Michael D Magee - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Morality by Michael D Magee

Personal freedom is only achievable within a social framework because humans are social not solit... more Personal freedom is only achievable within a social framework because humans are social not solitary. Freedom of speech is meaningless outside of society. It presumes an audience. People have duties besides rights. The state is the highest level. Much human unhappiness came from the friction between the state and the individual. But human society is an assembly of communities. The ordinary citizen does not have power and cannot so exercise it. We have yielded our rights to a professional political caste, out for their own personal gain, not often doing what electors want, then using the media to persuade them they want what they get. Without a satisfactory welfare system allowing benefits and personal enterprise, the gross inequalities of capitalist society will justify revolution! Each state must be ruled by its own people, without interference from other states, then democracy, humanitarianism, peace and cooperation will evolve.

It is hardly correct for a science writer to call the anthropic principle a theory, except in the... more It is hardly correct for a science writer to call the anthropic principle a theory, except in the vague but popular sense that the creationists use it in—a gash explanation. It is not gash, and it is not a tautology. The anthropic principle is more of an observation than a theory. We are here, and so the Universe’s age and physical constants are those that allow us to exist, and not all those others that would make our existence impossible, because the physical constants would be too big or small for the universe to exist itself, or to exist long enough for us to have evolved. We are not trying to prove that we do exist, but that unless the conditions had been as they are, we could not have done.

The central factor that led to the formation of human society was the suppression of those who wo... more The central factor that led to the formation of human society was the suppression of those who would take advantage of others in human groups. As illustrated in the case of the vampire bats, effectively it became morally impermissible for people to exploit others, and those who tried it were punished by the others expelling them from the group. By evicting those with selfish genes, human groups gradually got a higher preponderance of helpful, compassionate, caring and sharing genes—altruistic ones! These more cooperative human groups then began to dominate the rest, bringing on the social transition from a species of solitary primates to a social one, though it is possible, and even likely, that this happened before humans had even become Homo sapiens. Human society is symptomatic of a significant higher level transition. Once we had started to rely on cooperation, we started to develop theories of mind so as to be able to judge what others in our groups were thinking.

Society gives everyone the same rights under the law, and people are to use them instead of takin... more Society gives everyone the same rights under the law, and people are to use them instead of taking the law into their own hands—a prescription for social chaos—but they also have the duty to be a good citizen. Failure to do your duty means you are not a good citizen and cannot expect the rights of one. If the law is effective and just, citizens should act altruistically confident that if they are deliberately wronged, the law will deal with it. If they feel slighted, they can rely on justice to satisfy any temptation to feel vengeful. Evil is embodied in our atavistic side, the side that wants to be like a solitary animal, free to do anything. In society we cannot. We have our duty to society. It is what the battle of Good and Evil is about. We have to suppress atavistic behaviour in the social contract we have entered by living in, and enjoying the benefits of, society. When we succeed we are upright, but when we fail we have fallen to the wiles of Satan.

One of the most striking features of natural morality is that the approval or censure of an act d... more One of the most striking features of natural morality is that the approval or censure of an act directly reflects the social value or social injury of the act. Why is justice the fundamental and essential moral law? It is a vital regulation of social life. Why is murder the greatest crime? It is the gravest social delinquency. In tribal society religion and morals had remained close to each other. Then religion became the interest of the sacerdotal caste of priests, when nations and empires were built. Then it perverted morality in the interests of that class, yielding extraordinary notions of mortally serious sin—rules about washing, sneezing, coughing, marrying, excreting, wearing hats, etc. Utterly pointless morals were invented to give priests more income, absolving the sheep of these perversions, or forcing them to get natural social arrangements like marriage celebrated by the priests, further enriching them.

Excessive richness shows society is malfunctioning, and wealth must be redistributed to correct i... more Excessive richness shows society is malfunctioning, and wealth must be redistributed to correct it. Someone wealthy will plead it will make their life worse, contrary to the Principle of Humanity, but it is not making it bad! It is not ending it, or putting them into slavery or destitution. It is saving people from slavery and destitution, far more people than it will make feel poor, though they will not be poor. It is not making the rich into paupers or slaves. It is to get people out of bad lives, not to put them into them, even the rich. If everyone has a good life, then no one has a bad one. Material incentives would be cut to those necessary for the aim of reducing bad lives, and those who are already well rewarded, like bankers, do not need inflated bonuses as an incentive. It is robbery of the bank’s customers and shareholders. Nor do the poor need the threat of destitution to force them to work.

Because of the original position and the veil of ignorance, the theory of justice as fairness per... more Because of the original position and the veil of ignorance, the theory of justice as fairness permits justice to be indeed fair. It shows why people want a fair and equal spread of rights and duties, and also an equal distribution of benefits, to value a place in society. Any variation in the distribution of benefits will only be acceptable because they are within acceptable limits of tolerance, or because some inequality of distribution benefits everyone, especially those whose abilities and assets are below average. So, some members of society can be privileged as long as all others benefit—usually because they undertake onerous duties on behalf of society—but the reverse is not just—that some people can be exploited to the benefit of others. Any such exploitation must lead to social discontent and offer the potential for revolution.

Law is meant to contain the impulse toward revenge, to preserve a society from perpetual vendetta... more Law is meant to contain the impulse toward revenge, to preserve a society from perpetual vendettas, keeping it orderly and humane. But the law contains revenge by meting it out itself as retribution. Society’s retributive institutions remove the burden of vengeance from those whose vindictiveness might endanger themselves and others, and destabilize society. The issue is not a society’s right to punish, but that it must never punish in cruel, unusual or disproportionate ways. The law should not be excessive. The law must remove personal animus from the task of apportioning blame and exacting retribution. The death penalty for a petty theft does not create respect for the law—especially when people face the choice of starving to death or risking death by thieving—but merely fear of injustice, and then disrespect for the law. If people truly were moral, law would not be needed.

Evidence of morality has been observed in animal behaviour studies of great apes, some monkeys, w... more Evidence of morality has been observed in animal behaviour studies of great apes, some monkeys, wolves, hyenas, dolphins, whales, elephants, rats and mice. Stories of animals feeding disabled ones is remarkably common. Sighted animals have often been seen feeding blind ones. Morality seems to have evolved from play. Morality is like a game with rules, and punishments for breaking them. Animals play out of choice, and continued participation depends upon empathy, fairness, co-operation and trust. Animals that habitually cheat don’t get played with. Play therefore is necessarily fair. Through it, each animal gets to understand what is acceptable to others and what is not—what is right, and what is wrong! Play, for social animals, is essential practice for sociality, and the rules of sociality for any species are its morals. If justice is seen as a set of social rules meant to maintain group harmony, then it is equivalent to play.

In the absence of a punishment opportunity, sharers will initially coöperate if they believe that... more In the absence of a punishment opportunity, sharers will initially coöperate if they believe that others will also coöperate. However, they notice over time that other group members—the selfish ones—free ride. As sharers are only willing to coöperate if most others also coöperate, they cease to coöperate. Sharers also have a desire to punish free riders because they perceive free riding on their coöperation to be unfair. However, stopping their coöperation is the only way to punish other group members in the absence of a direct punishment of the free riders. The selfish subjects ultimately induce the sharers to free ride as well in the absence of a direct punishment opportunity.

As we evolved, moral judgments promoted prosocial behavior. They expressed to our ancestors the c... more As we evolved, moral judgments promoted prosocial behavior. They expressed to our ancestors the common judgement of the group of why anyone should act favorably to others in society, even though directly it might be somewhat detrimental to themselves. People had this instinct because those without it had been unable to live in a group. Those with it could, and the group was stronger for it. Moreover, morals are particularly suitable to us because we can speak. The evolution of speech will have enhanced the adoption of spoken moral condemnation and praise, promoting the reciprocation of prosocial behavior to cement human groups.

