Tuesday, July 3, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

by Thomas Sutcliffe, Independent

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/thomas_sutcliffe/article2730465.ece

Published: 03 July 2007

author

On the face of it, the Bishop of Carlisle and the young man who staggered blazing from that Jeep at Glasgow Airport on Saturday afternoon don't have a lot in common. The Right Reverend Graham Dow is a grey-haired man with a twinkling smile, rarely armed with anything more lethal than a crozier.

That wannabe martyr - his 72 expectant virgins currently tapping their fingers impatiently in Paradise - had a head wreathed in fire and a Molotov cocktail in his hand. The Bishop of Carlisle is a diocesan bishop in the Church of England, not a sect commonly associated with acts of terror, while the as-yet-unnamed jihadi is, one guesses, an adherent of Wahabi Islam, a sect which very much is. And yet, on a spiritual level, it seems that they do share one thing. They both believe in a vindictive God.

We already know how this belief was translated into action in the case of that young man at Glasgow Airport. He was prepared to incinerate young children and women and Muslims - anybody, frankly, who was unlucky enough to be on the other side of the entrance doors when he crashed through them. In the infamous words of a Christian zealot - "Kill them all, God will know his own".

The Bishop of Carlisle's expression of retribution took a much milder form: he expressed the view that the recent floods in the north of England were a sign of God's displeasure, not only at our environmental fecklessness but also at our wilful refusal, as a society, to discriminate against homosexuals.

"This is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation."

Some of us are reaping it a lot more directly than others, of course. Take Ryan Parry, a Sheffield schoolboy who was drowned last week. Or Michael Barnett, who got his foot stuck in a drain in Hull and succumbed after a four-hour battle to save him. Quite why these two people, and their grieving families, should have been singled out to bear the brunt of God's judgement isn't clear - and by yesterday afternoon, the Bishop's spokesman was busily back-pedalling. But he didn't explain away the Bishop's remark that the problem with "environmental judgement is that it is indiscriminate".

The logic of this seems to suggest that God is prepared to kill innocent people in order to get his message across. And if the Bishop is right, it isn't just us that God is disappointed with. He's furious with the people of Pakistan, where serious flooding has left 900,000 homeless, and Afghanistan, where 80 have died in recent storms, and Kansas and Texas, too, where floods have devastated communities and left people homeless. Then again, with a killer this "indiscriminate" about collateral damage, only a bishop could be sure what the message is.

Of course, there are important differences between the bishop and the Glasgow attacker. The bishop restricts himself to condoning the actions of a terrorist God, while the human fireball appointed himself as a direct tool of divine wrath. It's hardly a distinction to be sneezed at in these dangerous times. But it's not quite enough to quell the sense that the bishop finds himself in a distant intellectual kinship with the suicide bomber - both worshippers of a God who communicates through the deaths of innocents.

t.sutcliffe@ independent.co.uk

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #53735 by mikebreed on July 3, 2007 at 1:21 am

Someone had to say it, and good for Sutcliffe. He's too gentle on the Bishop, though. The latter's 14th Century outlook is a disgrace, and the ideas he promotes are every bit as repugnant as the ideas of the Wahhabis, even if he doesn't convert them into such direct and dangerous action. The Church needs to come out strongly on this, and condemn the Bishop's remarks. They won't, of course.

Other Comments by mikebreed

2. Comment #53736 by bamboospitfire on July 3, 2007 at 1:25 am

An excellent article which reveals the Bishop's pronouncement for what it was - an outrage. Imagine if the airport terrorist had succeeded in killing a boy and a man - both presumably innocent - as the flooding did. Would the Bishop have said "This is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation. Of course, the problem with suicide bombing is that it is indiscriminate,"? I don't see why that would be any worse than what he did in fact say.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

3. Comment #53740 by dreamcurve on July 3, 2007 at 2:04 am

In other news, Gene Robinson was hit by 9ft freak wave whilst speaking at a gay & lesbian rally about the love of God. Authorities have suggested that top UK bishops infiltrated the rally with SuperSoakers and water bombs. The Archbishop of Canterbury would not give an interview, but released a statement saying that '...while I myself can maintain the view that homosexuality is both acceptable to God and a sin in respect of the more conservative chapter, whom I would not wish to alienate with any argument over absolute truth, it is a well established fact that God moves in mysterious waves [sic] and we should not therefore imply anything from anything that might expose the stupidity of our beliefs.'

Other Comments by dreamcurve

4. Comment #53742 by AdrianB on July 3, 2007 at 2:19 am

I thought this was an excellent article as well.

