Angus Buchan the new messiah of the ignorant and gullible

“Why does it matter if people cling to myths for solace? Because real-world problems such as climate change can only be solved by real-world thinking. Like it or not, the harsh reality is that nature doesn’t exist to serve humanity, and turning to myths that put humans at the centre of creation only distract us from appropriate actions.”

 

I thought about these words of Lawrence Krauss in his column “World Lines” in New Scientist when I read today’s papers reporting that more than 70 000 people turned up at Loftus Versfeld to hear the potato faith-healer Angus Buchan solving all the world’s – and especially South Africa’s – problems.

 

Why does it indeed matter if 71 128 believers without baloney detectors – including the rugby Springbok Jaco van der Westhuysen – want to listen to a modern-day “prophet” such as Buchan telling them how a mythical god can solve every worry they have?

 

What has gone wrong with South Africans to believe the baloney this man has been spreading all over the country? One would think that the average person pitching up to listen to Buchan has some common sense. From what these people are saying, many of them are well educated, mainstream and middle of the road citizens. But can you become a winning nation with people who believe myths and the mythical god they cling to so easily?

 

 

I don’t think so. My own recent study that I have undertaken for Sceptic South Africa and in which a representative sample of South Africans were asked about their beliefs, shows that we are a very gullible and ignorant lot. And that we have virtually no knowledge of the findings of science.

 

The findings of questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 indicate how seriously retarded South Africa is in its development and how little influence scientific discoveries and findings have on the way we think.

 

No wonder the gullible 71 128 and millions thinking and believing along a similar vein, have made Buchan a new messiah. It shows there is something seriously wrong with our parenting, with our educational system, with the way we brainwash our children to believe in these myths. Emotion and a warm fuzzy feeling count, not rational thinking. Only one in nine South Africans really believe rational thinking counts, whereas more than 88% believe that God or an Intelligent Designer can work miracles in people’s lives.

 

Frightening, to say the least. Even more so because the Afrikaans media have gone to town in uncritically presenting Buchan’s words as if he was telling the truth. I thought news reporting was about reporting the facts. Why then this obsession with myths by the media? Again, Neels Jackson, the Media24 and Beeld reporter, continues to present Buchan in a totally uncritical, no-questions-answered light.

 

The preliminary results show the following from a questionnaire answered either telephonically or in person by the sample group. The margin of error was plus/minus 2%.

 

 

 

A. Biographical detail

 

1.  Age: 

 

1.1   18-24                 18%

1.2   25-34                 24%

1.3   35-49                 23%

1.4   50-64                 18%%

1.5   65 and older     17%

 

2.  Gender: 

 

2.1  Male                   53%

2.2  Female               47%

 

3.  Race:

 

3.1  African                79%

3.2  Coloured            9%

3.3  Asian                  3%

3.4  White                  9%

 

4.  Education:

 

4.1       No schooling                                                                                     2%

4.2       Schooling up to Grade 9                                                                   18%

4.3       Grade 12 successfully completed                                                    46%

4.4       1-2 years tertiary education                                                              11%               

4.5       3 year degree or diploma                                                                 14%

4.6       Advanced degree(s) (4 years and more after Grade 12)   9%

 

 

 

B.  Please answer the following questions by encircling the number the closest to what you believe:

 

1.  What is your view on the following statement:

 

“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

 

            1.1  True                                12%

            1.2  False                              81%

            1.3  I am not sure                  4%

            1.4  I do not know                 3%

 

 

2.   Which of the following statements do you believe are the closest to the truth?:

 

2.1  God or an Intelligent Designer created human beings pretty much in their  present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (86%)

2.2  Human  beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
  life, but God or an Intelligent Designer guided this process. (2%)

2.3  Human beings have  developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God or an Intelligent Designer had no part in this process. (12%)

 

 

3.  How old do you believe the Earth is?:

 

3.1  6 000 tot 10 000 years                 78%

3.2  100 million years                           12%

3.3  4,5 billion years                               5%

3.4   I do not know                                   5%

 

4.  Approximately how old do you think the Universe is?

 

4.1  6 000 to 10 000 years                          76%

4.2  4,5 billion years                                     15%                                      

4.3  13,7 billion years                                  5%

4.4  I do not know                                          4%

 

5.  Which of the following statements come closest to what you believe?

 

5.1  Science and religion are compatible beliefs, each with its own field of endeavour. (11%)

5.2  Science and religion are overlapping because God or an Intelligent Designer created both. (78%)

5.3  Science and religion are incompatible because the findings of science cannot be reconciled with belief in a creator. (11%)

 

6.  Please tell me whether ESP or extrasensory perception is

 

6.1  something you believe in;   (85%)

6.2  something you’re not sure about; or (7%)

6.3  something you don’t believe in. (8%)

 

7. Please tell me whether telepathy, or communication between minds without using the traditional five senses is

 

7.1 something you believe in; (80%)

7.2 something you’re not sure about; or (9%)

7.3 something you don’t believe in. (11%)

 

8.  Please tell me whether people’s ability to hear from or communicate mentally with someone who has died is

 

8.1 something you believe in;  (88%)

8.2 something you’re not sure about; or  (2%)

8.3 something you don’t believe in. (10%)

 

 

9        Please tell me whether the the statement that extra-terrestrial beings have visited earth at some time in the past is

 

9.1 something you believe in; (67%)

9.2 something you’re not sure about; or (15%)

9.3 something you don’t believe in. (18%)

 

10.  Which of the following statements come closest to what you believe?

 

10.1.1   I believe that God or an Intelligent Designer can work miracles in peoples lives. (88%)

10.2         I am not sure whether miracles can happen. (1%)

10.3         I only believe in rational explanations that can be proven. (11%)

 

 

More loyal than the queen

Die debat oor Intelligente Ontwerp wat van Julie tot Oktober verlede jaar in Die Burger gewoed het ná my negatiewe resensie van Leon Rousseau se boek Die Groot Avontuur (Human & Rousseau) het verder uitgekring. Rousseau het in repliek op Karel de Pauw se oorwegend positiewe resensie op my boek Geloof, Bygeloof en Ander Wensdenkery: Perspektiewe op Ontdekkings en Irrasionaliteite (Protea Boekhuis), die volgende repliek versprei. Ek antwoord hom ná sy repliek hieronder.

 

Repliek deur Leon Rousseau

 

Verlede week was daar in Die Burger ’n ophemelende resensie deur Karel de Pauw van die boek Geloof, bygeloof en ander wensdenkery. (http://152.111.1.251/argief/berigte/dieburger/2007/10/15/SK/13/BBclaasen.html).  Daarin verwys De Pauw by wyse van teenstelling afkeurend na “pseudo-wetenskaplike argumente” in Die groot gedagte deur Gideon Joubert en in my boek Die groot avontuur.

