The Eschatology Ideology

Qiyamah, aharit ha-yamim, Final Judgement, Day of Purification, Ragnarok, the Apocalypse, Armageddon.

The phrases above all refer to the same general event: the end of the world.

One of the most dehumanising and potentially dangerous beliefs that virtually all religions, and certainly all monotheisms share, is the end of the world. Worse still, monotheism actively looks forward to the end of the world. Moreover, whether consciously or subconsciously, it looks to get our real human life out of the way as soon as possible.

I think there is something perverse about this belief, and there is no denying it: all monotheisms teach that this life is only temporary; a short sinful stop in a depraved world where the alternative to belief is nihilism, before we finally pass over to the next life where we will be rewarded forever and ever in paradise or tortured forever and ever in hell (disproportionate to say the least, would one think, given that eternity is infinite and our human lives are infinitesimal in comparison).

For this reason, monotheism devalues human life. It treats human nature like a curse, and strangles much happiness out of our existence with egregious circumscriptions on almost every facet of behaviour. The irony here is that the Original Lie told by Satan according to Genesis, is the one that all religions perpetuate: You positively will not die. I think there is something deeply opprobrious about telling people that which you do not know, and cannot possibly know; it is the worst kind of lie.

This life is all there is. That’s a fact. It’s a good a fact as the earth goes around the sun, and elephants cannot fly, more so indeed. (We might not like the idea, but there is no connection between wishful-thinking and truth.) If I had to confect a lie to take away what meaning this life has, make people waste and squander it, and remove as much delectation as possible, I would struggle to contrive a better one than to tell people that this life is not only the end, but it is actually a constant struggle against flagitious desires and a libidinous nature, all in the servile veneration of a galactic dictator. A struggle that, in comparison to the eternity that awaits you, is fugacious and meaningless. If I really believed that an eternity of paradise awaited me and fellow believers, (like I used to), I too would want this pitiful imperfect existence to hurry up and get over and done with! And herein is one of the problems: religion is anti-life. A true religious believer should not want to wait to shuffle off the mortal coil! But since this finite human life is all we will ever have, religion encourages people to waste it and wish for its end. What a deplorable tragedy.

But it gets worse. Not content with wishing for the end of life so that bountiful riches and joy can be realised, religion wishes not just for the end of a life, but all life. It awaits, what might euphemistically referred to, as the eschatological transformation; the End of Days, Armageddon.

The problem is not just that a belief in End Times is wholly false and plagiarised from other religions; all religious ideas about the end of the world are incredibly similar (for obvious reasons), it is that this belief is anti-human and dangerous in covert and overt ways.

Covertly, if one believes this miscreant old world is in the hands of sinners and is destined for judgement anyway, what is the point in trying to make it better? Why bother trying to help people if this is all part of a divine plan anyway, or the Cosmic Knight in Shining Armour is going to sweep in at the last minute and save the day anyway? There should be no need to worry about nuclear war; global warming; the exhaustion of fossil fuels; finding a cure for cancer; inventing new medicines that treat people and improve and prolong life; improving our lives with new technology; bettering yourself through personal and mental disciplines. This life is a one-stop supermarket where you’re only allowed to browse a tiny selection of what’s on offer, and you cannot leave the store without it anyway. This eschatological mindset encourages laziness and apathy on a grand scale. It is the very opposite of meliorism.

Overtly, this death cult of religion (to borrow from Chris Hitchens) which is a deserved obloquy for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, readily manifests its more dangerous side by those who sincerely believe the world is coming to an end, and actively want to bring that end about. From the terrorist hijackers of 9/11 who sincerely believed they were going to paradise, to the theocratic Iranian nation actively seeking nuclear weapons and the right-wing Christian fundamentalists in America who hope the signal for Armageddon is given with a mushroom cloud, religion has become a very real threat to human life on a grand scale and civilisation itself. Fundamentalists readily pray for the End to come, but it is now not impossible for some of them to acquire the means to make it happen. What could be more terrifying than a nuclear state that has no concept of mutually-assured destruction (like the aforementioned Iran), and worse still, would actively welcome it?

This is not scaremongering, this is how the world is. All it takes is one religious fanatic to possess two vital ingredients: a solid faith backed up by the words of his own holy book, and a nuclear weapon. Finding the first has never been a problem for the faithful. Finding the second has always been problematic, and we, as Western secular powers, should keep it that way.

The eschatology ideology is a pernicious immoral anti-human delusion that breeds laziness, nihilism, resentment, oppression, a longing for and glorification of death, and the actual and potential of mass suffering.

It doesn’t have to be this way though. Humanism is a philosophy that puts human beings and our temporary lives at the centre of matters, and lauds the ability and potential that we all have, and treats life as a rare precious gift, not to be wasted bowing down, praying, feeling guilty, or wishing it away, but embraced and respected, because it’s the only one we’ll have.

Atheist or Anti-Theist?

When I first started to self-identify as an atheist, I held several positions that I have since rejected. An example of one of these was the notion that science answers “how” questions and religion answers “why” questions. Although I was unaware of him at the time, I would have agreed with Gould’s non-overlapping magisterium. Now I don’t. I don’t actually believe religion has anything worthwhile to say on anything. Religion never shied away from making bold claims about the world when it was talking to an ignorant unscientific audience. If religion doesn’t overlap with science today it is only because the religious are rightly afraid to compete with science; a battle they have historically always lost. Some fundamentalists aren’t happy to remain on their side of the playground however; they actively undermine legitimate science and try to have their view of reality supersede any other. Finally, religion makes numerous claims that are incompatible with scientific knowledge. Some theists rationalise these incongruities by appealing to symbolism or non-literalism. That’s their choice, but I don’t think you can justify every contradiction, and indeed if religion was true, why would you have to?

Another position that I used to tacitly hold is that religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. That is after all, one of my universal principles for living: do as you wish, as long as no one is harmed. In theory, if religion also lived by the same precepts, I would have little problem with it. I don’t agree with everyone’s worldview, but I would hate to see a world where any worldview was imposed. In my ideal world, free speech, free inquiry, and freedom of belief (or non-belief) would be permanent inalienable human rights. The reason I am so opposed to religion is because it embodies everything that civilised society should not want to see realised on any scale.