From his theory of intentionality, Robin Dunbar agrees that religious people treat gods as &ldquo... more From his theory of intentionality, Robin Dunbar agrees that religious people treat gods as “having essentially human mental traits, like characters in a novel or play”. The ToM suggests believers think they know God’s brain. Nicholas Epley, et al, shows us they are right. People often reason egocentrically about others’ beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent’s beliefs like God. The God of the believers has just the same opinions as themselves.

Human sensitivity to social reputation is a psychological mechanism, unrelated to religion, that ... more Human sensitivity to social reputation is a psychological mechanism, unrelated to religion, that evolved to facilitate reciprocal co-operative bonds in groups. Selfish people could be accused, punished or excluded from the group. The threat of punishment, particularly exclusion, motivated group members to conform to group behavioral norms. In early human groups, anonymity was impossible, and reducing anonymity in experimental economic games enforces social behavior, as does the presence of images of human eyes. Religions help sociality in large groups, but efficient secular social organization, such as universal education countering superstition, and practical institutions to enforce the law have reduced the need for and conviction behind the upholding of morals by religion. Now, nonreligious people are as likely to report donating to charity as religious ones. Experimentally induced reminders of secular moral authority had as much effect on generous behavior in an economic game as reminders of God.

Religiosity is a feature of human life, and evolutionary, developmental, neuropsychological, and ... more Religiosity is a feature of human life, and evolutionary, developmental, neuropsychological, and anthropological theories must explain human religions. Morals are about the organization of groups of people. Emile Durkheim showed that morality is a set of rules to bind people into an effective group. Although Durkheim is revered by sociologists, they were not free of the baleful influence of religion to get to the place when Jonathan Haidt now is. The connexion of morals to the needs of social living were forgotten for most of the twentieth century. Haidt and others have now shown that co-operation and society evolves by genetic and cultural evolution. Though he firmly declares he is an atheist, he only “doubts” the existence of God, and he has accepted considerable donations from the Templeton Foundation. Every man has his price. But Haidt is a leading scientist of the study of morality and religion. His critique therefore represents the scientific process in action—scientists holding each other accountable for their factual claims. Science must be objective!

Human societies seem always to have a link between death, spirits and religion. A feature of the ... more Human societies seem always to have a link between death, spirits and religion. A feature of the social mind is that it is a narrative mind—it strives to join up experiences into a coherent story. It finds the effects of causes and the causes of effects. Perhaps as a result people realized that, by doing something, a particular effect can be expected. They were not always right but they were often enough to appreciate that planning was possible and its value. They realized too that they would die, but must also have felt that, when they did, remaining as respected members of the tribe, as ancestors, was a comfort to them. They joined the guardians of the traditions of the tribe, so they had better know them and stick to them while alive, for when they were dead they would be relying on reciprocating with the living members for their succor. It was a fair exchange, but they had to do their bit, even when they were dead.

The belief that human morality requires religion is not true. It is a result of two millennia of ... more The belief that human morality requires religion is not true. It is a result of two millennia of Christian indoctrination, of children being taught from an early age to think moral rules come from the bible. Those taught it, usually just accept it thereafter, even as adults. No modern person, even among religious people, gets the bulk of their morals from the bible. They are mainly from what they experience in society, and little of what the bible says. In any case, to believe Giannetti, we cannot know what the bible says without a host of angels to interpret it for us. Maybe that is why most Christians, who take their God to have appeared on earth in the form of a man called Jesus, ignore almost eveything he said, especially the egregious things like “blessed are the poor”. Christ, God, is utterly clear that no one is saved except by giving all they have to the poor, yet Christians ignore God and do what a rogue called Paul, for all the Christian knows, Satan in disguise, tells them to do.

Ultimately how do you judge what is moral? If morals are supernatural gifts from God, when we are... more Ultimately how do you judge what is moral? If morals are supernatural gifts from God, when we are faced with a novel dilemma, we have no way of judging what is the moral way to act. Either God has given us the gift of moral judgement, or He has not—we are good or we are wicked through the grace of God, and our choices depend on that. David Hume did not think the human moral sense was a mystery, because sympathy with the feelings of others explained it adequately. A spectator of a benevolent act sees happiness produced as a result of it, and by sympathy the spectator also feels pleasure, and that brings moral approval. The one who does the benevolent deed will feel the approval of their peers as honor or pride, while those who act selfishly will feel disapproval as shame and guilt. All presuming they are not psychologically defective or damaged.

Objectivity is a social matter. The process of individuation, the extension of “freedom from”, wh... more Objectivity is a social matter. The process of individuation, the extension of “freedom from”, which leads to isolation of each individual, hinders objectivity. It therefore suits the subjective, like supernaturalism, and hinders the comprehension of objective science. So, Americans find it difficult to understand science. Most prefer subjective religion, mainly a crude distortion of Christianity. They reject actual Christianity because it promotes sociality through love of others and mutual help, the antitheses of the exploitation of the weak by the strong—capitalism. Yet the rich pretend, for the sake of the ignorant, that they too are Christian. Well, rebel Christ said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle”. For the rich, heaven is impossible! Christ spelled out the morality that is instinctive in human beings—love of one’s neighbors, the morality of the Golden Rule that lets us to live together and is essential for humanity. But they have changed it into superstition, ritual and false morality. Rich people promote religion to buttress the status quo.

Accustomed to nuclear families, we see Gods as a father, whereas the root of God is in the extend... more Accustomed to nuclear families, we see Gods as a father, whereas the root of God is in the extended family or tribe, the primitive human group. God personifies it. Human security depends on our group providing everyone’s immediate environment from birth to death. The personification of the group as the totem, then the ancestor, founding father, then the tribal god, means God has properties associated with the group and the father. Belief in this god stopped us feeling as helpless as a solitary animal in the face of adversity. The group offered safety in numbers, but, if someone came face to face with a predator, their instinct was to call out for others to come to help. The need for God expresses our dependence on each other, on society. “Evil” now has a supernatural connotation, but it just meant “dangerous”. God as society protects us, and god as a father guides us in our tasks and duties in society—duties commanded by God!

The minimum constraints on freedom is taken by the right to be no constraints at all. The unlimit... more The minimum constraints on freedom is taken by the right to be no constraints at all. The unlimited extension of individuation by ever greater personal freedom ignores society, and particularly that it is more than the sum of the people comprising it. Human society is held together by common constraints that can be broken only at the risk of its destruction. The continual removal of constraints is what the west takes to be extending freedom, freedom from constraints. But what about constraints necessary because they are the stitching that holds society together. They cannot be removed if human society is to exist at all. Such a positive constraint is positive freedom, albeit what doctrinaire libertarians call the opposite of freedom! Negative freedom taken to the extreme puts the individual beyond social constraint all together, and beyond society and acculturation. The factors that make us human have been left behind as unnecessary restrictions, and what is left is the parent of a beast.

Since Paul, Christians have had almost two millennia to justify their revisions of Christ’s socia... more Since Paul, Christians have had almost two millennia to justify their revisions of Christ’s social teaching. Real Christians get on with being a Christ. Fake Christians boast about their faith. Faith and doing nothing is not an option. Christ told them precisely what they had to do—love one another. To love others, even strangers, foreigners, and enemies, brings salvation, not singing hymns, silent prayers and lighting candles. Christ, God incarnated as a man, Christians tell us, was unequivocal about it, yet they ignore God and pursue the do nothing faith of Paul. Love as empathy and assistance unites what were entirely separate and self reliant animals, human beings, in the society they form together in their joint purpose, co-operation to their mutal advantage. When Christians say that love unites people in God, God is a metaphor for society. If people fail to preserve human society, humanity dies, and God dies with it, for God is human society.

