The Uncomfortable Truth

When I was a young boy I had a horrible and haunting experience. It was a few days after my seventh birthday, and I was awoken by the sound of my Grandad calling my Nan from the bottom of the stairs. I ran to see what I could do. 

He was stood there with blood all down his lips, neck and chest. To my innocent eyes it looked like a very bad nosebleed. I ran to tell my Nan about the nosebleed, and it was this fact which she took at face value. Grandad was having a nosebleed. The tissues were in the kitchen. I should go off to tell him. She would follow on in a bit. No big deal.

A few minutes later I was kneeling on the blood-soaked floor of the kitchen, cradling my beloved Grandad, as he died. His eyes were begging me to help him. There was nothing I could do but hold him.

I finally came to terms with this in my late thirties.

When I was 19, I met with a psychologist who explained how my tendency to run the incident through in my mind could have been shut off by grief therapy, had it existed when I was seven. Later still, another counsellor asked me to honestly ask myself what a seven-year-old me could have done... really? The honest answer was nothing, but that fact took a while to sink in.

You see, the problem is that as I got older, and studied more about first aid, First Response & pre-hospital emergency care, in these increasing levels of complexity, I saw that incident from a more and more informed perspective. I lost sight of the fact that I was only a seven year old kid, with none of the knowledge I gained as I grew up.

This 'Grandad's Death Apologism' ultimately led me to have some serious delusions about how his demise was my fault, because I didn't perform some, now, routine actions which may have saved him. Such as recognizing that it wasn't an epistaxis for starters!

An astute reader will already know where this story is headed. This is a blog about religions and their follies after all. So, where do we usually find events recorded by ill-informed, scientifically ignorant authors whose stories are later retold from more modern and complex perspectives as more information becomes available?

Yes... The Holy Bible.

The job of the Christian Apologist is to deny the actual words of the authors, the stories within the text as seen through primitive eyes, and make up new ideas to explain what they meant, and why the stories actually meant something other than what they say.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a text by Aaronid "Priestly" scribes of the 6-5th centuries BCE, writing around the time of or just after the Jewish exile in Babylon, whose Yahweh speaks everything into being from some pre-existing materials, such as space, water and soil. Meanwhile, Gen 2:4b-Gen 3:24 is a text two hundred years older, written by Elohists who were following their tradition of Yahweh moulding humans, animals and plants out of the earth, clearly more from an agricultural perspective.

These texts actually have messages all of their own, but modern Creationists cannot bear to accept that these are from two traditions, which if taken at face value, clearly demonstrate that Yahweh is a human literary construction, used as 'Priestly Propaganda'! Instead, they have to find a way to construct a narrative that explains how the second, older story is a clarification of a period within the first, younger story, and tells us that they are both, in fact, telling a single story.

They are rewriting the story from a point of view of having both an agenda and a new set of data. Just as I did with my Grandad's death.

When you fail to take a story, or an account of an event, at face value, and forget the knowledge level of its author(s), or participants, you diminish your ability to objectively analyse the truth of it. If you're not 100% honest in your dealing with Bible texts, you relinquish any claim you have of understanding some 'arcane knowledge' or 'hidden truths' held within the text.

I didn't know about pulmonary pathologies, traumatic cardiac events, haemostatic techniques, CPR, or Stroke management when I was seven. I had to be honest about that before I could recognize the truth of my Grandad's death. If you're honest about the Creation myths of the Bible, you must accept that they inadvertently undermine the veracity of your god claim... in short, they explain the circumstances in which you can be certain your god isn't real... and never was. 

This is the uncomfortable truth!

"The Bible is True"... but which version?

As a part-time hobby I like to discuss ideas with the Jehovah's Witnesses [J-Dubs] which blight the streets of my home town every week. I only do it every now and then because some of them have banned me from visiting their stall after being unable to properly answer my questions. I'll explain why this week I even got one of them to ask me "What's the purpose of your coming here today telling us this? What difference does it make to you what our beliefs are?" Let the fact that this comment came from a Jehovah's Witness, famed for going door-to-door peddling their crap, who at the time was sitting behind a desk in a pagoda full of Witness literature and with signs outside proclaiming God to be this and that wonderful thing, sink in for a moment... yes.. indeed!

The reason I annoyed them this week was because I approached them with the topic of "Versions of the Bible"; my pitch being that for every line in the Bible which can be interpreted two or more ways there forms a pathway which leads to a new version of the doctrine. It's not as sketchy as it sounds.

For instance, if you believe that the account of The Creation [A] is true, as they do, then that's one version. If you don't then that's another. If you then consider the comment made by God prior to the Flood in which mankind is limited to 120 years [B] and think that this is a countdown to destruction, as the J-Dubs do, then that's another factor to consider, as is the idea that the 120 years is a literal age-limit set on each of us.