I see no reason to believe in anything supernatural, which obviously includes god. That makes me an atheist. But what about anti-theism? You don’t have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist strictly speaking. One could fully believe in a god and also be opposed to him and his regime. One assumes that the character of Satan is an anti-theist. Being an atheist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an anti-theist either. I don’t know many atheists personally who self-identify as anti-theists, but this might just be because they don’t know of, or like to use, the expression. I will explain why I’m an anti-theist.

First, I’d like to point out that there doesn’t seem to be one theist who doesn’t dislike the idea of what they believe in. This may seem like a rather obvious point, but is subtly powerful. There are many facts about the world we accept. Some of them we like and some of them we dislike. Some we are glad are the case, and some we wish were different. But we accept it. I don’t like the fact that I will die, but I accept it. I don’t like losing, but it happens (occasionally). I don’t like having to pay so much in taxes, but it’s a fact of life. A nihilist may consider the ephemeral nature of life as inferring that life is meaningless, whereas a humanist would infer that life is even more precious because it is so brief. Isn’t it rather convenient that there isn’t one theist who believes in a god and doesn’t wish it were true? If it were so obvious that a god existed, why are the only ones who believe in him those who wish it were also true?

The following are notions that all monotheisms hold. From Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great, Chapter 15, page 205:

· Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and credulous

· The doctrine of blood sacrifice

· The doctrine of atonement

· The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment

· The imposition of impossible tasks and rules

I am not just an atheist. I’m an anti-theist because I am strongly opposed to the very foundations of religion itself.

Religion lies to people about how the world really is. Where it doesn’t lie, it actively makes claims that it cannot possibly know, which is as much the same thing. It befouls the minds of children (and in many instances mutilates the genitalia of children) with falsehoods and superstitions.

Religion dictates that sacrifices, of some sort of other but nearly always blood, are a necessary part of a believer’s life.

Religion decrees that we must keep atoning for our very nature constantly; that we are wicked, licentious, and depraved, and that our natural desires and bodily functions are shameful and something be repressed. Religion has always criminalised homosexuality and any sexual freedom. Religion has historically been one of the greatest oppressors of women in all times.

Religion offers what it has no right to offer: forgiveness of and for another person. It offers the ultimate reward that it has no possible way to know of. It also threatens eternal torture in the most sadistic and execrable way for those who will not accept the shotgun offer it proposes.

Finally, religion demeans humans by demanding the impossible and then condemning us for not living up to its own warped notions of perfection. There are ridiculous restrictions on diet, entertainment, language, and association. Restrictions on not only who you can have sex with but also in what sexual positions you may copulate.

One or all of the above are symptomatic of all religions. They are the antithesis of the most noble and enlightened concepts that humanity has to offer: tolerance of humans, freedom for humans, respect for humans.

Not only do I not believe in a god, I am glad that the god of monotheism doesn’t exist. Imagine living in a world where the god of religion existed. It would be like living in a theocratic police state, where you can be convicted for the crime of thought; virtually the very definition of totalitarian. Where the entire purpose in your life is to serve and worship and venerate another being; where you owe everything you have to a galactic dictator who you never elected, and you’re born into a system of total mental and physical control that you had no say in choosing.

The central figure in this eternal Dominion is a being who apparently knows you before you were even born, who watches you every single minute of every day of your life, and whose control over you reaches beyond death! As Hitchens observes, even in human totalitarian regimes, or in Orwell’s 1984, at least you can die and escape the regime. With religion, not even death is an escape, and indeed for any supposed crime you commit, an afterlife of eternal torture awaits you.

In this theocratic regime, freedom of speech would be as unknown as the theory of evolution. Who you choose to fall in love with, and how you choose to make love, would be under constant surveillance on penalty of death.

In this regime, you have to accept responsibility for the crimes of others that you had no part of, incur their bloodguilt, and unconditionally receive the only way to be absolved of this guilt: accepting the blood sacrifice by torture of another person that you had no say in at all.

No thank you, I don’t want it. I reject the very absurd notion of original sin; that I have somehow transgressed for someone else’s actions; this is the very opposite of justice. I reject the exculpation offered to me that was supposedly paid for by a process of human sacrifice to appease the blood thirst of the Divine One; a sacrifice that was necessarily the murder of an innocent man, something I would have objected to anyway.

And if I reject this barbaric offer, am I free to live my life my own way and die as all people must? No. If I refuse the “gift” I never asked for and never wanted, I can be promised an eternal live roasting.

This is why I positively reject religion and theism. As a thinking human being I could not, in good conscience, be party to such an inhuman and cruel regime, and I could not worship or love such a dictator. Humans beings with ethics, self-respect, and intelligence, should refuse to submit to any theocracy. That is why the necessity is not just of atheism, but anti-theism.

Christopher Hitchens versus Alistair McGrath

I’d like to say a few things about two very prominent people in the modern debate over religion and anti-theism.  They are Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath.

I’ve been meaning to write about Hitchens for a while now, but after watching his recent debate with McGrath on YouTube, I wanted to comment on both of them.  (This article will be more effective if you watch all 11 parts of the debate first.)

Christopher Hitchens is a true intellectual.  After reading God Is Not Great (twice) and watching almost of all his debates, I see a man who very much knows what he’s talking about.  He has a deep reservoir of literary, philosophical, cultural, and political knowledge to draw upon.  He speaks with authority, and import.  One of his fears is one that should never be realised: being boring.  Listening to him speak at length is almost mesmerising.  It is, for me, fascinating and intriguing.

The reason for this is actually quite simple: Hitchens is direct.  He doesn’t mince his words.  He doesn’t beat around the bush.  He answers the questions put to him.  You know where he is coming from.  Even if you don’t agree with him, you can never accuse him of shirking a question or challenge.  He doesn’t make unsupported or vacuous assertions.  He backs each and every statement up with logical reasons or a reference to a historical or modern event.  His cultural experience and familiarity with other peoples and cultures is matched only by his wit.  When you listen to him, you feel like he imparting real wisdom.  He communicates very effectively.

McGrath is an unusual character.  There is something almost appealing about McGrath, and I think I can best describe it as innocence.  He is probably a very nice person in everyday life.  I can imagine myself liking McGrath if I heard him talk about something other than religion.  Unfortunately, this is his chosen specialist subject, so it is this that I will judge him on.