If somebody is prepared to condone the actions of a vindictive God, then it becomes impossible for that person to then condemn the actions of anybody committing atrocities in the name of a vindictive God.

If the Bishop of Carlisle does claim to find the actions of wannabe suicide bombers in Glasgow wrong, then logically the only possible reasons for them being wrong is that they chose the wrong vindictive God.

Other Comments by AdrianB

5. Comment #53749 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 2:46 am

The Bishop was wrong.

So are suicide bombers.

In both cases, they do not speak for the vast majority of religious believers.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

6. Comment #53753 by Logicel on July 3, 2007 at 3:04 am

The bishop restricts himself to condoning the actions of a terrorist God, while the human fireball appointed himself as a direct tool of divine wrath.
________

Excellent article. The faith connection is enough of a connection between so-called moderates and extremists--non-evidential faith and its touting as a virtue.

In addition, though the Bishop is not advocating direct violence against gays, he is indirectly setting up scapegoats. If and when global warming's deleterious effects grow, there will be a ready group to silence, gays. There will be some panic-stricken and ill-prepared people of faith who will act like dangerous fools, who will be compelled to do hateful and criminal acts based on their faith, in order to appease their God and to save their imaginary eternal souls.

It is important to keep allowing these supporters of religious superstitions to yap and yap and yap, and it is equally important that articulate rational people target and pinpoint the dangerous irrationality lurking behind that stoopid-looking crozier of the bishop's.

Other Comments by Logicel

7. Comment #53756 by automath on July 3, 2007 at 3:29 am

In addition, though the Bishop is not advocating direct violence against gays, he is indirectly setting up scapegoats. If and when global warming's deleterious effects grow, there will be a ready group to silence, gays.

Ah the lessons of history, I remember a Christian Germany looking to these self appointed messengers of a god for the answers to the economic problems experienced in the early 20th century, it was the Jews that paid the price back then.

Other Comments by automath

8. Comment #53758 by parrja on July 3, 2007 at 3:40 am

Fantastic article. We need this sort of response to every ridiculous statement uttered by the clergy.

Other Comments by parrja

9. Comment #53759 by automath on July 3, 2007 at 3:44 am

The Bishop was wrong.

So are suicide bombers.

In both cases, they do not speak for the vast majority of religious believers.

The religious believers do think they are right.

You might be refering to those haven't quite become true religious believers, but like to think they are and so tend to support the thoughts, words and deeds of the more devote. They can try and brush the bad aside by not acknowledging it as true religion. Anything to make them feel good and stop them from facing up to the world and learning to become better people, both for themselves and for humanity.

I've lost track of the number of so-called believers that believe in the gospels because those that believed were apparently willing to die for their belief. How can it be false they say. Islam must indeed be the true religion!

Other Comments by automath

10. Comment #53760 by hungarianelephant on July 3, 2007 at 3:47 am

In both cases, they do not speak for the vast majority of religious believers.

Actually Paul, I suspect the bishop at least does.

There is a reasonable argument that doing what we like without regard to natural processes will ultimately result in harm in unpredictable ways. Building on flood plains will put strain on the natural systems and result in occasional serious flooding. (It appears that the flooding in Sheffield would have occurred anyway, but to continue ...) You don't have to believe in anthropogenic global warming to understand that burning up oil stored over many millions of years in a few decades is not the brightest idea.

Most people sense this, but in the absence of the science or philosophy to explain it properly, many religious people fall back on God's judgment as the preferred explanation. And if that leaves difficult questions, such as why a judgemental god cannot direct His wrath more accurately, there is a ready-made, and self-serving, answer: it is not for us to second-guess His will.

I have personally heard the "God's Judgment" argument advanced by apparently reasonable people in respect of each of the following: floods; earthquakes; heatwaves; droughts; AIDS; ethnic cleansing in Bosnia; the diseases affecting successive Lords Chief Justice of England; and I am sure some others I have forgotten.

Which is why articles like this have real value.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

11. Comment #53762 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 4:01 am

The religious believers do think they are right.

Does that mean that when an atheist says something, atheists think they are right?

It isn't helpful to make generalisations, particularly those that are unfounded. There have been excellent documentaries on religious responses to 9-11, 7/7 and the Tsunami. The vast majority of religious believers would not have agree with these sentiments. Here are some excerpts from the Channel 4 documentary "Tsunami - Where was God?"

