Tetherd Cow Ahead

OK, well, as I hinted in the first part of my examination of Transforming Melbourne‘s hysterical Christian diatribe, I’ve saved the most misleading and offensive portion of it until last. As I’ve been writing, I’ve realised that it was getting rather longer than I like, so I’m going to break my analysis up into chunks, and intersperse them with other funnier stuff. See how much I love you all?

Shall we resume?

After making some valid points about the current role of religion in Australian society, ((Contrary to what Rob Isaachsen and his fellow Transformers think, rational people like myself can see that various Churches have done good things for Australian society. What we question is not the charitable acts, but the motivations behind them.)) Mr Isaachsen eventually says what is on his mind. And what an enlightening glimpse into the thinking of a religious person it is:

SOCIETY UNDER ATHEISM
Atheists have a very powerful voice in the media in Australia, frequently broadcasting biased opinions about the importance of rejecting all religion (especially Christianity) claiming it is of no value to society, is non-rational and a deception to the population. They have staged major conferences (including with government assistance) to promote atheism and denigrate religion and are calling on governments to end to the opportunity for any Christian content to be allowed in state schools and certainly to cease any funding for such!

Whoa. I’m almost tempted to laugh here, so hyperbolic does this document become in such a short few sentences. Atheists have a very powerful voice in the Australian media? Really? That comes as a big surprise to me, and I am pretty tuned in to such things. I think what is most upsetting for Mr Isaachsen and his Church is that atheists are actually voicing any opinion at all. He makes it sound like atheists are in control of the airwaves in Australia and that is very far from the truth. If there is anything surprising at all about atheist voices in the Australian media, it is that they have mostly been conspicuous by their absence until recent times. Atheist opinions are significantly challenging for the Church, which has for most of Australian history, had a kind of carte blanche – an unspoken imprimatur, even – to do be the sole arbiter of morality and ethics in Australian life. They really don’t like having that status quo questioned. And the pointed addition of ‘They have staged major conferences (including with government assistance)’ is spectacularly petty. Any assistance given to humanist, rationalist or atheist movements, as Mr Isaachsen must clearly be aware, is a piss in the ocean compared to the kind of government benefits accrued by religions in Australia. Is he trying to get Christians annoyed that some of their tax dollar is going to atheists? Well, sir, welcome to our grievance.

Mr Isaachsen accuses atheists of having biased opinions – a self-evident proposition if ever there was one. They’re hardly going to be unbiased when dealing with the enormous self-righteousness of Christians. He probably believes his bias is superior because he’s got God on his side…

In a vast and incorrect generalization he blankly states that atheists claim that religion ‘is of no value to society’. I doubt you’d find many atheists who would be that extreme and that declamatory. Religion quite evidently has brought value to society, but the question is how much currency that value now has, what that value actually is, and how important or relevant is the religious component of that value? This is a big problem for religion, and for Christians in particular, because their morality and their charity is so caught up in the edict of Jesus to evangelize that they simply can’t understand that good deeds can be, and are, done without an agenda imposed by a supernatural agency.

For example, earlier in the Transforming Melbourne tract, Mr Isaachsen has gone to great pains to point out all the wonderful things that Christian charities have achieved, and the heavy implication is that without them, non-religious people would commit no charitable acts of any kind, ever. He neglects to mention that huge compassionate non-profit organizations like Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Malaria No More, Humanist Charities, the Red Cross and many, many others operate without having heeded ‘Jesus’ call to compassion and justice’. What’s more, these organizations can easily be argued to be more selfless than any of Mr Isaachsen’s examples of Christian charity, for the simple reason that they act out of human compassion and human compassion alone. They are not acting on a command to be good, or being goaded on by the Big Carrot of Heaven or the Big Stick of Hell.

Rob Isaachsen is trying to paint a picture that says an atheist can have no compassion, no care, no charity, no love, no human empathy. And yet it is a trivial task to show he is wrong. He might do well to reflect on the fact that one sincere act of atheist kindness makes nonsense of his whole religion.

[…to be continued…]

Researchers at the Cornell Creative Machine Lab came up with the brilliant idea of getting Cleverbot, their ‘intelligent’ chat program, to engage with its own doppelganger.

Clever Clogs: meet Clever Clogs.