Putting them together we get four different versions of the story:

God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days and gave Mankind 120 years to shape up = AaBa
God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days and limited Mankind to lifespans of 120 years = AaBb
The story that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days is an allegory but he did give Mankind 120 years to shape up = AbBa
The story that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days is an allegory but he did limit Mankind to 120 year lifespans = AbBb

So we have the four versions... Of course there are other versions of each of these but I'm trying to keep this simple for now.

Out of two lines of text we can derive FOUR different versions of the Bible. I told this to the male J-Dub but got the standard "They're not versions, they are just different opinions." Well, I'd love to know what a version is if not a different opinion on the text. Clearly whether one has the opinion that God did create the Earth etc. in six days, or not, informs your practice of your faith. It informs your reading of other texts too. So how you interpret that one line does make a big difference.

As it is with other lines, and events.

Take for instance the event in the Bible when God supposedly appeared to Moses on a hill top [C]. The story says he appeared to Moses in a pillar of smoke. Now then, some interpret that as Moses having an actual visit from God manifesting as a pillar of smoke [a]. Others say that the fire and smoke was to cover God's face from Moses and so God appeared more as a man than the smoke itself [b]. Does this not fundamentally change your view on what your God is, or can be?

I personally think it was a charlatan's trick and Moses was making the whole thing up, making use of rudimentary pyrotechnic skills he'd learnt from other charlatans descended from Abraham. who you'll remember pulled a similar trick earlier on. However, we're talking about other people's interpretations here so mine do not matter.

So... should we add this event to the narrative? With the Creation [A], the 120 years comment [B] and the new Moses smoke trick [C] what combinations are now available?

AaBaCa
AaBaCb
AaBbCa
AaBbCb
AbBaCa
AbBaCb
AbBbCa
AbBbCb

That's eight versions from three events, using only two possible versions of each story.

The Bible is beginning to look like those old Steve Jackson books I used to read as a kid, where I got to pick my own story through the book. only this time instead of only my character dying the Bible wipes out over 2 million!

How about we add the parable of the "Water into Wine" [D]? Either Jesus really did make wine out of water [a], or it is a narrative explanation of the Jewish rite of passage [b].

I won't bore you with the details but that makes 16 possible versions.

Then what if we add the Raising of Lazarus [E], the 100 Zombie Saints [F] and on and on back and forth throughout the texts of the Old and New Testaments... how many versions of one book can there be, each with a unique narrative through the text?

At no point have I touched on how many printed versions there are, but if you even take one fundamental narrative, that of the idea that sin leads to an eternity in Hell, and you realize that the original Old Testament didn't feature Hell at all, and that even some versions of the New Testament lack that idea, you now see how utterly incompatible these books are from one simple change in dynamic.

So when I ask you which version of the Bible you trust to be the whole truth I'm not talking about the KJV, or the NIV or the YLT or KJV2000, I'm talking about all these little ideas and events and how you the reader, the believer, chose to form your ideas about what you believe. If as a conservative estimate we suggest that there are 100 lines in the Bible which can be taken two ways each, the total number of possible pathways through the Bible is 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.

Of course this is a rather facetious way of looking at it, but I think that if Christians are going to go down the line of saying that "The Bible is true" as so many insist on doing, I think we do get to ask "which version"... because I do not see that it is such a stupid question after all.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Argument

In a recent chat with a Creationist he attempted to use the age old, and incorrect, assumption that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) renders Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (evolution) false. I did not engage with him because I wanted to think about my response, except to point out that the 2LoT applies only to closed systems, and the Earth is not closed. I suppose this blog article is my response. So...

It's probably a good idea to start with a brief explanation of what the 2LoT is and what it means for us before going too far into things.

The 2LoT states that the entropy of a closed thermodynamic system will always increase over time.

The Creationist argument stems from both a false definition of the word "entropy" and the incorrect idea that the Earth is a closed system.

The correct definition of entropy, with regards the science of thermodynamics, is that it is a quantitative measure of the total amount of energy not available to do work. So the 2LoT has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It simply deals with the transfer of heat energy. However Creationists use a different definition which applies to the science of statistics and probabilities, which is that entropy is a measure of the randomness, or disorder, in a closed system. Whether they do this in an attempt to deceive, or mislead followers is uncertain, but I'm sure that is the case.

Using the Creationist definition along with their incorrect assertion that the Earth is a closed system, we are told that randomness and disorder, of all the systems on the Earth, increases over time. Well, what does this mean for their argument?