The Patristic Age, 2008

The logos was an ancient Greek speculation used by the Stoics from Persian arta. No modern believ... more The logos was an ancient Greek speculation used by the Stoics from Persian arta. No modern believer, Jew or Christian, will doubt that the bible preceded the Greek philosophers, but it did not. Heraclitus wrote about logos a century before the bible began to be written by the Persians, and even longer before the Ptolemies cast Genesis in more or less the shape it is now in. Logos remained order and truth, as it was for the Persians (arta, asha), but became cosmic reason, reality’s shape, natural laws and meaning. Humans comprehended God and reality by the logos in them. To Philo, logos was the first emanation of God, His “first begotten son” (De Agric 57)! Early Christianity was a Gnostic variety, teaching that eternal life is knowledge of Christ and God. Other Church fathers made the Gnostic distinctioin between simple Christians who just heard and believed, and Gnostics who had a philosophy beside their faith. Whatever the the Church accepted, Christian doctrines have come down to us as Catholic ones. The followers of Jesus were Ebionites whom Paul opposed. Yet, only 100 years after Christians say God walked the earth, saying personally from His own lips to anyone willing to listen what they had to do to enter His kingdom, Polycarp declared that Paul’s letter to the Philippians was the foundation of Christian faith! The establishment of the authority of the Church was a key strategy. Tertullian taught the apostles solely had authority. Irenaeus claimed scripture was the ultimate authority, but the authority for that was the tradition of the Church guarded by the Holy Ghost! And vice versa! It meant anything not approved by the Church was deemed unreliable if not wrong, and the Church stuck to this, insisting on approving all pious writing, and censoring whatever it disapproved of, all based on its own assertion that it alone owned the apostolic tradition. Church Fathers accepted scripture as inspired, but its spiritual nature left it needing interpretation. What were the principles, then, of Christian exegesis? Everything in the Jewish scriptures pointed to the coming of Christ. The problem of making everything in the Jewish scriptures refer to Christ was made easier by resorting to allegory, but modern exegetes make a distinction between allegory and typology, mainly finding incidents of the New Testament in the Old. The Jews themselves had seen their scriptures as typologically prophesying future events, and the Essenes were fond of it, calling themselves prophets for their skill at it.

Mary is a peculiarly popular name in the gospels. Prominent women were called Mary. Why? Perhaps ... more Mary is a peculiarly popular name in the gospels. Prominent women were called Mary. Why? Perhaps it was a title—“mar” meaning “lord”, “master”, and “marthah” meaning “lady”, “mistress”, “Martha”. L Y Rahmani says “marah” is the diminutive form of Martha. Antipope Benedict XIII ordered destroyed an ancient treatise called Mar Yesu, “Lord Jesus”. Martha, Miriam and Mary are the same name, differing only in suffixes which indicate a woman. They mean “lady”. Catholics, always called Mary “Our Lady”. Martha is the Aramaic of the Hebrew Maria, and Miriam is another form of the title. Possibly Lady as the Essene equivalent of Lord or Master denoted a senior female in the order. Notes on the several Marys that appear in the gospels.

The Virgin Birth is unknown to Paul. The earliest Christian writings, Paul's Epistles, do not men... more The Virgin Birth is unknown to Paul. The earliest Christian writings, Paul's Epistles, do not mention it. Jesus was of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3), and Jesus was born of a woman under the law (Gal 4:4). By any natural standard, Jesus was illigitimate—her husband did not impregnate Mary so Jesus was not the son of her husband. He was therefore not a son of David as the genealogies seek to show. Nor was Jesus a son of David because he himself, according to the synoptic gospels, denied it. If Paul was right in saying, “Christ was descended from David according to the flesh”, Christians have to conclude he meant Mary’s flesh so as not deny the miraculous birth. Then the genealogies of Joseph are spurious and superfluous. Joseph is unnecessary to the story, and Mark did not mention him at all. But Christians like the idea of a Davidic descent of Jesus, and believe it, even though God as the Son denied it. The virgin birth narratives spoiled the purpose of the genealogies, so must have been needed. It was because Jesus had been called Ben Pandera, Son of the Panther, a black man. A virgin (Greek, parthenos) birth explained the rumour that Jesus was a bastard. Pandera was a slur on the word parthenos, Christians said. But Pagan demi-gods were often sons of virgins, so the pun is an unlikely invention of Pagans, though not the opposite. Even normal birth by the impure route was too ignominious for the Christian Son. It had to be spotless, or immaculate, and the mother had to remain a virgin. So, Christians quickly took Mary to be as intact as a pious nun, a perpetual virgin like Pagan goddesses, even after Jesus had been born. Yet Luke describes Jesus as Mary’s first-born, and all the gospels mention brothers of Jesus and sisters too.

A recent film made for the Discovery Channel about a tomb found in Jerusalem which has within it ... more A recent film made for the Discovery Channel about a tomb found in Jerusalem which has within it caskets bearing the names of Jesus, Mary and Joseph argues it is the Holy Family tomb. It is bogus " history " meant to earn a dishonest buck. It says the odds are over 600 to 1 the Jesus Family Tomb is that of the gospel family. You have to take this evidence with a big pinch of salt. Like any syllogism, mathematics is only as good as its assumptions. This whole nonsense could not have arisen unless the Christians felt obliged to believe that Jesus had a close family. Looked at in a fair and balanced way, he did not. He was a member of a brotherhood, the Essenes.

Once the Empire was administered by Christians, public libraries had their Pagan books progressiv... more Once the Empire was administered by Christians, public libraries had their Pagan books progressively replaced by Christian books. Christians closed Pagan temples and academies, destroying or scattering their libraries. Even as early as 235 AD Christians, like Sextus Julius Africanus, were in powerful and influential positions in Rome. By 391 AD, an edict of Theodosius prohibited visiting Pagan temples and even looking at their ruins. In Alexandria, Pagans revolted, led by the philosopher Olympius. They locked themselves inside the temple of the god Serapis—the Serapeion. Christians violently sieged and captured the building, demolished it, burnt its famous library and profaned its images. Christians try to deny that they ravaged the Pagan learning accumulated over the whole of previous history. Since this vandalism started the Dark Ages, it is difficult to prove…

Francis S Collins tries to persuade us of why he became a Christian. He presents evidence for bel... more Francis S Collins tries to persuade us of why he became a Christian. He presents evidence for belief in his book The Language of God. He will convince his Christian chums, but few scientists. The book must be written for Christians. For anyone else it will seem puerile. His science sections are as good as one might expect, but the personal journey is laughable, and the evidence he offers for belief will be inadequate for anyone who thinks of themself as a scientist. One has to conclude that the intended audience is the large body of Christians who reject science, 45% of Americans. They need to be persuaded of the importance of science if the USA is not to slide into mediocrity in future decades. Collins is a Christian, and aims to keep their confidence by interlacing the science with a lot of pious garbage. Christians should indeed read the book for the science, but here we dissect the garbage.

Christians try to deny that, when they achieved total power at the end of the fourth cen... more Christians try to deny that, when they achieved total power at the end of the fourth century, they ravaged the Pagan learning accumulated over the whole of previous history. Since this vandalism started the Dark Ages, it is quite difficult to prove, simply because the destruction of learning meant there was little recorded evidence about it that was not written down by Christians—the few left who could write.

As a preliminary to exploring the origins of Christianity, some background and contentious Christ... more As a preliminary to exploring the origins of Christianity, some background and contentious Christian beliefs are discussed.

People have offered a bewildering variety of pictures of Jesus, including the cosmic Christ, crea... more People have offered a bewildering variety of pictures of Jesus, including the cosmic Christ, creator of the universe; the Christ crucified of the medieval world; the mystic “bridegroom of the soul”; Christ as the prototype of the Renaissance “universal man” or the Enlightenment’s “teacher of reason” and the modern resurgence of Christ the liberator. Even so, his story becomes rather thin in the modern era when the Jesus of history began to dethrone the Christs of faith.

We do not have to conjecture about what the early Israelite religion consisted of, and we need no... more We do not have to conjecture about what the early Israelite religion consisted of, and we need not depend upon the tendentious descriptions of the bible. It is described in documents (A E Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC) from the Jewish colony at Elephantine, an island in the Nile below the First Cataract—now submerged by the Aswan Dam—dated towards the end of the fifth century BC, just at the time the Persians were setting up their temple state in Yehud. What was Jesus's Judaism?

