The biggest straw man

Having recently watched a video of Stephen Fry's view of God, I remember things about Richard Dawkins too, and it's the straw man argument on a cosmic scale. And here are my thoughts on why:

1. The God of the Bible is difficult to understand entirely. It would be similar to having complete knowledge of the whole of science. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and says that his working theory can explain how complexity came from virtually nothing, but that explaining how virtually nothing comes from absolutely nothing is the realm of physicists. And yet atheists, knowing that they do not know every aspect of science, treat Christians as if they should know every aspect of God.

2. Atheists often use the argument of: Well, who created God? This only shows an atheist's ignorance that everything we can see, touch, feel and even think must be created or have an origin. It's a logical deduction from the scientific method, which tests what can be seen and touched, and from psychology, which deals with feelings. However, the concept of something existing outside of time (and space) and therefore is not created is alien to science, which is why the question of who created God? keeps coming up, even though it is a non-question.

3. Since spiritual things are not physical, they cannot be tested using physical means, i.e. science. In other words, if the scientific method could be applied to spiritual things, then it would prove that they are not spiritual, but physical. This is why the scientific method cannot be applied to God, and why questions relating to God are philosophical, not scientific.

4. The evil in the world is mistakenly applied to God. Atheists assume Christians believe there is only one supernatural force at work in the world, and that this must be God. In Stephen Fry's view, all the diseases and 'problem of evil' is attributed to God. But Christians believe that all the evil is the work of Satan (and his demons), who set himself up against God and constantly tried to undermine God.

5. The heavenly realm is completely misunderstood by atheists. They set up the one being and assume that this being made everything else in existence. If an atheist accepts the notion that other spiritual forces may be at work (angels and demons), they believe that these forces must have been created by this supreme being, and thus repeat the error of point 2. Many Christians also believe that the angels were created, which only helps an atheist's argument. However, the Bible makes no mention of angels being created (the notion is only inferred from particular verses which have a different context). Like God, the angels exist outside of time and universal creation: they were not created, or rather, the beginning of their existence is the same as the beginning of God's existence.

6. The way God interacts with humanity is also misunderstood. We don't have a divine right to God's blessing. God is not a genie in a bottle who grants wishes: just because we want something, doesn't mean we are entitled to it (a product of the current society). God works in us to develop our faith, perseverance, moral conduct and our sense of purpose for this life. This is why we can't make a formula for how God answers prayer. Hence any questions which relate to God being inconsistent in answering prayer are misguided.

7. The Old Testament is often used to demonstrate the 'evil nature' of God, especially considering the apparent ethnic cleansing which took place. What seems to be not understood is that 'nations' in those times were much smaller and that when cleansing an ideology, all people supporting it must be exterminated. To pick a modern-day example: how will ISIS be defeated? Only by arresting or killing all of its supporters. To leave any of them living free would only allow for the group to resurrect. Or what about the 'militant atheists' who want religion to be extinct (and its supporters shamed)?

The course of human history has much ethnic cleansing and it is only perspective that dictates whether it is a good or bad thing. It is the 'tolerance' society that says ethnic cleansing is wrong (and remember: militant atheism is inherently intolerant). Most people would be glad to extinguish evil. The underlying discussion people shy away from is which evils we want to extinguish or, rather, which acts we will classify as 'evil'. When the debate reaches this level, it is easy to understand the brutality of the Old Testament: to extinguish idolatry, paganism, sexual misconduct, unethical behaviour, child sacrifice, elitism and so on. The result that the Israelite nation failed in their ethnic cleansing mandate, and their own nation became polluted with idol worship, immorality and elitism.

8. Other attributes of this 'straw man' people like to attack are the notions of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Essentially, it is the assumption that God can do anything He wants to. Some people try to argue that God has the potential to do unethical things (such as lie) but that He chooses not to. Such an argument raises awkward what if...? questions. More importantly, such arguments are reactionary and perpetuate the assumptions. The truth is, God's power has limits: His power is for the benefit of humanity. Such a question as can God create a rock so large that He can't lift it? is a non-question based on the all-powerful assumption which attempts to make God a contradiction.


Atheists usually enter the God discussion with a variation of the following reasoning:

• This is what God is like (or something that has happened in the world).
• Therefore we can make a negative deduction about God.
• And a 'god' like that isn't one worth believing in.

Unfortunately, people arguing for God often attempt to tackle the second or third points: they reason that the deduction is wrong or that God really is worth believing in (and dedicating your life to) despite a negative attribute.