I do not hear McGrath speak with authority.  He speaks as one giving a sermon, than a speech.  He does not argue, he preaches.  It is as though, for McGrath, just to be on stage with the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins is the victory in itself.  He is there because he claims to know the unknowable.  Whereas Hitchens and Dawkins are experts in their field, and do not waste a single word, most of McGrath’s words are a waste of time, and his expertise is in theology, a topic which should not be considered a field in its own right.

One of McGrath’s problems it that he simply doesn’t answer the questions; he doesn’t address the issues, he avoids them.  If he doesn’t know he’s doing it, he is deluded and mentally compartmentalised.  If he does know he’s doing it, his skills are wasted as a theologian: he should be a politician.

And this is when he avoids the issues and doesn’t give meaningful answers, (which is most of the time).  When he does attempt a proper answer it gets even worse.  He proceeds from the assumption that the bible is god’s word.  He talks about the authority of Jesus to speak and say the things he did.  He misses the rather glaring point that why should Jesus need any authority to speak good advice and brotherly love.  Are the egregiously factual and historical contradictions of the NT unknown to him?

I think McGrath sees public debate as a forum to preach his personal beliefs instead of answering the problems of his faith.

At one point he admits that he doesn’t recognise the charge of celestial dictator levelled at god by Hitchens, but can see where Hitchens is coming from.  I’m sorry, what?!  You can understand why somebody might believe god to be a celestial dictator, but not agree with them?  Is there that much confusion and doubt about god’s personality that McGrath can sympathise with those who think god is a cruel figurehead in the ultimate totalitarian regime?

McGrath acknowledges the truism that just because we might wish something to be true, doesn’t make it so.  He then adds the self-evident extraneous tautology that just because we wish something to be true, also doesn’t mean that it’s false.  Well, yes, Alistair, very true, but what’s your point?  McGrath not only wastes his time, he wastes everyone else’s too.

He suggests (for McGrath never says anything of certainty, but rather dilly-dallies and prefixes or suffixes every important statement with “perhaps”, “maybe”, “it seems to me”, “in some way” etc), that atheism is another form of wishful thinking.  Perhaps he forgets that the majority of people in the world don’t believe in his particular version of Skydaddy; perhaps he forgets that the burden of proof is on him?  If atheism requires faith, so does believing that Santa doesn’t exist.

McGrath admits that it’s strange that so many people haven’t heard the gospel.  He says this might be unfair, but in regions where the gospel hasn’t been heard, people will be judged on how they’ve acted to the best of their knowledge.  Well, isn’t that what good moral people do anyway?  So, what is the point of the gospel?  Why not judge people based on what they actually do, instead of what they believe, like we do in any enlightened modern secular society?

McGrath also makes the incredibly transparent faux pas of saying that Jesus’ ransom sacrifice and the subsequent possibility of salvation by god is an OFFER, and god does not impose this on us. Did McGrath think Hitchens would not pick up on this??  Needless to say, Hitchens does.  Hitchens plainly points out the notion of hell; of infinite punishment for finite sins.  McGrath, in customary fashion, has nothing to say in reply.

When asked about the horror and cruelty in the Old Testament, McGrath again says he must see it through the eyes of his Christianity.  In other words, he says less than nothing.  His words are valueless.  McGrath waxes religiously about “progressive revelation” but I have no idea what this means and I suspect neither does he.  What matters is that once again he talks and talks and says nothing; what about the horror and cruelty in the OT?  How does McGrath reconcile that?  We are left to wonder, because McGrath doesn’t tell us what he thinks.

McGrath obfuscates and equivocates; he equates the search for god with a search for deeper answers, philosophical truths, and metaphysical questions.  He conveniently ignores the reality that religion does not start with questions or searches.  Religion starts with answers.  Religion starts with THE answer: ‘god did it’, and works backwards.

McGrath also admits that his beliefs are a matter of faith and he cannot prove them.  So why does he debate then?  What does he have to offer?  What expertise does he have?  How can he expect to be taken seriously, when the very thing he is supposed to be debating about, he believes even although there isn’t a shred of evidence to support it?  On what merit does he deserve to be on the same platform at a Hitchens or a Dawkins?

Hitchens argues that believing you are a messenger from god, a theist, a believer that there is an almighty being who favours you is the ultimate in selfish wishful thinking and solipsism.  He claims it is arrogant and absurd because you are claiming to know what you cannot possibly know.  What does McGrath have to say?  Only that he doesn’t claim to have any special knowledge.  But as usual with McGrath, this is just rhetorical irrelevant nonsense.  He forgets again, or ignores again, that his beliefs require that he pretend to know things that he cannot possibly know.

In short, McGrath is a huge disappointment.  He does not even compete with Hitchens.  He has no credentials to debate over the subject at hand, but perhaps I cannot be too critical with him for this: the alchemist flushes when the chemistry professor walks into the room; the astrologist is mysteriously quiet when the astronomer shows up.  The theologian huffs and puffs and excuses and preaches and blusters and whines, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see him for what he is: an expert in the preposterous; one who pretends to know what he doesn’t have a clue about.

Nothing demonstrates the hollow falsity of religion better than that of the issue of morality.  In conclusion, I will reiterate the Hitchens Challenge: “name an ethical statement made by a believer, or an ethical action, that couldn’t have been made by a non-believer.”  The lack of an answer, or perhaps the inability to answer, by theists, speaks volumes.

With Hitchens you get clear, precise questions and clear, precise answers.  He even says that he would be prepared to stay and debate for longer because “I won’t go, if someone can claim I didn’t answer a question.”  And why shouldn’t he say this?  He isn’t the one trying to square the circle.  Another gem he quoted which I hadn’t heard before, from Einstein: “the miracle of the natural order is: there are no miracles.”  In other words, miracles just don’t happen.   There are no easy, lazy, stupid answers.  There’s an explanation for everything.  We don’t need to wrap our heads around supernatural beings.  (Incidentally, McGrath never does respond to the question of whether god intervenes or not in world events.)

The world and the universe is exactly what we would expect to find if religion was FALSE; if we were an averagely-evolved mammalian species, recently appeared on the scene and for the most part, largely under-developed mentally.  There is no mystery for the atheist.  This all makes sense.  There are no apologetics required.  It is the theologians, like McGrath, who must embarrass themselves by dodging and weaving and equivocating, and trying to make sense of ancient Jewish bronze-age myths in a modern world that has long since stopped needing or wanting these ridiculous explanations.