 

Sowel Die groot gedagte (natuurwetenskappe, sterrekunde) as Die groot avontuur (ontstaan van lewe, evolusie) is bedoel om populêr in die sin van “toeganklik” te wees. Pseudo-wetenskap, daarenteen, is so ’n sterk woord dat dit meestal gereserveer word vir wilde bespiegelaars soos David Icke en Von Däniken, skrywer van Chariots of the gods, en dié is Joubert se boek en myne nie.

 

Later maak De Pauw die pap nog ’n bietjie dikker aan en sê “die argumente en feite [in Geloof, bygeloof . . . is] die spreekwoordelike pêrels voor die swyne wat sekere skrywers betref.” Hy verwys kennelik na my en na Gideon Joubert.

Die rede vir dié nydigheid is eenvoudig. De Pauw, saam met geesgenote soos Nathan Bond en George Claassen (skrywer van Geloof, bygeloof . . .) is ’n spraaksame voorbok in die militante ateïstiese beweging. Dié broeders in die ongeloof praat uit een mond.

Daar is ’n verskil tussen ateïste – elke mens het die reg op sy eie mening – en militante ateïste, wat die ateïsme aanhang soos pasbekeerdes wat die hele wêreld wil bekeer en selfs nie die sweem van ’n ander standpunt duld nie.

Hulle verdoem Die groot avontuur omdat ek, sonder om dit as wetenskaplike teorie voor te lê, op ’n paar plekke vertel van my indruk dat daar ’n groot intelligensie agter die wondere van die heelal moet wees. Aan dié ongeveer 1% van die boek het een van hulle 70% van ’n lang, venynige resensie bestee. In Gideon Joubert se boek speel geloof ’n nog groter rol, en hy word ooreenstemmend nog meer verguis as ek. Hulle praat van “Joubertisme” in ongeveer dieselfde toon as wat sekere Christene van “satanisme” praat.

My eie boek was onder meer ’n poging om die kloof tussen geloof en wetenskap (spesifiek evolusie) te verklein, soos ook die doyen van Suid-Afrikaanse wetenskaplikes, prof Phillip Tobias, al lewenslank probeer doen.

Omstreeks 1960, kort ná Koos Human en ek Human & Rousseau gestig het, het ek enkele briewe met prof. Raymond Dart van Wits gewissel. Dit was op ’n besoek aan Johannesburg dat hy my kort daarna aan die woeste wêreld van Australopithecus, die Suideraap, bekend gestel het.

Met idealistiese sending-ywer het ek toe by Human & Rousseau ’n boekie, Die wording van die mens, evolusie vir jongmense, uitgegee, maar kerk en staat was (in Jurie van den Heever se woorde) toe nog so stewig aan mekaar vasgesweis dat dit ons all-time worst seller was. Biblioteke was te bang om ’n boek oor evolusie te koop omdat sekere predikante dit afkeur. Dit was seker een van die dinge wat my aangespoor het om Die groot avontuur te skryf, met die doel om kreasioniste sagkens, sonder aggressie, tot ’n geloof in evolusie te bekeer. Ook in dié opsig het die militante ateïste my boek volkome verkeerd verstaan – anders as gebalanseerde wetenskaplikes soos prof Hilary Deacon, dr Sarah Wurz, prof P A J Ryke (skrywer van Evolusie) en prof Phillip Tobias, wat dit goedgekeur het.

Die groot avontuur is vroeër vanjaar met die Recht Malan-prys vir nie-fiksie bekroon, Die groot gedagte reeds vroeër met sowel die Andrew Murray-prys as die Insig-prys vir nie-fiksie.

Die polarisering tussen geloof en evolusie woed veral in die VSA al baie dekades. Kreasioniste was aanvanklik die lawaaierigste maar deesdae het ’n invloedryke groep  wetenskaplikes ewe onverdraagsaam en kleingeestig geword. En by ons is die lekepredikers vir die ateïsme more loyal than the queen.

As iemand soos Galileo in die 17de eeu gesê het, “Ek is ’n gelowige mens, maar my teleskoop wys my dat die aarde om die son draai en nie andersom nie,” kon hy groot probleme van die onverdraagsame inkwisisie verwag. As jy vandag sê “Ek glo in evolusie, maar my [onbewysbare] indruk is dat daar ’n groot intelligensie agter die wondere van die heelal is”, kan jy groot probleme van die militante ateïste verwag.

Van ’n middeweg soos die een wat ek in Die groot avontuur probeer bewandel, het dwepers nog nooit gehou nie. 

George Claassen se repliek:

Leon Rousseau se tirade waarin mense wat van hom verskil as “dwepers”, “militante ateïste”, “lekepredikers vir die ateïsme” en ander skelwoorde gebrandmerk word, herinner darem baie aan die Jesuïte se selektiewe aanbieding van feite oor hekse en ander “sondaars” tydens die Spaanse Inkwisisie.

Hy verkies om mense etikette om die nek te hang, maar sy betoog hiernaas verdraai die waarheid oor sy boek, Die Groot Avontuur (Human & Rousseau-uitgewers). Ek sal op die gebreke in sy boek konsentreer en my nie tot persoonlike beledigings wend soos hy nie.

 Hy maak beswaar dat sy boek en die soortgelyke pseudowetenskaplike boek van Gideon Joubert, Die Groot Gedagte (Tafelberg-uitgewers), nie as sodanig getipeer kan word nie omdat hulle nie “wilde bespiegelaars soos David Icke en Erich van Däniken” is nie.

 Ek verskil van hom: Altwee boeke is deurspek met pseudowetenskaplike aansprake.

Rousseau vertel ons met smaak van al die wetenskaplikes wat sy boek ondersteun het, maar verswyg om een of ander duister rede die feit dat prof. Phillip Tobias hom ná my resensie oor die boek in Die Burger in ’n brief aan die koerant van die boek gedistansieer het weens die pseudowetenskaplike aard daarvan. (Terloops, die twee beoordelaars van die Recht Malan-prys wat Rousseau se boek bekroon het, was, raai-raai ’n teoloog en ’n sosioloog. Een van hulle het daarna teenoor my erken hulle het nie Tobias se brief aan Die Burger by die beoordeling in ag geneem nie!).

In sy brief, gepubliseer op 9 September verlede jaar in Die Burger, skryf Tobias, nadat ek in my resensie gevra het of hy “die skade wat sy aanbeveling van die boek in die lig van die openlike IO (Intelligente Ontwerp)-aard daarvan, aan sy reputasie as gerekende wetenskaplike doen”, besef:

“Noudat ek die finale gepubliseerde weergawe van Die Groot Avontuur gelees het, het dit vir my duidelik geword Rousseau ondersteun die pseudowetenskaplike konsep van Intelligente Ontwerp … Veral wil ek van hierdie geleentheid gebruik maak om myself ondubbelsinnig van daardie dele van Die Groot Avontuur wat IO ondersteun, te distansieer” (my kursivering).