The reality is that the whole premise for the argument is wrong: it's the straw man fallacy. Most of the time, the 'god' atheists don't believe is also a god most Christians don't believe in either.

Dawkins uses the popular quote: isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Some people try to argue that we should be agnostic about everything unless there is visual or experimental proof of it (Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot argument). The whole problem with this line of argument, again, is that it is a straw man. It says God is like something that is make-believe or myth (fairies) or simply an object with no direct implication on the human race (a teapot).

Such debates often get heated and cause much frustration. And it comes from failing to acknowledge the straw man assumption at the premise. Once the straw man is seen for what it is, the existence of a God who personally interacts with His human creation becomes incredibly hard to deny.

Questions for Atheists

Here are some questions I'd love to ask an atheist... not because I'm desperate to 'prove them wrong' but because some aspects of atheism just don't make sense to me.


1. The God-of-the-gaps argument works as follows: there is a gap in scientific knowledge, and that gap must therefore be evidence of the existence of God. But couldn't the argument be turned on its head? Couldn't atheism be described as follows: there is a gap in theological understanding, and that gap will probably be explained by science and is therefore evidence of atheism?

2. If the atheistic position on the origin of life is correct, does that make Occam's Razor a fallacy? (Because it seems that life being created by a 'supreme being' - or God - is a much simpler explanation than the complexities of evolutionary biology... and atheists seem to suggest that the notion of God was made up by people from a more intellectually simple society.)

3. Are atheists aware that due to the nature of God being spiritual and not physical, scientific arguments against His existence is a total fallacy? Arguing for or against God's existence is, by nature, spiritual and philosophical: not scientific.

4. Scientific accuracy seems to depend on whether or not the research is accepted by the scientific community. Given that the majority of the scientific community are atheists, could it not be the case that research which supports a creationist position or a deity will simply be rejected by the community despite being scientifically accurate?

5. Given the ridiculously small percentage of the universe which we understand (and accepting that we're talking about the known universe and that current scientific research is 100% correct), isn't there the chance that scientific research just isn't yet mature enough to give a verdict on the existence of God?

6. Just how does something come from nothing? Or, to use classical philosophy, what is the scientific first cause? (Note: turning this question on its head by asking Who created God? neither negates the question nor disproves the existence of a deity. It serves only as an avoidance technique; a distraction or a diversion. The Christian God is uncreated and exists outside of time. Although this might seem impossible, as hinted in question 1 above, God is not fully understood, which is why a lack of explanation is not evidence for non-existence.)

7. If the scientific method involves the processes of observation, hypothesis, evidence and conclusion, how can this possibly be applied to the origin of life on a planet, without observing or causing a planet to be created and life to begin? Surely this would imply that any supposed scientific theory regarding the origin of life is not scientific and is merely a theory? Especially considering data for such scientific experimentation has only been collected over the past few hundred years and has to be extrapolated backwards in order to invent such a theory.

8. If life has just happened to adapt to the environment of the planet Earth, why isn't there any evidence of life having evolved on other planets (and adapting to those conditions)?

9. Assuming, for a moment, that the evolutionary theory is true, are there any current scientifically observable cases of an evolutionary mutation which would serve to 'advance' the human race? Because, if these mutations are so minute that they are unobservable, wouldn't that give the theory the same credence (or less) than scientific evidence for God?

10. If there really are genetic mutations which advance the human race, doesn't this effectively create an elitist society, with democracy becoming the privilege of the 'advanced humans' and everyone else becoming 'evolutionary waste' and treated as irrelevant? (Richard Dawkins has already made a comment along those lines.)


Note: an answer to the effect of, Well, we just don't have enough information (or done enough research) at the moment to be able to fully answer that question, should only serve to show that science is only ever a working theory until more evidence turns up. Scientists should be very wary of prematurely calling a theory a fact, which is exactly what has happened regarding evolutionary biology and the origin of the universe.

Love will win

With recent terror and criminal activities at the forefront of everyone's mind, the new 'hashtag' #lovewillwin has emerged.

But what kind of love are we talking about? Not all love will win against terror campaigns.

English just has one word 'love' to represent a whole multitude of things. The love I have for sweet food will not win against terrorism. The love I have for my wife will also not win against terrorism. The ancient Greeks had a number of words for love:

1. Eros
From which we get the word 'erotic,' this is the intimate love a person has for their spouse. It was this kind of love which drove the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and was the undertone of the anti-war slogan "Make love, not war."