On Naturalism and Physicalism

Atheists don’t believe in god. Atheists do not necessarily reject the supernatural, although most of them do. Atheists do not necessarily believe that the universe is understandable solely in naturalistic terms, although nearly all of them do. Believing there is only the material universe almost certainly makes you an atheist, but being an atheist does not necessarily lead to materialism.

My worldview however, and that of most atheists I know, is metaphysical naturalism. Necessarily, I am also a methodological naturalist, although being a methodological naturalist does not impose metaphysical naturalism.

What’s the difference?

Methodological naturalism is the assumption (most prevalent in science) that the universe and everything in it can be ultimately attributed to natural causes. Science assumes that only by empirical study can we derive understanding of the universe, and we understand the universe with natural explanations. Methodological naturalism does not invoke or reject the supernatural, but assumes it is irrelevant for understanding nature.

This is how science operates. Many theistic philosophers and scientists don’t have a problem with this. Some do. Those that do might say that science should be a search for truth, and we should follow that search wherever it might lead. Why rule out the supernatural a priori? One might reply that supernaturalists unfairly assume that the supernatural exists. The counter reply is that science assumes that the supernatural doesn’t exist, but this is not necessarily the case; science only assumes that the supernatural is irrelevant. Whether either side has a point or not is not the issue here. What I will ask is: how are we to empirically test the supernatural? How are we to derive natural explanations of supernatural phenomenon? A theistic scientist might reply that science is ill-equipped to do so, or that we should not limit science merely to natural explanations or empirical study. But if we did so, would we actually be doing science any longer?

Is not science necessarily as defined, the natural explanation of the world by empirical study? Is this an unfair automatic disqualification of the supernatural? I don’t think so. If it is, all one can fairly say is that science is necessarily limited to naturally explaining only phenomena that can be empirically tested. The supernaturalist would have a good case then for claiming that if there exists something that cannot be explained scientifically, we must appeal to supernatural explanations and some other form of investigation. What such phenomena and other possible methods for investigation might be, I would really like to know.

A Load of Bright has recently made a very good case that even supernatural effects would present themselves naturally and empirically to us, since our sense experience of anything is necessarily empirical and natural. Even someone who has genuinely seen a ghost has had their brain interpret electrical signals from the optic nerve from the eye where light waves have impacted on the retina through the lens, from an external light-emitting/reflecting source. Perhaps then, even if the supernatural exists, we can study its natural effects and explain those naturally. Someone, for example, who tried to explain genuinely seeing a ghost (assuming the viewer wasn’t hallucinating) without mentioning light waves, retinas, optic nerves, eyes, or brains, wouldn’t be doing science, whether the ghost was real or not.

Naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism is the worldview that the natural universe is a closed system, and everything in it can be attributable to natural causes. Strictly speaking, a metaphysical naturalist might not deny the supernatural for the same reason as they wouldn’t deny Easter Bunnies: because it is as big an example of irrelevancy as one can imagine. Metaphysical naturalism would rule out ghosts, spirits, souls, and theistic god(s).

I prefer to refer to myself as a naturalist as oppose to a ‘materialist’ although I know I will raise objections here. I am, of course a metaphysical materialist, but the problem with materialism arises of defining exactly what matter means. Matter and energy are of course interchangeable, but there are forms of “matter” in the universe that are unknown to us. Dark matter and dark energy are the source of great debate and mystery among scientists and may account for over 90% of the composition of the universe. It might be strange to be certain that the entire universe is attributable to matter when we cannot explain the nature of most of it. It is therefore preferable to use the expression ‘physicalist’.

In any event, I do believe that everything in the universe has a natural cause, and everything is ultimately attributable to the workings of natural physical phenomena (as described by physics), as best as we can understand it.

Support for metaphysical naturalism.

What makes metaphysical naturalism so satisfying as a worldview is the fact that it has, as a matter of systematic change (often very quickly, sometimes painfully slowly), replaced supernaturalism so convincingly in explaining the world. Whilst this doesn’t disprove supernaturalism, it does show a definite trend to replace supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones. This trend has continued throughout history through the increase in power of science, and shows no signs of abating.

Science’s incredible success in making sense of the world, explaining phenomena, and predicting with stupefying accuracy the universe around us, without ever needing to resort to a supernatural explanation, lends excellent support to naturalism.

Moreover, we find that supernaturalism tends to exist with increasing ubiquity the further back in the past we go, and to those parts of the world that are deprived of modern scientific understanding. It seems prima facie that supernaturalism was invoked to explain those parts of the world we didn’t understand before science. As science shines a light on a shadow in human understanding, what we find when the dark is removed is not inexplicable supernatural mystery, but a sometimes mundane, sometimes fascinating natural explanation.

Given the phenomenal explanatory power of science, those recesses of mystery of non-understanding that we still don’t understand or science has yet to explain, might require supernatural explanations, but I think we can fairly say this is “god of the gaps” reasoning: find something that is hard to explain or undiscovered yet, and declare that only the supernatural can explain it. Rather, time and time and time again, it has been shown that very often, science does turn out to have the answer after all.

Whilst this does not disprove supernaturalism, it is more and more what we would expect if supernaturalism was false and naturalism was the correct worldview.

Arguments against metaphysical naturalism

Some arguments against naturalism and physicalism are based on the putative (and dubious) consequences of such a worldview, such as nihilism, despair, lack of hope, impossibility of objective morality etc. I don’t believe these charges are true, but they are irrelevant to the truth of naturalism so I won’t consider them here.

One major critique of physicalism is that it cannot account for the human mind. However, proponents of this strategy usually claim that the mind is immaterial and therefore an exclusively material worldview cannot explain consciousness. I believe this begs the question that the human mind is indeed immaterial. It is one thing to propose conundrums and problems for physicalism based on observation and incompatibility between physicalism and consciousness, in favour of another worldview such as supernaturalism and/or theism which explains the human consciousness by dualism. I welcome such philosophical challenges; they are genuine and fascinating, and ultimately need to be resolved one way or the other. It is another situation however to simply assert based on theology that the human mind is immaterial, and that’s that. What is your basis for believing in any immaterial mind? Is it because there are issues of consciousness and conception (such as qualia) that physicalism supposedly cannot explain, or is it because the concept of immaterial minds is what your spiritual beliefs require?