Nancey Murphy
Fuller Theological Seminary

There's this excellent two page article on why there couldn't be any complex life at all on the surface of the Earth if we didn't have a movable crust, and if we have a movable crust you're going to have earth quakes, and if we have earth quakes under water we're gonna have tsunamis.

If we didn't have a crust that moved, ultimately with erosion the whole surface of the planet would be basically smooth. Given the amount of water on it, it would probably be marsh land all over, so you could have some simple forms of life but you certainly couldn't have complex animals like us. And then also it replenishes the sort of elements on the surface that we need. If there were no recycling of the crust then basically the whole planet would become infertile after a certain period of time.

Fr George Coyne
Vatican Observatory

You see that physical evil is absolutely necessary for physical good. The hurricane that happened in New Orleans was absolutely necessary in order to have heat exchange from one part of the continent to the other, otherwise the Earth would not be habitable.

Scripture is full of, and Catholic tradition is full of, unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, next year you will not have wheat.

These religious scientists had given me plenty to chew on, but one nagging question persisted, the one raised by the Russian author Feodor Dostoevsky… If you can't create without some degree of suffering, then why bother in the first place?

Is it really worth the suffering of one innocent creature, Dostoevsky says. If you had to press the button on creation and produce that, is it justifiable?

Philip Clayton
Author: God and Contemporary Science

That's a tremendous question, and if I don't stop in silence before your question, then I'd say I don't get it. Anyone who sees the depth of the suffering that happens in our world and answers that question simply "Oh, of course it was all worth it" doesn't get it. I would love to imagine a divine who stood before that button and wept, and somehow at the last minute felt it was better to have us than to have only the divine in eternal emptiness. You and I would probably not push the button as Ivan argued against Alyosha in the Brothers Karamazov. We shouldn't push the button, and that God pushed that button and made creation hints at a mystery that we don't understand. It hints at a resolution that we can only hope for. God will only be God if the outcome is something so far better than what we see around us that it would make it all right. But I can only say that as a wish and a hope, and not as an item of knowledge.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

12. Comment #53767 by troyreynolds86 on July 3, 2007 at 4:42 am

Paul, the limitations upon the type of world that we live upon are most likely true (I haven't investigated them but they seem reasonable) but there is something lacking in the conclusions. These are truths derived by the fallible (we humans) but represent the creative process of the infallible (the divine). One would tend to think that with omnipotence and infinite wisdom does come infinite solutions and that if the divine did not want to build a universe with laws that require the planetary harborer of life that necessitated natural disasters so that life could exist upon it then that would be an easy practice for such a being. Any explanation that this is just how things need to be places restrictions upon the abilities of the divine to the point where other claims (omnipotence, omniscience, etc) don't seem possible.

Troy

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

13. Comment #53773 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 5:10 am

Why must the creator, if there is one, be omniscient?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

14. Comment #53774 by Quetzalcoatl on July 3, 2007 at 5:16 am

Why must the creator, if there is one, be omniscient?

Because if He wasn't the churches couldn't scare worshippers with talk of damnation and judgement to keep them in line.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

15. Comment #53777 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 5:28 am

PaulEmecz:

The Bishop was wrong.

Wrong about homosexuality? Wrong for holding a minority opinion? Wrong for claiming he knows the mind of God? How was he wrong?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

16. Comment #53778 by mmurray on July 3, 2007 at 5:30 am

Strange how when it comes to virgin births and raising the dead god is not constrained but can change physical law at will. However when it comes to designing a world where there can be free will without massive pain and suffering god is at a loss to know what to do.

It's all just barmy of course.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

17. Comment #53779 by konquererz on July 3, 2007 at 5:39 am

Dr. Benway,

He was wrong because he condoned the death of innocence by justifying it through his god. Death of innocence is never okay or "good", and there is no evidence at all that any natural disaster was caused by god in any form. So unless he can prove his claim, he is wrong. No evidence means wrong assumption. But yes, all of the above that you asked. He is wrong about homosexuality, because there is not proof of god, and he is wrong about knowing the mind of god, because he couldn't possibly know the mind of god, how arrogant is that? And he doesn't hold a minority opinion, you would just like to think that, most if not all fundamentalists think like that and Pat Robertson and Billy Graham believe like that. So yes, he was wrong all over the place, he was the lead speaker at the wrong-a-palooza!