2. Storge
This type of love describes the strong bond between a parent and child. When a father tells his daughter that he loves her, it does not mean he's an incestuous paedophile: he refers to the storge love, not the eros love.

3. Phileo
From where we get the suffix '-phile': an Anglophile is someone who loves England, or rather, is a friend of England. This is the love between friends. When people sign letters with 'lots of love,' they are not initiating extra-marital relations, they are merely expressing friendship.

4. Agape
This is often referred to as self-sacrificial love. It's the type of love that goes out of its way to care for others. It is the unconditional love that the Bible says God has for the world.

Agape is the only love that will win.
But it's often misunderstood.

Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. Or, more correctly, to agape God and to agape our neighbour. The same love we should have of God should be the same love we have for the people around us.

After his resurrection, Jesus seems to ask Peter three times if he loves him. This is actually incorrect. The first two times, Jesus asks, "Peter, do you agape me?"
Both times, Peter responds, "I phileo you."
Then Jesus finally asks, "Peter, do you phileo me?"
At this, Peter must be rather annoyed because he's already told Jesus twice that he has phileo for him, and he repeats it a third time.

Jesus calls us to agape each other. But the Christian church has copied Peter. Today's version of Christianity is full of 'acts of kindness' which, although not a bad thing, is phileo love for others. You would buy your friend a gift, you would take your friend out for coffee or for a meal. Even buying someone a Bible is only a display of phileo. The personal cost is not much, only a bit of money.

Jesus says that no one has greater agape than to lay down their lives for their friends. The love Jesus wants us to have, that his followers should display, is that of denying ourselves and putting first the Kingdom of God.

Jesus showed us how to live: calling for people to repent because the Kingdom is here, and displaying the power of that Kingdom through healings, miracles, casting out demons, raising the dead and so on. Unfortunately, Christian leaders are happy to call people to repent, but the rest of it is too difficult. Those 'other things' might make us look silly. It might draw unwanted attention. It might land us with persecution... and yet Jesus says we are blessed when we are persecuted!

The Gospel of Jesus is not just a 'hope in life after death': it has power now. We are to expect the incredible and ask for the impossible.

If Christians took their call seriously, just imagine the headlines:
"Suicide bomber raised back to life so that he can face justice."
"Driver ploughs into pedestrians: ambulance called just in case, but group of Christians healed all the victims."
"Terrorists hijack plane and crash-land: 3 dead, all terrorists."
"Teenager jumps suicidally from 10th floor: a couple of nearby Christians raise her from death and give her a renewed hope for life."
"Cancer research goes bankrupt: patients flocking to church due to much higher success rates."

The agape love will win. Christians just need to learn to embrace it. That is the Gospel of Jesus. It's what Jesus calls us to do. We need to get back to that: deny our materialist, consumerist culture; accept that some sicknesses really are evil-induced; share our things with no strings attached; learn to agape each other. The true victory is in Jesus, when we learn to agape him.

Expect the incredible; ask for the impossible.

"Terrorism" is overused

It seems that nowadays every incident designed to inflict injury and/or death on others is an act of 'terrorism.'

But 'terrorism' implies forcing a particular agenda/ideology through fear tactics: making people succumb due to terror.

ISIS is a group which force their way through terror. People join their group and commit violent acts in the name of the group. Perhaps ISIS have claimed responsibility for attacks which haven't really been related, but this would be purely to promote their methodology: inciting change through fear.

But we can't just call everything 'terrorism.'

The Westminster attack on 22nd March was committed by a person who was waging jihad. ISIS claimed responsibility. Hence, a terror attack.

The Manchester arena suicide bombing on 22nd May was committed by a person who may have been acting alone. But he was a Muslim, and his attack falls in line with particular Muslim ideologies. Plus, ISIS claimed responsibility. Hence, a terror attack.

The London Bridge attack on 3rd June... ISIS claimed responsibility. Hence, a terror attack.

The prevailing trend is that a normal person wouldn't do such things, and therefore these people must have been 'radicalised.' This is why there is the 'Prevent' strategy in place to try to prevent radicalisation.

The problem with labelling everything a 'terror attack' is that not everyone is 'radicalised' like that. It's not prolonged brainwashing that causes all people to commit evil.

And this is where the problem lies.

The Finsbury Park attack on 19th June was committed by a white British citizen. He is not linked to ISIS or any 'terror group.' This attack was not an act of terrorism.