Is physicalism incompatible with consciousness? If not, there would be reason to believe there exists an element of mind that is not attributable to the physical. It is however not fair to say that physicalism is false because there is some element of mind that physicalism (though science) has not yet explained. On the one hand, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, and on the other, science has indeed explained many properties of human consciousness in relation to the brain, and neuroscience only looks to get more and more successful in this field. I doubt dualists would seriously nail their colours to this mast, as it is always possible the dualistic ship might sink one day when science does fully explain human consciousness in purely physical terms. At the moment, whilst we understand the brain very well, consciousness is still not something that we fully understand, and no physicalist would deny this. A far more potent case can be made against physicalism if facts are presented that it is impossible for physicalism (and indeed science) to explain even in principle without resorting to a dualistic explanation.

I’ll briefly consider two such propositions.

The first is qualia. Wikipedia says “They can be defined as qualities or feelings, like redness or pain, as considered independently of their effects on behavior and from whatever physical circumstances give rise to them. In more philosophical terms, qualia are properties of sensory experiences.”

Frank Jackson’s thought experiment called the Knowledge Argument is:

“Mary the colour scientist knows all the physical facts about colour, including every physical fact about the experience of colour in other people, from the behavior a particular colour is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a colour has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the colour red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that colour.”

Therefore the Knowledge Argument claims:

1. Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about colour experiences of other people.

2. After her release, Mary learns something about the colour experiences of other people.

Therefore,

3. Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people’s colour experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.

Therefore,

4. There are truths about other people’s colour experience that are not physical.

Therefore,

5. Physicalism is false.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett however “argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew “everything about color”, that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the “quale” of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that the misleading aspect of the story is that Mary is supposed to not merely be knowledgeable about color but to actually know all the physical facts about it, which would be a knowledge so deep that it exceeds what can be imagined, and twists our intuitions.”

Dennett also proposes that there is a problem of our language to communicate. Had Mary never seen a triangle it wouldn’t be too hard to describe the physical aspects of a triangle to her, allowing her to imagine what one looks like. That it is harder to do so for colour doesn’t make it impossible, nor does it prove the existence of qualia.

David Lewis also rejects the qualia thought experiment by denying that Mary gains knowledge in that sense implied, because qualia communicate abilities, such as how to experience red. He draws a distinction between informative knowledge and the knowledge of ability. Mary cannot use her experience to gain experiential knowledge of the colour red because the thought experiment limits her to informative knowledge. Just as Mary cannot know what is it like to swim or fly from inside the room; Lewis argues that physicalism is not threatened by supposed qualia because there are different forms of knowledge. In other words, the thought experiment is fallacious.

A necessary but not sufficient criterion of a successful worldview is that it is internally consistent. Any metaphysical position that is internally consistent is unassailable, but this doesn’t make it correct.

Are metaphysical naturalism and physicalism internally consistent?

The very intelligent and sophisticated theologian Alvin Plantinga thinks not. He proposed the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism and asks:

“But isn’t there a problem, here, for the naturalist? At any rate for the naturalist who thinks that we and our cognitive capacities have arrived upon the scene after some billions of years of evolution (by way of natural selection and other blind processes working on some such source of genetic variation as random genetic mutation)? The problem begins in the recognition, from this point of view, that the ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if they have one, is not to produce true beliefs, but to promote reproductive fitness. What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior. That our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even suggest that our belief-producing processes are reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could be adaptive, but our beliefs mainly false.”

What Plantinga attempts to show is that if our senses are fairly reliable, an assumption almost all us who aren’t epistemologically-nihilistic dire sceptics make, there is a conflict between naturalism as a knowledge-enabling worldview and evolution which, he argues, would not select for truth content of our cognitive abilities, but only for adaptive success. In other words, you might see a tiger running towards you but your senses might tell you that there is a rather rancid-looking bird coming towards you; either way you flee and your cognitive senses have ‘succeeded’; they do not necessarily select for truth.

There are not many arguments against naturalism or physicalism worthy of consideration, but this is a very important one. If Plantinga is correct, naturalism and/or evolution suffers a severe blow. If Plantinga is wrong, one of the strongest possible cases to be made against the self-consistent constitution of metaphysical naturalism is dispelled. Remember that self-consistent stable worldviews are unfalsifiable either way. One can refute a worldview by showing it to be internally inconsistent.

Unfortunately for Plantinga and presuppositional theists who assert that theism is the only stable worldview, Plantinga fails. (Probably because, in my opinion, he has missed important facts about how evolution works.)

Our brains employ a virtual simulation software that builds an internal representation of the external world through our cognitive apparatus. It is not perfect, and the truth is we do not, nor does any lifeform in existence, ever see the “real” world. We see a miniscule portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that reflects off objects and into our eyes. Our visual balance is such that red is at one end of our optical perception and violet at the other. Insects also have a window to the outside world similar in length to ours, except they are blind to red and see further into the ultra-violet than we can. Bats do not see with their eyes at all (a rather fundamental design flaw one might think), but instead build a structure of the world in their minds using echo-location. Our brain attributes labels to varying perceptions of external stimuli. Light of a certain wavelength is coded as “red” in our brains; “blue” to refer to another wavelength of light. Richard Dawkins has suggested, very tantalisingly and very convincingly, that bats’ brains might attribute colours to different textures that their sound waves reflect back off. Colour is a label that a brain attributes to certain stimuli. There is nothing impossible about another form of life smelling colours! Remember, the brain is simply building a simulation in our heads of what is outside. For evolution to allow naturalism to give a worldview for reliable knowledge, this simulation software must not be capricious or lucky enough to allow us to survive. It must give us reason to believe and expect that our senses report “truth”.

Fortunately, for metaphysical naturalists, that is exactly what evolution has produced. Ebonmuse says of Plantinga: “this argument is not just wrong, it is obviously wrong. An atheist has more than sufficient grounds to believe that their sensory and cognitive faculties are reliable, and it is not just probable but inevitable that a process of naturalistic evolution would result in this.”

“Our minds and senses, like all other adaptations of living species, were designed by evolution. And like all other adaptations, they could only have persisted to the degree that they aided our survival. If they did nothing but generate false beliefs, then at best, they would not harm our chances of survival, and far more likely would substantially decrease them. In either case, they would soon be eliminated by natural selection – in the latter case because they were an impediment to survival, in the former case because they were simply a waste of energy that could more usefully be spent elsewhere (like the eyes of blind cave fish). (The human brain consumes a substantial fraction of the body’s total oxygen and energy consumption. Natural selection could never maintain such a costly adaptation unless it conferred substantial survival benefits.)”

