when God's away, the Devil will play

John Howard in that speech last night:

"We should have been more humble. We have our Katrina here and now. That it has unfolded more slowly and absent the hand of God should make us humbler still."

Absent the hand of God? I thought God had His fingers in all pies. If He was absent, where was He? Busy elsewhere in the world causing freakish weather--hurricanes, tsunamis and the like--and the ensuing human misery, as part of His Grand Plan?

ValuesChoices

Is this a trick question? The new citizenship test apparently asks, among other things,

"...what Australian values are based on - with the options being: the Koran, the judeo Christian tradition, Catholicism, or secularism."

My instinctive answer was secularism, but I have a feeling that's not the one they're looking for, eh? I guess I'd be on the boat back to Hamburg.
It's a curly one because even if "Australian" values were originally based in the judeo-Christian paradigm, because of the origin of British settlers, much has changed in the intervening couple of hundred years. Modern Australia should be regarded as being based on secular values so there can be room for the whole spectrum of belief systems, including Christians, Muslims, Catholics and, last and always least, atheists.

are you there, God? it's me, John

"Listen, we're still waiting on that holy writ vis a vis climate change, God. How are we travelling on that? A first draft by Tuesday? That'd be awesome, God. Cheers. Talk to you then, mate."

suspicious minds

I agree with Cardinal Pell that on climate change, "the science is more complicated than the propaganda!" It's certainly more complicated than Pell's own propaganda.

"The evidence on warming is mixed, often exaggerated, but often reassuring. Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one fifth of a degree centigrade per decade."

That reassures him? That the globe will have warmed by a whole degree in just fifty years? When it only took a few degrees difference to bring on an ice age?

"We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history, e.g. the Ice Ages and Noah’s flood, where human causation could only be negligible."

I'm trying to follow his logic: When humans weren't around, they obviously couldn't have caused climate change. Therefore, even though now they are around and have clearly changed the planet somewhat from the time of Noah, they still can't have caused climate change. Hmmmm...okay!
It's bizarre to me that Pell preaches having faith in a mythical deity despite there being absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of such a creature, and yet he preaches denial of climate change in the face of abundant scientific evidence.

"I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence."

Funny, whenever atheists ask for evidence, we are told all we need is faith.

"What we were seeing from the [climate change] doomsdayers [is] an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition."

That's a bit rich. One of the country's leading purveyors of one particular brand of superstition, lecturing everyone else about superstition?
I guess if you believe that a God created the world in seven days, you probably think He can fix it in seven days too. And that way, you don't have to take any responsibility or do anything to attempt to fix it yourself--except maybe just pray a bit harder.

ps. Pell might find this story enlightening.

the rat on lambs, skunk and chimps

Just when I was thinking of Howard in terms of his slippery rat-like cunning, he reverts to nerd. Allow me to give you The Shorter Sunday Telegraph Exclusive with our Prime Minister (no link avail it seems):

"I am tense and uncomfortable about three things: nativity scenes disappearing from shopping malls, cannabis and politician's low salaries."

It's the bit about religious iconography that I find especially hard to swallow.

"John Howard wants to see more nativity scenes in shopping centres to put religion back into Christmas. He says he has contempt for arguments Christianity should be downplayed at Christmas in case it offends those of other faiths or non-religious people. "You don’t demonstrate tolerance towards minorities by apologising for your own heritage. [Nativity scenes] seem to have disappeared in recent years and you have this, sort of, "Oh, we don’t want to offend anybody (attitude) [sic]. Actually, you’re offending a lot of people who think it’s a great pity they’ve disappeared. Even if they’re not especially religious themselves, they like the association. It’s part of the culture and the history and the nature of this country."