Awesome.

OK, as I said a couple of days back, in this post, and possibly the next, I’m going to take a critical look at the Transforming Melbourne document entitled ‘The Vital Role of the Church and Christian Faith in Our Society’ by Rob Isaachsen. The pdf is long and rambling, so I’m just going to lift out the more egregious and offensive portions for examination. Just so you know that I’m not taking anything out of context, though, I urge you to read it for yourself.

I’ll start with the soft stuff:

Our City and Nation depend on the Church
The contribution of Christian faith to every level of our society, its history, laws, institutions, culture, values, community support, welfare services and overseas aid is far in excess of any other movement.

It may indeed be true that there is dependency on the Church for some things. But in my view, that’s exactly the kind of situation we should be addressing. To claim that the contribution of the Christian faith to our society is ‘far in excess of any other movement’ is an exaggeration and a straw man. The assertion conveniently excludes the greater umbrella of secular contribution to society, which is not a ‘movement’ as such, but is just the way we live. Indeed, it is an enhancement of this secular contribution that Humanists and atheists seek.

Church, Government and Society are largely ignorant of the vital place of the Church
It is only because society is ignorant of this, that society contemplates restricting Christian influence.

No, our society contemplates restriction of Christian influence because Christian ideals are in conflict with the ideals of our society. It is only Christians who think that the medieval morality of their Church is ‘vital’. Other people, like me, think it has an agenda that is overly influential. We are not in any way ignorant of what’s going on here – we know, and we object.

Correlation between Christian heritage and strong nationhood
“Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilisation. To this day we have no other options [to Christianity”.

Oh for Pete’s sake. Now the rhetoric starts. This, of course, is complete and utter bullshit. First of all it makes the conceited assumption that ‘Western civilization’ is better than any other way of living. What utter racist gall. ((Rather shabby argument too, considering that as we will see in a bit, Christians pride themselves on their tolerance and lack of racism.)) This statement is demeaning to every culture on the planet that does not have a Christian heritage. As usual, Christians are putting themselves on the top of the pile, and somehow don’t find it hypocritical that they target atheists and others as ‘arrogant’.

In addition, I don’t think I need to point out to anyone with even a little bit of history and philosophy that Christians can hardly take the credit for ‘liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy’. They seem to have forgotten that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were doing pretty well on that score before Jesus came along. Not to mention that they conveniently ignore some of the appalling subjugation of those ideals by Christianity through the ages (God, according to his own Word, is certainly not too fussy about ANY of those things).

Individual Influence of Christian Faith
“If you are a church-goer you are more likely to take the opinions of other people seriously, more determined to make a contribution to society, more inclined to think that life is meaningful, less likely to violate property rights or to harm other people, cheat on your taxes, avoid paying train fares or to take sickies. (“The Religious Factor in Australian Life” by Melbourne sociologists, Beverly Dixon and Gary Bouma 1983)

I’d be inclined to laugh at this if I wasn’t so angry. The Dixon and Bouma conclusions (which I don’t even really need to point out are 30 years old) are taken from information accumulated by the 1983 Australian Values Study, a self-reported survey carried out by the Roy Morgan Research Centre.

What’s happening here is something with which you should be very familiar if you’re a regular reader of The Cow. It’s a common tactic of a people who are being dishonest about what they are telling you: opinions are being touted as facts. The Australian Values Study shows us data about what people say they do. This is manifestly not the same as what people actually do. Being ‘more determined’ to make a contribution to society is not the same as actually making a contribution. Just because Christians say that they are less likely to violate property rights, harm other people, cheat on their taxes or evade train fares is not evidence that they act that way. In fact, an equally valid explanation for the statistical over-representation of Christians as being ‘morally superior’ is that they lied more about these things than other people on the survey. Unless some kind of evidence is put forward, the Dixon/Bouma statement – presented quite clearly here as ‘fact’ – is merely conjecture based on biased opinion.

I’m going to skip a few paragraphs here ((I can deflate most of the intervening rubbish as easily as I have done above, but it’s kind of tedious.)) and go on to something that really peeves me, before, in the next post, we look at the really offensive material.