Other Comments by konquererz

18. Comment #53780 by AdrianB on July 3, 2007 at 5:46 am

Or, in the words of Penn Jillette ..... "he couldn't be more wrong, even if his name was Wrongy Wrong-Wrong"

:-)

Other Comments by AdrianB

19. Comment #53781 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 5:54 am

personally, I wish the bishop would just strap semtex to himself and jump off a bridge. Of course all christians talk bollocks from time to time. I just read my former ministers blog (a friend pointed out he wrote an article on muppet bishop above). I noticed however, he claimed that he had been cured of a cold by prayer (wonder if it had anything to do with me knocking healing on a friends blog). Turns out, he (still)has whooping cough: "Attacks of a choking cough that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes, often with vomiting, severe facial congestions and a feeling or appearance of suffocation. Between these attacks of coughing the sufferer appears and usually feels perfectly well.These choking attacks of coughing happen as little as twice a day or as many as fifty. Between attacks ('paroxysms' is the technical name) the sufferer may not cough at all.'Whooping' is a noise that comes from the voice box after a paroxysm when the sufferer is suddenly able to take a breath in again."
Hope he hasnt been spitting in the communion wine or kissing babies in the mean time - one of the more subtle dangers of faith.
Healing my arse!

Other Comments by BillySands

20. Comment #53788 by wagnerpe on July 3, 2007 at 6:45 am

Excellent.

We really need to continue to draw these parallels.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

21. Comment #53789 by troyreynolds86 on July 3, 2007 at 6:46 am

Paul, that is an excellent question. There is no reason why a creator must be omniscient, or omnipresent or omnipotent for that matter, and I am only responding to the general belief by the religious that their deity is all of those things. A universe could very well be created by a lesser being than is generally presented, or by no being at all for that matter, but when we restrict the level of power and wisdom of the divine to something less than infinite then we are left with the immediate question of how limited? Certainly we cannot begin to answer this question because we have no way of knowing the nature of such a being, or if such a being could even exist, but the moment that such a being is limited we must again being to ponder as to whether a greater being exists, a creator of a creator, and perhaps our worship is misdirected upon only the agent of the true creator, a agent that does not necessarily share in the vision of the greater being but is cleaver enough to hide it from its more powerful but also limited master. What is certain is that if the being is less than absolute then all of the major religions in the world are misrepresenting the divine into something that it is not and that is a slippery slope of doubt.

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

22. Comment #53790 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

konquererz:

And he doesn't hold a minority opinion, you would just like to think that...

So you assume.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

23. Comment #53792 by Brunoaflame on July 3, 2007 at 7:09 am

It is probable that religion was invented by humans as a method of dealing with calamity. Other animals accepted their fate at the hands of nature but only humans had the ability to reason. When sudden catastrophe struck they sought for a reason and attributed it to a higher power, and then created a mythology to explain it. Science has taught us that there is an explanation for pestilence, great floods, hurricanes and volcanism, even long term climate change. Now, the only scourge that can be attributed to a higher power, is the evil that men to each other in the name of religion. This is why we must eradicate these viral beliefs from our societies.

Other Comments by Brunoaflame

24. Comment #53793 by Cool on Oolon on July 3, 2007 at 7:31 am

Paul:

In both cases, they do not speak for the vast majority of religious believers.

But you do?

Other Comments by Cool on Oolon

25. Comment #53797 by jimbob on July 3, 2007 at 8:03 am

If you think the bishop is nutty, then check out Pat Robertson's site (www.patrobertson.com) to put him in perspective.

As an example, here is the summary from Pat's 2007 prayer retreat:

"In conclusion: Ahead is a year in which we celebrate the 400th Anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. This year will begin with unimagined blessings yet will end, unless there is national repentance and prayer, with unspeakable acts of terror brought about by evil men. Then a great time of worldwide rejoicing in the Lord."

As George Carlin joked about the punitive, vindictive, pestilence-spreading big daddy in the sky "But he loves you!"

Other Comments by jimbob

26. Comment #53801 by geckoman on July 3, 2007 at 8:54 am

Potential Islamic martyrs are told that if they die during jihad, they will be attended to in paradise by seventy two virgins. Such inducement, we are informed, is regularly promised to the perpetrators of suicide terrorist attacks by their handlers. In short, it is believed.

Yet the concept throws up certain observations. First, of course, it illustrates how little Islamic men know about sex. By definition, virgins are not good at sex. They have not practiced or honed their skills. Wouldn't it be better to be attended to by seventy-two experienced women? High class call girls perhaps? After all, the martyrs themselves are quite often virgins. If one partner knew what they were doing it would avoid all that awkward fumbling and embarrassment. Just a suggestion.