What does this mean? That it’s okay to wish to try to avoid offending people so long as they’re the majority? I mean, here Howard is himself exhibiting his despised 'oh, we don’t want to offend anybody attitude'. It’s just that the people he doesn’t want to offend are white Christian Australians, who he claims are the majority.
Why does Howard care if God isn’t found in shopping malls at Christmas-time, anyway? People wanting nativity scenes need only go as far as their local Church to view one. Why does Howard want to link commercialism to the religious aspect of his religion?
Not quite sure who Howard is mad at here, either. It’s not Muslims or Jews, as they "respect the fact that it’s a Christian day". So he must be blaming shopkeepers and/or secular society for this wanton removal of religious icons. It must be frustrating for Howard to witness the market forces of a secular society causing the diluting of the amount of Christian religious iconography being displayed in public places.
You know, we value-less atheists who do celebrate Christmas don’t do so out of hypocrisy, greed or some other immoral purpose. We celebrate it because we’ve never really had any choice not to, so we’ve made it our own. After all, what’s not to like about time off work, eating and drinking and being merry with loved ones, and shopping for gifts to celebrate each other? We just leave off the bits that don’t make sense to us, basically the religious mythology that is the traditional background to the festival.

see also more discussion on this at Road to Surfdom.

the joy of atheism

I emailed Julia Baird to ask what I wasn't getting about her column about atheists and she took the time to reply, which is nice of her:

”With the atheism column I was trying to say that many atheists, by historically opposing all forms/ systems of belief, might need to shift in a time of increased religiosity - they protest people
dragging God into political debates, but forget that there are different views on what God has to say. By constantly viewing believers as either brainwashed, or conservative, important alliances are weakened. I have writtten a lot about what is wrong with the church too - I just think it is a good debate to have.”

I remain unconvinced. Atheists have always opposed all forms/systems of belief—the ones that involve a deity--because that’s what atheism, by definition, means. Our belief system is fundamentally incompatible with those of believers. Regardless of the different brand of deity or the different interpretations of what that deity might think. Atheists happily tolerate the belief systems of others, just not where they start to influence outcomes that affect non-believers as well. Politics is for all of us, remember? That’s why God shouldn’t be dragged into political debates. (Quite apart from the fact that He might not appreciate being dragged somewhere.)

hurts so good

I read somewhere the other day that Britney Spears said she chose to have a Caesarean "to avoid the pain of childbirth". I'm always amazed that a woman would choose to have major abdominal surgery and be in a lot of pain for about six weeks, rather than just be in a helluva lot of pain for about a day. Besides, labour is amazing--even if you think you're going to die of pain.
The whole pain thing reminds me of the debate about Intelligent Design and to me it seems like incontrovertible proof that the design is Pretty Dumb.

atheists do it better on their own

What to think about Bronwyn Bishop's attempt to ban the hijab in state schools? (Anyone know what the consequences have been in France so far after they implemented the no-hijab policy?) To me, it just raises more questions. Is there such a radical increase in hijab-wearing amongst students in state schools that it's such a huge cause for concern? When Bishop says,

"This has really been forced on us because what we're really seeing in our country is a clash of cultures and indeed, the headscarf is being used as a sort of iconic item of defiance,"

does she really think that making a martyr of and/or criminalising the hijab will somehow reduce the sense of defiance itself? Surely, if anything, it will only increase it. And isn't Bronwyn Bishop making a connection between terrorism and ordinary, common-or-garden moderate Islam (kids in hijabs) by suggesting that hijab-wearing at school is dangerous, essentially by virtue of being an open declaration of the embracing of their religion? Hell, I'd like to see less religion in public schools too (or, at least, more formal emphasis on comparative religion than any one in particular). But at the same time I'd still like to be able to see Harley off to school one day in his "I'm an atheist!" teeshirt. If they ban the hijab, wouldn't they have to ban that too? (that's your cue, Geoffrey Robertson...)

not sticking to the scripture

"Offer non-believers ethics, schools told" says the headline in the weekend Herald*.

"Ethics should be taught in public schools for students who do not attend scripture lessons to save them wasting time "colouring in", the state parents' group says.
Scripture has been part of secular public education for more than a century, but in many schools non-believers go to the library or playground, or watch videos during the weekly classes."

