Atheists Meltdown in Debate

 

Hot off the Youtube presses – 3 October, 2019. The long-anticipated debate between Jeff Durbin and James White, and the atheists Greg Clark and Dan Ellis.

Man, this debate is a trainwreck! There were so many moments that left me blinking in astonishment. Greg Clark spewed a litany of sarcasm – the whole kitchen sink that ranged from Godzilla, Thor, Joseph Smith, “voices in your head” – and made an absolute fool of himself. My favourite part was when Clark started to bellow that the Bible was clearly made up because the four evangelists had names like Luke and John. “Can you really imagine people called Luke and John running around in the Middle East?” he asked.

Honestly, Greg Clark is a pastiche of atheism. You genuinely get to the point where you’re giggling and laughing at his performance. What else is there to do with this staggering level of ignorance coupled with a staggering level of hubris?

If you watch the debate, consider the question: is atheism really rational? Are atheists rational? Is Greg Clark the sort of guy who has tapped into the realities of the universe and is giving some cogent and meaningful expression of it? Most assuredly, he is not.

I expected this. I have debated with many atheists over the years and my experience has not led me to believe that atheists are particularly good at logical reasoning. Certainly, the reasoning by a theologically informed and studious Christian who invests time in doing their apologetics yardwork, is a lot more philosophically rich and deep than anything I have encountered from atheists in my years of apologetics travels.

In this debate, the atheist side did not start well and it did not rise much higher after that. A trainwreck? Meltdown? Or a total nuclear inferno in which one side when whoosh into a slab of charcoal? You decide.

The Collapse of the Gay Gene Hypothesis

Genes

Last week, a study of genome markers of homosexuals was published in the August edition of Science. It hit media headlines around the world.

Normally, genetic research is not front page news but this research went viral in the news media across the planet.

SCIENCE THAT GENUFLECTS TO IDEOLOGY

This article deals with what the researchers Ganna et al (2019) discovered. But it’s first worthwhile considering the political influences that now exert a gravitational pull on science. Especially science that addresses identity shibboleths.

Ganna et al’s (2019) genetic research into human sexuality seems to have unleashed all kinds of political and moral anxieties. Some responses have almost verged on panic. Other responses sound like a Trotskyist call to revolution.

Such anxieties exist because the field of human sexuality is now ideological. It is less rooted in science or medical observation than ever. As such, it is a live grenade issue that can quickly blow up should the “wrong” thing be said. This is especially true within academia which is home to a large number of academics and students with a hair trigger response for the slightest suggestion that their orthodoxy is being challenged.

This means that even a scientific investigation of human sexuality cannot survive today unless it adopts as its premises the nostrums, attitudes, virtues, conclusions, platitudes, and even language of what has become cultural orthodoxy. As we shall see, Ganna et al (2019) play by the gender rules. To violate these rules would jeopardise any scientist’s career, or virtually guarantee that their work would die a scholarly death of endless rejection from journal publication.

Business Corruption Problem

Therefore, in one sense, all current scientific research into human sexuality is now dishonest. Honest scientific research never excludes the possibility of a conclusion because it would upset people, and it does not grasp for a particular virtue in order to remain on favourable terms with a crowd. To the contrary, the scientific method requires the researcher to follow the hard evidence even if it leads to uncomfortable revelations or ridicule.

It is bitterly ironic that one of the icons of scientific inquiry – the much-lionised Galileo – is reverenced precisely because he “followed the evidence” even though it landed him in hot water with church authorities. He saw the planets move. His evidence overturned the prevalent Aristotelian philosophy that said they did not.

Such an approach today is no longer possible for an academic who wants to be reputable and conduct study into human sexuality. Or at least, it is very dangerous. There are conclusions that the scientist must not reach and so must be removed from the table a priori. Any finding that threatens the political certainties upon which an identity group claims its legitimacy is automatically assumed to be wrong.

Ideological academics will quickly disparage any research that hits too close to home.

This was highlighted by the comments of Dr Haire, a gay bioethicist at the University of New South Wales who was asked for her view about the research. From her comments recorded by the media, she seemed less concerned about the reliability of the findings and more concerned that the research had taken place at all. Her response is a model of irrational argumentation that makes no sense, yet no doubt would resonate among many of the graduates of higher education.

She said: “I think that there are many very, very good reasons to be highly concerned about studies that look into a genetic basis of same sex-sexual attraction. Currently there are more than 70 countries in the world that criminalise same-sex sexual practices. And in about 12 of them laws can be used to put people to death for their sexuality.”

Dr Haire went on to say that she believes this sort of genetic study presents “dangers” and therefore should not be carried out.

Nevertheless, Dr Haire offered no explanation to justify her claim that any causal relationship exists between investigating genetic markers and the criminalisation of homosexuality in 70 countries. The closest she came was when she told the media that she was worried about some kind of “genetic key” that could be used against homosexual people in these benighted countries at some point in the future. But this seems extremely far-fetched. To argue that research is “dangerous” because some country somewhere might develop an illiberal future technology is a clear exercise at grasping at straws. On that basis all research would have ruled out. Such an extreme application of the cautionary principle would literally shut down scientific inquiry.

For instance, is a genetic study of child misbehaviour dangerous because some countries still use corporal discipline in schools? After all, who knows if they might invent some machine that detects the gene and gives the child shock therapy! What about a genetic study of the digestive biology of different ethnic peoples? Is this dangerous because some countries have racial tensions?

Dr Haire further argues that there’s lots of other things to research, and there is no great demand for this sort of genetic research. It is obvious that this argument is hollow. It could be made about any scientific study, many of which are extremely expensive, extremely esoteric and utterly irrelevant to people outside of academia. Genetic studies of human sexuality at least have the virtue of being relevant to many people and offer meaningful input into moral and political debates. But, one suspects that is precisely why Dr Haire is so obviously keen to delegitimise this material.

Contrary to her empty claims, one suspects her true objections lie not in the principle that the research is dangerous to people on some harebrained notion that it could create a dystopian future, but rather because such research is dangerous to ideology. It says a great deal when ideologues are worried about science.

Fortunately, the researchers Ganna et al (2019) have bent over backwards to forestall the sorts of concerns Dr Haire sketched out. At the very beginning of their published findings, they eagerly establish that they are allied and sympathetic to the LGBTQ movement. For example, they include an insert that discusses something called “othering” and a lengthy exculpatory paragraph on the term “non-heterosexual”. They use this term, the paper explains, to aid only in readability. They do not wish anyone to imagine that they are involved in “othering”.

In a later insert, the researchers state that they engaged with “LGBTQ advocacy groups” in order to explain the limitations of their study. They also go out of their way to strongly affirm contemporary sexual philosophy by explaining that their results point to the “richness and diversity of human sexuality” and that this study cannot possibly be used for “discrimination on the basis of sexual identity of attraction”.

It is a strange thing to find in a scientific paper that the authors have felt it necessary to contact political and social advocacy groups prior to publication. Not only that, but to do so with the express purpose of explaining how limited their study was. Perhaps this was a shrewd political move by the researchers so they did not end up pilloried by those groups for being anti-LGBTQ, or it was motivated by a careerist concern that no taint should mark their political standing within academia.

The researchers further mention that their work “potentially has civil and political ramifications for sexual minority groups”, which is surely an odd statement for dispassionate genetic researchers to make insofar as it is completely false. The odds of genetic research having any “political ramifications” in Western nations is absolutely zero. The chances of it having political ramifications outside of the West where social freedom is already at a low ebb, is also very remote. As for “civil ramifications”, one wonders what these might be. Perhaps the possibility that their work might initiate a debate on homosexuality itself.

All these disclaimers show a deep awareness of a political backdrop to their research. The researchers are not exactly dispassionate, impartial parties. The disclaimers are also intended to mollify their readership. It is a way for the researchers to nail their political and social bona fides to the wall. In essence, the researchers are announcing, “We are compassionate and understanding. We are one of you – liberal academics. We are not doing this study with misguided motives like those sorts of people we are all allied against.” It is a peculiar thing to find in a scholarly paper.

