Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

The Rottweiler is toothless

with 9 comments

Pontificating anti-Anti-Christ – Adventism’s Rottweiler is toothless

An Open Letter to Clifford Goldstein, Seventh-Day Adventist editor, author and columnist

October 18, 2008

Clifford

I am an Adventist theology graduate of the early 80’s who concluded in my penultimate year at seminary that religion is bunk.

After many years of indifference I took up the (virtual) pen against religion only in 2003.

Let me say at once that your writing style warms my heart. If one is not passionate about one’s topic, one should shut up! If you do deign to read me I hope that you may find a similar, if somewhat outrageous – by design – approach.

Having complimented you, I remind you of the judicious classical caveat – timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.

I write not in any vain attempt, nor expectation to alter your belief. A man prepared to burn a novel of his making in answer to some divine machination is probably not for turning… after a Thatcherite plastination.

No, I write because I have a passion for ordinary salt of the earth believers who faithfully attend Sabbath School and Divine Service and Prayer Meetings and who “return” their tithes and offerings; believers who accept confident statements from the pulpit and in the Review as absolute truth… because they want to, mostly. Because it imparts that warm fuzzy feeling.

My folks, Adventists of many summers, are such “ordinary church folk”. And you, sir, harm them.

Because of a rather uncomplimentary dollar exchange rate, my folks read the Adventist Review second or third or fourth hand, as it does the rounds in their small congregation some weeks after publication. I often browse through the magazine and I read your column when I see one.

Yet my mother brought your July 24, 2008 column – The Fallacy of a Final Theory – to my attention. She thought that “the argument that because the natural world needs an explanation, then the God who created that world needs one too, is a false analogy… The whole point of an eternal God is that nothing is prior to Him or more fundamental” would “help me understand”.

It did help me to understand. Why I am so repulsed by theology and religion.

Your statement even trumps Richard Swinburne’s stupefying “it is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused”.

Did I mention that I am a theology graduate? I did, didn’t I? So here’s a sermonette…

One of the all-time great modern Afrikaans (my mother tongue) authors, André P Brink, once related this perspicacious tale: A curmudgeonly serial writer at a weekly magazine ruled supreme over his plots. He alone was the originator and developer of the storylines and nobody’s input was tolerated.

Then the old boy took ill and missed a week. His colleagues rallied and concluded their make-do episode with the hero fighting to control a runaway stagecoach, pursued by ululating ahorsed aboriginals shooting flaming arrows and the heroine bare breasted and bleeding among the luggage on the roof, holding on for dear life as they sped towards a looming canyon.

Upon his return the resident author read the episode dispassionately and took up a favourite position behind his old Remmington. He took a long puff on his minging cigar, flexed his fingers and typed “Met een moerse sprong is hy los” (with one giant leap he escapes).

Your giant leap, Clifford, from scientific theory to some deity not subject to understanding is discombobulating. (Did I mention that I am impressed by your vocabulary and command of the Queen’s cross Atlantic simile? No?)

Scientific theories do work! You, in deference to Isaac Asimov, make it sound as though a “theory” is something dreamt up after being drunk all night.

A theory (as opposed to an hypothesis, which is conjectured upon an idea, impression, assumption, dream or view) is based on fact and theories such as relativity, gravity, electricity and evolution hold true for all practical purposes. Despite the fact that nothing in the universe is absolutely certain and that science dictates that nothing will ever be known with absolute certainty, one can attest with impunity that evolution, for example, is a proven and fundamental natural process underlining the primal relationship of all life. Evolution is supported by empirical results from a panoply of scientific disciplines – comparative anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, histology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, micro biology and geology. One can indeed speak of evolution as a fact, without fear of contradiction.

How do you harm people like my folks? By pontificating that “God” is the ultimate fundamental. Why? Why is “God” the ultimate fundamental? Because you proclaim it so!? You have not a smidgen of evidence for such an outrageous statement of “breathtaking inanity”!

You continue: “… there’s something that doesn’t need an explanation… the Creator, the God who transcends the universe, who is before it, and who explains it”. Again – by what authority? Personal incredulity, Clifford, is a dog that simply won’t hunt.

Not even your admission in your book God, Gödel, and Grace (how “God” and Gödel can possibly be contained in a single sentence…) that one can never “prove” what needs to be taken on faith can compensate for the capriciousness of conning superstitious minds, forged by irrepressible and incessant innuendo, into a certainty of what is not. Shame on you!