Well, there's much to be said for coloring in, so we shouldn't sniff at that in any case. But listen, here's an idea. Since we're talking about secular schools in the first place, how about we teach 'em all something like, say, "Comparative religion and ethics"? Why are we having Bible study as part of a secular curriculum anyway?
My parents were staunch atheists and didn't want me to attend, but due to the particular charisma of our scripture teacher, a ninety year old called Mrs Nixon, I used to sneak out of the library to attend Scripture classes. I was quite mesmerised by her. I think I got quite brainwashed in the end and had even built a little altar in my room before my parents got wind of it all and had me taken out of the class again. Phew.
But my point is this: why don't they all just learn ethics?

(*Humph. As much as you can trust what the Herald says these days, anyway.)

oh, lord...

A scientific study finds that prayer does not work. What does a believer say to a finding like that, I wonder? Maybe something like,
"Well, you can't just get everything you pray for, you know. Prayer's not like writing to Santa. You can't just pray for a Mercedes-Benz and you'll get one."*
Believers can always dismiss scientific studies as "trivialising the religious experience", as one critic puts it in the Herald story.
"How do you define a "dose of prayer?" asks the critic. So how do they define it in the study? Is it time-limited? "You have five minutes to pray. Your time starts...now." When you think about it, the study's "religious representatives" are praying for the health of complete strangers. So surely their message can't be much more than a fairly straightforward, "God, I was wondering, could you please look after this bloke's health? He's a top bloke and...er, actually I don't know that much about him, but do you think you could give him a break, please Lord? That'd be great. Thanks. Oh, did I mention you're a top bloke? Cheers, thanks a lot."
Realistically, it couldn't take more than a minute, could it? I mean, what's to say?

*Thanks to the pointer from the saint. The actual words are:
"Prayer is not a penny in the slot machine. You can't just put in a coin and get out a chocolate bar. This is like setting an exam for God to see if God will pass it or not."
-The Bishop of Durham.

lowest common denomination

I had some conversations with a local preacher some months ago in which he mentioned that a child is considered to be innocent until it reaches the age where it understands right from wrong in a meaningful sense. The preacher reckoned this usually occurred when a child was about three.
So why do people feel the need to baptise an infant? As I understand it, baptism is a ritual that is supposed to provide "forgiveness for sinning". Well, correct me if I'm wrong but an 11-month-old infant has not sinned.
It is important to me that my child is not baptised. I'd like him to have the chance to remain free of religious labelling until he is old enough to decide for himself whether or not he wants to subscribe to a particular religion. I don't believe it's one parent's right to impose their world-view on a child. I don't intend to tell Harley he is an atheist just because I am one.
Isn't it the child's right to choose what he believes in? Isn't Christianity based around the premise that God gave man free will so that he could choose to believe in God? So why not let a kid decide to believe (or not) when they are old enough to understand the concepts involved? Why tell them they are "a Christian" as if it's something like being "an Australian"?
I know some people will think I am being petty about this, but it's really important to me that Harley has the right to be involved in figuring out his world views and belief systems for himself. I want to expose him to many ideas and philosophies as he grows, and let him enjoy the process of figuring it all out. Hey, it may take a lifetime! I still haven't figured it out entirely myself. I just stick with a basic lowest-common-denominator rule: all religions and humanistic philosophies reckon we should be nice to each other and the planet we depend on. Easy. No need for self-flagellation over various "sins" like masturbation or homosexuality or illegitimacy, and the rest. No need to waste all your life in prayer or at houses of worship.
I'm curious. What if I were Jewish? Would the child's father still have the right to force me to permit a baptism? So why should the situation be any different when one parent is an atheist?
A judge gets to decide it tomorrow, anyway. But frankly, I'll be shocked if a court of law can order a religious ceremony take place and a child be forced to adopt a religion just to please one parent.
We'll see...............

update: The judge said the issues involved require more time to be fully considered and listed it for hearing again on 20 March. And so it drags on...