“What Christian apologists have ignored is that the ability to accurately perceive one’s environment and respond appropriately is essential to survival.”

Ebonmuse continues: “A bacterium has none of a human being’s rich mental life, of course, and apologists such as Plantinga argue that while evolution would select for correct actions, it would not necessarily select for correct beliefs. But though this could be true for creatures whose actions are decoupled from their beliefs, human beings are not like this. If a creature will face more situations in its lifetime than its genes can explicitly program it for – if it cannot live solely by the autopilot of instinct, as human beings cannot and do not – then that creature must perceive its environment correctly in order to respond correctly. Accurate belief is the only sure way to produce correct action.”

bd-from-kg over at the Internet Infidels discussion forum discussing the Plantinga EAAN says:

“Now Plantinga seems to think that, in order for the contents of beliefs to be subject to natural selection (so that beliefs with true contents are more likely to be selected) those contents would have to have a causal influence on our actions. But that’s not true.”

“Take [a] dangerous bridge for example. (We’ll assume here that it really is dangerous.) Natural selection clearly could select for cognitive processes that tend to produce (under the conditions that actually obtain) beliefs whose content is that the bridge is dangerous. For example, those whose [cognitive processes] tend to yield beliefs with the content that the bridge is safe might tend to be at a severe reproductive disadvantage as a result of dying at an early age. So while natural selection cannot select directly on the basis of the contents of beliefs, it could certainly select for cognitive processes that tend to produce beliefs whose contents are true.”

“With this understanding, it’s clear that the question of whether the content of a belief “enters the causal chain leading to behavior” is a red herring. Of course it doesn’t – not strictly speaking anyway. The content of a belief is a proposition, and propositions do not enter into causal chains. But it doesn’t matter. Natural selection can select for cognitive processes that produce beliefs with true contents, and this is what matters.” (Emphasis mine).

What this proves is that natural selection can most certainly work on cognitive faculties, and these faculties report information to the brain. Whether a belief is part of the causal chain or not is irrelevant; our sense organs are, and as much as evolution can select for improving sense organs (which it necessarily can and does) it would also select for beliefs based on those senses.

So, we know that evolution can select for belief-content indirectly. Plantinga however says:

“For every true adaptive belief it seems we can easily think of a false belief that leads to the same adaptive behavior” and concludes that “The fact that my behavior (or that of my ancestors) has been adaptive, therefore, is at best a third-rate reason for thinking my beliefs mostly true and my cognitive faculties reliable–and that is true even given the commonsense view of the relation of belief to behavior. So we can’t sensibly argue from the fact that our behavior (or that of our ancestors) has been adaptive, to the conclusion that our beliefs are mostly true.”

But there is no reason at all to believe that for every adaptive belief there is a false belief that leads to the same behaviour! That is an enormous and absurd assertion.

It might be possible that for a single specific limited event, say, running away from a tiger, there might be a corresponding false belief that happens to correspond with the true state of affairs. But what possible reason is there to think that our brains would construct, or that the real world would conspire to confect, false beliefs for every possible (or even the majority of) scenario(s) that we might encounter?

Bd continues: “most of our behavior is not of the simple “reactive” kind (like running away from a tiger) that Plantinga likes to talk about, but is “goal-oriented”. In order to achieve even a simple goal it is generally necessary to act on the basis of a great number of beliefs, all of which contribute in an essential way to the achievement of the goal. It’s just ludicrously implausible that a set of false beliefs might “just happen” to contribute in an analogous way to the achievement of the goal.”

Most of our everyday actions, and most importantly, the ones that evolution would select for, are based on such a complex interweaving of self-confirming beliefs that the falsity of even a few of them would result in terminal errors. Evolution by natural selection would most definitely indirectly select for generally true beliefs by selecting generally reliable sense organs.

It remains for theistic philosophers to raise further objections to metaphysical naturalism and philosophers better learned than myself to defend it further.

I will not suggest so ambitious a proposal that metaphysical naturalism or physicalism is the only successful worldview at making knowledge possible (as theistic presuppositionalists do in reverse). A case has been made that a natural closed system purely understandable as such allows science to function and induction to work. If supernatural entities could impinge on the natural world and alter laws and substance, induction would not be as reliable as it is. In fact, a world where “miracles” are possible would obviate scientific research as we know it, if not render our senses useless to understanding some facet of reality. I will not make that case here, but it is an interesting counter-proposal to theists. I feel grateful in the reasonable certainty that we do live in a purely naturalistic universe where no contrivance of the imagination of man can reign with impunity over the observed laws of cause and effect , or interfere with our world and ability to understand it based on fiat.

The primary alternative to naturalism, physicalism, and in effect monism, is dualism. Dualism and theism might very well be consistent with any conceivable state of affairs. In this respect they are consistent metaphysical theories so this is to be expected. At this point I prefer to invoke the ontological hedge trimmer known as Occam’s Razor and remove the superfluous entity. Dualism might account for a theory of mind, but monism and physicalism can do so as well. A creator-being could have created the universe and everything in it, including man, but we do not need to postulate such an entity to understand anything. The world makes just as much sense, in fact even more sense, without referring to anything beyond the natural. Supernaturalists will counter with the standard arguments from Teleology and Kalam; atheists will reply that the Argument from Design begs the question and is insufficient, and point out the natural explanation of evolution is not only explanatorily superior, it posits fewer extraneous entities; atheists will apply an infinite regress and charge of special pleading to an impossibly-complicated being that never had a cause yet created a complicated universe that demands one.

As Laplace said to the Emperor of France (Napoleon Bonaparte) after describing the workings of the planets in the solar system, in response to the question of why the figure of god did not appear in the calculations: “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothése”; that is: ‘I did not need to make such an assumption.’

What metaphysical naturalism and physicalism do is reduce the ontological count in the universe. What could be explained with 50 supernatural entities could be explained with 25. What could be explained with 25 supernatural entities, djinns, ghosts, or gods could be explained with 12. What could be explained with 12 gods might be explained just as well and less wastefully with 6. But why 6 when 3, or (three gods in) one if that is your preference? To quote Christopher Hitchens: “Surely even a monotheist would be grateful for Ockham’s razor at this point? From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure.”

 

Further Reading:

A Defence of Naturalism: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

Rationalism vs Empiricism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

The Obsession With Non-Belief

Which of these crimes does not belong in a court of law?