According to Josephus, the Essenes were one of three major Jewish philosophies. The other two wer... more According to Josephus, the Essenes were one of three major Jewish philosophies. The other two were the Pharisees, who were mostly lay people, and the Sadducees, the aristocratic and powerful priestly class of Jerusalem. Josephus says there were six thousand Pharisees and four thousand Essenes in Judaea. Pharisees were less radical than the Essenes and were ready to compromise with the Sadducees and, to some extent, co-operate with the Romans. The contemporaneous Jewish philosopher and exegete Philo of Alexandria gives the same number of Essenes. Josephus and Philo report that the Essenes live “together in large communities in several cities of Judaea and in many villages”. What is the branch of Judaism from which Christianity emerged?

The Persian traditions of dualism and apocalyptic, no longer prominent in Judaism, passed into Ch... more The Persian traditions of dualism and apocalyptic, no longer prominent in Judaism, passed into Christianity, and still characterize the religion today. Christianity is more true to Zoroastrianism than Rabbinic Judaism, though both have the same roots. Here we discuss Christianity in relation to the evolution of the idea of Satan. Satan or the Devil, a negative god, is an important part of Christianity, although quite why is hard to fathom. God is described as almighty but is not almighty enough to get rid of His evil opponent until the end of time. The reason is quite plain, although no Christians realize it. Satan is Time. Time is the great corrupter, eventually the ultimate corrupter of life, because given time, all life dies. The punishment God inflicted on the human race through the disobedience of Adam and Eve was death, and the promised reward for obedience to the Christian creed is eternal life. Yet eternity can only be experienced in a world without time, and so it assumes the cessation of time. The supposed kingdom of God is a place of complete perfection, in which nothing corrupts. But time is the corrupter and so time has ceased in the Christian heaven.

The death of Alexander brought on destructive internecine warfare between Alexander's successors.... more The death of Alexander brought on destructive internecine warfare between Alexander's successors. The turmoil did not die down until the mid third century BC. From then until the division of the Roman empire was the Hellenistic era. Though little is heard of Persia in Western history, the 200 year long Persian (Achaemenid) empire left its legacy. The Greek kingdom of Bactria was founded by Persians settling Ionian Greeks there in an ancient practice of deporting troublesome people, an old form of pacification, and Alexander could not spare many of his own soldiers to occupy conquered people because of his need for a conquering army. Thus the temple of Diana at Ephesus, a temple to the Great Mother of the Gods, was rebuilt by the Persians and administered by Magi until the first century AD. It became the site of the worship of the Christian Theotoxos, the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary. It all suggests how Persians created convenient religions for subdued people, notably Judaism.

Migrating human beings took different plants and animals with them on their travels. At Ramat Rah... more Migrating human beings took different plants and animals with them on their travels. At Ramat Rahel, some noble designed the garden to impress visitors and locals with their wealth and worldliness, and the importation of exotic trees has had a lasting impact on the region, and on Judaism. The citron tree, long ago absorbed into Jewish tradition, has made its first unequivocal appearance in Israel in this Persian period garden. It suggests a link between the setting up of the temple state by the Persian authorities, and a fruit used in jewish ritual that came into europe from Persia probably via Judah.

The " return " was pacification by deportation, used on unruly subjects. Their leaders were depor... more The " return " was pacification by deportation, used on unruly subjects. Their leaders were deported away, and new leaders were deported in charged with restoring the corrupted local cult, but that really meant changing the cult to suit the Persians. It is what Darius II did in Judah. The bible was not written by native Judahites, nor in Jerusalem, nor without using ancient sources. The history was written to back up the law, Deuteronomy, by Persian scholars directed by the Persian chancellery, with access to Assyrian records. The message was to obey the God of the covenant whose law it was. It showed God had punished previous generations for apostasy, and would do again, if the people were not righteous, ie obedient to the law. Obedience suits rulers. If the bible was written around 700 BC, Jewish historians preceded the first historian, Herodotus by 200 years. It is manifest nonsense.

The Church Father Sulpicius Severus, in his history of the world (Chronica), knew the order of th... more The Church Father Sulpicius Severus, in his history of the world (Chronica), knew the order of the Persian kings, and unhesitatingly said the restored temple was opened in the sixth year of Darius II Ochus! Sulpicius Severus (c 363-c 425) a fourth century Gaul, was persuaded by S Martin into the Christian faith and he wrote a history of the world, excluding only the events of the gospels and Acts as being too sacred to summarize. Historians have judged his work badly, but it was in use over a thousand years after it was written for all that, and in respect of Ezra and Nehemiah, he is fairly clear, considering modern experts are always confused. His main difference is that, on the basis of the scripture, he places Ezra's coming with a host of Jews in the reign of Artaxerxes, twenty years after the temple was restored, which seems unlikely, although, if correct, it makes the foundation of Judaism even later still! What is important is that he gets the kings right, and has no doubt that the temple was opened in the sixth year of Darius II Ochus. Here is what he wrote in two short chapters of his Chronica. Chronica Chapter 9 In the meantime, those Jews, who, as we have said above, returned into their native land by the permission of Cyrus, attempted to restore their city and temple. But, being few and poor, they made but little progress, until, at last, after the lapse of about a hundred years, while Artaxerxes the king ruled over the Persians, they were absolutely deterred from building by those who had local authority. For, at that time, Syria and all Judaea was ruled under the empire of the Persians by magistrates and governors. Accordingly, these took counsel to write to king Artaxerxes, that it was not fitting that opportunity should be granted to the Jews of rebuilding their city, lest, in accordance with their stubborn character, and being accustomed to rule over other nations, they should, on recovering their strength, not submit to live under the sway of a foreign power. Thus, the plan of the rulers being approved of by the king, the building of the city was put a stop to, and delayed until the second year of Darius the king. But, who were kings of Persia throughout this period of time, we shall here insert, in order that the Sulpicius Severus on the Restoration of the Temple by Darius

The bible is at odds with ancient textual sources and with archaeology. Egyptian papyri detail th... more The bible is at odds with ancient textual sources and with archaeology. Egyptian papyri detail the least things about Egyptian events of the time. One explains that two(!) escaping slaves were pursued across the border, yet there is no record of two million Israelite slaves all leaving one night. Uneducated slaves, desperately escaping from the armies of their powerful oppressor in the desert do not sit down each night and write out a diary of the day's events. Nomads keep up their spirits by telling tall stories around their campfires. The story was written by Persian administrators sent to secure the loyalty of the Jews for Persia, not Egypt. They used the myth, presented then as it was ever after as true history, to depict those loyal to the traditional gods and goddesses as apostates and backsliders from the true God of Israel, Yehouah, who had made a covenant with Moses. Scriptural books are warnings to the natives in Palestine to back the god the Persians were introducing as the God of the Israelites. They pretended that the people were always backsliding from worship of the true god, so they invented a history to prove it. Moses was not important in it. The Prophets could not have avoided talking about Moses and the Sinai covenant had it really been a long known and central element of Jewish history. Prophets preceding Jeremiah are mainly silent about Moses and rarely use the word covenant, but criticize the people for disobedience. The saga of Moses must have been one of the last additions to the history. Invented pseudepigraphic prophecies showed God would punish the people for their backsliding. Since they were written after the events they could seem accurate. The Persians depicted Jewish prophets during the monarchy as incessantly warning the people not to apostatize. They always did! Books were written in Greek professing to give accounts of Egyptian and Babylonian culture, but in the light of modern discovery they were inaccurate.

