False Science and False Religion

One of the frequent attacks made against religion as a whole is that it is essentially just a scam run by manipulative fraudsters to cow the great gullible unwashed into obedience, and to give the fraudsters (i.e. priests) power and wealth in exchange for promises of pie in the sky. A quote from Mark Twain is frequently trotted out; ‘Religion was born when the first conman met the first fool.’

It is, unsurprisingly, an assertion that I do not agree with. However, a story on the BBC website this week made me sigh, because it appeared to bolster this assertion. It regards the church in Nigeria, and the fact that certain clergy are trying to enforce the (shaky) biblical injunction that all believers should tithe at least ten percent of their earnings to the church. In a country as poor as Nigeria, many of these clergy seem to be very (perhaps even suspiciously) well off indeed, with personal fortunes well into the millions of pounds.

The story quotes one of them as saying "Anyone who is not paying his tithe is not going to heaven, full stop." This makes me incredibly angry. Not only because it is appallingly untrue, is a disgusting theology and flies utterly in the face of the teachings of Christ, but because, as I said, it seems to be confirming all the worst assumptions and assertions of the angry online anti-theists. It is abundantly clear that these preachers are little more than conmen using religion as a scam to make themselves rich, and in the process driving a great many people away from God. Honest, sincere clergy end up tarred with the same brush due to the crimes of these frauds.

However, it also made me think. It’s true that these ‘preachers’ are no more than conmen, but they are nonetheless used as an admittedly unusually stark example of what religion ‘really’ is.

Doing so though is surely something of a double standard. The problem is that you can apply this argument to science too. These preachers, and their counterparts across the world, demanding that their followers send money to assure their salvation, are merely the theological equivalent of the stereotypical snake-oil salesman. Dr Andrew Wakefield was an accredited medical researcher, until he was found guilty of deliberately falsifying information on the safety of vaccines in order to make considerable personal profit.

As a result, a great many people around the world now erroneously believe that vaccines are linked to autism. Most avowed atheists tend to be very scientifically-minded, and rail against disbelieving the vast majority of modern science and medicine due to a few fraudulent assertions by a now disgraced scientist. Similarly, they’ll argue against ‘scientists’ funded by oil companies whose researches seem to show that climate change isn’t happening, in the face of the vast weight of scientific evidence. For some reason though, they don’t seem to realise that they’re doing exactly the same thing with regards to Christianity. They are taking manipulative frauds as being representative, rather than realising that they are, or ought to be, a disgraced minority.

Now, it’s very true that not all wealthy churches and clergy are conmen or grasping, greedy manipulators. Many have quite rightly pointed out the vast wealth of the Catholic Church, and the Church of England, and I am in total agreement with them. I see very little of the teachings of Christ in the gold and marble of the Vatican. Being neither an Anglican nor a Catholic, I don’t feel I need to work too hard to defend these, and certainly historically, the Catholic Church had become corrupt and money-driven. It’s largely what sparked the Reformation after all.

Sellers of fake medicine do not disprove the validity of the scientific method. To suggest that they do is obviously ridiculous. Sellers of false theology do not disprove the existence of God or the teaching of Christ. Apparently this is less obviously ridiculous for some reason. I’ll end with a slight mis-quote from G. K. Chesterton on exactly this when discussing miracles. “I hope we may dismiss the argument against wonders attempted in the mere recapitulation of frauds, of swindling mediums or trick miracles. That is not an argument at all, good or bad. A false miracle disproves the reality of miracles exactly as much as a forged banknote disproves the existence of the Bank of England- if anything, it proves its existence.”

Rush-Hour Hypocrisy

All Christians are hypocrites. It’s something I’ve said before, but it’s worth repeating. John Wesley thought he’d met a single person who’d attained Christian perfection, but even the possibility of such a thing is fiercely debated. Apart (perhaps) from that individual though, there’s not a one who doesn’t fall short of the standards they claim everyone else ought to follow.

The main problem is partially the impossibly high standard to which we are held. ‘Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect’. Well, I mean, really! What sort of chance do we have?

The other problem, I would like to suggest, is that our technology and society have moved on somewhat from the time when our rules were laid down. I’m not suggesting any sort of chronological snobbery, or that just because the rules are ancient that they must therefore be wrong. On the other hand I’m no literalist, and just because they’re old doesn’t automatically mean they’re right either. They need to be considered and accepted or rejected on their own merit, not just because someone else, a long time ago, found them acceptable for inclusion.

That’s by the by. My point is that we have whole new wonderful ways of sinning nowadays that were simply unavailable to the transgressors and wrongdoers of bygone eras. I’m not saying there are new sins, merely new ways of committing the old classics.

I’m particularly thinking at the moment about anger. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

Well, fair enough, but I would merely point out that Jesus never had to drive into Luton during the morning rush hour, and if that idiot in the green Toyota overtook Him in the teeth of oncoming traffic at almost twice the 30mph limit, He might be moved to at least accept the permissibility of a little light verbal remonstrance. Possibly accompanied by gestures. And lightning bolts.