Later, the researchers again demonstrate a conscious awareness of their vulnerability to political attack, this time from transgender activists. They seek to head this off at the pass by explaining that they did not include transgender, intersex, or “other important persons and groups within the queer community” in their study, but they do not explain why. Nonetheless, they are keen to affirm the “importance” of these groups and to indicate they want to include them in an upcoming study. It is as close to an apology that you could expect to find in a paper purporting to be scholarly.

THE GAY GENE HYPOTHESIS IN THE EARLY MILLENNIUM

So why does this genetic research matter so much?

Anyone who can remember the same-sex marriage debates in the early 2000’s will recall the importance of the “gay gene” hypothesis in furthering and shaping the discussion around homosexuality. Although genetic science could not (at that time) confirm or deny the existence of a gay gene, a lot of geneticists strongly hinted that it must exist. A lot of discussion flatly assumed a genetic basis for homosexuality.

A typical set-up would involve a glittering talk show host. They would invite a homosexual person onto their show to talk about the struggles of being gay. The homosexual person would arrive to thunderous applause – perhaps even a standing ovation. There would be tears; painful stories; villains in the form of stern religious parents, and then as the emotion reached its climax, the interviewee would sadly observe, “And all because I was born this way”. Sometimes the line would be delivered with anger rather than pathos: “I want to tell Mr X that he should walk a mile in my shoes! Let him be born this way and survive as proudly as I have!”

Future historians will conclude that the gay gene hypothesis helped sway political and social belief of an entire culture. It provided the theoretical basis for the argument that homosexuality is a characteristic as immutable as skin colour. People are “born gay”, activists asserted, just like a person is born with blonde or black hair. A homosexual cannot “become gay” as a result of upbringing or environment. It is not something they (or anyone else) chooses. It is a sexual orientation foisted upon them from the womb.

At a time when even left-wing presidents and political leaders opposed same-sex marriage and when homosexuality was not a widely celebrated attribute, the gay gene hypothesis had utility. It made guilt-stricken parents of homosexuals feel better. It detached choice from sexual behaviour. It helped to galvanise popular anger. After all, why should people be punished for something outside of their control? It even provided a way to tackle religion. Liberal theologians argued that genetics proved that people were created homosexual or heterosexual by God. It also became a pivotal argument for the legitimacy of same- sex marriage.

Since then, the gay gene hypothesis has formed the basis for an emergent architecture of other policies. For example, the push to criminalise “conversion therapies” draws much of its force from the premise that homosexuality is immutable. Because it is an innate characteristic – e.g. one is born homosexual – and equal to any other innate characteristic like eye colour, no amount of therapy will ever be able to change it. In fact, such therapy will always prove to be harmful because it will make the patient repress their true self in favour of a fictitious one. Without the slightest shred of genetic data, the American Psychological Association has led the charge in this area, always with the assumption that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

The latest research by Ganna et al (2019) demonstrates that the gay gene hypothesis is false. Indeed, the researchers flatly state that there is no gay gene. After examining a population sample of 500,000 people, they were unable to identify the existence of a special gene that by itself determines whether a person is inclined toward homosexuality. There is no “on” or “off” switch in the genes.

THE DEMOLITION OF THE ICONS: THE KINSEY SCALE

Instead, the researchers found a range of genetic markers that had some correlation to homosexuality. Yet the researchers state that even these genetic markers lack predictive power. In other words, if a scientist had a map of a person’s genetic markers they would not be able to determine from that information alone whether he or she practised homosexual sexual behaviour. To put this more bluntly, a person could possess all of the identified genetic markers and still be heterosexual.

As a result of these findings, the researchers were forced to leave a very wide latitude for environmental and sociocultural inputs into homosexual sexual behaviour. If genetics alone lacks predictive force for a selected sexual behaviour, then the shortfall can only be explained by environmental factors. This indicates that homosexual sexual behaviour within a population can change based on social and cultural elements. This is not exactly a welcome discovery for obvious reasons, and the researchers are quick to say that these sociocultural inputs may simply influence the genes within those populations. (Even though they cannot find genes that can predict homosexual sexual behaviour.)

The researchers identify five genetic markers that have a statistically significant correlation with homosexual sexual behaviour, yet even the five markers accounted for less than 1% of variation in homosexual behaviour. Taken together, all of the markers included in the study could potentially only account for 8 – 25% of variation.

Worse still, from an activist’s point of view, among the significant genetic markers, there are biological implications and parallels that further call into question the framework of gender ideology. In particular, the researchers take a potshot – a small shot, but a significant one – at the celebrated Kinsey Scale. Developed by Alfred Kinsey and used by researchers as a method of measuring homosexuality on a scale of 0 – 6, the Kinsey Scale has been an icon of sexuality research for decades. The researchers explicitly state that the results of this genetic study call such tools “into question”, mainly because in the estimation of Ganna et al (2019) any bipolar continua are too basic.

The Kinsey Scale was always an unsound tool based on questionable data, but it derived from an era where there were just two sexual possibilities: heterosexuality and homosexuality. Sexuality researchers at the time naturally developed bipolar scales that reflected their zeitgeist. On the other hand, we have arrived in a new era with more than 50 genders and people who fluidly move between genders. It is not surprising that sexuality researchers now think the old tools are too simple and are “discovering” that more complex scholarly architecture is now needed.

SEXUAL GENETICS ARE NOT STRONGER THAN CULTURE

Other findings from the genetic study are also politically inconvenient.

For example, in their final published results, Ganna et al (2019) include a graph that shows the number of people reporting a homosexual experience has risen every year since 1938 until 1970. Their data does not extend backwards past 1938 or forward beyond 1970 presumably because their sample population did not include anyone born earlier or later than these years. The graph shows a consistent upward trend over these decades in homosexual sexual experience. There is no reason not to think that the upward trend is not ongoing.

This graph does not show that the number of exclusive homosexuals within the population is increasing. It only shows that the number of people who report any homosexual sexual experience is increasing. This experience could range from penetrative sexual activity, to other homosexual encounters like oral sex.

What this data shows is that people born in 1940 had relatively low levels of homosexual sexual activity. Slightly more than 2% of males and about 0.75% of females. In contrast, nearly 8% of males born in 1970 and just over 6% of females said they had experienced homosexual activity. The data shows that over a 30 year span, there had been a 400% increase in male homosexual encounters and a greater than 600% increase in female homosexual encounters within the sample population.

The researchers rightly point out – albeit weakly – that this suggests a sociocultural dimension to homosexual behaviour. It is difficult to come to any other deduction. For example, it would be highly unlikely that these figures could be replicated in the Middle East where there is a strong cultural and social disapproval of homosexuality.

This data set does great damage to the gay gene hypothesis. For we have long been told by gay activists that genetics is stronger than culture. This is why homosexual behaviour must socially affirmed, for homosexual activity cannot be repressed by sociocultural constraint. The individual will always suffer under a repressive regimen since the gay gene will drive a person onward with inexpressible potency to express his homosexuality in one form or another.

Now it turns out that the prevalence of homosexual sexual behaviour is not fixed at all. It can vary significantly from generation to generation, and in all likelihood, from culture to culture. Moreover, the most likely explanation for this variation has nothing to do with genetics. It is explicable mostly by sociocultural atmosphere. As the three sample societies in the study have grown more liberal and governments have repealed sexuality laws, it has enabled or even emboldened homosexual experimentation.

If there is a genetic basis to homosexual sexual activity there should be no great variation in homosexual activity from generation to generation. To quote Richard Dawkins, we “dance to the music” of our genes. Since genes are stronger than culture, they will express themselves without regard for culture. Thus, if a person is genetically predisposed to be intolerant to dairy foods, this genetic predisposition will express itself regardless of how much dairy food is celebrated by his country. This data set seriously undermines this premise. The study shows that the genetic basis for homosexuality is weak – if not non-existent – and therefore culture may well prove to be the single most predominant input in shaping sexual behaviour.