Persian emperors are mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah in close to the right order, though the three Dar... more Persian emperors are mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah in close to the right order, though the three Dariuses and two Artaxerxes are not distinguished. Taking the order and chronology to be true, the return of Ezra and Nehemiah is in the reign of Artaxerxes II. The problem is that Nehemiah could hardly have been as late as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes II and fit in with Elephantine papyri about thirty years earlier that already look to an established temple in Jerusalem. The king was Darius II. Persians gave the Jews the concept that this tiny country could become a great nation if its people were obedient and righteous. The Jewish David is a mythologized Darius II. The Maccabees, once they had set up the Jewish free state, embellished the myth of Darius II as the founder of the Jewish state, into the myth of David, the founder of a Jewish empire! Ezra, called both priest and scribe, obviously working in a senior capacity, leads Levites in teaching the law. He reads to the colonists and the Am ha Eretz a covenant, an enforceable treaty. The law read out was a law that had to be kept. Ezra imposed it firmly under threat, and the people wept! Some say they wept in joy, but the response was grief—they were commanded not to mourn! It was the law of Mazas, Ahuramazda, called Mazas by the Assyrians and Moses by the Jews. Or perhaps Misa (Mica), the name of Mithras in the Persian dialect. Jewish sages think of Ezra as the second Moses. He was the first Moses, unless Ahuramazda or Mithras is considered the first. It looks more than a coincidence that his brother is Aaron, in Hebrew letter equivalents, Ahrwn. Besides the final " nun " the word looks to be a mishearing of Ahura (Aura, Oura), and the " nun " is from its assimilation into Hebrew as meaning " his brother ". Ezra the scribe attended the ceremony of dedicating the walls, together with Nehemiah. If this happened in a second period of office of Nehemiah beginning about 430 BC, it could have been in the reign of Darius II. The compiler, unable to distinguish between the Persian kings thought " year seven of Darius " meant Darius I. It was impossible, so he rejected it in favour of Artaxerxes, who had already been mentioned in the context of Nehemiah, because the two men were together at the dedication. Ezra really came in year seven of Darius II specially to dedicate the walls and to introduce the new law. Ezra was never a " returner " and could not appear in lists of them, and was never a High Priest of the Jerusalem temple. He was the senior priest in the Persian empire. If Moses had not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy to bring Torah into the world. Ezra and Nehemiah: Bringing Judaism from Persia

No biblicists were interested in the Persian period, with excellent reason. It was when Judaism a... more No biblicists were interested in the Persian period, with excellent reason. It was when Judaism actually began! Evidence was interpreted to fit the bible by sliding the archaeological dates two or three hundred years into the past, creating a " Persian Gulf " , the absence of strata assigned to the Persian period. It gave an excuse for clearing tells of their most recent layers to get straight to the ones that mattered, dated as Babylonian and Assyrian when they were really Persian. The Persians of the time when Yehud was set up as a temple state were Babylonian Persians. The Persian kings had moved their capital to Babylon and had adopted Babylonian culture. It was why the confusion had arisen, but no reason why it should have been perpetuated. That was pure biblical dogma. How faith contradicts truth in biblical archaeology. All excavation is destruction… Excavation, however well executed, without adequate publication is wanton destruction.

Philistia under the Persians was ruled by Phoenicians. After Babylonian destruction, Ashkelon was... more Philistia under the Persians was ruled by Phoenicians. After Babylonian destruction, Ashkelon was not rebuilt until Persian times. Persian deposits lay over Assyrian ones. Phoenician silver coins gave accurate dating, and Greek coins show the cities were destroyed in the Hellenistic age. Shechem was a colony of Sidon. Samarians rebelled against Alexander so he expelled them, replacing them with Macedonians.

The shah had divine authority. He was God's chosen one, and held his hand. Shahs were God's regen... more The shah had divine authority. He was God's chosen one, and held his hand. Shahs were God's regent on earth. To justify it, they propagated monotheism in the lands they conquered. For Persians, Ahuramazda was the only true god, and each subject nation had to have one God to confirm the shah as the King of Kings—the Shahanshah. Law was important to the Persians, and even Greeks said Persians were just. The Iranian word for law " data " entered Hebrew from the Persians. Two systems operated, local law based on local custom, and imperial law, the decrees of the shahanshah. Darius hoped for rule by consent and so to pass off his laws to local communities consensually as religious restoration. The great Persian scholar, A T Olmstead affirms that Darius meant to set a code of law for the whole empire. Thiery Petit noted the actions of Darius in Egypt were part of a wide program of legislation. The scriptures say that Yehouah put Cyrus in charge of the world. Egyptian inscriptians say that Ra made Darius king of Egypt. Darius built a large new temple to Amun-Ra, the Egyptian god closest in nature to Ahuramazda, at the oasis of el-Khargeh. A letter to his Egyptian satrap tells him to intervene in the appointment of high priests, proving that emperors could not avoid interfering in influential positions like the priesthood. It is imperative that the posts most influential on the people had to be king's men. The Demotic Chronicle of Egypt takes the same attitude of the judgement of God on Egypt as the Deuteronomic History does on the Jews. Persian propaganda was used in Egypt as elsewhere. The Persians did in Egypt what they did in Yehud, a finding important for Egyptology. religious purity and the purity of the ruling caste of priests, the Jewish Magi. Marriages outside of Zoroastrianism violated Zoroastrian law, so he purged the priesthood. The Babylonian year began at the vernal equinox and the Iranian new year at the autumnal equinox. Then the Achaemenian kings fully adopted the Babylonian calendar and Babylonian month names, with a religious and a civil year, reflected in the Jewish calendar. The spring festival was the important New Year festival for Zoroastrians, beginning on " No Roz " (Norouz), New Day in Persian. The Babylonian calendar began in Nisanu at the corn harvest with an akitu or ritual placing of the images of the gods from the temples to the outside of the city boundaries, a festival full of pageantry lasting a week. The Persians copied the whole festival, and they made it their New Year festival.

Most Old Testament books are pseudepigraphs, works written much later than they purport to be, so... more Most Old Testament books are pseudepigraphs, works written much later than they purport to be, so as to make a point about the then present day as if it were an historical truth. Wellhausen was not to know therefore that the prophets' punitive force, the Assyrians, stood for the later Persians, and the message of justice and righteousness was a Persian one, a doctrine that had indeed been heard before—in the Zoroastrian religion. The prophets warned of the dire consequences if the people did not accept the new doctrine, because they were agents of the Persian shahs and their moral god, Ahuramazda. Their aim was to embed him as Yehouah (Iah, Ea) into the psyche of the diverse subject peoples of an empire of unprecedented size. Those who accepted the reform to their religion were identified as Juddin, Yehudim or Jews, and owed their loyalty to their God who dwelt on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, the center of a new temple state, Yehud (Judah). If the bible sets forth the personal converse of God with man, itn is absolutely essential to look at the human side. The prophets and psalmists were not mere impassive channels through whose lips or pens God poured forth an abstract doctrine. He spoke not only through them, but to them and in them.

The growth of Protestantism against Catholic dogma loosened the tethers that stopped free enquiry... more The growth of Protestantism against Catholic dogma loosened the tethers that stopped free enquiry into the bible for a thousand years. Enlightenment and science led to the Higher Criticism of the bible. Julius Wellhausen showed that the law of Moses was misplaced in sacred history. It had to come at the end of the evolution of Judaism. The bible shows the tribe, society, at first was the prime entity, not the individual. Marx called it primitive communism. Anthropology found tribal totem power was the power of society, and it was eventually personified as a god. Such gods were the " religion " of the ANE. Then Persia entered a new phase. It was a huge empire in which local gods had fused under Zoroastrianism into an imperial If something has been written down, then it has been written down by human beings using peculiarly human skills, such as language and symbolic representation. Once this was realized to be true of the bible, then what was previously considered the ultimate, universal and eternal Word of God became subject to the same study and appraisal as any other books. What had been thought of as sacred history unquestionable by mere mortals was now subject to free enquiry. It was the growth of Protestantism against Catholic dogma that loosened the tethers that had restricted free enquiry into the bible for over a thousand years. The subsequent Enlightenment, and the growth of science opened the barriers to investigation, leading to the Higher Criticism of the bible which revealed that it had been assembled almost piecemeal, and had been multiply edited before it arrived in the form it is now in.