Vergeet ’n oomblik my resensie (http://152.111.1.251/argief/berigte/dieburger/2006/07/17/DB/11/BBgclaassenrousseau.html) en lees dieselfde klagte teen Rousseau se boek in die resensie van die wetenskaplike Andries Lategan in Beeld (16 Oktober 2006) (http://www.news24.com/Beeld/Vermaak/Boeke/0,,3-2109-2112_2014373,00.html).  Lategan wys daarop dat Tobias se avant propos eerder met  ’n waarskuwing vervang moes gewees het soos op sigaretpakkies: “Die lees van hierdie boek is skadelik vir ’n gesonde oordeel oor wat evolusioniste sê.”

Lategan spreek hom nes ek, dr. Karel de Pauw, die resensent van my boek, dr. Jurie van den Heever en ander wetenskaplikes uit oor die openbarende toevlug wat Rousseau gereeld in sy boek by ’n Intelligente Ontwerper soek sodra hy nie iets begryp of kan verklaar nie. “ ’n Argument wat berus op iets wat onbegryplik is, kan beswaarlik deel wees van ’n gesprek oor die geldigheid van wetenskaplike teorieë … Rousseau behoort dalk ag te slaan op Karen Armstrong se waarskuwing in A History of God dat mense wat hul godsbegrip wil haak aan die immer krimpende gebiede van natuurverskynsels waarvoor daar nog nie ’n deeglike teorie ontwikkel is nie, altyd aan die hardloop gaan bly voor wetenskaplike vordering,” skryf Lategan.

Rousseau trek so fel met onwetenskaplike bravade los teen my, De Pauw en andere asof ons die enigstes is wat nie die lig oor sy pryswennende boek gesien het nie, maar probeer dan maak asof hy godsdiens en evolusie, gelowige en wetenskaplike, nader aan mekaar wil bring en wil versoen.

Rousseau en ander aanhangers van Intelligente Ontwerp neem nie kennis van die basiese verskil tussen die wetenskap en geloof nie, dat gelowiges absoluut glo, maak nie saak wat die wetenskaplike sê nie, maar dat wetenskap deurgaans met onsekerhede werk en bly vrae vra.

Armstrong is reg: elke stukkie bygeloof wat die wetenskap aftakel en blootlê ­– en dit sluit die vasklou aan ’n Intelligente Ontwerp-scenario in ­– laat mense soos Rousseau en Joubert, wat hul godsbegrip wil haak aan alles wat hulle nie kan verklaar in die natuur nie, ’n bietjie vinniger aan die hardloop. Is dit hoekom hy so uitasem reageer op my boek wat rasionaliteit en wetenskaplike bewyse voorstaan as die enigste wyse waarop ons kan weet?

Die Amerikaanse fisikus Lawrence Krauss verwys onlangs in sy tweeweeklikse rubriek “World lines” in New Scientist na dié onhebbelikheid so deel van C.S. Lewis se werke wat die populêre standpunt inneem “that science, by explaining the inner workings of the universe, robs it of the wonder that religion provides – a viewpoint that, frankly, I find offensive.” Voeg maar Rousseau en Joubert by Lewis as die Groot Meesters van die Orde van Intelligente Ontwerp, met my oudkollega Leopold Scholtz as hul stafhoof in die hoofstroommedia. Wie sal sy vreemde en wetenskap-begriplose verdediging van Intelligente Ontwerp in sy rubriek Sake van die Dag ooit kan vergeet midde in die Rousseau-debat in Die Burger ná my resensie van Die Groot Avontuur? (http://152.111.1.251/argief/berigte/dieburger/2006/08/04/SK/8/Sakie4Aug.html).

 Krauss se volledige rubriek lui:

 LAST month I read a column in The New York Times by David Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&em&ex=1209096000&en=60aba79d67739095&ei=5087&oref=slogin)  that has bothered me ever since. In it Brooks describes an essay about the medieval concept of the universe entitled C. S. Lewis and the Star of Bethlehem by Michael Ward (http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/001/15.30.html), a chaplain at the University of Cambridge.

Brooks writes that “while we moderns see space as a black, cold, mostly empty vastness, with planets and stars propelled by gravitational and other forces, Europeans in the Middle Ages saw a more intimate and magical place. The heavens, to them, were a ceiling of moving spheres, rippling with signs and symbols, and moved by the love of God… The modern view disenchants the universe, Lewis argued, and tends to make it ‘all fact and no meaning’.”

Brooks’s and Ward’s articles both reflect a popular view that science, by explaining the inner workings of the universe, robs it of the wonder that religion provides - a viewpoint that, frankly, I find offensive. How anyone can suggest that medieval hallucinations might spark the imagination more than the actual universe that we have been so fortunate to uncover is beyond me. The “heavenly actors” populating the spiritual universe of Lewis were, like many religious myths, intellectually lazy creations of fundamentally ignorant minds. It is a far grander kind of imagination that is needed to fathom the real universe.

The night sky isn’t populated with mythical beasts, but with a small slice of the 100 billion or so stars in our small island galaxy, the Milky Way, one of 400 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Each of the stars, while not alive in an anthropomorphic sense, houses an exotic world of action at a searing 10 million degrees, releasing the energy equivalent to a thousand billion hydrogen bombs going off every second - a wonder-work of nature’s creation.

The light from the stars of other galaxies takes billions of years to reach us. A Hubble Space Telescope photograph, in which every speck of light represents not a star, but an entire galaxy, with each galaxy containing billions of stars, surely spurs the imagination more than any fable. Around some of these stars there may be planets that once housed life. I say once, because the stars that produced the light in Hubble’s images are probably long gone. We are literally watching the history of the universe unfold before our very eyes.

In our own galaxy, a star explodes in a brilliant supernova once every hundred years or so, and is briefly as bright as 10 billion suns. Yet most such explosions are invisible, obscured by dust, so in fact the last exploding star observed from Earth in our galaxy was seen by Kepler in 1604 (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13514-light-echoes-help-gauge-supernovas-fury.html). Yet the universe is so big and old that these events are happening all the time. With a powerful enough telescope a region in the sky at night the size of a dime held at arms length will reveal more than 100,000 galaxies - so many that one may see up to 10 stars explode on a given night. Over time, 200 million stars have exploded in our galaxy, producing almost all the elements that make up our bodies. The atoms in your left hand may have come from a different star than those in your right: we are all star children.

If this poetry of nature does not change the way we view our place in the universe, providing not mere facts but new meaning, then we are truly spiritually bereft. Yet too many people feel that they must invent alternate realities to justify human existence.

Why does it matter if people cling to myths for solace? Because real-world problems such as climate change can only be solved by real-world thinking. Like it or not, the harsh reality is that nature doesn’t exist to serve humanity, and turning to myths that put humans at the centre of creation only distract us from appropriate actions.

Brooks’s column also mentioned Barack Obama’s much-maligned statement that some people turn to religion for refuge from the inequities that abound in Bush’s America - a truth many people would rather not hear. If we live at a time when honest questions about the role of religion and people’s motivations for action cannot be voiced in public, then I worry about our future.”