Theft

Murder

Blasphemy

Rape

Obviously, blasphemy is a victimless crime.  No modern court of law in any civilised country would hear the case of the defendant accused of blasphemy.  We’ve moved on.  Justice and punishment in our evolved society do not deal with actions that hurt nobody, and certainly do not deal with belief or non-belief!  Belief, no matter how ridiculous or offensive it might be, is not a crime.  On the same line of thinking, speech is not a crime.  Speech might be moving, stupid, or offensive, but you can’t arrest someone for just speaking their mind.  The moral zeitgeist moves on, and most civilised countries keep pace with it.

Nowadays, we punish people for their actions; for actual crimes.

It hasn’t always been this way though.  There were times, and they weren’t so long ago, and they’re actually still present in many parts of the world, when private actions that don’t even hurt anyone were considered crimes, but that is not my concern in this article.  My concern is about the “crime” of non-belief.  Needless to say, the position that non-belief is a crime is exclusively held by the religious.  And this, albeit staggering absurd, is the most revealing thing about religion and faith: the obsession with belief, or lack thereof.

Religion is absolutely fixated with those who don’t believe.  Commandments not to steal or kill, I can understand, but:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” – Psalm 53:1

Why?  Why is it foolish to not believe in god?

Why didn’t the Psalm say: “The fool hath said in his heart, I will believe although there is no evidence”, or why not: “The fool hath said in his heart, I am better than that race because of my skin colour.”?

Before we go any further, let’s get this rock out of the road straight away:

THERE IS NO PROOF OF A GOD’S EXISTENCE.  THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR A GOD.

The Argument from Design, the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Morality, Pascal’s Wager, the Transcendental Argument for god, etc all fail.  They are all fallacious.

Pascal’s Wager illustrates the mind of the believer perfectly: “if you believe in god and he doesn’t exist, you lose nothing.  And if he does exist you benefit by believing.  On the other hand if god does exist and you don’t believe in him, you risk annihilation.”

For a start, belief is not a choice.  I cannot choose to believe in god anymore than I can choose to believe I have three arms.  So if I said I believe in god, I would just be lying.  Does god want to save people who pretend to believe in him, just so they don’t get hurt?  That doesn’t sound appropriate for any intelligent being, let alone one who is supposedly loving.

Also, why would it matter if I believe in god or not?  The Wager is not “live a good life, because if god doesn’t exist you’ve lost nothing and if he does he will punish you”.  The Wager concerns BELIEF, but why would god be so offended by those who simply don’t believe he exists?  It makes no sense.  Couple this with the fact that if he exists, he has gone out of his way to make his existence look so unlikely that atheists are fully justified in not believing.  And yet, he isn’t necessarily going to punish us for our actions, or how we’ve lived our lives etc.  Oh no, he will punish us for the “crime” of simply not believing in him.  Why?

Patrick Sookhdeo :

“One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, ‘Any Muslim that denies that terror is part of Islam is kafir’.  A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e. a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult…”

But why is not believing such an insult?  If you were to call someone a paedophile, a racist, a liar, a cheat, or disloyal, they could rightly consider than an insult.  But a ‘non-believer’?  Why would an incredibly powerful eternal intelligent being be so insulted by people who didn’t believe in him?

Here is a recent quote from a fundamentalist Christian I’ve argued with:

“After all, it’s our choice, and if we refuse to even believe that God exists, how will we get to Heaven? How will you receive the gift if you choose to refuse that it, or even the One offering it to you, exists?”

But why not get to heaven based on how you’ve lived your life?  Does god not care for secular charity causes?  What if I care for my friends and family all my life, and I don’t believe in god?  What if I treat people like I want to be treated, and never intentionally hurt anyone, and go out of my way to make the world a better place, but simply don’t believe in the “right” god out of all the thousands on earth?

If you were god, on the premise that people of all walks of life and all worldviews can be very nice people, would belief in you automatically trump non-belief?

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” – James 2:19.  The message is clear; James sarcastically says: ‘you believe in god do you?  Well done!  But so what?  Even the demons believe that god exists.’  So it’s clear that belief in itself is not a prerequisite for salvation.  But if we don’t need religion to guide our actions and belief in itself doesn’t get you anywhere, then what is the big deal with being an atheist?

(Some religious fundamentalists even believe that all non-believers are evil.  This position is so absurd and patently untrue it doesn’t deserve further attention.)

Although not directly related to atheism, there is another indication of the religious mind that is interesting to consider.  It is the account of Abraham, who was tested by god.  God ordered Abraham to take his only son Isaac to a lonely place, and sacrifice him on an altar.  Abraham complied; he led his son to the altar, tied him up, blindfolded him, and drew a blade to slay his beloved son.  At the last minute, an angel of god intervenes and instructs Abraham to stop.  Why?  God was only testing.

But what was god testing?  Not Abraham’s moral integrity.  Not Abraham’s reason or logic.  Not how strong Abraham would be and stand up for what he thought was right.  No.  God was testing Abraham’s FAITH.  But why would god reward this kind of behaviour?  Why did god value blind obedience like that of an animal or robot, over moral reasoning?  Why didn’t Abraham just say “I’m sorry god, but killing someone I love, just to prove a point is wrong.  I can’t comply I’m afraid.”?

Ebonmuse has this to say:

“…but is this really the sort of behavior we should strive to emulate – the willingness to kill in God’s name? Had I been in Abraham’s place, I would have thrown away that knife and let Jehovah know, in no uncertain terms, that I would never serve any deity who demanded such a price. And had I been in God’s place, that is exactly the response I would have rewarded.”

Tests are only there to determine how good somebody is at doing a particular thing.  You don’t take an Ontology exam to drive a car.  You don’t take a driving test to be a professor of philosophy.  So, despite all its claims of morality and love, religion has no real interest in these things.  The gods of all religions test their followers in the areas that really matter to the religion: belief, and blind obedience.

But this is exactly what you wouldn’t expect if a religion was true.  Think about it: if a loving caring all-knowing powerful god existed, and genuinely wanted people to believe, it would provide indubitable verifiable certain evidence to all people all over the world that it existed.   Even the most ardent theist cannot deny that god’s existence is a doubt to the majority of people in the world (because no religion accounts for the majority of the earth’s population there are always more people who don’t believe in a particular religion than those who do.)