Christian Schools
44% of secondary and 34% of all primary students in Victoria attend Catholic or independent (mainly Christian or Church-run) schools in Greater Melbourne (2006 Census). The percentage of students enrolling at state schools is falling and to independent (Christian) schools is rising – generally because parents see these schools give priority to Christian values or the style of education provided by them.

Wow – a fact! Yes, the enrollment rate in religious schools in Victoria is rising (indeed, VT & I send our own kids to a Christian school). ((It is the least doctrinal of all the Melbourne religious schools, as far as I can tell.)) But it’s not because ‘parents see these schools give priority to Christian values or the style of education provided by them’. It’s because the religious schools have better teachers. Why do they have better teachers? Because they are attracted by better wages than they can earn at a government school. Why can religious schools afford to pay teachers better? Because they have the triple benefit of their historically deep pockets, an ability to attract wealthier parents who will pay substantial fees, ((This happens through a kind of bootstrapping effect – a little bit more operating money than governments schools -> better teachers -> better education -> parents wanting the best for their kids -> higher fees -> a little bit more operating money -> better teachers… Not hard to see how it works. I don’t like participating in that scheme, but I also want my kids to have the best chance they can. And it has to be said, their school is very good. But it has NOTHING to do with religion.)) AND government support in the form of stipends and tax breaks! Why are there no atheist or Humanist private schools? Because they would not be eligible for any kind of government assistance! ((It is a sad state of affairs that government schooling in Australia does not get the kind of priority that it should. But it is a fact that private religious schools – which are money-making enterprises – have an effect on the budget that is allocated to government schools. Private religious schools, in my opinion, should be independent of government subsidy. The Christian church – for nearly all private schools in Australia are Christian – are REALLY afraid of this happening, because then they would need to survive on their assertion that ‘parents give priority to Christian values’ and would thus be prepared to pay an even greater premium for that privilege. Any sensible person knows how that scenario would play out. Indeed, if government schools could afford to pay better teachers – which might be possible if they had money that was being siphoned off by private schools – I think we could confidently predict a rapid decline in the enrollment numbers of private religious schools.))

And why, Faithful Acowlytes, would they not be eligible for government assistance? Because they are not RELIGIONS. Keep that thought in mind, because in a little bit you will see how Mr Isaachsen’s rhetoric causes him to be hoist with his own petard…

I snapped this sign in front of St Paul’s Cathedral, in inner city Melbourne last week.

The duplicity of the intent here is only eclipsed by its inanity. Professor Nancey Murphy is the author of ‘Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will’. She is also an ordained minister of The Church of the Brethren, a Christian sect so confused that it has split into numerous splinter groups that are, apparently, able to interpret the Word of God to be whatever suits their personal agenda. ((It should be said that The Brethren are not alone in this pursuit. Christianity itself is really just one big collection of groups that have decided that what God meant is dependent on your point of view.)) If Prof Murphy is a hard core member of The Brethren, though, she believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (with all that entails).

My brain finds it hard to contain the idea that someone can take that stance and still call themselves a scientist. Her interpretation of what science is, seems, apparently, to be as flexible as the interpretation of God’s Word among members of her belief system.

As for ISCAST, ‘a think tank exploring the interface between science and Christianity’, I have prepared a little diagram illustrating what I see as the principal difficulty in exploring that interface:

You see, when you accept the idea that a magical being created us and everything we see for inscrutable purposes of its own, you have abandoned all notions of science. Now, personally speaking, I don’t care one whit if Professor Murphy or anyone else cares to invent such fanciful stories, but it pisses me off when:

1: They think they have the right to push those ideas down my throat, and,
2: They think their ideas are better than everyone else’s ideas because their magical being told them so, and,
3: They attempt to conflate those ideas with science.

But I said ‘duplicity’ didn’t I?

I was intending to make this post a humorous jab at a daft sign, but in looking up St Paul’s Cathedral I inadvertently stumbled upon one of the most worrying, irrational, fearful and misleading documents I’ve seen in a long time. St Paul’s, it appears, is affiliated with an organization called Transforming Melbourne, a group that defines itself as ‘a Movement of Christians praying and acting together with the vision that God will renew His Church and not only bring new life to the people of our city, but transform its culture and society.’

Praying? Not a lot of science there, that’s for sure.

