|
God would be an atheist...
A rational look at religion, morality, politics and daily life |
|
HOME / This Week About GWBAA WEEKLY COLUMNS Previous Print column Why subscribe? Schedule Terms & Rates Subscribe Online column Subscribe BASICS Definitions Atheism Faith God Religion etc Analysis The meaning of life Morality etc NEXT STEPS Buy Discuss Join Read REVIEWS CONTACT Link to this site October 16, 2005 All Rights Reserved World Copyright © Martin Foreman |
Column 27: The Klingon Assumption The fantasy that is theology By © Martin Foreman Word Count: 797 words Publication date: August 14, 2005 Print publications wishing to syndicate the column should click here. Individual subscribers wishing to read the column should click here specifying date, number or title of column. Sitting on my shelves among other artefacts of defunct technologies is a cassette tape of conversational Klingon. For Star Trek fanatics it’s a must-have. For linguists – years ago I trained as one – it’s mildly interesting, with its sound system reminiscent of Scots Gaelic spoken by extrovert Japanese. You can study Klingon through the Klingon Language Institute, learning words such as be’joy’ (ritualized torture by women), borghel (a very small bird whose eggs are considered quite tasty) and porghQeD (the scientific study of body functions). And you can hone your linguistic skills on the Klingon translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The Language Institute occupies only one corner of an alternative world view that exists complete with its own internal logic and history. Taken together, the cassette, the website and all the other paraphernalia available offer enough circumstantial “evidence” to suggest to the terminally naďve that Klingons actually exist. Once you accept the “truth” of the basic text (in this case revealed to the world through television and film) everything else falls into place. Where information is missing – such as the full vocabulary of Klingon – self-appointed experts can fill in the gaps. Where there are inconsistencies – such as the very different appearance of Klingons in the original Star Trek and in later versions – those same experts can create elaborate arguments to reassure the faithful that there is a perfectly logical explanation. I was reminded of Klingon recently when reading Alister McGrath’s 2004 book The Science of God. It’s a scholarly work that, according to the blurb, presents “a scientific theology based on the present and past relationships between Christian theology and the natural sciences”. I’d read one other book of McGrath’s – The Twilight of Atheism (see review) – and had not been impressed. The author demonstrated little more than the weakness of his intellectual position as he focused on individual atheists rather than atheism itself. The strengths and weaknesses of Madalyn Murray O’Hair (founder of American Atheists), the British National Secular Society, the Soviet Union and the others McGrath is obsessed with are as irrelevant to atheism as the Pope’s underwear is to Christianity. Atheism itself is no more in decline than the value of pi or the color blue. Nonetheless, I read The Science of God because everyone deserves a second chance. More pretentious than its predecessor, but dealing with ideas rather than with personalities, it is a far better book. McGrath is well-informed and writes well. Although his primary audience is other academics, everyday folk with some intelligence can follow what he is saying. The basic problem is the Klingon Assumption. Just as the Klingon Language Institute makes no reference to the fact that the warrior race are a figment of Gene Roddenberry’s imagination, McGrath ignores the possibility that his God is equally fictitious. He is so busy politely picking holes in everyone else’s arguments that he forgets to examine the enormous abyss at the center of his. To a certain extent, that intellectual gaffe is irrelevant. Theology can be absorbing and challenging, demanding a lifetime’s dedication. It is also harmless, as long as practitioners accept that it is no more relevant to reality than Grand Theft Auto or Harry Potter. Some, unfortunately, are blinded by their own certainties. One such is Anjem Choudary, a British-born Muslim extremist interviewed last week on Hardtalk on BBC World Television. Choudary is eloquent and intelligent, although too intelligent to allow himself to explicitly promote terrorism. Nevertheless, he puts forward a strong argument to justify the 7/7 bombings in London. That argument rests entirely on his interpretation of the sharia (Muslim law), wherein non-Muslims are lesser human beings who deserve any fate that comes to them. It was easy to see how impressionable minds could be convinced. This is theology as a weapon of mass destruction. Take away the central tenet, that Allah exists, and Choudary’s position and that of the suicide bombers crumbles into dust – and with it their egos. The fanatics’ concept of themselves depends on absolute adherence to the God they create. Others must die so that they are not confronted with the absurdity of their belief. (See the full 25-minute interview here.) American Christian fundamentalists lie half-way between McGrath and Choudary. They are less blood-thirsty than the Muslim variety and have greater sympathy for non-believers, but are equally unable to face reality. Through “Intelligent” Design and Creationism, they are systematically destroying the ability ot the nation’s young minds to think critically. This dumbing down of America may satisfy their egos, but it does the country no favors. When the fantasy of theology is taken seriously, it surrounds us with darkness, not light. As a fog of ignorance descends on American schools, the rest of the world has begun to look elsewhere for intellectual and scientific leadership. Whenever possible Martin Foreman responds to intelligent questions on aspects of atheism. Send an e-mail. Reprint and Comment
|
PREVIOUSLY... "Here we are with a couple of hours to spare and nothing better to do than translate Genesis from ancient Hebrew into modern English. That version of chapter one, verse one looks all right, but there’s something missing. Let’s check the original again. What’s the fourth word? 'Elohim' Of course; the –im ending means it’s plural, like cherubim and seraphim. Let’s try again. 'In the beginning, the gods created heaven and earth.'" Atheist nation "As America inches closer to being a theocratic state, the country’s strong links with atheism are in danger of being airbrushed out of history. Despite the claims of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, that government derives its authority from God, the United States was never intended to be a Christian nation." Atheist nation "Forcing, allowing or encouraging any child to participate in any religious practice, such as baptism, prayer, the hymn-singing, wearing of religious symbols or declaration of faith, should be considered a crime as serious as physical or sexual abuse. Parents who repeatedly expose their offspring to religious practices should lose custody of those children." Protect the children "The United States prides itself on championing freedom and in enshrining the pursuit of happiness in its constitution. It is ironic that so many Americans espouse a moral code whose impact is to restrict both freedom and happiness. America needs moral values, but values that respect and honor every citizen." What moral values? "Maybe Noah had some help building the Ark; he may have contracted some of the men on God’s death list. 'No, no… there isn’t going to be a Flood. I just want to give the wife something to look at while she’s washing dishes.' " How did the koala get to Australia? "In 2002, seven women were ordained priests. Wasn’t that great, especially since the Church has a problem recruiting young men to the priesthood? So what was the Pope’s response to these people who wanted to serve God? He threw up his hands in horror at the fact that the seven had the spiritual, but not the physical, balls to be priests and excommunicated them." Men only "I’ve never liked the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” to define the abortion debate. They reduce a complex issue to sound bites that appeal to emotion more than reason and encourage discord rather than discussion." What do you mean, "pro-life"? |
Looking for anything? Search this site WEEKLY COLUMN NOT YET AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA? Readers: e-mail me the name of the publication you would like to see carry GWBAA... (and / or contact the editor directly) Editors: check out the introductory offers for free trial and low-cost syndication  
DON'T FORGET 
|