I’ve now been driving just under a year, and I am sad to report that in that time the number of people upon whom I have bestowed unflattering epithets has increased significantly. I have also sentenced a great many more people to corporal punishment and handed out executions at a frightening rate, all of them richly deserved. How else should one treat those who don't indicate coming off a round about, or who don't wave when you kindly allow them through, even though it was your right of way? I once found it necessary to sentence the entirety of the Morrison carpark to death for a vast array of offenses both motorised and pedestrian. I don’t enjoy being judge, jury and executioner, but someone has to take a hand. I think of it as doing my bit for the Big Society, if that’s even still a thing.

My point is that instead of getting easier, it’s got even harder to be anything like a good Christian. The anonymity of the internet means that many of the old reasons not to call people a fool, such as the fear of a fist to the nose, have been removed. There are no immediate consequences. Sitting in the security of my car, I can call the driver (for want of a better word) of the green Toyota as many names as I like; he can’t hear me.

Not only is our goal unachievable, it’s actually managed to get harder, if that’s possible. However, although it's true that it’s easier than ever to commit certain sins it’s also easier than ever to do good. It’s so easy to give to charity, so easy to spread love, encouragement, and wisdom, anonymously if you wish to. We have been given more than any generation before us, more to do evil, more to good, and to those whom much is given, much is expected.

Sitting in my car at 7.45am on the A5, it’s easy to spit abuse at the silly fellow in the green Toyota, but that doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t change what we have been told to do. That it’s easier doesn’t make it any better; if anything it makes it worse. If we can’t restrain ourselves when it’s easy to lash out, why would we at any other time?

Tomorrow then, I shall attempt to restrain the nastier aspects of my wit. I shall attempt to be slightly less of a hypocrite. If I see the chap in the green Toyota, I shall attempt not to think what an unwise and reckless person he is. I shall try to forgive the foibles of my fellow motorists and let them off with a caution, at most. I won’t succeed, but to throw in the inevitable Lewis quotation, “If we aim at Heaven, we get the Earth thrown in. If we aim at the Earth, we get neither.”

Extremism, Freedom and the Lowest Common Denominator

This week, there was a story on the BBC news website regarding Theresa May’s outline for additional ‘anti-extremist’ legislation, curtailing the freedom of speech, movement and association of organisations deemed ‘extremist’ (whatever that means).

The extremely worrying nature of the proposed laws would probably take up a blog post by itself, but that’s not what I want to concentrate on here.  The comments section swiftly filled with people either decrying or hailing the ideas.  Predictably, many people took ‘extremism’ to mean primarily ‘Muslim extremism’ and couched their remarks accordingly.

At least one person said something along the lines of the following, and I have seen it multiple times before:  “If I was living in a Muslim country and tried to convert people to Christianity, or tried to build churches or went out on the streets preaching the destruction of the country I was in, I’d be arrested and imprisoned/deported in the blink of an eye, so why do we allow these people to do the equivalent here!”  A direct quotation for you:  “My feet wouldn’t touch the ground.  My head would.”

What their argument boils down to is “These countries are oppressive and dictatorial, so why shouldn’t we be?  It’s what they’d do in our place!”  This isn’t even an ‘eye for an eye’ argument, it’s a desire to equalise everyone at the level of the lowest and the worst.  “Why should we uphold personal freedoms when they don’t?”  “Why should we have the rule of law when they don’t?”  “Barbarians murder, torture and rape, so why shouldn’t we?”  “The beasts of the field root in the muck for food and fight tooth and nail for scraps.  Why shouldn’t we?”  Why should we try and be better than them?

We should be proud that we live in a society in which one can believe what one wants, say what one wants, wear what one wants, do what one wants, assuming it doesn’t hurt others.  It should be a matter of pride that the poor and the dispossessed of the world make a beeline to us.  Instead of whining about immigrants taking advantage, complaining about ‘scroungers’ on benefits, we should be standing tall, happy to be an example to the world that the best and only way of truly judging a country is by how it treats the poorest and most vulnerable.

The true test of whether you live in a free society is whether you can speak out against that society without fear of prosecution.  It is whether you can state categorically that you disagree with the fundamental truths of every single other person in that society, if that is what your conscience dictates, and do so without fear of persecution. At the moment, I am proud to say that I do.  I am truly afraid that this may not always be the case, and I do not believe that the greatest threat to our society is in what our government is pleased to refer to as ‘extremists’.

Why should we treat them well when they wouldn’t do the same for us in our place?  Many of the people asking this question insist that British Muslims are refusing to integrate, forcing their culture on ours and forcing their values on our British Christian ones.  Here’s a Christian value for you:  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” 

  

 That seems fairly clear to me.