For a people devoted to Yehouah only one of 502 local place names in Israel and Judah had Yehouah... more For a people devoted to Yehouah only one of 502 local place names in Israel and Judah had Yehouah in it. Yet Canaanite gods and goddesses, such as Baal, Shamash, Anath and Mot, anathema to the Jews of the bible, are common. About one in nine is in El, the chief Canaanite god, whose name had come to mean God. The Exodus Israelites could have called places anything they liked. Why chose Canaanite names of gods that Yehouah hated. Why not change them? Everywhere had been named before the exclusive devotion to Yehouah was introduced by the Persians. Everywhere had already been named by the local people, Canaanites, long before. The bible says Jerusalem was the capital of an empire, yet palatial buildings were in Megiddo not in Jerusalem. Kenyon found no city walls, no signs of occupation and no buildings that might have been public buildings. The Iron Age date of the excavation is certain from a complete jar found on the site. Other cities, Gezer, Hazor, Lachish and Megiddo, of the same period have grand public buildings—not Jerusalem.

Christians and Jews say scripture is the place to start to understand Jewish history. It is not. ... more Christians and Jews say scripture is the place to start to understand Jewish history. It is not. Critical scholars consider that the Jewish bible is a pious fraud, containing a little history hard to discern among the fiction, propagated for theological reasons. If David once lived, but not as in the bible, the biblical stories about him are fiction. History is scientific, religious history is tendentious. Most university departments of biblical studies employ committed evangelists not skeptics, so religious history is not history. Only when scripture is corroborated by archaeological scholarship should it be accepted as history. Traditional biblical scholars are guilty of giving a religious text a factual historicity it neither seeks nor deserves. The Persian period is the earliest admissible context for the biblical romance. Biblical history is largely myth, so the task is to show what is and what is not history using every relevant method, documentary, archaeological, anthropological, scientific, social. Such evidence shows Israel and Judah remained Canaanite until the Persians came at the end of the sixth century BC. Biblical Israel, its leaders and heroes are mainly fictional. Their victories, defeats, religious policies are inventions written no earlier than the Persian period. Some kings of Israel and Judah appear in official Assyrian king lists, inscriptions and correspondence, but the Persians ruled Assyria and Babylonia, and had access to archives which provided the historical framework for stories about biblical monarchs. The bible was historical fiction even when it was written. Pious Jews and Christians ought to realize this. No trace of the sagas of the Old Testament has ever been found in any archaeological dig from Jericho to Megiddo. A fortified city that fell in a definite moment of history is an archaeological prize. At Jericho, Christian and Jewish archaeologists dug and dug. They found ancient walls thousands of years too old, and none the right age. A thick layer of burnt material above the Middle Bronze Age buildings is the highest surviving layer. No city existed when Joshua invaded. Did Jerusalem only host only one temple? Even the bible admits Jews had temples for Moabites, Ammonites and Phoenicians at Jerusalem, including a shrine to Moloch in the Vale of Hinnom where humans passed through the fire. Biblical editors suppressed the details. The most common archaeological object found in Palestine is the crudely shaped figurine of a naked goddess! The temple at Elephantine in Egypt, according to a letter of 407 BC, existed before the Persian period, before the " return " from exile and so before the so-called second Jerusalem temple. The Yehudim were a religious group from the outset—people who worship the god, Yehouah. Ezra says the natives of Judah, who had not been deported, and wanted to help the Persian colonists build the temple— " we seek your God, as you " —had been put there by Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, deported in to worship Yehouah! There were also " the rest of the nations whom Ashurbanipal exiled and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest of the province 'Beyond the River' ". Ezra was arguing that the Samarians and the Am Ha Eretz were not proper worshippers of Yehouah—not proper Jews! History tries to show how we got to the present. Modern historians have documentary, scientific and archaeological skills, but ancient historians had little of it. Ancient historians say as much about the aspirations of their time as the history they are discussing. Authors of the Jewish scriptures were unlikely to have been members of the society described in these books. They were foreign rulers writing fictional accounts of the history of a subject people to shame them before God to behave in ways acceptable to the God's choice of king—the Shahanshah. Besides the theme of shame is one of wandering and finding a land—eretz, the " earth " ! It is mythology for colonists, linked to the idea of exile. It gave the various deportees an identity, an history, a cause, and a warning that it could be easily lost without obedience.

Whatever the ultimate intention of the Persians is not known, because only 80 years later, the vi... more Whatever the ultimate intention of the Persians is not known, because only 80 years later, the victory of Alexander the Great stopped it from reaching fruition, but nevertheless it did reach a fruition. It meant the Hellenized world of Alexander's generals was already full of Jews from the outset. Their Persian masters had been destroyed and the ruling caste of Aryan Zoroastrians with their priests, the Magi, killed and scattered, leaving the underclass of Juddin as a substantial body of people with a history and a temple. The Greeks were loath to accept anything Persian, and were intent on destroying the legacy of Persia in their attempt to Hellenize the world, but the Jews were too many to be ignored. Jerusalem fell into the administrative sphere of the Egyptian Ptolemies, who were keen to keep the Jews onside, and so favored the Temple.

Jews are descended from converts who never set foot in the Holy Land. That has come as a bit of a... more Jews are descended from converts who never set foot in the Holy Land. That has come as a bit of a surprise to many Jews and as a colossal affront to Zionism, Israel’s national ideology. The modern Israeli state was founded on belief in a “Jewish people” as a unified nation, established in biblical times, scattered by Rome, stranded in exile for 2,000 years, then returned to the Promised Land. But… there was no exile… Early Judaism pioneered the art of conversion. To spread as quickly as it did, Christianity must have exploited an earlier Jewish expansion. Rafael Behr

Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi professor of the understanding of science at Oxford, thinks fait... more Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi professor of the understanding of science at Oxford, thinks faith has been the principal source of violence and suffering throughout history. The world would be a lot better off without it, he explains in The God Delusion. Here some criticisms are discussed.

John Locke, Adam Smith and Charles Darwin perpetuated ethical naturalism. In The Theory of Moral ... more John Locke, Adam Smith and Charles Darwin perpetuated ethical naturalism. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith showed how ethics stemmed from the natural inclination to sympathy, which lets us imagine the feelings of others if we were in similar circumstances to them. It is quite natural and not given to us exclusively as images of God Himself because animals feel sympathy, or something indistinguishable from it in the way they react when they see others experiencing distress. Sympathy is the basis of morality. In The Descent of Man, Darwin says our morality is rooted in human nature, and modern social scientific research confirms it. Most of us are born wanting to please others, and averse to offending them. We want praise by others. Proper conduct is socially approved conduct, conduct that earns us the praise of others when we do it. Proper conduct towards others is morality, and evolution upholds it.

Kant uses “pure practical reason” to present us with a pure philosophy of morality, but, like eve... more Kant uses “pure practical reason” to present us with a pure philosophy of morality, but, like everyone else, uses metaphors derived from material experience to do it. Without realizing it, he ends up with the puritanical Christian assumptions he bagan with, but secularized. Lakoff and Johnson show that cognitive studies contradict Kant’s conclusions. Not only are they not universal, they are no more true than the initial Christian assumptions of a God-based morality—they are not true at all! Philosophers like Kant forgot the message of the ancient Greek sophists who could prove anything—beware of being convinced by your own erudition. Sophistry began as skepticism that anything should be believed because everything could be proved. A sophist might have seen through complicated schemes of argumentation like Kant’s, but it took science to do it—practical empirical studies of perception and thinking. Above all, Kant ignores all human feeling.

Templeton, a Christian philanthropist, has a fund for promoting the links between Christianity an... more Templeton, a Christian philanthropist, has a fund for promoting the links between Christianity and science. To that effect, contributors have been invited to give their opinion on the question, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?”. Only Vic Stenger had the courage to give an outright “Yes” in reply. Of course, if God is defined as social humanity, then the answer is necessarily “No”, but all Christians want their God to be supernatural, whatever the logical interpretation of Christ’s proclamations. So, the answer is “Yes”. Here the replies are analysed from a scientifically skeptical viewpoint.