 Aldus Krauss.

 Die Rousseauseaanse en Jouberteaanse pro-Intelligente Ontwerpargumente word nou in gewysigde vorm deur ’n buitengewone professor in sielkunde van die Universiteit van Pretoria, Wilhelm Jordaan, herhaal in ’n bespreking van Geloof, Bygeloof en Ander Wensdenkery in die Winter-uitgawe van Boeke-Insig, die puik kwartaalblad onder redaksie van Irna van Zyl. Koop dit gerus, veral om die verstommende vergelyking wat hy tref tussen wetenskap en godsdiens onder oë te kry. Ek lewer in die Lente-uitgawe van Boeke-Insig repliek op Jordaan.

 Intussen wag Karel de Pauw steeds op ’n antwoord van Joubert oor die verkeerde wyse waarop hy wetenskaplikes buite konteks aanhaal om sy godsdienstige sienings te probeer staaf.

 ’n Laaste gedagte: die Amerikaanse genetikus Jerry Coyne som die Rousseau- en Intelligente Ontwerp-benadering raak op: “. . . die werklike oorlog is tussen rasionaliteit en bygeloof. Wetenskap is maar een vorm van rasionaliteit, terwyl godsdiens die algemeenste vorm van bygeloof is . . . As die geskiedenis van die wetenskap ons iets wys, is dit dat ons nêrens kom deur ons onkunde ‘God’ te noem nie.”

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The God pill is nothing more than a psychedelic drug

People at a Catholic charismatic session, laughing hysterically, barking like dogs, oiking like pigs and rolling on the floor.

Teonanácatl

the Aztecs called the flesh of a fungus type of mushroom they regularly ate before religious ceremonies.

 

 

 

 

 

This flesh of the gods – known by the hippy generation of the sixties as the magic mushroom – has a hallucinogenic effect that is very similar to religious experiences. In 2006 Dr. Roland Griffths of Johns Hopkins University published his research of the effects of psilocybin on the mental state of humans. In Psychopharmacology he revealed results of a study of this active component in these mushroom fungi that is comparable to the hallucogenic trances religion induces in people.

 

A co-researcher with Griffiths, Dr. Solomon Snyder, told The Economist (July 15, 2006) psychedelic drugs could be used to to probe the basis of consciousness. Snyder believed that investigation of such drugs “could help scientists understand the molecular changes in the brain that underlie religious experiences”.

 

In the study by Griffiths and his team, the participants “were no strangers to spiritual highs. Almost all engaged at least monthly in religious or spiritual activities such as prayer or attending religious services, and were selected for the trial on this basis. Yet two months after the trial, 79% of them reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or satisfaction… Why this should be is not well understood. Psilocybin is thought to work by mimicking serotonin. This is one of the messenger molecules that carry signals between nerve cells in the brain, and it is known to influence mood,” The Economist reported.

 

Psilocybin in the magic mushroom thus acts like a God pill, bringing a feeling of strong emotional well-being to its users. Other studies have established that religion is one of the strongest activators for serotonin release in the brain. It acts like a drug and once you are addicted to it, it becomes very difficult for religiously addicted persons to be cured of their addiction.

 

No wonder the anti-evolutionists are so vehemently opposed to Darwin’s theory – the science of evolution is like taking their drug (religion) away from them.

 

But religion goes a step further: it not only puts you on a psychedelic high through its hallucinogenic effects, it takes away any rational thinking in the user because of the promise of an after-life accompanying the God pill.

 

 

Religion primitive legends, childish superstition

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

 

These words by Albert Einstein in a letter to a friend should end the persistent utilisation by religious believers who so desperately want to tell everybody that Einstein believed in a creator god.

 

Einstein wrote the letter on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind. He was responding to Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt.  The letter was sold at an auction in May.

 

Not that this new letter, for the first time in the public domain after it was sold shortly after his death in 1955, would change the misuse of Einstein’s mention of the word “God” numerous times during public debates, as if the usage meant that he indeed believed in a creator god.

 

Einstein protested against this basic dishonesty of religious believers, as Richard Dawkins points out in A Devil’s Chaplain (pp. 146-147). He quotes the scientist from another letter:

 

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.”

 

In an article titled “Religion and science” in The New York Times Magazine Einstein also wrote in 1931 about the “cosmic religious sense … which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man’s image. I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research … the only deeply religious people of our largely materialistic age are the earnest men of research.”

 

One can only wonder how the Afrikaans pseudoscientific author Gideon Joubert would respond to this latest letter of Einstein. In July 2006 he responded in a letter to Die Burger after I wrote a very critical review of Leon Rousseau’s pseudoscientific book Die Groot Avontuur in that newspaper.

 

Joubert wrote in the letter titled “Soek enkele waarheid”,(26 July 2006, p. 19.):

 

 “Ek verwys na George Claassen se resensie van Leon Rousseau se Die Groot Avontuur (DB, 17/7).

 

“Volgens Claassen raak ek in die voorwoord tot Rousseau se boek dié ‘onsinnigheid’ kwyt: ‘Feit is, afhangende van hoe daarna gekyk word, (verkondig) evolusie en religie dieselfde waarheid…’

 

“Dit hang natuurlik af van hoe Claassen religie en evolusie definieer. Dit is duidelik dat sy en my definisies hemelsbreed verskil.

 

“Natuurlik soek die gelowige én die wetenskaplike albei na die enigste moontlike waarheid. Van dieselfde waarheid kan daar tog net één uitsluitsel wees. En as bewese wetenskaplike feite die gelowige se oortuiging bevestig, is dit mos soos dit moet wees. Die gelowige, soos die wetenskaplike, volg immers Christus se opdrag dat jy móét soek – sodat jy die wáárheid kan vind, en nie dit wat jy graag wil vind nie. En die waarheid, sy dit oor evolusie, die skepping, godsdiens of ’n kunswerk, is onomstootlik.

 

“Volgens Claassen maak ek die ‘verstommende uitlating’: ‘Dan is daar die oorweldigende vraag: is alles deur ’n Voorsienigheid beplan?’ Claassen skryf: ‘Joubert is verkeerd: geen enkele portuurartikel in ’n vaktydskrif of ernstige wetenskaplike werk kon nog één enkele bewys aantoon dat daar Intelligente Beplanning in die natuur is nie.’

 

“Ek kan tallose boeke deur gesaghebbende wetenskaplikes noem, ook Nobelpryswenners, wat oortuigende feite noem wat oorweldigend op intelligente beplanning dui. Weer moet ons definieer wat met ‘intelligente beplanning’ bedoel word. Daar is kreasioniste (en wetenskaplikes) wat vreemde, maar onaanvaarbare stellings oor die godsdiens en die evolusie maak. Vanselfsprekend verwys ek nie na hulle nie. Ek vertrou Claassen ook nie.