Secondly the idea infers that in paradise there exists a sizeable pool of virgins just waiting for a martyr to come along and deflower them. Where did the virgins come from? Are they the fruit of previous generations of virgins' daughters? Who makes sure they maintain their chastity? Do they sit around in a harem indulging in teenage girl talk such as- "Hey Fatima, I'm like totally dying to get laid. I hope some hunky guy blows up a bus full of Israeli schoolchildren soon, god-willing."

It is also puzzling to know how precisely martyrs take advantage of the seventy two virgins when often the martyrs have blown themselves into tiny pieces. It is difficult enough to have sex as a virgin, with a virgin when all your parts are in order. But doing it when you are reduced to a million fragments is, one imagines, especially challenging. Never mind unhooking a bra without fingers, how do you remove the virgin's burka without possessing arms? Presumably during the ascent to paradise, martyrs are somehow reconstituted by some celestial glue. Nonetheless, this process appears a tad hazy.

It is particularly odd that Islam uses the promise of sex in Paradise as a reward, while it does everything to censure sexual practice on earth. The Irish journalist Brian Keenan was kidnapped in Lebanon in the 1980's by Islamic criminals and held for four years. The young men guarding him varied in character and brutality. But they did not vary much in their ignorance of sexual matters. He was often asked by his captors "Hey Brian, how many women have you been with? What is it like?" This from men in their late twenties. If young Islamic men had free access to sex, alcohol and other earthly delights, perhaps fewer of them would be drawn by the promise of rewards in Paradise.

And why seventy-two virgins? Is the martyr expected to satisfy all seventy-two at once? Or is he expected to have sex with a different virgin every day? And what about the girls? Do they only get laid once every seventy two days? That's only five times a year. It's going to take them ages to become proficient at sex. Is there some manual- a sort of jihadist's karma sutra- to advise on these issues? It may all seem exciting at first but the practicalities may prove to be a logistical nightmare. Logistically far more difficult than blowing up a bus full of seventy two virgins on earth.

Other Comments by geckoman

27. Comment #53802 by PeterK on July 3, 2007 at 9:02 am

Atheist: Just look at how cruel and vindictive God is in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, how could you possibly..

(Christian interrupts)Ahh,,but when Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, we see a different God, a loving God.

But Christians can just call upon the God of the Old Testament at their convenience to mete out that holy vindictiveness to the people THEY don't like. And amazingly, it's still carried out with that trademark blundering OT sloppiness; man now has created weapons which cause much less collateral damage.

Other Comments by PeterK

28. Comment #53803 by Diplo on July 3, 2007 at 9:22 am

Great article! It's heartening to see the broadsheets are, at last, laying into the craziness that exemplifies religious thought patterns. Irrational thinking leads inextricably to irrational acts and this message needs to keep being hammered home.

Other Comments by Diplo

29. Comment #53804 by SRWB on July 3, 2007 at 9:37 am

And what about the girls? Do they only get laid once every seventy two days? That's only five times a year. It's going to take them ages to become proficient at sex.

That problem has been taken care of - only one "go" is allowed because after her first time, the "virgin" is no longer a virgin. So she too is expendable!

Other Comments by SRWB

30. Comment #53813 by PaulJ on July 3, 2007 at 10:45 am

Comment #53762 by PaulEmecz

Nancey Murphy
Fuller Theological Seminary

There's this excellent two page article on why there couldn't be any complex life at all on the surface of the Earth if we didn't have a movable crust, and if we have a movable crust you're going to have earth quakes, and if we have earth quakes under water we're gonna have tsunamis.

Couldn't the intelligent designer have designed something more intelligently?

On the matter at issue, does the bishop really believe that God's petulant hissy fit, in sending floods and other indiscriminate retribution for unconnected 'sins', is the action of a sane or even grown-up deity?

God moves in mysterious ways? Childish and immature ways, more like.

Other Comments by PaulJ

31. Comment #53814 by NJS on July 3, 2007 at 10:46 am

I like the idea of making it personal by naming the victims and demanding that the idiots who say these things have to account for why person X should die thanks to the loving God.

Other Comments by NJS

32. Comment #53816 by Big T on July 3, 2007 at 10:58 am

Geckoman, you are funny.

Other Comments by Big T

33. Comment #53862 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Troy,

I never get an intelligent answer to this question - people tend to pick fights about other issues. Either there is or is not a creator. Given we can't prove it either way, it is at least worth asking what the creator would be like, if there were a creator. My wife studied literature, often the writings of people now dead. In many cases, most, if not all, that one could find out came from reading the texts.