The document I mentioned is called ‘The Vital Role of the Church and Christian Faith in Our Society’ by Rob Isaachsen, Founder of Transforming Melbourne, and is something of a manifest of the group’s ideals. The preamble to it on the Transforming Melbourne site begins:

MPs, Christians and others have no idea that

OUR SOCIETY DEPENDS ON CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE CHURCH

It then lists some ‘statistics’ that are supposed to convince us of how terrific the Christian Church is, before concluding:

The highly intentional atheist and secular humanist movements are seeking to influence governments to remove the freedom of the Church and Christian agencies to provide their community support, and Christian education programmes and Chaplaincy in schools which foster Christian values in society.

If they succeed in restricting Christian care and education the result will be the undermining of society itself.

This kind of addled fear-mongering makes my skin crawl and my blood boil. Yes folks, what it comes down to is that the people behind Transforming Melbourne believe that the EVIL ATHEISTS are attempting to get rid of the WONDERFUL CHRISTIANS because, for some reason, the EVIL ATHEIST agenda is to ‘undermine society itself’. Do these people really think like that? Are they really that simple-minded? Because if that’s the case it’s pretty damn clear why I don’t want Christian chaplains giving moral advice to my kids.

So it turns out that the real reason that the Cathedral is having Science Week is nothing at all to do with science (surprise) but is in fact a sleight-of-hand designed to give the appearance of open-mindedness and acceptance. There is no intent to explore an ‘interface’ between science and religion here. Make no mistake: these people do NOT care about science. If it was up to them, they’d as soon see their God wipe this troublesome ‘science’ thing from the planet.

What’s happening here is that they are afraid. Scientific thought represents the biggest real threat that religion will ever face. And now, with atheists and humanists asserting their human rights to create communities that are not built on superstition and fear, but instead on critical thinking, scientific inquiry and rationally considered ethics and morals, the Christian Church is resorting to one of its favourite techniques: instead of facing their challengers bravely, ((For surely, if their God is actually right as they claim, they have NOTHING to fear…)) they are attempting to subsume them. To make them feel at home. To feign charity. To pretend they’re on their side. But all they are really concerned with is promoting their agenda.

It has worked many times in the past when their competition was also fearful and held irrational beliefs, but this time it won’t.

(I’m going to examine some of the Transforming Melbourne document in the next post. It’s full of such egregious and erroneous claims that it simply can’t go unconfronted.)

Over the weekend, Violet Towne and I visited the Monash Gallery of Art to see an exhibition of photographs by Anton Bruehl. Bruehl was born in Australia, but made his career in New York where he became a favourite of the advertising world, creating photographs for Vanity Fair, Vogue and other high profile magazines. I always thought Bruehl was quite famous, but am dismayed to find that he doesn’t even rate a Wikipedia entry. You will almost certainly have seen his iconic photograph of Marlene Dietrich:

I really like Bruehl’s highly contrived and art-directed style and I think it has gone on to inform artists as diverse as David Lynch and Pierre et Gilles. The highlight of this exhibition for me, though, was some work Bruehl did for Vanity Fair, photographing the ‘Fashions of the Future’: clothing visions from designer Gilbert Rhodes. This is Rhodes’ speculation for the Man of the Future:

And here is that very man in the flesh, as realised by Rhodes and capture on film by Bruehl:

Is that awesome or what? The best thing here is, of course, that Rhodes got hardly any of it right. Well, I guess there is still a good part of the century to go, but you know what I’m saying… I suppose there are disposable socks (those ones they give you on planes) and the ‘antenna snatching radio out of the ether’ could charitably be interpreted to be the one in your iPhone, but the curly beard and the baggy onesie tucked into those disposable socks have yet to materialize. As for the utility belt, well, even Batman had trouble making that seem like a good idea.

I quite took to the Man of the Future’s jaunty disregard for anyone’s opinion of his haute couture, but I was rather more enamored of Rhodes’ vision for the Woman of the Future:

Alright! Now we’re talking!

I’m afraid, however, that I was so overcome by the prospect of what we bearded, antenna-sporting, disposable sock-wearing blokes have to look forward to in the next few years that my hand was shaking rather a lot when I tried to snap a shot of Rhodes’ and Bruehl’s vision of said woman.

It seems that, for a year or two at least, chaps, we’ll just have to live in anticipation.