(Just the other day I had to strongly suggest that my folks abandon the Kent Hovind – the Kent Hovind!! – DvD series sent them by an Adventist friend. For crying in a bucket!)

That life could not possibly have resulted from the inevitable outcome of unconscious energies, but that a prodigiously intelligent and complex sempiternal creator could have bechanced from nothing, spontaneously, before time must surely rank as the most ludicrous conclusion ever. It is an embarrassing notion, Clifford.

I do agree with your concise apologia in answer to criticism of your July 24, 2003 Seventh-day Darwinians – that evolution and Adventism (religion) cannot be reconciled. (What is it with you and July 24, anyway?)

There is an expanding universe between science and religion. Science and religion are supremely incompatible.

I am often confronted by theologians arguing their conviction that scientific theory is predicated upon something quite similar to religious belief and that since science does not have all the answers and we are so completely incapable of sufficient understanding, we dare not dismiss the transcendental. This is, of course, utter booboisie pap and a pathetic presumption borne from either one or more of a compunction that we had better believe for fear of divine retribution, or a resignation that we might as well believe in answer to social or traditional dictate, or an inability to engage evidence rationally.

To presume for lack of sufficient understanding is nothing less than flagrant intellectual knavery and mental sloth. The transcendental is but the dumpster of all that believers are too scared, too lazy, or too dumb to attempt to better understand.

The fact that science does not have all the answers does not indicate that theology has any answers at all. To pontificate that “God” – by definition “more complex” than “creation” – is not subject to explanation is obstinate to the point of impertinence.

I conclude with the words of the Pulitzer laureate Natalie Angier, recalling this insight from a Caltech biologist, “One of the first things you learn in science is that how you want it to be doesn’t make any difference.”

Yours,
NB

Ps. Should you be inclined to pursue my line of thought I suggest that you consider browsing the following articles: Science & Religion; Science vs Religion; God: A Package Deal; The things we do know; Tolerance.

Written by Nathan Bond

October 18, 2008 at 20:33

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “Dutchman”!?

    Luking for a faait, ek sê?

    Bewilderbeast, you are touching an open nerve here. Scientistist are to blame for not making science more accessible.

    In South Africa, the daily Die Burger makes an effort – through its weekly (Saturday) science column, Wetenskap Vandag, and the work of scientists like Jurie van den Heever and Hendrik Geyer to bring science to ordinary people.

    More should be done, though. But imagine Rapport and Beeld publishing scientific articles. You’ll see Dutchmen running for dear life!

    Nathan Bond

    October 22, 2008 at 12:58

  2. Damn! For a dutchman you sure gooi the taal!

    Are scientists not guilty of leaving the layman ignorant? Should scientists proselytize? Can they ever compete with the easy, everyone’s-a-saviour tax-free scams of the multitude of Agnes Mazambaans out there?

    LOL! Am I acting like a lost soul seeking someone to preach the faith? Is it simply too hard to sell truth? So few are buying!

    bewilderbeast

    October 22, 2008 at 12:49

  3. May the kudos not be eulogiumatic for supranumerous dawns; may the gibbosities not refer to individual habitus and may those effete dolts unable to hold their own in the exhilarating verbolatry be decocted to shrews.

    It is of course significant that beguiling banter should prevail on this thread.

    “Ultimate fundamental”. Purleaze! What abject nonsense!

    Nathan Bond

    October 19, 2008 at 10:43

  4. Yes, indeed – as derived from “dibble.” But don’t you think such panegyric excrescences as are practised here, if taken any further, will, given their entre nous plenitude, occasion lambent and systaltic malefactions of the plebeian termagants?

    Con-Tester

    October 18, 2008 at 23:27

  5. O.K. I admit. You had me there. With dibblesque. Dibblesque? Pretty damn pointed remark. If I am cunning enough to have made the correct association…

    Nathan Bond

    October 18, 2008 at 22:56

  6. Piercing comment as usual. I feel better now. Somewhat sudorific, but indisputably meliorated.

    Nathan Bond

    October 18, 2008 at 22:43

  7. Indubitably, diaphoretically dibblesque.

    Con-Tester

    October 18, 2008 at 22:06

  8. … Xyresic?

    Nathan Bond

    October 18, 2008 at 21:34

  9. Brilliant piece. All ’round incandescent.

    Con-Tester

    October 18, 2008 at 21:31


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s