 

“As intelligente ontwerp dan so belaglik is, waarom het Einstein uitgeroep: ‘This (die kosmos) is a put-up job’? Waarom het Stephen Hawking gevra: ‘Who put the fire in these laws?’ (Die natuurwette.) Waarom het prof. George Ellis, gesaghebbende fisikus van die Universiteit van Kaapstad en huisvriend van Hawking, die volgende gesê: ‘The ultimate superstition is to believe that the universe itself is imbued with the mystical power to bring itself into existence, and to fine-tune itself.’

 

“Waarom is daar so baie gesiene, oortuigde, gelowige wetenskaplikes?

 

“Dit is jammer dat mense wat Claassen se resensie lees, nie mooi sal weet waaroor die boek gaan nie.”

 

I am certain Joubert, Rousseau and our friend from Israel, Daniel le Roux, will again try to ignore Einstein’s letter and utilise only those words they feel “proves” the existence of God. As well as all the other creationists and intelligent design supporters who make their appearance here from time to time.

 

“… the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish…”

 

Telling, powerful words summarising the infantile nature of religion and belief in a creator god.

 

How to counter the Three Storey Universe

How will we ever be moral if religion is absent from our lives, not there to guide us?

 

This argument is often used by believers to tell atheists and agnostics that the world cannot do without religions because they provide the moral compass that organise our social environment and interaction with each other.

 

My question to this type of illogical argument is why do you need an irrational belief system to create harmony and peace among humans? In fact, there are far better systems providing order in society but not linked to a belief where you have to pray to a mythical god to bring harmony.

 

My personal preference is humanism, a value system recently defined in an unambiguous way by Andrew Copson, director of education at the British Humanist Association (www.humanism.org.uk). Writing in The Guardian, Copson says it is vital that children are taught humanism’s answers to life’s “ultimate questions”. Instead of filling our children’s heads from a very early age with stories about mythical religious figures working purported miracles in their lives, we should expose them to the world of rational thinking.

 

“The noun ‘humanism’, as it is used by humanist organisations around the world today …, denotes a set of beliefs and values that characterise a world-view very widely shared by many people in modern Britain, and it is a mistake to define their beliefs purely negatively, by reference to what they don’t believe in (gods, ghosts, life after death and so on). It is true of course that humanists do not believe in these things, but the reason they do not believe in them is much more important. Humanists believe that the reality we perceive around us – the world and universe that we make sense of through experience – is the only reality we can know and that there is no ‘second layer’ to reality in which gods, demons or the ‘supernatural’ can exist.”

 

Copson emphasises it is this conviction “that also leads humanists to believe that this life is the only life we have, and that morality as we understand it is a natural product of our social instincts and not handed to humanity by some external divine source. Together with the belief that the aim of morality should be human welfare and fulfilment and that, in the absence of ultimate ‘purpose’ to the universe, we make meaning for ourselves, both individually and in community, these convictions form the basics of the stance on life described as humanism today” (my emphasis).

 

Children should be taught from the beginning “that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and experience; that morality comes from our own selves as social beings; that happiness, meaning and fulfilment are our own to create through the joy of intellectual endeavour, of social action, of human relationships,” writes Copson.

 

People talk a lot about the new spirituality that humankind needs. The hysterical frenzy of South African men (and their gullible, docile wives and partners), swept up by the tide of Angus Buchan’s potato-based faith, is very much a search for a new spirituality, a new connection with a mythical god they have never seen or have absolutely no evidence for. Unfortunately the 60 000 men and their uncritical spindoctor at the daily newspaper Beeld, Neels Jackson, look for a new spiritual revival in the old wine bags of traditional Christianity.

 

The New Reform Movement’s Sakkie Spangenberg of the University of South Africa’s department of religious studies, contrasts this traditional belief system (as followed by Buchan and his Mighty Men), with a new dawning of reason. I think this new dawning is very much linked to humanism as a rational belief system, an alliance with the findings of science.

 

 “The traditional Christian spirituality goes with the ancient world view. According to that world view, the cosmos consists of three parts: a Heaven, an earth, and the space underneath the earth. We can also refer to this as the three storey universe. God lives in heaven and is surrounded by the angels. The devil lives in the space underneath the earth and is surrounded by the fallen angels. People live on earth and their lives are influenced by the two powers living on the other two storeys. People are thus influenced by both good and bad angels. The new spirituality goes with the conclusion that the earth is part of a solar system; that our solar system is in turn part of the Milky Way galaxy and that the Milky Way galaxy is one of thousands of galaxies in the expanding universe. No more are heaven and hell clearly indicated and habitable places. We do not interpret our lives and events on earth any more in terms of angels and powers that can influence our lives,” writes Spangenberg on the Nuwe Hervorming Netwerk.

 

No, humanism should be the new spiritualism, a spiritualism where reason prevails, where science gets it rightful place, and where the belief in gods, ghosts, life after death, miracles by supernatural beings, and other similar absurdities are put aside. 

 

The Afrikaans poet D.J. Opperman summarises it well in his poem “Stelsel – naggeluid”:

             … diep uit die nag se nok

Hoor ek die hart van die heelal: ’n klok

Wat tik en tik, afsydig tik …

(from Heilige Beeste, 1945).

 

Rougly translated:

  … deep in the night’s ridge

I hear the heart of the universe: a clock

Ticking and ticking, indifferently ticking …

 

This life is indeed the only life we have … no warmblooded rush to a tent near Greytown will ever make an iota or a tittle’s difference to that detached, impersonal, withdrawn, aloof ticking of the universe.

 

Religion, the ultimate entertainment

A new law in Britain passed last week requires “fortune-tellers, clairvoyants, astrologers and mediums to stipulate explicitly that their services are for ‘entertainment only’, as a columnist for The Times of London, Matthew Parris, wrote last week (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4023121.ece).

Parris goes on to make the valid point that religions and the claims they make, should have been included in this law. If you pay a visit to the TBN channel on DStv, where preachers from all over the world clearly show how gullible the religious masses are, you would see what I mean. I often visit this channel merely to be entertained: Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, you name them, they are excellent entertainers, brilliant speakers, clowns (at least some of them), people who bring their flock to the waters where they drink, spell-bound.

And thus become even more uncritical, using their thinking-faculties even less, mesmerised by the magic of the jewell-bedevilled walking priests/priestesses on the stage, hypnotised into a trance of nodded agreements.

Parris writes “… trades descriptions legislation is anciently established; but in the realms of the spirit, prophecy, invisible worlds, ghosts and human souls, it has generally been felt that the whole thing is too cloudy for law. By bringing access to other spiritual dimensions into line with access to (say) a British Airways club class lounge, and by deeming in law - for that is what this measure does - that claims about worlds undreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio, are false, Parliament has taken a serious step in principle, even if the measure itself is trivial and most clairvoyants are only jokers anyway.”