MENTAL HEALTH AND HOMOSEXUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR

The study strays into territory that activists have traditionally fought against with great ferocity: the association of homosexuality with mental illness. In their opposition, the activists have a powerful ally in the form of the American Psychological Association who have long rejected the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is important to note that Ganna et al (2019) do not claim that homosexuality is a mental illness. Nonetheless, they do show that it has a statistical correlation with a range of disorders.

As part of their study, Ganna et al (2019) correlated homosexual sexual behaviour with a range of personality traits and disorders. They did this, ostensibly, to evaluate the mental risks among people reporting homosexual sexual activity. They found statistically significant correlations between homosexual sexual activity (whether done exclusively or experimentally) and some of their pre-selected traits.

Smoking – particularly smoking cannabis – presented a significant correlation with homosexual sexual activity, nearly greater than all other correlations. (Interestingly, cannabis use is more strongly linked to female homosexual sexual behaviour than it is to male homosexual behaviour, although both are significant.)

Why smoking drugs should correlate so highly with homosexual sexual behaviour is not explored by the researchers.

Ganna et al (2019) found a negative correlation between “subjective well-being” and homosexual behaviour. In other words, people who report homosexual behaviour also report a lesser sense of well-being than other respondents in the study who never engaged in homosexual sexual behaviour. The researchers also found positive correlations between homosexual behaviour and ADHD, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, loneliness, and numbers of sexual partners.

Th researchers correlated only a small sampling of pre-selected traits and disorders. Obviously a great many others were not included. The type of correlations provide some insight as to why activists are so reluctant for this kind of study to be performed. It does not show this population as a picture of mental health. Even supposing a hypothetical homosexual respondent had just two of the pre-selected traits, they would not only be less likely to enjoy overall happiness and contentment, but also less likely to be as healthy and well-functioning than the average study respondent.

The researchers are careful to avoid making any conclusions about this data set that would suggest that anything innate in homosexuality itself could be a problem. They certainly do not attempt to ascribe a cause and effect relationship to this data, preferring to let it sit in scholarly silence. Like the shapes of galactic nebulae, this data cannot be explained, it just is. Their studious avoidance of any interpretation of the data is justified by a claim of scientific agnosticism. Ganna et al (2019) forcefully state: “We emphasize that the causal processes underlying these genetic correlations are unclear and could be generated by environmental factors relating to prejudice against individuals engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, among other possibilities”.

The researchers promise more discussion on this in their supplementary materials, (which are far less likely to be read by the media or the public). There, they first preface their remarks with the need for “sensitivity” on the topic and then plunge into a discussion that is unwittingly devastating to contemporary gender theory.

First, they explain that the genetic correlations are real linkages between paired traits. For example, major depressive disorder (trait 1) is positively paired with homosexual behaviour (trait 2). These traits must exist in a relationship with each other since an increase in one trait will also tend to increase the second.

To explain the relationship, Ganna et al (2019) briefly mention the possibility that both traits may be the biological products of another unknown genetic variant. This is known as pleiotropy, in which several apparently unrelated traits are influenced by one gene. They theorise that “antagonistically linked sex hormone and stress hormone systems” may be involved in the development of both homosexual sexual behaviour and psychiatric disorders. This is obviously a deeply troubling conclusion because it suggests a common genetic origin – if one exists – of both homosexual sexual behaviour and psychiatric illness. Disentangling the first from the second would be difficult if true.

As a final possibility, they mention that one trait may actually cause the second. This possibility receives no discussion at all. The researchers immediately speculate that a causal relationship could be “mediated by environmental influences”. They conjecture that homosexual sexual behaviour results in prejudice and discrimination. This, in turn, gives rise to psychiatric disorder. In a genetic study, this could make it seem there was a casual genetic relationship when the true source of the trait was environmental all the time.

This is surely a dishonest conclusion that does not make even a passable effort to engage with their own datum. It seems to draw more from popular politics than logical inference. For among the correlations studied by Ganna et al (2019) were ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. None of these conditions have ever been shown to be caused by environmental factors. To put it bluntly, no amount of environmental prejudice will make someone schizophrenic.

Both explanations are equally problematic from a political standpoint. To deduce that mental deficits may contribute to homosexual sexual behaviour renders the sexuality a product of psychiatric disorder. On the other hand, to theorise that homosexual sexual behaviour could be a pleiotrophic effect alongside of mental disorder suggests that both homosexual sexual behaviour and psychiatric disorder are aberrant. That both are unintended side-effects of a puzzling gene interaction.

The researchers did not apparently consider the possibility that homosexual sexual behaviour may contribute to psychiatric disorder. There is no discussion of this at all in either their paper or the supplementary materials.

Ganna et al’s (2019) suggestion that “environmental factors relating to prejudice against individuals engaging in same-sex behaviour” might explain the relationship between some mental disorders and homosexuality is increasingly difficult to sustain in a culture where homosexual people are affirmed and celebrated (e.g. pride parades), given equal rights, access to family privileges, and are legally protected.

The view that society’s prejudice drives mental disorder among LGBTQ people has long been used as an explanation for the prevalence of mental disorder within this population, and as a rallying cry for greater political protection and privilege. But if mental disorder continues to be correlated with homosexuality at a high rate even within some of the most homosexual-friendly societies in the world – a Swedish sample was used in the study – then this hypothesis quickly loses force.

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR AND EVOLUTION

Ganna et al (2019) include a data graphic that shows an inverse relationship between the number of same-sex partners a person has and the number of children they have. The more same-sex partners, the fewer the children.

The average number of children for male homosexuals who never have sex with women is around 0.4%. For exclusively female homosexuals it is around 0.6%. This is not unexpected since homosexual couples who never have sex with the opposite gender cannot produce children without expensive fertility support, a gamete donor, or the involvement of a third, opposite-sex person.

It is oddly naive to find something so obvious given so much time in a scientific paper, as if this were an entirely unforeseen discovery. Ganna et al (2019) write: “individuals who reported same-sex sexual behavior had on average fewer offspring than those of individuals who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior, even for individuals reporting only a minority of same-sex partners”. They point out that this reduction in the number of children is equal to, or greater than the reduction in fertility found in other traits that are also linked to lower fertility. It turns out that having sex only with someone of the same gender is very bad for reproduction. Or, put bluntly: homosexuality causes infertility.

Ganna et al (2019) briefly note that the lack of children among homosexuals calls into question the “evolutionary maintenance of the trait”, although they opt against any discussion of this. This may well be a sensible sidestep for geneticists who are engaged in the supremely ridiculous task of trying to find a genetic basis for homosexuality within a population they have discovered does not reproduce.

CONCLUSION

For the past decade the gay gene hypothesis has gradually dwindled in importance.

This is due to two developments.

Firstly, the success of homosexual political aims have made the appeal to genetic science mostly irrelevant. Same-sex marriage laws have been passed by most Western nations and the wholehearted embrace of homosexuality within the mainstream social ecology represents a clear triumph. Everything from Burger King to Harvard supports the LGBTQ movement. Everyone from prime ministers to corporate executives are eager to be seen as allies of the community. The LGBTQ movement has won the culture with or without science.

But secondly, the quiet disappearance of the gay gene hypothesis has coincided with the rise of the extremely disparate transgender movement and the explosion of sexual identities connected with it. The gay gene hypothesis was already ageing when the transgender movement unwittingly laid the axe to it.

They recognised that the hypothesis has spoiled on the shelf like old milk. It arose in a binary era when you were either homosexual or heterosexual. It no longer fits the zeitgeist of times. Worse, not only is the hypothesis no longer useful but it is a potential impediment to the transgender movement.

Since the early 2000’s, gender ideology has gone through a complete rewrite by the transgender movement. Back then, the main concept was a binary sexual identity. Today, the main concept is fluidity.

From the vantage point of 2019, there is something touchingly retrograde about the gay gene hypothesis. It belongs to a different political era, one in which science – even junk science – was grasped at as an evidentiary foundation. But that was then. This is now. The ideology that once demanded from genetics the discovery of a gay gene has been nearly completely displaced by the idea of gender fluidity.

