±«Óătv

I'd say we're looking at a general awakening of Northern Ireland in culture, religion, philosophy, science and much more over the past decade. (Is anyone aware of any term being used to describe this phenomenon specifically in the NI context?) That includes acceptance of more liberal ideas, particularly within religions. I remember growing up in the 80s and early 90s that Presbyterians would never have even considered the drinking of alcohol to be permitted; today, things are thankfully much more liberal as a result of the increased influence of a wider church movement beyond the shores of NI.

The Belfast Humanists admit that the survey is self-selecting, which is correct; am I also right in thinking that only 70 participants were involved in the survey? Nevertheless, for its shortcomings I'd expect to see, post-Troubles, a significantly greater proportion of the NI population open to Darwinian explanations for origins.

Northern Ireland might be going in the right direction but I wonder if the minority muslim population in the UK are on the same track?

See the article and comments here on "A Muslim Britain".

Regards,
Michael

The methodology here has sufficient gaps to accomodate a several tanks, and the sample is woefully small - so the findings can only be described as anecdotal.

Interesting though..And encouraging if it could be replicated on a much larger scale...

John Wright wrote: "Nevertheless, for its shortcomings I'd expect to see, post-Troubles, a significantly greater proportion of the NI population open to Darwinian explanations for origins."

Troubles may come and Troubles may go, but our religion-dominated education system carries on serving up the traditional pre-Darwinian account of Life on Earth. Schools which see themselves as primarily vehicles for the inculcation of Protestant or Catholic beliefs are not going to promote Darwinian ideas with any vigour.

And don't expect any dramatic changes with our new political dispensation. Catholic education is safe with Sinn Fein and the DUP are happy to treat state schools as a Protestant fiefdom. Neither of those dinosaurs is likely to have much desire for a secular education system which has a proper regard for truth (ie. the most probable explanation on the basis of the evidence available) and an aversion to indoctrinating children.

Not long ago the Humanists tried to have some input into the RE curriculum here (on a "Faiths and Beliefs" basis) and were told that the Education Order requires all RE teaching to be 'Bible based'.

Any pupil who has managed to survive the NI education system and has come to a proper evaluation of Darwin's ideas despite it should receive a special A Level certificate in Intellectual Integrity and Independence. (only partly joking)

Les:

I went through the BRA in Belfast - got the best education in the world and it is a bit of a mystery to me what you are opining about.

On my own blog

a secular humanist gave some good advice to Humanists. I quote:

I don't see that it matters what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and their work is not affected by their beliefs. As an atheist I can tell you that here in Ireland I work with people who think the earth was created in six literal days. If they are taxi drivers or footballers or farmers, so what? Now if a guy is a pilot and doesn't believe in the principles of aerodynamics then I think we can legitimately discuss the matter. Here is an idea ... why don't we secular humanists get together and take over all of these vacant Christian churches mentioned in the article to provide meeting places for ourselves. We could meet to set up mission programs, ways to contribute to charities, provide support and care for our communities like the Muslims and the Christians. After all as the article points out we are the majority group in the UK! We should be meeting weekly on Sundays!

Good advice methinks?

Regards,
Michael

Michael- I think Les may have a point 'in general'... there are a minority of great exceptions to the rule (including, I'm sure, BRA, which was my sister's school), but I can see the point. In particular the High Schools are still regarded as 'Protestant' schools, where R.E. class was not only Christian-centric but Protestant-centric. By the way, I largely agree with the comment you posted, but I think it ultimately does matter what people believe.

Les- I'd give this qualifier. I'm not sure the problem is as great anymore as you suggest. I believe that my assessment above of the 'awakening' of NI applies equally to the schools system which, I've got good reason to believe, is showing the same signs as everything else. Remember that, regardless of the religious beliefs of those staffing either state or Catholic schools, those who make the cirriculum do so with the proper regard for truth that you describe.

After studying the photograph of Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley last week, considering their words, thinking back about Andy McIntosh and Wilder-Smith, it occurs to me that it is hard for anyone to doubt that humans evolved from apes, the striking family resemblance must be more than mere coincidence. In consideration of the innate violence and agressiveness of men like Adams and Paisley compared to the peaceful nature of lowland gorillas, I have concluded that the evolution from simian to homo sapiens might be a step backwards. We've got the wrong species locked up in cages. Or perhaps it was the other way around, they evolved from us. Come to think of it, I think the apes would often make better company and are far more rational. Now all I have to do is learn their sign language. Andy, how about a nice ripe banana? Cheep-cheep.