He asks, what, “for instance, about the “faith” community? Perhaps it’s there in the legislative small print already. There will have to be an exception in law for ‘religions’. Whereupon clairvoyants will presumably rename themselves spiritualists. And spiritualists will presumably claim the status of a religion. Whereupon lawmakers will stipulate that a ‘religion’ has to centre around a deity. Whereupon Buddhism will cease to be a ‘religion’; and… “

Imagine what will happen in South Africa if our Parliament passes a law like this, only going a step further than the British by including religious claims as ‘’entertainment only”. What would happen to pastor Fred May of Shofar if he has to tell his uncritical Stellenbosch followers he is only there to entertain them? With a fairy tale of a stern god impregnating, through his spirit, an innocent Middle-Eastern virgin, who gives birth to a son without any sin. And this poor boy surrounds him with a dozen men, gets him killed after working wonderful miracles, and then rises from the dead and ascends to heaven against all laws of physics, from where he will come to judge the earthlings left behind.

Fairy tale indeed. “…Well you see the philosophical marsh into which this new principle leads,” Parris warns. “Is Parliament aware of any harder evidence for the efficacy of faith-healing than for the reliability of clairvoyance? I’d like to hear it. Otherwise, let the collecting boxes in church display a sign ‘for entertainment purposes only and let Catholics buy candles to light ‘for entertainment purposes only’; and let trips to Lourdes be sold ‘for entertainment purposes only’. And let the raiment of the priest administering the Sacrament be embroidered likewise. Imagine the churchyard billboard: the Power of Prayer (for entertainment purposes only).”

Bertrand Russell said “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

 

This is the reason why Benny Hinn can make people believe he has healed them, even though the facts refute this (see how he fools people at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUyPjeIFKug). He provides the reason for them to act according to their instincts.

 

Similarly, as Oubaas explained in his excellent discussion on this blog on “What is the Gospel?” (http://prometheusongebonde.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/stray-dogs-or-rational-thinkers/#comments), the tantalising promise of everlasting life and the fear of death are just two reasons why people keep believing, want to believe at all costs, and become the victims of clowns and fraudsters such as Benny Hinn.

 

It all happens because modern humans have become infatuated with being entertained, not being able to distinguish between fact and fiction, blurring reality with wishful thinking. That explains the popularity of soap operas, of which religious services are the epitome of entertainment.  

 

 

Stray dogs? Or rational thinkers?

The interview Jean Oosthuizen, editor of Kletskerk (www.kletskerk.co.za) had with me, of which a shortened version was published in Kerkbode of 16 Mei, has lead to an interesting accusation from a NG Kerk dominee nogal.

Ds. Attie Nel refers to me on his blog (http://attie.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/pasop-vir-rondloperhonde/) as a “rondloperhond”. He accuses me of trying to “rokkel” believers away from Christ and writes (translated ): “I see that the Bible is not so friendly with people who try to get people away from the Good News of Jesus Christ told to us.” He then refers to the letter to the Philippians 3:2: “Watch out for those dogs…” In the Nuwe Lewende Vertaling in Afrikaans the word ‘dogs’ is translated as “rondloperhonde’’.

Nel also complains that I compare belief in the gods of religions to belief in the tooth-fairy and regards my comments as hate speech.  I thought it might be a good thing that the readers make their own judgments from the full interview. It again shows you how believers regard any criticism against the protection religions have in society, as non-negotiable.

Tooth-fairy? What difference is there between belief in a tooth-fairy and belief in a God that will bring everlasting life? Both are myths and both are based on not one shred of evidence. That is not hate speach. Rather, it is a fact of scientific reason and rationality.  

Here then the interview of Jean Oosthuizen with me. My thanks to him for having the guts to publish this on Kletskerk and in Kerkbode. The interview can also be read at http://www.kletskerk.co.za/articles.php?article_id=12&page=archive.

 

Die wetenskap erken sy onsekerheid, korrigeer sy foute deur herhaaldelike ondersoek en verifiëring van bestaande teorieë. Daarteenoor klou gelowiges vas aan iets waarvoor daar geen enkele bewys bestaan nie. So gesels die wetenskapjoernalis George Claassen in ’n openhartige onderhoud met Kletskerk. In sy gesprek met Jean Oosthuizen vertel Claassen breedvoerig waarom hy meen godsdiens nooit sal verdwyn nie, maar wel die gode van vandag.