If the world was created, why could we not find out about the creator by looking at the world?

Wouldn't it actually be better science to present the two possible explanations, as fully as possible, using all of the relevant observations, rather than saying "You'll never prove one way or the other what caused the universe and all its laws to come into existence" and pretending that it therefore wasn't a scientific question?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

34. Comment #53865 by phil rimmer on July 3, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Comment #53862 by PaulEmecz

In order to get to the truth it is often best to come to it with the most open of minds. A good starting point is to frame your inquiry in the broadest, most neutral terms you can, so as not to bias your investigation. So-

"What process(es) created the universe?" is my stab at it. A creator is not excluded by this in any way. Any problem?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

35. Comment #53866 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Wouldn't it actually be better science to present the two possible explanations, as fully as possible, using all of the relevant observations, rather than saying "You'll never prove one way or the other what caused the universe and all its laws to come into existence" and pretending that it therefore wasn't a scientific question?

It's a bold claim, that we'll never prove one way or the other what caused the universe. Doesn't seem a necessary claim for a scientist to make.

If someone can present a creationist hypothesis in a manner that lends itself to scientific study, that would be quite interesting.

Either there is or is not a creator. Given we can't prove it either way...

We can't prove that there is no creator. But we might prove there is a creator. Second coming of Jesus would do it, for example.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

36. Comment #53868 by Donald on July 3, 2007 at 5:51 pm

PaulEmecz: "Why must the creator, if there is one, be omniscient?"

Easy one, so I'll answer:

No reason. It is possible that a creator exists, and that the creator is not omniscient.
It is also possible for a creator to exist and not be omnipotent.
I'm not sure which you really had in mind, but the same answer does for both.

However, the main issue that faces us today is: "does the god of the bible/koran exists, or were those ancient scriptures created by superstitious or manipulative humans without the aid of a god?"

I've made my decision (over a long period of time) on the basis of reading the bible and koran, reading religious apologetics, and hadiths, etc, reading about dozens of other gods and religions in various parts of the world, reading a lot of modern science, and trying to understand, as best I can, the world about me, particularly the people in it (including myself), how they behave and what they think.

My conclusion is that the gods of the bible and koran do not exist. The god of the bible was invented and elaborated over centuries by a succession of rulers who wanted power and control, and found that claiming to have a privileged hotline to "god" was a good way to obtain control and obedience from the people. They were aided and abetted by a number of "prophets" who found that they could get fame and attention (if not power) from claims to have heard directly from "god". The god of the koran is only slightly different in that it was created by a single, (historically well-established as real) warlord, who likewise claimed to have a privileged hotline to god. (Some people have suggested his sessions on the hotline were actually epileptic fits.)

More, my conclusion is that all the other gods (Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) are not real either, and that bizarre religions since (mormons, scientologists, etc, etc) are equally unreal.

None of this will surprise you Paul. You were pretty sure that was my opinion, I feel sure.

So, returning to the question.

Is there a creator, even a somewhat sad one, neither omnipotent, nor omniscient?

Could be. I don't know. But is there any evidence for a creator? No.
Are there any mysteries about the universe that can be explained better by a creator than by "naturalistic" explanations? Some say yes. I say no.
Have we shifted from discussing whether the Christian god exists, to inventing a new god to our own requirements? Yes.

Lastly, a word about science versus religions. Sometimes people say that science and religions provide alternative explanations for things. This is not the important point. Explanations are easy and usually worthless. Science is about providing predictions. Given what we observe, what will happen next?. Scientific theories are judged against their ability to predict, not explain. On that basis religions fall down - heavily - the only testable claim they make (intercessory prayer) is easily proved false.

None of the above should be taken as a discussion of morality. That is a large, separate, subject.

Best wishes.

Other Comments by Donald

37. Comment #53869 by roach on July 3, 2007 at 5:56 pm

PaulEmecz said: "If the world was created, why could we not find out about the creator by looking at the world?"

That's a huge if. I'll try to go more in depth later.

Are you a deist?

Other Comments by roach

38. Comment #53875 by Shuggy on July 3, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I wonder if Thomas Sutcliffe reads this site:

41. Comment #53529 by Shuggy on July 1, 2007 at 11:55 pm
One diocesan bishop has even claimed that ... the introduction of pro-gay legislation, ha[s] provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless.
In other words, that Bishop's God is a homophobic, genocidal, capriciously malevolent bully. Um, now where have I heard those words before?