Science is concerned with truth. No one would be anxious about death if they faced up to it hones... more Science is concerned with truth. No one would be anxious about death if they faced up to it honestly in life. Non-scientists, and even some scientists, argue there is no universal scientific method. Not all science can be studied, like physics, in the laboratory—it is one tactic of science. Other sciences use other tactics. But all use the same strategy—the scientific method of observation, hypothesis and testing. It is essentially common sense, and applicable to anything requiring common sense—most things in life. Science is ideal to equip people for life. It is a rational method for solving problems and offering proof and explanations. It is a practical method not merely literary or theoretical. People can be taught it without science being mentioned then be told they have been practising scientific method. Inasmuch as science is a profession that demands honesty, a scientist might introduce fresh air into the fetid corridors of power.

Oswald Spengler was a German historian of the last century who preceded Arnold Toynbee with the i... more Oswald Spengler was a German historian of the last century who preceded Arnold Toynbee with the idea of analysing major civilizations to extract a general theory of history. The story of the eight High Cultures is that of societies that ultimately fail. Cultures eventually die, but produce fossils, canons of art and science and political forms. The period of fossilization, after the end of the culture proper, is what Spengler calls " Civilization " , which he said began for the West at the end of the 18th century. The work of modernity is the completion of the final forms. Spengler expected society to collapse or stagnate by 2200 AD, and maybe the recent robbery of the world's finances by the bankers is another sign of it. Spengler was the first philosopher of world history to write about the other great civilizations not as a mere prologue to Western history.

People should be allowed to carry their opinions into practice without molestation as long as the... more People should be allowed to carry their opinions into practice without molestation as long as the cost borne is entirely their own. The condition of freedom of action is like that of freedom of speech—they must not make themselves a nuisance to other people. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the disparagement, and by the active interference, when needful, of other people or society. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. The Christian moral system is no exception to the rule that achieving truth requires a diversity of opinions. The exclusive pretension made by an incomplete truth to be the whole, must and ought to be protested against. If Christians would teach infidels to be just to Christianity, they should themselves be just to infidelity.

A divine defends religion, meaning Christianity, against accusations of violence, but the apology... more A divine defends religion, meaning Christianity, against accusations of violence, but the apology is a string of straw men. The defence comes down to the secular state being responsible for much violence despite its liberal origins, but the US, which is in fact the secular state, is far from secular despite its secular constitution. Fanatical evangelical Republicans have taken control of it, and have dominated foreign policy for many decades. The supposed errors and faults of the secular state are US Christian jihadism against the rest of the world, and uphold the thesis of religious, particularly Christian, violence in the world.

Capitalism prefers workers to be abject and disunited. The re-emergence of working class disunity... more Capitalism prefers workers to be abject and disunited. The re-emergence of working class disunity is taking us back to the times in the nineteenth century when crime and suicide were all that many working class people could turn to so as to avoid the impossibility of the life offered to them. The result is anxiety and humiliation. Failure to secure communal benefits when united action could have done it leaves the worker feeling abandoned. Since Thatcher and Reagan were instrumental in launching finance capital’s latest phase of neoliberalism, suicide deaths have gone up by around 60%. People who are working are being overworked and worried to death for fear of work loss, while simultaneously millions more cannot get decent or regular work and are being accused of being workshy, welfare skivers, because capitalism will not arrange work such that it is fairly distributed. Capitalism has no intention of doing that, least of all if the working class are willing to accept without opposition whatever capitalist politicians and their media say.

If Jesus were God as Christians believe, then he is a perverse God. Jesus said on one occasion th... more If Jesus were God as Christians believe, then he is a perverse God. Jesus said on one occasion that, if men could not recognize the spiritual authority of Moses and the prophets, they would not believe though one rise from the dead! Yet Jesus then rose from the dead. Christians cite it as evidence of his divinity, though others in the bible also rose from the dead before he did. Does it make sense that a God who expressly says raising someone from the dead does not persuade people should then go ahead and do it himself? The ineffectiveness of Moses and the prophets is supposedly why God sent Jesus, knowing all along it would be no more effective than His previous efforts. Christians say, “Ah, but look how effective it was!”, a third of the world professes Christianity. Christians declare God to have been wrong! If God, being God, was necessarily right, it follows that the 2 billion Christians are not the sort of Christians God was counting on! The overwheming majority of them are not Christians except in name, and God knew it beforehand.

Professor Kitcher of Columbia university classifies Christianity into three main taxa, of which “... more Professor Kitcher of Columbia university classifies Christianity into three main taxa, of which “spiritual” Christianity is the only one suited to the modern world, and seems closely similar to Secular Christianity. These Adelphiasophism and Secular Christianity pages are the place to start learning about it, for they combine the old respect for Nature with the human absolute need of lovingkindness for each other, as propounded in the practical moral teaching of the symbolic founder, Christ, of the most extensive religion in the world. Christ taught that we help ourselves by helping others in society when they are in need—the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Reciprocity. As God symbolises society, the Christian can only love God by loving other people. Any Pauline Christian ought to check out their gospels—God is the least among us. If you cannot love the least among us, then you are no Christian.

God is an old hypothesis meant to explain what was inexplicable. It has no place in the modern wo... more God is an old hypothesis meant to explain what was inexplicable. It has no place in the modern world, where science has shown how hypotheses can be tested and rejected or accepted on the basis of their success in prediction. The hypothesis has it that God is a spirit and so cannot be tested, but believers in this “spirit” say it is able to effect changes in the material world, and has done in the Creation and prophecy, and still does in answer to prayer. Victor Stenger, in a book everyone should read, shows how science can test for the supposed interventions of God in the world, and shows consclusively that there is no evidence that He does intervene. Either God does not exist or He does not intervene as Christians pray He does.

Science has proved the death of God. The God of the Christians is a dead God, a rancid God. Chris... more Science has proved the death of God. The God of the Christians is a dead God, a rancid God. Christians have been tricked, so what remains for them? Christ and his precepts live on. The Christian messiah lives, as they boast on their churches, but they have been misled by an incarnated Devil. They do not do what God incarnated as Christ told them. They must do what he said, then they will enter the kingdom of God. They will be surprised to find it is here on earth. It is a secular kingdom, and involves nothing supernatural. Scientists can be Christs!

The millennium passed with no End of the World, no Parousia or appearance of Christ, no kingdom o... more The millennium passed with no End of the World, no Parousia or appearance of Christ, no kingdom of heaven to relieve their abject misery, and Christians realised they had been fooled. They turned to the more sincere religion of the heretics at the grass roots previously tolerated by the established Church as powerless and inconsequential. The enormity of Christianity has been hidden by writers, even Jewish ones, claiming it taught a humane way of life, tending the poor and the sick. Really, the Catholic mendicant orders were a response to the popularity of heresies and their apostolic poverty. The voluntary poverty of these monks was meant to match the voluntary poverty of the Parfaits and the Cathar and Waldensian missionaries who wandered around in pairs emulating the life of Christ and his apostles.

Some Catholics retained the Essene lifestyle while otherwise conforming. Canon 8 of the Nicene Co... more Some Catholics retained the Essene lifestyle while otherwise conforming. Canon 8 of the Nicene Council of 325 concerned “those who call themselves Cathari”. Canon 19 concerns “the Paulianists”. For established Christianity, the Ebionite-like or Nazarene-like Christians were a nuisance, but they persisted to become the earliest declared heretics. “Heresy” was unorthodoxy, and could apply only to whoever had been baptized as Christians. Manichæans were not Christians, and Manichæism could not have been a Christian heresy. Yet, so-called Manichæan sects were labelled as heresies by Catholics, and even the sectaries accepted they were. They must have been a dualistic form of Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls show the Essenes were dualistic. Cathars must have been Christians who kept much more of the original Essenism than Catholic Christianity.