In die onderhoud wat hier volg verduidelik hy ook hoekom hy die moontlikheid van ‘n skeppende en lewende godheid heeltemal uitskakel.Hoe het dit gebeur gebeur dit dat iemand soos jy wat uit ‘n Christelike huis kom sy geloof in ‘n godheid verloor? Ek dink nie so iets gebeur ooit oornag nie. Ek glo nie juis aan die Damaskus-ervaring in die lewe nie. Mense verander gewoonlik oor ‘n lang tyd en met my was dit dieselfde. Ek het oor ‘n lang tyd oor wetenskaplike bevindings gelees en kritiese vrae begin vra oor die Bybelse skeppingsverhaal. Jy moet besef ek het in ‘n huis grootgeword waar my ouers ons aangemoedig het om altyd krities te dink, om baie te lees, om vrae te stel, om nie enige antwoord van die dominee, onderwyser, sportafrigter ens. as die waarheid te aanvaar nie. My ouers is beide gelowige mense, maar het ons altyd blootgestel aan die breë spektrum van die intellektuele rykdomme wat daar in boeke bestaan. En lees het ons gelees! Ek kan my nie vereenselwig met die Bybelse woorde dat jy net soos ‘n klein kindjie moet glo nie. Glo net lei tot allerhande vergrype. Glo net het Hitler gebaar, apartheid, Galileo se vervolging, al was die hemelligame se bewegings anders as wat die kerk voorgehou het, noem maar op watter vergrype alles, net omdat mense gevra is om kinderlik te glo en hul kritiese ingesteldheid te laat vaar. Sluit jy die moontlikheid van ‘n godheid heeltemal uit of glo jy daar is tog ‘n kans dat daar iewers ‘n godheid is al verskil dit dalk heeltemal en radikaal van die God in die Bybel? Ek sluit die moontlikheid van ‘n skeppende en lewende godheid heeltemal uit. Ek soek bewyse omdat ek wetenskaplik ingestel is. Die aansprake vir ‘n skeppende godheid is in wese vergesog. Daar bestaan nie eens een enkele bewys vir so ‘n god nie. Moenie die Bybel as ‘n bewys bied nie; dit is ‘n antieke boek geskryf deur ‘n klompie wetenskaplik ongeletterde mans wat nie geweet het wat ons vandag weet nie. En dis vermeng met mirakels en magiese verskynsels wat ons as rasionele mense in geen ander sfeer sal aanvaar nie behalwe dat dit kwansuis aanvaarbaar sou wees in godsdiensterme. Glo ons sterrwiggelaars en astroloë? Nee, want daar is geen bewyse vir hul vergesogte aansprake nie. Maar is geloof in ‘n skepper god, sonder enige bewyse, nie net so vergesog nie? Waarom aanvaar ons dit dan so maklik? Is dit omdat ons kinderlik glo en dus nie vrae mag stel nie? Carl Sagan het hierdie faset beklemtoon, “Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.” Daar is geen enkele bewys vir die bestaan van ‘n god wat lewe op Aarde geskep het nie. Dit kom uit die antieke mites van die Midde-Ooste, waar Sumeriese en ander Mesopotamiese godsdienste almal lank voor die Christus-verhaal presies dieselfde kenmerke in hul godsdienste verkondig het: ‘n vader-godheid wat sy seun na die Aarde stuur, gebore uit ‘n maagd, wat wonderwerke doen, wat sterf vir die sondes van mense en wat opvaar na die hemel. En daarna ‘n ewige lewe vir die getroues en gelowiges voorberei. Die Christelike godsdiens was dus ‘n baie goeie kopieerder van ander antieke godsdienste. En dit maak dit net soveel minder geloofwaardig want ons glo nie meer in Baäl nie, ook nie in die Griekse en Romeinse gode Zeus, Jupiter, Aphrodite, Venus ens. nie. Richard Dawkins som ons ateïste se posisie baie goed op en dit laat ‘n mens wonder hoekom Christen-gelowiges nie dadelik sy punt raaksien nie: “Die feit dat wentelende teepotte en tandmuise nie bewysbaar is nie, word nie deur enige rasionele mens beskou as die soort feit wat enige interessante meningsverskil oplos nie. Nie een van ons voel die verpligting om enige van die miljoene vergesogte dinge waarvan ’n vrugbare of geestige verbeelding kan droom verkeerd te bewys nie. Ek vind dit ’n amusante strategie om, wanneer ek gevra word of ek ’n ateïs is, te benadruk dat die vraagsteller ook ’n ateïs is wanneer ons verwys na Zeus, Apollo, Amon, Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, die Goue Kalf en die Vlieënde Spaghetti Monster. Ek gaan net een god verder,” skryf Dawkins in The Devil’s Chaplain. Ek gaan ook net een god verder. Eintlik is gelowiges almal ateïste in ‘n groot mate. Dis net daardie een god waarvan julle nog moet afstand doen. Jy noem jouself ‘n ateïs maar jy kan tog nie die moontlikheid van ‘n godheid honderd persent uitsluit nie. Is jy nie eerder ‘n agnostikus nie? Agnosticisme is myns insiens ‘n ontsnaproete om van die sogenaamde “aaklige” werklikheid van ‘n bestaan sonder god weg te kom. Dis soos ‘n tussenstadium. Ja, wetenskaplikes het nie bewys vir die nie-bestaan van god nie. Maar dan is die bewyse oorweldigend dat die bevindings wat die wetenskap reeds gemaak het in evolusionêre biologie, genetika, genoomkartering, fisika, geologie, paleoantropologie en ander verwante velde, die fiktiewe skeppingsverhaal ontbloot, dat dit bloot ‘n mooi storie vir mense is wat nie sonder die kruk van godsdiens kan klaarkom nie. Jy het al aan my gesê jy sal aan God glo as jy net een bewys kan kry dat hy bestaan. Is alles wat bestaan werklik bewysbaar? Baie mense sal vir jou sê hulle “ervaar” God se teenwoordigheid in hulle lewens. Neem byvoorbeeld musiek. Hoe bewys jy dit is mooi? Mens kry tog musiek en jy kry net ‘n klomp vals note. Hoe bewys mens wat is musiek en wat nie? Nee, alles is nie bewysbaar nie, maar dit beteken nie dat ons daarom moet moed opgee om iets bewys te kry nie of bewyse te soek nie. Wetenskaplikes se krag en die wetenskap se krag is juis dat dit nooit absoluut glo nie, dat dit selfkorrigerend is en deurlopend bestaande teorieë evalueer en aanpas, sou nuwe inligting verkry word. Godsdiens werk nie so nie. Dit glo absoluut en kinderlik, vra nie moeilike vrae nie, is tevrede, soek nie nuwe kennis nie en is eintlik vreesagtig bang vir nuwe kennis wat bestaande geloof kan aantas en ondergrawe. Gerekende sielkundiges en neurowetenskaplikes soos Steven Pinker, Sam Harris en ander wat godsdienservarings bestudeer, het lankal reeds bevind dat daardie mense wat hul sogenaamde god so in hul lewe “ervaar”, dikwels totaal irrasioneel dink. Daar is genoeg bewyse dat die groepsgevoel wat godsdiensbeoefening byvoorbeeld in die erediens genereer, toegeskryf kan word aan sekere breinfunksies wat deur serotonien-afskeidings in die brein drasties versterk word. Dis ook so in musiekbelewenis wat tot serotonienafskeidings lei, in die doodgewone proses van oefening waar chemiese stowwe in die brein afgeskei word wat jou lekker laat voel. Maar dis nog nie god nie. Die Amerikaanse genetikus Jerry Coyne som hierdie verskil tussen rasionele denke en godsdiens baie goed op: “. . . die werklike oorlog is tussen rasionaliteit en bygeloof. Wetenskap is maar een vorm van rasionaliteit, terwyl godsdiens die algemeenste vorm van bygeloof is. As die geskiedenis van die wetenskap ons iets wys, is dit dat ons nêrens kom deur ons onkunde “God” te noem nie.” Voorsien jy dat die wetenskap een of ander tyd alle vorme van godsdiens gaan uitfaseer of is daar naas die wetenskap ook ‘n plek vir godsdiens in een of ander vorm? Ek dink godsdiens sal nooit verdwyn nie, maar die gode van vandag sal wel. Nes Zeus moes plek maak vir Jupiter, so