect your religion. When your religion claims that it’s okay for a man to marry and have sex with his 14-year old cousin, I do not respect your religion.
“Oh, but that’s just a few fringe lunatics – they don’t represent my religion.” Well actually, yes, yes they do. I’ve said this before, but it bears saying again – if you justify your own actions, good or bad, by recourse to your faith, then you validate that justification for anyone else who claims the same thing. You may find the Bible says: “love thy neighbour,” but if that’s the reason you lend him your lawnmower, you’re in no position to criticise Fred Phelps for his wholehearted endorsement of Leviticus 18:22. But the atrocities of religion rank very low in my list of reasons for atheism, and so I’m not overly concerned with demonstrating that every Muslim is in some way responsible for 9/11. More bewildering and, I must admit, infuriating to me is the utter absence of any credible evidence in favour of the claims of religion. Were someone to approach me in the street and tell me that invisible penguin-people were secretly running the world from their hidden base on the moon, I would most probably laugh in their face, and then arrange to have them sectioned. Yet when someone accosts me on my way to work to tell me that an invisible superman has been placated by the death of his own son (who was also him), and that if I don’t believe this I’m going to be set on fire for all of time by a guy who used to work for the invisible superman, but changed his mind, I am expected to say, “How fascinating! I’m afraid that I personally do not subscribe to your particular belief system, yet I wholeheartedly endorse your efforts and would be interested in entering into a future dialogue on the relative merits of our respective and equally valid ideas. This brief interaction has greatly enriched my day, and I thank you for sharing your thought-provoking perspective”? That isn’t going to happen, for the simple reason that there is really no discernable difference between what he claims and what the penguin-phobic nutter I encountered earlier thinks. Both are equally nonesensical, but one happens to have the backing of a large group of people who suffer from the shared delusion that it’s true.
I don’t, therefore, plan on confronting theists with respectful dialogue. Whilst I may respect them personally (andybeingachristian, whom some commentators may remember, is my oldest friend and a man of many great qualities, as well as being a very committed Christophile), the claims they make are only as good as the evidence they bring to the table, and if they can’t show me that, then they may as well be trying to tell me about the lunar penguin-men. A point of view does not merit respect simply because its acceptance is widespread, and a religion does not deserve to be feted just because it’s popular. Reality is the ultimate arbiter of Truth, and I will merrily rubbish, dismiss and mock any claim which isn’t based in said reality. In other words:
When your religion is nonsense, I do not respect your religion. I think that covers every theist out there…
Recent Comments