If a loving god really wanted to rescue people from “sin”, it would just do so.  What would it matter whether people believed or not?   Imagine you have a child that is separated from you, say by divorce, and isn’t aware that you’re its real parent.  You cannot provide any DNA evidence or birth records to prove your claim, so the child doesn’t believe you.  You go for a walk down by the river and the child ignores your warnings about standing too close to the edge.  Unfortunately, your beloved child falls in and starts to drown.  You have only to extend a hand and save it, but you don’t.  Instead you say to the gargling kid: “I’ll only save you if you admit I’m your real parent!”

Of course, no loving parent would ever do such a thing.  In fact, in the illustration above I have given god the benefit of the doubt by assuming he exists (the parent), that his warnings are real (don’t stand close to the water), and that his claims are genuine (being the real parent).  In the real world, there is no evidence that god exists or that any warnings or claims of religion are true, which only makes the obsession with belief even more puzzling.

We can make sense of the contradictions of god quite easily: he doesn’t exist.   But how do we explain the irrational obsession with atheism that borders on paranoia, that all religions demonstrate?  Well this obsession makes no sense if religion is true.  It actually makes more sense when we see religion for what it really is: a memetic virus.

Religion survives because, like biological organisms, it is good at surviving.  It is good at surviving because religion selects (just like natural selection does for evolution) for those qualities that are beneficial to religion and to procreation of belief.  This is precisely why the simple accident of belief is so important.  It is why non-belief is so offensive and disturbing to non-believers.  It is why all religions are so exclusive and intolerant.

Believers are genuinely intellectually threatened by non-believers.  The idea of another person reviewing the evidence and simply NOT believing is a threat to the absolute certainty of their beliefs. After all, if even one good honest person can sincerely not believe, perhaps there is something wrong with the belief in the first place?  Of course some theists go so far as to deny that atheists really exist!  This is a transparent exercise in self-delusion.

If theists really believe that atheists are destined for destruction, simply because they are atheists, they could save the lives of all the atheists in the world by doing what no theist or theologian has ever done in the history of the world: PROVE GOD.  It’s really that simple!  Prove your god exists, and we’ll believe.  All the arguments offered so far have failed, which reinforces the position of atheism.

Yet again we see the real working of the theist mind: since they will not honestly accept the fact that they might be wrong and god might not exist, they are left with only one option: the last desperate ugly underhanded mob-boss terrorist tactic of them all: well if you don’t believe you’ll die!  And here we see the real obsession with atheism for what it is: just another memetic trend that religion has selected for; another way to silence the opposition and/or spread the religion further.

Religion is a man-made cultural phenomenon, and the ugliest one of them all at that.

Real gods would have no problem with atheism.  Real religion would have no problem with it either.

Atheists are a threat to false religion.  What would a wonderful caring god have to be offended by atheists by?  What would a true religion have to fear from those who simply didn’t share their beliefs?  To a true religion, shouldn’t the most important things in life be happiness; taking care of people; bettering yourself; doing the right thing; independent thought; logical and rational discussion; and loving other people?  And if there is a loving god out there, I have nothing to fear from him, because this is exactly the sort of behaviour he will reward!

Was I Too Harsh?

Over at de-conversion.org, I received a message on my account there which read as follows:

“Dear One in Christ,

I am Mrs Cathrine NLEM ,from Cote D’ Ivoire .I am married to late Mr frank NLEM, who worked as a senior manager with the Ivory Coast refinary for Twenty-Six years before he died in the year 2005,after a brief illness that lasted for only five days.

We were married for Eighteen years with a son (mathew) who later died in a motor accident. Before the untimely death of my husband,we were both born again Christians. Since after his death I decided not to remarry or get a child outside my matrimonial home which the Bible is against. When my late husband was alive he deposited the sum of one Million,Eight hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$1.8m) in a General Trust Account with a prime bank in Abidjan Cote d’Ivoire. Presently,this money is still with the bank.

Recently,Following my ill health, my Doctor told me that I may not last for the next six months due to my cancer problem.The one that disturbs me most is my stroke sickness.Having known my condition I decided to donate this fund to a Christain organization or someone that will utilize this money the way I am going to instruct herein,according to the desire of my late husband before his death.

I want this fund to be used in Christain Activities like,Orphanages, Christain schools, and Churches for propagating the word of God and to endeavor that the house of God is maintained. The Bible made us to understand that “Blessed is the hand that giveth”. I took this decision because I don’t have any child that will inherit this money and my husband relatives are not Christians and I don’t want my husband’s efforts to be used by unbelievers. I don’t want a situation where this money will be used in an ungodly way. This is why I am taking this decision.

I am not afraid of death hence I know where I am going. I know that I am going to be in the bosom of the Lord. Exodus 14 VS 14 says that “the lord will fight my case and I shall hold my peace”. I don’t need any telephone communication in this regard because of my health hence the presence of my husband’s relatives around me always.I don’t want them to know about this development.With God all things are possible.

As soon as I receive your reply I shall give you the contact of the bank in Abidjan. I will also issue you the documents that will prove you the present beneficiary of this fund. I want you and the Church to always pray for me because the lord is my shephard. My happiness is that I lived a life of a worthy Christian. Whoever that Wants to serve the Lord must serve him in spirit and
Truth. Please always be prayerful all through your life.

Contact me on this e-mail address:
(k_nlem7@yahoo.ca) any delay in your reply will give me room in sourcing another person for this same purpose.

Please assure me that you will act accordingly as I Stated herein. Hoping to receive your reply.
Remain blessed in the Lord.

Yours in Christ,

Mrs Cathrine NLEM”

My Reply:

“Hi Katy,

I’m going to have to pass on this opportunity. You see, I don’t think that good causes and charity should be limited to those people who believe in a superstitious myth about an invisible person in the sky based on a tribal Jewish war god.

If you were genuine in wanting to give money for a good cause, then just ask, leave out the emotional blackmail and the irrelevant quoting of scripture. If your faith is really that important, why don’t you just pray to get better? And is it god’s purpose to secure funds for Christian causes only by sending out unsolicited requests over private message?

All the best

evanescent”

I don’t think I was too harsh, assuming that the e-mail is genuine, but, call me a miserable old cynic, I don’t quite think that it is! The “if you don’t reply soon I’ll find another [total stranger] to offer this money to” is more reminiscent of a chain e-mail!

I wonder if she’ll reply… Probably not. Has anyone else seen this message?