If gender is fluid, and a person’s gender and orientation can be altered by their own fiat without any need for an external measure or authority outside of themselves, then there is no longer any need for a gay gene. Indeed, as Dr Haire noted, such genetic research is actually quite dangerous – terminal, really – to contemporary transgender ideology.

For if sexual identity was a product of genes, people might have to prove that there is an objective biological foundation to their gender identity. It opens questions as to whether a person’s orientation is biological or psychological. This is inimical to the current fashion that insists a person must be accepted for whatever they say they are. Personal autonomy is the stated goal of current gender ideology. To make one’s identity subject to a biological reality would tend to diminish that autonomy. Great academic effort has been invested in elevating the mind over matter and this is directly at odds with the old thinking that suggested matter actually made the mind.

Within the sexual “rainbow”, there are people who claim to switch freely between genders while others claim to reside primarily in one gender but sometimes express the other. Some people want to receive surgical changes so that they become a simulacrum of the opposite sex, while others do not want to be surgically changed but want to dress, behave, and be treated as if they were the other sex.

These flying fragments of gender and sexual identities are the shrapnel that has blown the legs off the gay gene hypothesis and made it the unwelcome, flatulent uncle in academia. It explains why the gay gene hypothesis had quietly slipped off the radar and genetic research into homosexuality had all but stopped. Now it returns in an odorous cloud and no matter how sensitive or progressive its authors, it invariably casts a cloud.

The good news for gender theorists is that most people do not care about having an opinion grounded in science anymore. Ideology and belief has achieved a total ascendancy over objective evidence right across the fields of human endeavour. Indeed, ideology itself is evidence in the minds of many people today.

While this study by Ganna et al (2019) devastates the gay gene hypothesis of the early 2000’s, it has arrived too late to be of any use to conservatives, religious people, or opponents of same-sex marriage. A great edifice has already been built on the gay gene foundation. Science can put cracks and dents in that foundation, and might even explode dynamite on it, but the edifice remains. The ideology has hardened enough to survive a few inconvenient genetic findings, and the culture has been conquered.

FURTHER READING

A welter of articles have recently appeared on the study. They come to a range of conclusions and positions.

Gay Gene theories belong in the past (The Guardian, 30 August 2019)

Retiring the Gay Gene Hypothesis (DNA Science)

No Single Gay Gene (Medscape, 4 September 2019)

The Darwinian Icarus: How Evolutionists Avoid their Logical Endpoint (Part I.)

icarus-flying

Evolutionary theory is stoutly defended by atheists and progressives because it provides one of the major planks of their worldview.

The theory is cherished and frequently clothed with an aura of infallibility. Evolution is a fact, they thunder, and anyone who disputes this is worthy of ridicule and contempt. Such a person must be unenlightened and unintelligent. Christian scientists and scholars in significant and reputable universities who question evolution are typically deemed suspect. When their questions raise serious challenges to the theory, they can be safely dismissed as fringe nutters or fundamentalists. “Real scientists” do not question evolution.

Richard Dawkins put it this way:

One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.

It is no wonder that evolution is aggressively proclaimed as a “fact” for it serves an important psychological and moral purpose in the atheist, progressive, and liberal worldview. It provides a mechanism that lets a person to occupy a godless worldview in a way that seems intellectually coherent. This is something Dawkins acknowledged in his book The Blind Watchmaker (1986):

Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

In other words, Darwinian evolution provides answers to the questions any fulfilling worldview must address. It answers the issues of origins – the perennial question “where did we come from?” – and thus offers a means by which human beings can establish an alternative morality that is not based on revelation. Thus evolution holds a place of supreme importance for nearly every secularist.

Moreover, it is the single bang in the cannon. There is nothing else. If you want to live independent of God, then evolution is the only horse in town as far as the secularist is concerned. Therefore, no matter how many difficulties exist in the theory (such as the galactic jump from inorganic matter to the first organic cell), and no matter how many holes there are in theory’s key assumptions (such as the dearth of mutations that increase genetic information), Darwinian evolution remains an untouchable Moloch. It has to be. The secularist has no alternative.

But Darwinian evolution is even more than a worldview or an ideology, it is also used as a source of moral and intellectual supremacy. It is the battering ram that is hurled against the ramparts of the Church. It is aimed squarely at orthodox Christians, that turbulent band of medievalists who bunker inside their religious fortress and stubbornly refuse to abandon the Creator!

Such is the oppressive pride that is impossible to wade through the words of social liberals, or Dawkins, or other celebrity atheists without encountering  their extreme contempt for anyone who does not share their viewpoint. Dawkins’ opines, with his characteristic certitude:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Laurence M. Krauss, a “notorious atheist” at Arizona State University (who has spent much of this year being investigated for sexual harassment), goes even further:

You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

One may note the mystical element contained in the writings of these materialists. You are made out of stardust, Krauss says, you are the product of powerful cosmic forces.

Krauss’ above statement from his book A Universe From Nothing (2012) is typical of what might be described as Darwinist theology. Theology does seem to be the correct term, for the cited text has quite clearly passed from the realm of empirical science and into the realm of myth. It is myth woven into poetry. It is a genre of writing that shares striking similarities with spiritual literature, as it attempts to evoke awe and wonderment. It also serves an apologetic function in its naked attempt to persuade people to abandon Christianity.

This tells us a lot about the place of evolution in the firmament of secular thought. Does any other theory get this sort of treatment by secularists, humanists and atheists? Not at all! No scientist talks in this fashion about germ theory. No scientist writes books of florid prose in which he seeks to inspire faith and awe at the theory of gravitation. No scientist uses the heliocentric model of the solar system as a basis to “forget Jesus”. It is upon evolution and its allied cosmology alone that they make this call – evolutio solus.

But evolution is not just the weapon of radical atheists. Evolution also spills over into political disputes as well. During the United States presidential election in 2008, Matt Damon appeared in an interview that went viral. In the interview he challenged Sarah Palin’s suitability for high office, in part, based on her beliefs about origins.

Damon could have chosen to challenge Palin on a wide range of legitimate political issues. After all, her governorship in Alaska had more than its fair share of controversies, and her performance during the campaign did not inspire confidence, even among conservatives. Even the Republican presidential candidate himself, John McCain, later expressed regret about choosing her as his running mate. So there was plenty of material. Despite that, Damon chose to specifically allude to issues of origins.

Damon said:

I think there’s a really good chance that Sarah Palin could be president, and I think that’s a really scary thing because I don’t know anything about her. I don’t think in eight weeks I’m gonna know anything about her. I know that she was a mayor of a really, really small town, and she’s governor of Alaska for less than two years. I just don’t understand. I think the pick was made for political purposes, but in terms of governance, it’s a disaster.

You do the actuary tables, you know, there’s a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn’t survive his first term, and it’ll be President Palin. And it really, you know, I was talking about it earlier, it’s like a really bad Disney movie, you know, the hockey mom, you know, “I’m just a hockey mom from Alaska”—and she’s the president. And it’s like she’s facing down Vladimir Putin and, you know, using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink, you know, it’s just absurd. It’s totally absurd, and I don’t understand why more people aren’t talking about how absurd it is. I … it’s a really terrifying possibility.

The fact that we’ve gotten this far and we’re that close to this being a reality is crazy. Crazy. I mean, did she really—I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. That’s an important … I want to know that. I really do. Because she’s gonna have the nuclear codes, you know. I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can’t have that.

He plainly suggests that if a person has the temerity to believe in creationism, by definition they are not responsible enough to have access to the nuclear codes. The unmistakable inference is that creationists must be stupid, or dangerous, or both.

But Damon’s statement goes further than just Palin. Since most Christians believe in the divine creation of the universe – and many believe in Young Earth Creationism – and since either belief necessitates a rejection of the evolutionary timeline, by logical extension bible-affirming Christians must also be stupid, dangerous and irresponsible. And they are to be held in contempt by their sophisticated betters.

The liberal glitterati abounds with exactly this viewpoint.