sal Christus plek maak vir ander gode. Die Egiptenare glo nie meer in die songod Ra en Osiris nie. Vandag is Mohammed die profeet van Allah, net ‘n nuwe, eietydse god. As daar een ding is wat die geskiedenis my leer, is dat bygeloof nie staande kan bly voor rasionele ondersoek en ontdekkings nie. Daarom glo ons vandag nie meer die kerk was reg oor die son wat beweeg nie, maar glo en weet ons Galileo was reg. Dit sal weer gebeur. Godsdiens is net ‘n uiters sterk meem, soos Susan Blackmore dit in haar uitstekende boek The Meme Machine beskryf. Weet jy hoekom Dawkins so gehaat is by gelowiges? Omdat hy juis die eerste was om die verskynsel van meme as die kulturele eweknie van gene beskryf het. En ‘n wêreld begin oopmaak het op die mens se hunkering na ‘n godheid wat probleme kan oplos. En natuurlik die ewige lewe as wortel voor jou neus hou. Terwyl ons van Dawkins praat, party mense kry soms uit jou rubrieke die indruk dat jy nes Dawkins ‘n wrewel het aan godsdiens en dat jy daarom ook jou mes in het vir gelowiges. Is dit waar en hoe kom jy met gelowiges oor die weg? Ek kom baie goed oor die weg met gelowiges. Ek dink my gesprek hier met jou getuig daarvan, maar vra maar my pa van 91 hoe goed ons oor die weg kom. Vra maar my baie vriende wat gelowiges is of ek hulle dwars in die krop steek. Ek verdra hulle, maar is terselfdertyd ook bitter jammer dat hulle so ‘n lewe van gevangeneskap en verknegtheid wy aan ‘n mitiese figuur waarvoor daar nie een enkele bewys bestaan nie. Ek het geen wrewel aan godsdiens nie, maar ek het wel ‘n ongeduld met die wyse waarop klein kindertjies breinspoeling deurgaan om in ‘n mitiese figuur te bly glo. Ons leer kinders van kleins af oor die tandmuis, Vader Kersfees, feetjies, dwergies ens, maar een of ander tyd begin ons ongeduldig raak met kinders wat steeds glo in die tandmuis, Vader Kersfees en die feetjies. Ons vertel hulle die waarheid oor die nie-bestaan daarvan. Waarom nie met god/gode nie? Waarom die dubbele standaarde? Ons het net so min bewys vir ‘n skepper god as wat ons bewys het vir die tandmuis, Vader Kersfees en feetjies. Soos die Britse skrywer Douglas Adams aangetoon het, “Is dit nie genoeg om te sien dat ’n tuin mooi is sonder dat dit nodig is om te glo dat daar ook feetjies onder in die tuin woon nie?” – Dit in reaksie op gelowiges se aanspraak dat die skoonheid van die natuur bewys is dat God bestaan. Dink jy daar is hoegenaamd enige rol vir die kerk om te speel in vandag se samelewing? Ek dink byvoorbeeld aan die talle projekte om vigs te bekamp, armoede te verlig en vele ander. Natuurlik is die kerk belangrik as sosiale instelling in die samelewing. Maar dan in die rol van Barmhartige Samaritaan, omdat instellings vir mense moet omgee. Dit is onnodig dat jy die uiters belangrike opheffingswerk wat die kerk doen aan ‘n mitiese figuur hoef te koppel. Doen goed aan jou medemens omdat dit jou natuurlike, menslike, noem dit maar evolusionêre plig is. Ander spesies doen dit ook. Daar is genoeg navorsing wat toon dat sjimpansees en ander primaatspesies byvoorbeeld in die natuur ook hul lewe sal opoffer vir hul medespesielede. En hulle doen dit nie omdat die wortel van die ewige lewe deur ‘n mitiese god aan hul voorgehou word nie. Die verskille tussen gelowiges en ongelowiges is wyd en dikwels vol emosie. Is daar werklik sin in vir mense met sulke uiteenlopende standpunte om daaroor met mekaar te praat soos wat op Kletskerk gebeur? Ek dink Kletskerk vervul ‘n uiters belangrike funksie om gesprek te bevorder, nie om mense te “bekeer” na die een of ander kant toe nie, maar om dialoog aan te moedig, om ander denkrigtings in die kerk in te bring, om wyer te dink as die dogma van die kerk. Kom ek noem een voorbeeld: die kerk se lamsakkige en lafhartige standpunt en benadering oor gays. En dit ondanks wat die wetenskap oor gay-wees sê en bevind. Die kerk sluit sy ore vir wetenskaplike bevindings dat om gay te wees, baie te doen het met genetiese faktore, met die ontwikkeling van die fetus in die baarmoeder, ook in ‘n mindere mate met die “nurture”-faktor in die grootmaak van kinders. Die kerk ignoreer dit en gay-haters en -veroordelaars (sluit die kerk maar hier in wat verkondig jy kan van jou gay-wees genees word) is lief om te sê homoseksualiteit kom net by mense voor, dat die res van die natuur dit sterk afkeur. Dit is doodgewoon onsin want enige iemand wat ‘n studie van primate doen, ook van bv. voëls, sal vind daar is oorvloedige bewyse vir homoseksualiteit onder daardie spesies. Waarom verkondig predikante en lidmate hierdie soort leuens oor wetenskaplike bevindings? Ek kry die indruk die Afrikaanse pers is skrikkerig om werklik oop gesprek oor geloof aan te moedig. Ek verwys onder meer na die Deon Maas geval. Wat is jou indruk as joernalis van spesifiek die Afrikaanse media se hantering van gesprekke soos die? Die Afrikaanse media is doodgewoon lafhartig wanneer dit kom by die aanmoediging van die oop gesprek oor godsdiens. Jy kan enigiets onder die son kritiseer, maar godsdiens mag nie gekritiseer word nie. Vanwaar hierdie spesiale beskerming wat godsdiens geniet? Bied ons spesiale beskerming aan astroloë? Aan mense wat in die Loch Ness-monster glo? Die Jeti en Groot Voet? Aan mense wat sê hulle glo in ontvoerings deur Vreemde Vlieënde Voorwerpe uit die buitenste ruim? Aan mense wat glo hulle kan met dooies praat? Nee, ons wy nie bladsye en bladsye kopie daaraan nie, maar ons dank vinnig die rubriekskrywer af as ‘n horde oningeligte en dreigende “Christene” – jy sal let ek plaas die benaming tussen aanhalings – ‘n koerant kamstig wil afbrand of boikot. Waar is die beginsel van joernalistieke en redaksionele onafhanklikheid? Ongelukkig het die MBA’s wat deesdae die base is van groot nuuskorporasies geen of bittermin respek vir redaksionele onafhanklikheid. Of dit nou is om die druk te weerstaan van die regering of amptenary, of die druk van godsdienstige afdreigers, dit maak nie saak nie, Midas regeer. Dit is ‘n bedenklike tyd wat ons in die joernalistiek tans beleef en ons gaan eendag die prys daarvoor ten duurste betaal. En dit tas die nuusmedia se geloofwaardigheid ten diepste aan. Die dag as ons ophou om wetenskaplike waarhede en bevindings bekend te maak omdat dit sekere lesers ongemaklik laat voel, dan het die uur geslaan. En ek is bevrees, dit gebeur daagliks, Maas is maar net een voorbeeld. Jy staan tog seker dikwels net soos gelowiges verstom en verwonderd oor die grootsheid van die “skepping” om jou. Soos Einstein moet jy ook jou “awe!” oomblikke van verwondering hê. Is krities denkende gelowiges se verwondering oor dit wat hulle “God” noem regtig soveel anders as jou eie verwondering oor die natuur en dit wat ons nie verstaan nie? Natuurlik staan ek verwonderd oor die Aarde en die natuur. Jy sal oplet ek vermy die woord “skepping”. Maar ek staan verwonderd oor die natuurwette wat so geordend lyk, maar nie werklik is nie. Inderdaad is die geordendheid bloot ’n vernislagie bo die onderliggende potensiaal tot chaos, die sogenaamde Skoenlapper-effek wat deur die vader van die Chaos-teorie, Edward Lorenz, geformuleer is. Dink maar aan die 2004-tsoenami by die N