Creationists believe that the 2LoT shows that the universe could not have appeared by chance from nothing*, and that likewise animate life could not have sprung up from inanimate, non-life. They think that the Law prevents this because as the entropy increases these new organisms would be wiped out before they had a chance to mature and diversify.

However, let's look at the argument the Creationists are putting forward...

1. God created the universe out of nothing, or from his "Word".
2. God created every animal we see around us today in their mature form, from nothing... including humans and no form of evolution has ever taken place.

It looks very much to me like the 2LoT argument they put forward to counter evolution is destructive to their own mythology.

As I mentioned above, the Earth is not a closed system. It receives heat and light energy (along with other sources of radiation) from the Sun, and radiates heat and light back out into space, not to mention the stuff we send up into orbit and beyond and the stuff which occasionally crashes onto its surface from deep space. So the 2LoT does not apply to the Earth directly. However, the idea that the universe as a whole is a closed system may have some merit. Even if the Earth were a closed system the idea that such systems always fall into disorder is inaccurate because we observe random dust clouds settling in space to form planets and all of us have seen what happens when you shake a snow-globe, right? Eventually it settles down and becomes orderly.

So the argument put forward by the Creationists not only refutes their own beliefs but it is also untrue with regards the nature of the Earth and its inhabitants, by their own (incorrect) definition.

It only remains to point out that if the Earth is a closed system as per the Creationists' argument I believe that the 2LoT goes on to support evolution. They simply haven't thought it through.

In a system with a constant increase in disorderliness the transfer of DNA from one organism to its offspring would result in ever increasing changes and errors, which perhaps could wipe out a species (and therefore all species) pretty quickly, but at any rate would alter the next animal down the line each time they procreated. This means that the offspring of any animal would be changed slightly, so the animal which stepped onto the Ark would have descendants which are very much different to it today. It would be relatively difficult to argue that the lineage has remained stable in the face of the Law, once you've stated that the Law dictates that a state of chaos is the result of time passing. Even if you were to argue that the disorderliness had some sort of pattern to it you would be in the same boat of having to explain why your theory of increased chaos doesn't apply to organisms.

This change over time is the very definition of evolution... the only difference is that science states that the mechanism for evolutionary change is not simply random, due to occasional disorderliness in the DNA transfer process, but it is also driven by the need to survive and pass on genetic information to offspring.

So the next time a Creationist suggests using the 2LoT as an argument against evolution there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, that their definition of entropy has nothing to do with thermodynamics, and secondly that their definition (if the Earth were a closed system) seems to support the concept of evolution more than it refutes it.

I hope this has made some sense, and is useful to you should you ever come across the 2LoT argument yourself.

___________________

I must insist that if you find any errors in this article that you point them out to me publicly on twitter, using @UBlasphemist, or using the comments section. I don't get offended or precious over my work, so feel free to make your point known to me. I'll happily credit any corrections which pass muster.

I used a variety of books and online sources to write this piece, but the most important was IronChariots.org, the marvellous brainchild of members of the Atheist Community of Austin, home of Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience TV Show.

* It is important to point out that the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of the universe, or any lifeforms which may develop within it. It has nothing whatsoever to say about either of these two things.

Let's say God created everything...

How many times have you heard Christians claim that their god, Yahweh, created everything?

Well, for the sake of argument, let's say their god did create the universe. How many alternatives can you think of to the standard scriptural model of a god who is still present and looking after it?

I can think of quite a few, and I'd challenge any theist to find evidence to disprove me (since they insist we disprove their ideas.)

1. God created the universe and everything in it... but died in the process.
2. God created the universe etc... but moved on to design and build another one, leaving this one to fend for itself.
3. God created etc...  but gave it to his younger brother to look after.
4. God etc... but cannot interact with it because he moved onto a different plane of existence.
5. God etc... but it was considered a failed experiment and is currently in a room somewhere awaiting destruction.
6. God etc... but was part of a research and development team working for a corporation which is using it to power their offices.
7. God etc... but the universe is a component of a much larger machine.
8. God etc... but the universe is the result of a weapon which he activated as part of a multidimensional war.
9. God etc... created it by accident... whilst cooking a Victoria Sponge in his new quantum oven. (courtesy of @CrispySea)

In all of these scenarios the same god created the same universe but is not interacting with it anymore.

Which brings us to the other claim made by Christians that we have to worship their god by way of thanks for creating us... If any of these scenarios are correct, why are they worshiping the absentee? Clearly there is nobody there to make any changes, or answer prayers, or cast anyone to a fiery hell.

The failure of the theist isn't so much believing the nonsense he got sold by his church pastors... it's not imagining the range of alternatives open to him.