In 2014 there was a much ballyhooed debate between Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and Ken Ham the founder of Answers in Genesis. A year after the debate the National Geographic published an interview with Bill Nye.

The piece opened with:

Last February, the former engineer defended the theory of evolution in a debate with young-Earth creationist Ken Ham, a vocal member of a group that believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Nye’s decision to engage Ham kicked up plenty of criticism from scientists and creationists alike.

The experience prompted the celebrity science educator to write a “primer” on the theory of evolution called Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. In his new book, Nye delights in how this fundamental discovery helps to unlock the mysteries of everything from bumblebees to human origins to our place in the universe.

Having established Nye’s credentials as a crusader for evolution, the National Geographic asks its first question:

Who do you hope will read this book?

To which Nye replies:

Grown-ups who have an interest in the world around them, people coming of age who have an interest in science, people who still want to know how the world works.

This is the big concern of mine with respect to the organization Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham and all those guys: their relentless, built-in attempts to indoctrinate a generation of science students on a worldview that is obviously wrong.

Two interesting things emerge in this statement. Firstly, Nye implies that people who will be interested in evolution are “grown ups” and those “coming of age”.

Now, he might simply be talking about age groups of the people who would read his book. To understand his comment in this way would certainly be the most straightforward interpretation, except that throughout the interview the themes of maturity and intelligence repeatedly comes up.  For instance, he talks about a “mature society” that can filter out the bad ideas. He calls creationism “inanity”. He says that Ken Ham is trying to “indoctrinate a generation of science students”. He says his “breath was taken away” when he first encountered creationists. He calls the creationism “silly”.

But he also specifically attacks the worldview of creationists. To have a worldview that hinges on a belief that God created the heavens and earth, says Nye, is “obviously wrong”. The inescapable conclusion from these comments is that Christians must not be mature and probably not very intelligent.

Last year, in a tabloid piece in USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker wrote:

Creationists will believe what they want to believe. But they should know the consequences. Continued fighting to promote creationism is hurting religion’s credibility in an age when science and technology are perceived as reliable sources of truth and positive contributors to society. Anecdotal and polling evidence implicate religion’s anti-science reputation in the drift away from church involvement — especially among younger adults, nearly 40% of whom have left organized religion behind.

Krattenmaker is a self-confessed secularist who wrote the book: Confessions of a Secular Jesus Follower: Finding Answers in Jesus For Those Who Don’t Believe. He also writes an occasional blog for The Humanist.

Krattenmaker is about as secular as you can get. He supports fashionable liberal shibboleths and coordinates projects arising from Yale Divinity School. His articles for The Humanist seem generally enthusiastic about the supposed decline of the Church and Christianity. His conclusion is typical of a secularist liberal. It is deeply unfashionable to believe in creationism, says Krattenmaker, because it is anti-science and this drives people away from religion. In this he echoes what so many have said before him, and what the majority of liberals continue to say today: “the Church must change or die“.

Such is the supreme arrogance and folly of secularists, humanists, liberals, and atheists when their words are contrasted against those uttered by the Church’s divine Founder who promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it“. That Founder knew a thing or two about the universe. For he made it.

Deus Ex Machina: The Substitute gods of Secularism

china-social-credit-system-in-america

Voltaire famously observed that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

In the letter written in verse Épître à l’Auteur du Livre des Trois Imposteurs, Voltaire addresses the secularist who desires to abolish God:

But you, faulty logician, whose sad foolishness,
Dares to reassure them in the path of crime,
What fruit do you expect to reap from your fine arguments?
Will your children be more obedient to your voice?
Your friends, at time of need, more useful and reliable?
Your wife more honest? And your new renter,
For not believing in God, will he pay you better?
Alas! let’s leave intact human belief in fear and hope.

In these pithy and energetic lines, Voltaire argues that an absence of faith in God does nothing to enhance the moral quality of either society or the individual relationships that make it up. To the contrary. Voltaire claims that the moral condition of society would decay. Without hesitation he lays at the feet of the secularist (the “faulty logician”) the moral culpability for the disintegration of familial harmony, fiscal honesty, and even spousal fidelity. Any man who desires to rid the masses of faith in God, implies Voltaire, is essentially encouraging them down a path of crime, both petty and criminal.

Voltaire was, of course, a deist, not an outright atheist despite the New Atheists often seeking to claim him as one of their own. His views, therefore, are typical of the popular deism of his time. Deists saw value of faith primarily in its the utilitarian value, and this attitude is certainly reflected in Voltaire’s epistle.

Over and over, Voltaire argues that with no God to obey, and thus no inward conscience to speak to a man about his duties toward others, no matter how bad the man might be now, he will be all the worse for God’s absence. Widespread belief in God, whomever that God might be (deists tended to be more agnostic on that score; Voltaire himself admired Hinduism), must be regarded as a social good by the mere virtue that faith in God serves to elevate man’s conduct.

He goes on to argue:

My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it,
Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom.
Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon,
And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero:
They all adored a master, a judge, a father.
This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.

The national fabric (and even religions themselves) may be pockmarked with rogues and evildoers – the “lizards and rats” – but the Architect of the system exists nonetheless. Voltaire points out that the greatest thinkers, most significant reformers, and the best legislators of history each recognised the importance a “sublime system” to forward the enlightenment of society. Cicero and the others would have taken extreme umbrage with the New Atheists who argue that religion darkens society.

God is necessary, says Voltaire, because faith in him accomplishes two important tasks. First, it serves to reign in wickedness, and secondly, it serves to provide courage and motivation to those who want justice to prevail. Faith in God has driven the most profound reforms in history, from Wilberforce’s emancipation of slaves in the British Empire, to Amy Carmichael’s struggle against child temple prostitution in India, to the prosecution of war criminals following the Second World War. Most of the greatest charities have been founded by principled, deeply religious people. Thus, faith in God is doubly positive for society.

The first task – putting a brake on criminality – is self-evidently worthwhile and good, because it results in less evil. The second task of faith is not as obvious, but just as vital. Indeed, it may even be more vital than the first. People need reasons to believe in justice; they need to have grounds for hope so that they can transform their moral environment for the better. Faith in God provides that impetus.

Voltaire builds on this theme more in a subsequent verse:

If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminences disdain,
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.

God is the refuge of the powerless, says Voltaire. When tyrants oppress their weaker fellow creatures, God is the ultimate source of consolation. Where else may a man go? In what else may he trust when confronted with human weakness, evil, hostility, persecution, or aggression? What other hope does the oppressed and dispossessed have, except that his injustice will be avenged by the divine Judge? When a man has nothing, he can at least avoid total spiritual breakdown in the sure knowledge that his tears contain inherent value in the eyes of his Creator.

History illustrates Voltaire’s observation rendered in flesh. Myriad are the stories of oppressed people finding their solace in God, from the Hebrew slaves who cried out to God to deliver them from Egypt, to St. Paul singing hymns in prison. Or the slaves on the cotton plantations, beaten mercilessly and worked on the end of a lash for sixteen hours of the day or more. Had they sought their hope in the material world alone they might have succumbed to abject despair. Or the men and women starving in German concentration camps, surrounded by death and barbarity. These might have been brutalised beyond recovery if not for trusting in the final justice and redemption God would surely bring upon their tormentors, in both this world and the world to come.

For these reasons (and others), Voltaire argues that God is so fundamental and necessary to human existence that should humankind ever find itself without deity above them, they would soon have to create a simulacrum of God just to fill the gaping void. Looking back over the bloodiest century in human history, an age of atheism, Darwinism, and the generalised corrosion of faith, one cannot help see considerable prescience in Voltaire’s observations. From beginning to end of the last century, history has witnessed ideologies venerated like religious creeds; political parties proclaimed as infallible products of destiny; and political leaders elevated to the status of demigods.