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.
Isn't that exactly what the Jihadis say their works are? So can we add "terrorist" to RD's list?

Maybe I deserve a tipoff fee?

Other Comments by Shuggy

39. Comment #53882 by scottishgeologist on July 4, 2007 at 12:32 am

Geckoman, that was seriously funny. Definitely the best way to fight this nonsense - simply follow it through and see how utterly ludicrous it is. I love that "getting the burka off" bit....

As for Sutcliffes comment in the article: "That wannabe martyr - his 72 expectant virgins currently tapping their fingers impatiently in Paradise "

LOL, had all sort of kinky ideas rattling round my brain at that one...long red painted fingernails, high heels dangling...."hurry up and die will ya, I'm dying for a shag!" :-)

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

40. Comment #53917 by geckoman on July 4, 2007 at 6:51 am

Thanks scottishgeologist.

Pulling the piss on issues like the 72 virgins on this website is of course a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but why resist a tap in from 3 feet out? I might try posting my comments on Al Jezeera's website. Then again...

I do believe that if Islamic men spent more time drinking, shagging and watching sky sports than listening to the fundy nutters, they'd be a lot less susceptible to believing nonsense about Paradise and infidels. It certainly worked for me with Christianity...

So to perpetuate atheism what you need first are satelite dishes, nightclubs and breweries. Guys like Prof Dawkins are useful later. But start with the basics I say..

Other Comments by geckoman

41. Comment #53921 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2007 at 7:56 am

geckoman

Great post, I enjoyed reading that very interesting

I have suggested in the past that women could possibly be the key to solving Islamic oppression by not putting up with the treatment they are getting and actually advocate being treated as human beings rather than some slave with whom the men can do want they want to. Much easier said than done when you look at what has essentially become Stockholm Syndrome where the women simply put up with their lot and it becomes a way of life. But I am an optimist and I don't want to give up hope on that.

My big problem is that these guys do not have the first clue as how to treat women and women have very little idea as to what it is like to be treated nicely or fairly. The religion is so daft because, as you said they haven't a clue what they are doing and there is absolutely no positive interaction between them, the whole idea of romance is lost on them in a big way. I have heard that sometimes most men's first sexual experience in somewhere like Pakistan is either with their best male friend (yay for gay rights but this doesn't tend to have the right outcome) or an animal, mostly dogs, yeeesh!

I like your idea of night clubs and breweries, how do we go about slipping that one in the Koran?!

Other Comments by Philip1978

42. Comment #53937 by geckoman on July 4, 2007 at 9:33 am

Philip

Yes, changes in the alienation and suppression of women and sexual politics may well help to dilute extreme islam.

How to do it though? Women are seen as a separate and inferior species. They are a possession. Hard to change such extreme belief.

Taking the theme of the article's muslim solution to a muslim problem, maybe muslim women do hold the key. But when the culture, religion and law all hold them in an untenable position, how do they even begin? By witholding sex? They'd be raped and the perpetrators would go unpunished. By forming pressure groups? Illegal. By occupying professional positions of influence. Illegal. By educating their sons,in a more balanced manner? Maybe, but they'd need to do it clandestinely.

Yeah, pity there is no mention of bevy in the Koran. Mind you, you'd think the dope smoking and qwat chewing might chill some of the nutters out, but evidently not. Opium? Instead of suppressing poppy growth in Afghanistan we should perhaps encourage it and facilitate export markets in neighbouring countries.

Other Comments by geckoman

43. Comment #53964 by Corylus on July 4, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Sigh…

I don't normally join it with laddish humour, but I think that a little comedy is needed today.*

In honour of Geckomans, truly impressive, in depth, and I have to say; surprisingly logical; analysis on the subject of heavenly virgins. (Nothing like bonking to get men thinking). I direct analysis to the following:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2unGl1cRI_s

An original theological speculation by a Scottish comedian (why does his nationality not surprise me? You know who you are gentlemen) as to why the number '72' is important.

(Warning puerile)

P.S. This one's fun too ;)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c

----------
*Lots of scraping on other threads depressing me: guys please don't fight: it makes little Corylus sad…

Other Comments by Corylus

44. Comment #53969 by geckoman on July 4, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Corylus

Thanks for this, that Mark Day is pretty funny. I admit I am, ahem, Scottish too.

I also admit that descending into laddish humour on a website which is subtitled "a clear-thinking oasis" does seem a bit naughty. So, I fully intend to keep it up.