That's not to say that what the man did is acceptable: it is still an act of evil. But it is one man who fancies himself a vigilante. He has mistakenly thought that all Muslims are terrorists, just because a few of them are. His vigilante efforts were aimed at the wrong people, so instead of being attempted justice, it was a tragic act of injustice.

Like many other white British citizens, I do not with to see my 'motherland' destroyed by Muslim extremists, or by any other force of terrorism. I think such people should be stopped.

Also, like many other white British citizens, I see a trend in these acts of terrorism... that they are committed by Muslim extremists. Because of this trend, it would seem sensible to investigate all suspicious people, but especially suspicious Muslims... but given the culture of the day, such investigative methods are seen as discriminatory and racist.

And yet, it is the same process of deduction as knowing a suspect is most likely male, and so only investigating suspicious males who fit the description... such efforts could be considered sexist if the police didn't investigate both sexes equally. But it is this very nature of selective investigation that allows police forces to solve crimes quickly and efficiently. Political correctness has become a blight on such investigations.

And it is this political correctness that makes people lose faith in the police and in government policy. The leading officials have effectively shot themselves in the foot. And this is the reason that a vigilante acted as such at Finsbury Park.

Twitter comments have gone crazy over the 'discrimination' at how the Finsbury Park attack was reported, compared with the other terror attacks. It is because Finsbury Park was not an act of terrorism. And yet, it seems that the news channels have succumbed to the political correctness and peer pressure of the social media:
The Guardian is calling it a terror attack.
As is The Telegraph.
As is CNN.

It's all part of the exaggeration culture that Britain has adopted for itself.

British citizens are fed up with violence committed in the name of a 'holy war.' But this is exactly what ISIS is about. Europe is at war with these 'jihads.' A thousand years ago, we called them the crusades. It's the same thing, but with new technology.

A world apart

Every week, UK news headlines show a nation more and more divided. Britain is, quite literally, on the brink of war.

It comes in two parts:

Racially
Muslim extremists and the role of ISIS (who seem to claim everything as part of their terror campaign) have developed a huge distrust of Muslims. The peaceful Muslims are branded the same as the extremists - after all, how can you tell them apart?

Civilised British citizens (including Muslims) don't want terrorism as part of their culture. But it has got to the stage where people will - or have already - start taking 'justice' into their own hands. Acts of terror will be committed by any vigilante:
- Angered Muslim extremists, because their version of sharia law isn't being followed by the British justice department;
- Angered white British citizens, because they don't feel the police are doing their jobs and because they feel the government 'policies' on immigration are too soft.

Politically
It's no surprise that news stories often get polluted with political bias, but recently it has become rather strong. Jeremy Corbyn, probably annoyed at not having won the general election, recommended Theresa May to resign after the election wasn't as strong in her favour as she expected (note: it was much more in favour of her than of Corbyn), and then blasts the government over failures regarding the Grenfell Tower incident.

Government parties seem forever pulling each other down, rather than working together for a better Britain. Even within parties, there are certain individuals wanting to make a power play.


The nation is divided. 'Tolerance' is only for the few who stay out of the way. There is already civil unrest. People respond with exaggerated reactions. Unless big changes come, there will be war.

Social media pressure

There is such huge pressure to be on social media sites.
News reports often quote Twitter comments.
I was just reading this article and wanted to leave a comment... but I had to log into Facebook in order to do so!

All of this tells us something very interesting about how the world has become: if you're not electronically connected, you're not important.

The article even points out that "the more we seem to embrace this social media-managed consumerism, the more unhappy our children become."

It's not just children. It's marriages too. (This article too.) The pressure to be connected and then to stay connected is huge. But this addiction causes a lot of depression. Internet bullying is rampant - not just amongst kids - as people feel that they are not shirking their duty as a civilised member of society by posting exaggerated and insulting comments on the internet.

Because humanity is incapable of treating technological advances properly, social media has become just another way for people to wage war against each other. Facebook has a tragic side which most people want to ignore.

It is that side of Facebook that made me come off it back in 2009. I have never looked back, never had any regrets. I might not be as 'informed' on the social life of people I might have met once or twice, but my life doesn't suffer from Facebook-addiction. Yes, there are some people I have lost contact with, but I retained the ability to make new friends.

Many people tell me that I should go back to Facebook, that I don't have to be so involved. I refuse to give into that kind of peer-pressure.