Throughout it all, armies of humanists, secularists and atheists have tried hard to promote the idea that God is unnecessary and faith is toxic. Richard Dawkins has ascribed faith the properties of being dangerous and suggested that religious institutions do wicked things to people’s minds (how those institutions should be deemed “wicked” in a godless universe where one man’s principles are not objectively better than another’s, is anyone’s guess). Christopher Hitchens frequently spoke about his discomfort with the idea that God should be constantly watching over human lives. He thundered that the biblical God was nothing more than a celestial dictator. Get rid of him, and live free.

The secularists have offered lovingly painted word pictures of a future without religion, which often have the character of a Utopia in which humanity lives out an endless college experience of learning, engaging in creative pursuits like playing music, and having polite and reasoned interactions with people of other ethnicity and cultures. Scientific solutions could be found to the problem of crime. And soon society would flourish with high-tech answers to all of society’s deepest conundrums. They have argued that without God, human beings would finally be able to proximate to their full potential and nobility. People would be no longer bound in the mental prison of superstition. To paraphrase Stalin, life would be better; life would be happier, with more resources for the material needs of the people instead of the wastage of religion.

In the light of the effects of militant atheism in the Soviet Union and other regimes, such claims practically constitute an article of faith in their own right, if not a new and horrible form of delusion. Still, such a sentiment – and that is all it is, for it is neither rooted in historical nor present reality – is widespread in this age of declining faith.

Yet, for all of the hubris and confidence of the New Atheism, Voltaire’s dicta is finding an almost poetic fulfilment in the modern world. Societies are discovering that the best means of regulating human behaviour is through widespread surveillance, and this is being provided by the technology of mass observation and, more recently, the algorithms to judge human activity. Since most people no longer believe themselves accountable to God, and those who do seldom take their accountability seriously, it is necessary to fill the vacuum with a surveillance system that has some of the characteristics of deity. It is necessary to invent God, although since it is the work of human engineering, it is a cold, impersonal and ultimately merciless transposition.

CCTV cameras are nearly ubiquitous in the United Kingdom, with Londoners being watched by more cameras than virtually any other population in the world. The United Kingdom has embraced politically correct secularism with a degree of enthusiasm that exceeds anything found virtually anywhere else. The subsequent levels of criminality, entitlement, social discord, and crude behaviour have made Britain a true outlier even in Western Europe. This is made it necessary to convert the nation into a monitored state, worthy of the Big Brother regime one of Britain’s native authors dreamt about, not yet a full century ago.

There are 5.9 million CCTV cameras in the United Kingdom, or 1 for every 11 people. Moreover, in an effort to protect themselves from antisocial behaviour, home CCTV cameras are purchased in great numbers by private residents for monitoring their yards and streets. Predictably, this has led to new forms of conflict between neighbours. Some neighbourhoods bristle with cameras as warring neighbours seek to capture each other on film engaging in actionable offences. The volume of such material is staggering. There is now enough CCTV footage captured of neighbourhood disputes for entire TV shows to construct episodes largely around privately captured CCTV footage.

But technology is evolving beyond the old school cameras filming in isolation. A new technology, aptly named “Eye in the Sky” is being trialled in India. This programme uses floating cameras mounted on drones to monitor large crowds in festival settings. The programme will be capable of identifying fights, knife attacks and other altercations through the use of complex algorithms. It will then alert authorities who will be able to respond.

China is going even further in its pursuit of social excellence, by creating a “social credit system” that is not just meant to deter ne’er-do-wells from breaking the law but also exert positive pressure upon their citizen body to be virtuous. Within this system of massive interlinked databases, a person’s every action is monitored by a vast array of interconnected cameras, facial recognition software, online ID tracking and the tracking of personal activities like work and study.

A person’s actions are ascribed positive or negative points. Thus, jaywalking, losing a defamation lawsuit, or not working enough hours will lower a person’s social credit score, while benevolent acts like donating blood or volunteering in the community would boost the social credit score. Only people with a high enough score receive social rewards like foreign travel and access to other benefits.

The potential for governments to shape people’s behaviour and thinking through the means of such a vast apparatus is frightening. Governments – even in democratic countries – already exercise a high degree of control over people’s moral and behavioural comportment, but a social credit system would raise the degree of influence to near total control.

And yet, despite its implications for democracy and its totalitarian character, it is undeniably attractive in the sense that we instinctively recognise that social virtues are far too hit-and-miss in the modern world. In the West, at least, there are very few penalties for objectionable, anti-social behaviours. Whatever the popular view to the contrary, in Western countries people are seldom incarcerated and seldom fined, yet antisocial behaviour (loud music late at night, public urination, casual assaults) is on the increase for which there are few remedies. If the law exercises restraint in the West, it is only because of a residue of the majesty with which it was once invested. And of course, as Voltaire implied, if people think they can get away with something, they will do it.

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. It is a tragic irony that this statement should be fulfilled in the most concrete and material terms in the modern world. No doubt Voltaire pictured a collective of godless men inventing a spiritual deity in order to finally bring some order, inspiration, hope, and self-restraint to themselves. He probably did not imagine that humankind would literally turn to machines, computers, mathematical algorithms, and ranking indexes to make people accountable and virtuous. Such is the bitter fruit of godlessness.

Book Review: “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions”

The long read: a review of David Berlinski’s book, and his treatment of the arguments of militant atheists.

TDD

(Book Reviewed: THE DEVIL’S DELUSION, By David Berlinski.)

David Berlinski has the distinction of being both an educated and intelligent man which is not at all the same thing. Neither has his long march through academia sandpapered away his sense of intellectual curiosity. In this book, he investigates with an uncompromising independence of mind the nonsense so often breathed by militant atheists in the name of “science”. It is too easy to accept atheistic claims because their views now circulate through our environment like the thin fumes of an odourless gas. Berlinski’s book is an excellent antidote to this intellectual numbness.

He writes what he knows. Berlinski holds a PhD in philosophy and also has engaged in molecular biological research at world-class universities, so he possesses worthy academic credentials for the book he has chosen to write.

Berlinski is a critic of evolution and maintains a sunny disposition toward intelligent design – the theory that biological life shows unmistakable evidence of creative purpose. To criticise evolution is almost enough to render him a leper among the academic community regardless of his impressive intellectual accomplishments. It is axiomatic that he who criticises evolution will find it progressively harder to be unsympathetic to God or “religion”. And to allow “religion” – or worse, God himself – to enter into the airless box of the secular empire is a nightmare of such proportions that atheist writers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins can scarcely describe it without resorting to apocalyptic language.

Both Dawkins and Harris (et al) come in for scathing rebuke in this book. Whatever Dawkins and his ilk may think of themselves, Berlinski is deeply unimpressed with the vacuity of their arguments especially those that appeal to “science” to establish their atheism. In fact, the title of the book is a none-so-subtle stab at Dawkin’s own magnum opus of polemic atheism, “The God Delusion“.

But whereas Dawkins’ work is exceedingly poor, Belinski’s is exceedingly good. Berlinski crafts solid and logical expositions while Dawkins draws liberally upon nearly every irrational argument ever discovered by humankind over the literate portion of its history. Reading “The God Delusion” is an exercise in frustration for this very reason. Rarely have I ever wanted to hurl a book so forcefully against the wall.

For people who can spot rhetorical fallacies, Dawkins amply illustrates the danger of presuming ourselves to be wiser than our craft. Like nearly all celebrity atheists, Dawkins writes as an amateur philosopher, historian, textual critic and theologian. Unsurprisingly, his iconic book – be it ever so thick – is emblazoned with the author’s ignorance from cover to cover. In contradistinction, Berlinski writes to his strength. Trained in philosophy and systems analysis, Berlinski deftly places his finger on the weak points of atheist rhetoric and crumbles their contentions into a finely-ground powder.