Other Comments by geckoman

45. Comment #53974 by The Schuermannator on July 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm

PaulEmecz:

Surely if our creator was omnipotent/omniscient, it would have created the speed of light a little faster. From a cosmic universal (god-like) perspective, the speed of light is incredibly slow. An omniscient god knows that humans will eventually figure out that light travels through vacuum at approx. 186,000 mi/sec, or 300,000 km/sec. Since "God" KNEW what units of measurement humans would be using during the time of its discovery, if its purpose was to amaze us, surely "God" would have used a less arbitrary number for us to define light. A "light-year" sounds so contrived. If "God" really wanted to amaze us with it's omnipotence, it'd have made light with an infinite velocity with an initial velocity of infinity.

If "God" truly made this universe for us to marvel and wonder at, then why did it force us to create all kinds of machines and equipment to register what's really out there. For example, why not create humans with eyes that can sense at least the majority of the electromagnetic spectrum? It took thousands of years of intellectual development to create the telescope, and even longer to understand the nature of light which to this day is not fully understood. It doesn't seem very fair to earlier humans who lacked the technology to experience the universe as we do now.

So Paul, if you're trying to convey your belief of a non-omniscient/omnipotent god, then I must give your beliefs some merit.

I still stand to reason that while a non-omniscient/omnipotent god is more reasonable to believe than an all powerful and all knowing god, there is still yet no more reason to believe in one over the other. Just as there is no reason to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Celestial Teapot (much luv, Shuggy!) or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

46. Comment #53993 by Shuggy on July 4, 2007 at 7:20 pm

geckoman wrote:

It is particularly odd that Islam uses the promise of sex in Paradise as a reward, while it does everything to censure sexual practice on earth.

This suggests that a better tactic in the War on Terror might be to offer the pre-Jihadis their Paradisal reward here on earth and save them a lot of trouble. Sort of like the Flirty Fishing of the Children of God.

"Hey, Bomber-Boy, come over here and take off that vest (and everything else). Me and my 71 friends here can offer you everything they're promised, and you don't need to smear your liver and pancreas all over the road."

The Schuermannator wrote:

or the Celestial Teapot (much luv, Shuggy!)

Thanks Schuerman, but the credit belongs to Bertrand Russell.

Other Comments by Shuggy

47. Comment #53995 by PeterK on July 4, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Just dusted off and snooped about in "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith for the past few days ( Sam Harris included it in his list of recommended readings. )

Although Smith really does not, some have attacked him for denying the occurence of the Big Bang. ( "existence is eternal" )

His arguments that suggest that God cannot exist at all are extremely thought provoking to say the least,("nothing can exist as a contradiction of itself" ) and still convince this reader that this is the case.

For all those who have not yet read this book , I would highly recommend doing so, if for no other reason than to read an extremely well-written philosophical perspective of the necessity of atheism.

Other Comments by PeterK

48. Comment #53996 by geckoman on July 4, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Sorry for starting to hog this thread, I tend to hate posters behaving like me but...I was just thinking about the Paradise promise in future islamic terrorist training camps.

Instructor-"So lads, if you get it right like the 9/11 guys, the 72 virgins are guaranteed, I swear. Now go out there and give it 110%"

Suicide bomber-"Thanks boss. Sounds magic. Cannae wait."

Instructor- "But...if you end up setting fire to the motor and running around an airport car park yelping like a wee lassie, nae virgins when you die."

Student-"M'on tae fuck boss, that's a bit severe."

Instructor-"Cannae let the good reputation of suicide bombers down son."

Student- "So what's the deal in Paradise, later likesay?"

Instructor- "Yer own dug. Nice looking mind. A virgin tae."

Student bomber-"Awright boss, sounds magic..."

Other Comments by geckoman

49. Comment #53998 by Goldy on July 4, 2007 at 8:12 pm

I was watching a doco last night - Shaheed, I think it was called. Couldn't watch too mcuh as it was getting late and I was tired. There was one point I heard though that made me think. On dying, I presume the corporal remains, errr, remain on Earth. The soul, or similar, is the thing that goes to Paradise. So, how does one have sex? No body = no physical feelings (something to do with lack of nerves etc, I believe).
Be a mighty pisser to get all the way there and see your virgins all lined up and then "Oh, sorry squire, forgot to mention, it's look but no touching!"
And why 72 virgins? Anything mystical about this number?

Other Comments by Goldy

50. Comment #53999 by Goldy on July 4, 2007 at 8:18 pm

OK, found this. Still be nice to hear other explanations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,,631332,00.html

Other Comments by Goldy