Four Church Councils in 1119, 1139, 1148 and 1163 declared the Cathars to be heretics. The Counci... more Four Church Councils in 1119, 1139, 1148 and 1163 declared the Cathars to be heretics. The Council of Toulouse in 1119 and then the Lateran Council of 1139 urged the secular powers to proceed violently against heresy—they did not. Even so, Cathars were burned or imprisoned in many places, but, William IX of Aquitaine and many of the nobles of the Midi continued to protect them. They valued their industry and integrity in a corrupt world. The French bishops at the Council of Tours (1163) discussed the presence of Cathars in Cologne, Bonn and Liege. They called them Manichæans, a taunt, for they knew they were not, and the Cathars called themselves the Good Christians. From 1180 to 1230, the Catholic Church enacted legislation against heresy, and set up a permanent tribunal, staffed by Dominican friars. It was the Inquisition.

In northern Europe, the Free Spirit of Beghards and Béguines led the war against the established ... more In northern Europe, the Free Spirit of Beghards and Béguines led the war against the established Church. From around 1250, they cited Cathars, Waldenses, and Joachites. Their common beliefs included hatred of the Church, that sacraments are worthless, the spiritual value of poverty, and most important of all, that each of us can become God. Organized in small groups, they faded away when trouble threatened, “migrating from mountain to mountain like strange sparrows”, a good description of the lifestyle the fleeing Cathars were obliged to follow. If they differed, they were merely variations on the Cathar original.

Schwester Katrei is heretical because of its Free Spirit ideas, including permanent union with Go... more Schwester Katrei is heretical because of its Free Spirit ideas, including permanent union with God, and the acknowledgment of possible independence from the institutional Church. Sister Catherine, a Béguine, speaks to her father confessor. She remains respectful of her confessor throughout, but ends up his spiritual superior, and teaches him. Like the Cathar Perfects, she had become a Christ. She had “achieved by grace what Christ was by nature”. The Catholic calumny against the Free Spirit was that they became self indulgent because a perfect being could not sin. The confessor indeed thought the perfect Catherine would want to be free, but she wanted to be nothing but poor until her death. She would not deviate from the model of Jesus Christ, humble until death.

John Humphrys the BBC broadcaster explained in a popular book how he is a failed atheist. He beli... more John Humphrys the BBC broadcaster explained in a popular book how he is a failed atheist. He believed, then he did not believe, he was an atheist, then he believed again. His book is highly readable, but is a polemic against atheism, and yet another apology for Christianity, which we all know is under serious attack from hordes of wild and savage atheists who want to do awful things like persuading people to accept only what is provable and not what rogues and second hand car dealers tell them, notably the clergy. This review addresses some of the points rather poorly made by the great man.

Michael Ruse, who calls himself a professional philosopher, wants to answer the question, “Is the... more Michael Ruse, who calls himself a professional philosopher, wants to answer the question, “Is there an atheist schism?”. He seems to mean a schism about what it is to be an atheist, and the schism he refers to is that between himself and most other atheists. Yes, there is a schism between him and the more critical atheists he calls the “new” atheists, people like Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and so on. The difference is not over whether God exists or not, but whether religions are evil or not. The so called new atheists think religions have a preponderantly bad influence, while Ruse says it is not true that “all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting”. He implies that is the view of a second, larger category of old atheists. So the schism is not about atheism but about religion.

I expect to pass through this world but once; any good thing, therefore, that I can do, or any ki... more I expect to pass through this world but once; any good thing, therefore, that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to my fellow creatures, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again. John o'London rightly thinks this sentence conveys as fine a message as any scripture, and says more correspondents than he could number had asked him to give its origin. He could not.

Dinesh D’Souza is the latest Christian superstar apologist, and has been described as a scholar. ... more Dinesh D’Souza is the latest Christian superstar apologist, and has been described as a scholar. He plugs his own books in extensive blogs on the internet, and gets wide TV coverage on Christian TV. D’Souza finds feeble arguments in favour of supernatural belief and even feebler ones against science, regurgitating the same oft-refuted lies as if they were new. Anyone with any moral principles would use their supposed scholarship to help the poor not to rob them. The rich perpetuate ignorance to keep their own advantages. They want the poor to be content uneducated and stupid, and not object to the profits made out of them. Religion is the perfect scam for this. People pay to be kept poor, and voluntarily go around converting others into the sheep pen. Christians don’t notice. It all seem s quite all right to stupid woolly animals. Here we cover some of D’Souza’s coverage.

John Polkinghorne is greatly admired among Christians. He once had a reputation as a scientist bu... more John Polkinghorne is greatly admired among Christians. He once had a reputation as a scientist but became a clergyman. Now he writes tendentious reviews pretending to be a scientist. He reviewed a couple of books in The Times Literary Supplement. It was the usual dishonest Christian pap.

Anyone’s religion is the sum of the highest things they care for. But one hopes that what someone... more Anyone’s religion is the sum of the highest things they care for. But one hopes that what someone cares for will be held on sound principles, and not merely on the pious but dangerous hope called faith.

The singular verb with a plural nominative cannot be a grammatical error if the Holy Ghost allowe... more The singular verb with a plural nominative cannot be a grammatical error if the Holy Ghost allowed it. The Holy Ghost is one of the three aspects of God that together are called The Trinity, and if God makes this mistake, then it is not a mistake. While we all might make slips or be ignorant of the precise rules of grammar, God cannot be, can He? Well, if it is true, it still looks as though the author was ignorant of grammar—which is hard to accept—or they made a slip, which is possible for us all (except God, of course). The author of the “faith, hope, charity” trinity originally just wrote “faith”, then he or someone else, while the Holy Ghost was off watch, added the other two without changing the number of the verb. Now that we use computers, it is much more common. We decide to make a word into a list and forget the verb.

Alvin Plantinga is the greatest living Christian Philosopher, the heir to Augustine and Aquinas, ... more Alvin Plantinga is the greatest living Christian Philosopher, the heir to Augustine and Aquinas, he thinks. He argues like a thumb sucking infant. Plantinga by name, Plonka by nature. Here we review some fatuously childish replies he has for Dawkin's book, The God Delusion. There is no hope of him ever maturing, so readers are invited to send used dummies and Cabbage Patch Dolls to him at Notre Dame, labeled “A Gift from God”, to keep him comforted, as biological science blocks out the gaps for God he hopes and prays he can retain, at least among the ignorant sheep who admire him and pay his wages.

This essay is a complement to the more detailed polemic in these papers against the other patriar... more This essay is a complement to the more detailed polemic in these papers against the other patriarchal religions, Judaism and Christianity. All of them are frauds and only apologists and believers think otherwise. Lies described as holy are still lies. It is no defense of religious lies to argue that it is rude to speak about them. Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is a sham and honest scholarship on these religions cannot avoid being offensive to believers. Religious belief excludes scholarship, so no believer can decry work critical of belief as not scholarly. Moslems, as usual, will be outraged that their beliefs are subject to the same criticism here as Judaism and Christianity. These religions are false, and any amount of indignation cannot change it.

Human beings are social animals, not solitary ones. Morality is an instinct we have because it he... more Human beings are social animals, not solitary ones. Morality is an instinct we have because it helps us socialize, live together harmoniously. This paper reviews how the evolution of morality and other mental functions associated with our survival and sociality gave rise to cultural behavior among the small groups of humans during the Palaeolithic period when the tribe was personified as a supernatural identity and guardian, a totem, an ancestor and ultimately a god. Loyalty to the tribe required loyalty to the tribal god representing the tribe. Preservation of the tribe meant mistrust of other tribes and their gods. The merging of small groups rendered obsolete the tribal, locally cultural conception of religion, but it persisted as monotheism in the imperial stage of society from about 2000 BC, becoming the world religions. Today’s empires are global, and a belief system modelled on local tribes in competition is naïve divisive. Out-group hatred is more of a threat than any in-gro...