The thrust of Berlinski’s argument is that atheists misapply science in order to give atheism a legitimacy it does not deserve. He argues that atheism consists of a mass of conclusions without the slightest shred of evidence. In other words, the brand of militant atheism pushed by the likes of Dawkins and Harris are based on twaddle – it is sophisticated twaddle that many people struggle to penetrate in our educationally deficient age, but it is still twaddle. In fact, early in The Devil’s Delusion, Berlinski suggests that is every bit as much a pseudoscience as mumbo-jumbo ideologies that have circulated through human minds over the last century, and perhaps also destined be consigned to the dustbin of history.

lenin01

Any student of history will recognise that similar “scientific” pretensions arose in the 19th century within the radical left. Their “scientific ideas” obtained the status of inviolable fact even when the implementation of them caused incalculable harm. The originators of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, boasted that their Utopian ideology was thoroughly scientific in nature. Likewise, the more extreme anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin also supposed that their theories were somehow underpinned by a foundation of science.

Berlinski challenges this by pointing out that appealing to “science” is a little like a leader of a People’s Republic appealing to “democracy”. It is a principle that can be used to give a justification for practically anything. Berlinski wryly points out that atheists refer to science share an uncanny similarity to the claims of spiritualists to be receiving messages from the other world:

The title of Victor Stenger’s recent book is: God: The Failed Hypothesis – How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Stenger is a professor of physics. He may have written the book, but it is science, we are to understand, that has provided the requisite demonstration. Like a nineteenth-century spirit medium, Stenger has simply taken dictation. [Emphasis in the original].

Importantly, Berlinski invites the reader to consider atheism as if it were a piece of flotsam or jetsam floating down the crowded river of human history.

Although militant atheists like to suppose that “atheistic science” is objective truth – the only truth indeed and therefore a license to bulldoze any other belief – Berlinski suggests that militant atheism is actually a reaction to social and political events within the modern world. Unwittingly, militant atheists are merely reactionary puppets:

Does any of this represent anything more than yet another foolish intellectual fad, a successor to academic Marxism, feminism, or various doctrines of multicultural tranquillity? Not in the world in which religious beliefs overflow into action. For Islamic radicals, “the sword is more telling than the book,” as the Arab poet Abu Tammam wrote with menacing authority some eight hundred years ago. The advent of militant atheism marks a reaction – a lurid but natural reaction –  to the violence of the Islamic world.

But the efflorescence of atheism involves more than atheism itself. Of course it does. Atheism is the schwerpunkt, as German military theorists used to say with satisfaction, the place where force is concentrated and applied; and what lies behind is a doctrinal system, a way of looking at the world, and so an ideology. It is an ideology with no truly distinct centre and the fuzziest of boundaries. For the purposes of propaganda it hardly matters.

Berlinski goes on to puncture the bizarrely self-congratulatory attitudes taken by militant atheists, shown in the galloping ego that runs through their work. Militant atheism often seems a kind of club for schoolboy toffs who award each other grandiose titles and share an unreal bubble where they can snicker at others less fortunate than themselves while lunching on mother’s sandwiches. One example is their predilection to calling themselves as “the Brights”, presumably in contrast to the rest of us who must be “the Dims”.

Oddly enough, militant atheists find it very difficult to understand why the Dims do not share their elevated self-evaluation. Berlinski writes:

…members of the scientific community are often dismayed to discover, like policemen, that they are not better loved. Indeed, they are widely considered self-righteous, vain, politically immature, and arrogant. This last is considered a special injustice. “Contrary to what many anti-intellectuals maintain,” the biologist Massimo Pigiucci has written, science is “a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.” Yet despite the outstanding humility of the scientific community, anti-intellectuals persist in their sullen suspicions.

Scientists are hardly helped when one of their champions immerses himself in the emollient of his own enthusiasm. Thus Richard Dawkins recounts the story of his professor of zoology at Oxford, a man who had “for years… passionately believed that the Golgi apparatus was not real.” On hearing during a lecture by a visiting American that his views were in error, “he strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand, and said – with passion – ‘My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.'” The story, Dawkins avows, still has the power “to bring a lump to my throat.”

It could not have been a very considerable lump. No similar story has ever been recounted about Richard Dawkins. Quite the contrary. He is as responsive to criticism as a black hole in space. “It is absolutely safe to say,” he has remarked, “that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”

There are multiple examples of this sort of hubris lampooned by Berlinski. Of course, in addition to the vast storehouse of material drawn upon in the book, one could readily add the moralising articles that appear in publications like the Scientific American.

Over and over again, militant atheists claim (despite examples to the contrary, like the infamous Piltdown Man hoax) that scientists are honour bound to respond to evidence. Scientists accept that they are in error when there is proof. This represents an extraordinary nobility possessed by scientists alone.

Yet, an uncompromising submission to truth is a virtue that has been known to ordinary people and to scholars in many disciplines – including theology – for several millennia. To salute the practice of intellectual humility as if it were historically recent and isolated to practitioners of the scientific method, (or worse, to believers in atheism), is to demonstrate profound self-preoccupation.

As Berlinski notes, militant atheists transit from reasonable claims into the territory of dogmatism. They assert that science is a good thing, a claim to which nobody would object because the scientific process has undeniably produced many good discoveries.

But they cannot stop at that point. They thunderingly declare science to be the only good thing, superior to every other human endeavour, with the power to confer upon scientists themselves a moral quality unknown to the Dims. They then assert that scientists are the premier good people because they are the most intellectually honest vessels. And then, as if the balloon of their pomposity were not inflated to grotesque dimensions already, they then point the collective finger at religion and blame the sum of human evils upon it.

Berlinski succinctly deals with this:

The physicist Steven Weinberg delivered an address [at the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference]. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. “Religion,” he affirmed, “in an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?

If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.

Every morally sensible creature accepts that religion can be a force for evil, and frequently is. None of this surprises knowledgeable Christians. This is precisely what the Christian religion predicts. There really should be an inexhaustible kaleidoscope of quarrelling religions, each tailored to the various predilections of mankind’s evil heart, because the devil is the father of lies and many men are eager to be deceived.  Religion gives a thin glaze of respectability to impulses that are barbaric, greedy and cruel.

But the conclusion that science must always be an unadulterated good and that scientists are of sanctified character, always honest and always pure, is sheer claptrap. Anyone with regard for history will know that scientists have participated enthusiastically in atrocities and horrors, equal to the most fanatical scimitar wielding religious extremist. The most odious regimes have produced scientists who violated the laws of man and God in experimenting on people. Scientists have engineered nightmarish weapons and developed theories, like eugenics, that thinking people find abhorrent.

This discussion really crosses into moral theology, and Berlinski takes the time to address the concepts of good and evil. Militant atheists enjoy tossing these words around like confetti, but studiously avoid explaining why their definition should be accepted by anyone else.

Berlinski cites Dawkins:

“Perhaps,” Richard Dawkins speculates, “I… am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God.”

To which Berlinski cynically responds:

Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? Do people remain good when unpoliced by the police? If Dawkins believes that they do, he must explain the existence of the criminal law, and if he believes that they do not, then he must explain why moral enforcement is not needed at the place where law enforcement ends.

Understandably, Berlinski cannot resist quoting Sam Harris on the issue of morality since Harris veers, like a car driven by a drunkard, from arrogance to fatuous philosophy:

Sam Harris has no anxieties whatsoever about presenting his own views on human morality… “Everything about the human experience,” he writes, “suggests that love is more conducive to human happiness than hate is.” It goes without saying, of course, that Harris believes that this is an objective claim about the human mind.

If this is so, it is astonishing with what eagerness men have traditionally fled happiness.

The book is packed with a rich vein of these observations, as Berlinski proceeds to deconstruct one argument after another, never stopping for too long at any one place.

He uses words sparingly. He has trimmed nearly all the textual fat from his writing, leaving the reader only worthy substance. The book is therefore pithy, with a lot of material packed into every short section.

The attentive reading will find himself re-reading sections, and pondering over them long afterwards. Indeed, The Devil’s Delusion is a book that warrants being read multiple times, if only as a refresher into the unutterable absurdity that is atheism, notwithstanding the sophistic lipstick smeared awkwardly upon its pompous features, as it tries to cavort on the dance floor, flaunting the tattered boa of “science”.

Toward a Properly Christian Historiography: Two Principles

history

What is the point of history?