But now I'm finding that to be a part of online communities (and it's only a few communities), there is more pressure to re-sign up to Facebook.

It's as if Facebook has just become part of normal life. The term "Facebook official" is, quite honestly, laughable, yet so many people succumb. It's as if my refusal to be involved with Facebook makes me unacceptable to the internet community.

It's all or nothing: let yourself get sucked in, or be gone from the internet.

I'd rather be gone from the internet. There's no match for having real human beings for friends, rather than a Facebook façade.

Taking things out of context

I don't know much about the DUP that Theresa May is trying to work with. What I was surprised to find, though, is that this article does a great job of misrepresenting the truth.

The Metro is a free newspaper and can be found all over the UK. A lot of people read it, even myself when I've been on public transport.

Links to terrorism
The article claims the DUP has links to terrorism, particularly the Ulster Resistance. The Ulster Resistance, along with the IRA, opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. Interestingly, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), which the article describes as "relatively harmless", also opposed the Agreement.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party, also opposed the Agreement. Does that make him a terrorist too? No, because he didn't engage in violent protests.

Sinn Féin also opposed the Agreement... because it would be official that Northern Ireland was part of the UK and not part of the Republic of Ireland.

But the Ulster Resistance opposed the Agreement because it would make it easier for Northern Ireland to be reclaimed by the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the Ulster Resistance was fighting for Northern Ireland to remain part of UK... essentially fighting for the UK's interests.

According to this logic, the protests following the Brexit referendum was also an act of terrorism. Good one, Metro.

Women's Rights
The article says that the DUP is against women's rights and talks of their stance on abortion. It portrays the DUP in a negative light when the reality is that the DUP are simply pro-life. They believe in the rights of the unborn child. The comment would imply that the Metro doesn't believe unborn babies have rights.

Personally, if a woman (or a man) doesn't want to be responsible for a child... don't have sex. Such a simple solution. But no, people want sexual freedom without the responsibility that comes with it.

(Note: Rape victims are in a different category because they didn't consent to sex.)

Same Sex Marriage
Actually, the majority of the world hasn't succumbed to same-sex marriage. Just because David Cameron pushed it through parliament for the rest of the UK, that doesn't mean it's universal. I wonder what the result would have been if Cameron had had a referendum on it?

Accusations of Racism
It is a fallacy to quote an example of one individual and apply it to the whole party.

Creationism
Evolution isn't scientifically proven, and probably never will be (due to the need for millions of years of observation, rather than backward extrapolation of limited data). Unfortunately, scientific and political agendas have pushed evolution as 'fact' and marginalised other explanations of humanity's origin. And when it comes to finding 'proof', philosophical arguments are often discredited by scientists who favour their own theoretical and unproven ideas.

Brexit
The article at least has an unbiased factual statement regarding the DUP's position on Brexit.



On a tangent...

What I also find incredibly interesting is in the 'comments' section of the article. Since the main reason for the article was Theresa May's apparent forgetfulness of all the letters of the LGBT group, one comment reads:
"Can you really blame her? An extra letter seems to get added every other month."

This was actually my thought too. It was only in the last year that I found that some people added a 'Q' on the end. Some people add an 'I' as well, others an 'A'. Many people put a '+' in there too just to try to cover everything. It all boils down to a culture of people taking offence over insignificant things. And the Metro put it as an article so that the public could rally together at such 'offensiveness'.

But there's a reply to the comment which includes (and I've included the bad English for purity of the quote):
"... it ain't forgetting a few letters , those letters represent people she as prime minister has a DUTY to help defend, if she's too much of a dimbulb to even remember the letters then how the hell is she going to remember the opeople those letter represent?"

And that's where I get annoyed.

I am also a person that my government is supposed to have a duty to represent. I am not 'homophobic' (I don't 'hate' LGBTetc. people and I don't have an irrational fear of them), I simply believe that endorsing such activities will ultimately be detrimental to family life and to young people's childhood. I believe that it will pave the way for further 'freedoms' currently considered wrong, such as polygamy and paedophilia.

Adulterous behaviour ruins marriages, families and friendships, and I believe there should be a law against it... yet it is not illegal to commit adultery. Being 'legal' does not make something moral or ethical.

Unfortunately, from reading many articles and comments, I believe I am considered 'intolerant' and 'bigoted' and probably get slapped with 'fundamentalism' and 'extremism' for my views. And who would call me such derogatory and insulting things? The 'tolerant' and 'politically-correct' LGBT group, of course!