For a Christian in the 21st century, this should hardly be a question worth answering. The Christian faith is built on real, historical events and it stands or falls upon them. The Apostle Paul recognises this very fact in his letter to the Corinthians where he explains that if the resurrection has not happened, then we are “of all men most miserable“. We are pitiable creatures, he tells us, if we only have hope for this life. If the resurrection did not really happen, then may even be true to say that our life is more vain than even the life of pagans.

Christianity depends upon historical realities – things that actually happened in time and space, from the sands of Egypt, to the river-set city of Babylon, to the palaces of the kings of Persia, to the hill country of Israel, and of course, to Jerusalem the city set on a hill. Our Faith is a unified story with many constituent parts and many human agents, and it unfolded across many different geographies. But the key point is, it is a story that actually unfolded. It is real. It is true. These events happened.

I have noticed over the last decade or so that there has been an increasing flippancy toward historical truth. Sadly, this has been so among some Christians as well as the unbelieving world. And in this area, historical filmography bears a heavy load of blame. The pile of historical movies – including religious historical titles – that have hit the screens since Gladiator (2000) have done a great disservice to people’s understanding.

This is because historical movies promote falsehoods that have entered into common acceptance. There are both major inaccuracies and minor tropes that offer a misleading impression of the past to the uncritical viewer. Some may argue this is immaterial. A mere triviality.

Does it really matter, some ask, if most people are convinced that swords removed from a scabbard make a “schiing!” sound? Or that the British burned Americans in their churches during the American Revolution? Or if the use of modern petrochemical products in movies teach people that castles were illuminated with flaming torches? Does it matter if people believe that military helmets can stop a bullet? Or that William Wallace was an honourable patriot who never spilled a drop of innocent blood?

maximus

Does it really matter if most movie audiences have come to believe that men in the ancient and medieval periods habitually wore perfectly useless leather bracelets? Can you imagine the sweat build-up underneath those things? Ugh. Clearly, people in the past must have been happy to be dirty, unlike us moderns who are intelligent enough to keep scrubbed and clean.

Yes, I contend, it does matter, because it moves history by increments into the realm of fiction and in so doing, evacuates the Christian story of meaning and power too. People start to think of history has having less to do with the discovery of objective facts and more about a ripping good yarn. But a ripping good yarn often requires the death of objective facts.

Modern historical movies tend to promote the attitude that the past was not entirely real; that it is merely a story to which we must give slightly more gravity than we might to one that is made up. That history is just a species of fiction, albeit with a few more limitations and rules that must be observed.

It is for this reason that I think movies made about the Lord Jesus are, in the main, dangerous. For they tend to strip him of the regal majesty evident in the text of scripture and the urgency of his words, and instead render him a benevolent, long-haired 60’s hippie who goes about with a wry smile on his face, dropping pearls of wisdom that nobody at the time could properly comprehend. His life hits the screen through the filter of the director and script-writer who never quite seem to be able to resist adding to the divine narrative, or deleting parts of it.

(Beginning of axe grinding.)

(As an aside, the classic portrayal of the Lord with long hair is one of the most prevalent historical fictions. It arose chiefly from the iconography of the early Medieval Period and has been perpetuated through countless stained glass windows and by Hollywood. So effective has this promotion been, that it is broadly accepted without question.

In contradistinction to the Hollywood view, however, the earliest images of Christ do not show him with long hair. In fact, possibly the oldest image of the Lord dated to around AD 235 in Syria shows him as having cropped hair, as does another image found in the Roman catacombs from the same century, which portrays Jesus as the Good Shepherd.

Ancient Jews did not wear their hair long. It was seen as a Hellenistic affectation. The idea of the Lord wearing his hair in a manner associated with the Greeks is implausible. Likewise, St. Paul takes a dim view of men wearing their hair long. For men to do so, said St. Paul, is a shame to them.

Neither was the Lord bound to a Nazarite vow, as some have argued, for this prohibited drinking wine and the Lord most certainly consumed wine. This has not, however, stopped some people pressing history through a sieve of preconceptions and going so far as to contend that the Lord only drank grape juice and that when he miraculously produced wine, it was non-alcoholic. This is a view so lacking in meaningful historical support, and so eisegetically governed by an external tradition, that it can be safely dismissed.)

(End of axe grinding.)

If we are going to talk about a truly Christian historiography, then the first principle must be service to the truth. I have learned through long years of historical study at university, that there is nothing at all to fear from a truthful examination of history. For while history occasionally turns up material that is inconvenient to some cherished traditions, it never overturns the scriptures, which remain the single-most accurate historical text, corroborated by countless archaeological discoveries and even computer modelling (historical cladistics, for example, modelling the popularity of names in the ancient world shows that the scriptures reflect the relative popularity of those names).

The only thing Christians must worry about from history is incomplete evidence. But, as time progresses and the historical picture is filled out with newer discoveries, old anti-biblical beliefs come crashing down. One such example is the once-common view that there was no evidence that a Roman procurator called Pontius Pilate ever served in Judea. Archaeological discoveries have delegitimised that view so completely that only the ignorant and fringe-scholars now disseminate it.

A second principle is provided for us by a Roman Catholic, John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902), more usually referred to as “Lord Action”. He was enlightened enough to oppose the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility, rightly seeing that it would result in the suspension of normative moral evaluations about any man who would become pope. Not to judge a pope as we would another man, Acton reasoned, was contrary to moral reason and plain sense. In writing about this issue, he furnished us with one of the most memorable passages in the modern age about power and the role of historical science:

But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do agree thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong.

If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III of England ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan.

Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science.

Lord Acton finished his letter with this statement about the science of history:

The inflexible integrity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of history. If we may debase the currency [that is, set aside the integrity with which historians should judge the past] for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man’s influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then history ceases to be a science, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the wanderer, the upholder of . . . [high moral standards.  Then history] serves where it ought to reign; and it serves the worst better than the purest.

Lord Acton, of course, failed to stop the machinations of the First Vatican Council in affirming papal infallibility despite his visit to Rome to lobby against it. It would have been better for the Roman Catholic Church had they listened to him, for in ascribing characteristics of deity to an office-holder of their church they have doomed themselves to papalolatry. Eventually – one inch at a time – the pope has become the heart and centre of the Roman Catholic religion, with a great deal of adoration now centred on him. If you need a recent demonstration of this, you need look no further than when Francis visited the Philippines in January 2015. Prior to his visit, the Vatican literally had to tell local Roman Catholics to stop making images of Francis and instead to make images of Christ!

In his letter, Lord Acton lays down another principle, however, that I think characterises a properly Christian historiography: a principle of moral judgement. This, of course, is the very thing that students of history are told to suspend, although this only applies to historical science – any “study” that promote a social agenda like Feminist Studies courses have no problem in launching a bizarre fusillade of judgements against a whole range of historical figures. But in the main, students are taught – as I myself, indeed, once taught many students – that we must simply hold our moral horses when history shows humanity in its ugliness. Though a hecatomb of bodies pile up, we shall not be moved!

I have revised this belief. It is not incompatible with objective inquiry to retain a moral sense – and to apply it fulsomely. And since Christians have received objective moral information from God – a unalterable benchmark with which to judge rightness and wrongness of human conduct – Lord Acton is quite correct to point out that not to use it debases the human mind and the field of history itself. Indeed, to do so makes history merely a clamour over competing interpretations over processes, facts and events, rather than a process of resolving and judging in the stream of human thought the myriad conflicts, disasters and errors into which the human race has so often plunged. History must judge prior generations on some moral basis. Is there any firmer basis on which to judge than what has been infallibly given to us in the scriptures?

Darwin: A Myth for the Post-Christian Mind

An excellent lecture that unpacks the Neo-Darwinian mechanism and the biological issues behind the concept that new genes and biologic data can be randomly generated.

Go here to view.

 

DarwinLecture

The prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has said that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Many Christian leaders have determined that the only way to survive in a post-Christian culture is to attempt a synthesis of Darwinism and Christianity. In this session, Dr. Stephen Meyer will explain why it is precisely the wrong time to capitulate since Darwinism itself is being undermined daily by new scientific discoveries.