Re 7. At 12:09 AM on 04 Apr 2007, Mark wrote:

After studying the photograph of Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley last week, considering their words, thinking back about Andy McIntosh and Wilder-Smith, it occurs to me that it is hard for anyone to doubt that humans evolved from apes, the striking family resemblance must be more than mere coincidence.

Please send Will your picture to post - I suspect you look positively angelic ;-)

Regards,
Michael

John Wright wrote:

By the way, I largely agree with the comment you posted, but I think it ultimately does matter what people believe.

John:

Another poster made the same comment and pointed to an interesting article in the Birmingham Post. England may have a worse problem that North Ireland from what I gather.

See Peter's comment to Jim here:

Regards,
Michael

Michael N. Hull #8
"Please send will your picture to post-I suspect you look positively angelic ;-)"

With or without my human disguise suit on? (In the movie Planet of the Apes....I was rooting for the apes.)

Michael wrote (ie. quoted approvingly):"I don't see that it matters what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves"

Unfortunately that is not the situation that we are in. Churches are long-established institutions with property, staff, wealth and a lot of leverage in society. If faith was all a matter of private belief there would be no problem with it.

Our schools are segregated on the basis of religion. The two main political parties here, the DUP and SF, have their bedrock in sectarian division. Ireland is divided into Protestant North and Catholic South. A rape victim cannot get an abortion in the RoI because the state is Catholic. Can you get a divorce there? In the UK Bishops sit in the House of Lords and influence legislation. Stem cell research has been held up because of religious objections. And then there are issues relating to Islam .... And Israeli claims that all of Palestine was given to them by God ....

I could go on, but I hope you get the point ....

Michael

These are the key words...

"I don't see that it matters what people believe so long as they keep it to themselves and their work is not affected by their beliefs."

I agree, however when these same people move into the public arena and want their views forced on the rest of us ie., Dover, Kansas, stem cell research, gay rights then it is a different matter.

Re # 11. At 09:23 AM on 04 Apr 2007, Les Reid wrote:

Unfortunately that is not the situation that we are in. If faith was all a matter of private belief there would be no problem with it. Our schools are segregated on the basis of religion. The two main political parties here, the DUP and SF, have their bedrock in sectarian division. Ireland is divided into Protestant North and Catholic South. A rape victim cannot get an abortion in the RoI because the state is Catholic. Can you get a divorce there? In the UK Bishops sit in the House of Lords and influence legislation. Stem cell research has been held up because of religious objections.

Les: Yes - I agree and I am quite aware of all of this. Although I live in the USA I am in Ireland practically every year and keep up with the goings on. In fact I will be back there again in July just in time to see if the new political relationship will survive the marching season.

It seems to me that 1) Ireland is a democracy 2) It has a highly educated population probably one of the best in the world. 3) It voted for what it has in the way of a political system 4) In every society there is a minority (secular humanist in your case - agnostic Christian in mine) that would prefer something else but that is the way it is.

I liked the suggestion someone made on my own blog that secular humanists need to stop complaining (albeit perhaps with good reasons) and go on to something positive that is specifically pro secular humanism. Why not get together in some form of 'ritual' on a weekly basis, build a 'congregation', present an attractive 'worldview', and 'evangelize'. Who knows what you might accomplish. I think there is a lot of good work that people who are not fundamentalist in their beliefs can accomplish together if they organize properly.

A concern about what the average guy in the street in Belfast thinks about Darwinism is really not that important in the grand scheme of things. Now if they were able to give an opinion as to whether quantum mechanics provides an indication that man has free will, I might be interested ;-)

Regards,
Michael

The core issue here is Evolution. Some people think that religion and evolutionary biology can be reconciled. The Catholic church, for example (probably because it does not want a repeat of the Galileo fiasco) has declared itself in favour of Evolution.

I think that trying to reconcile religion and Evolution is like trying to fit an aeroplane engine into a horse and cart. You might succeed but the result is going to be ugly, ad hoc and pointless. It makes far better sense to try and accommodate Evolution within a modern worldview like Humanism which does not have the ancient supernaturalist baggage of the religions.

Nobody believes the Greek myths any more. Why not treat the Hebrew myths in the same way?

Well, evolution is indeed important for people to know about, given that the threat of a flu pandemic or "superbugs" such as MRSA are real, precisely because evolution works.

Our susceptibility to many disorders is a direct consequence of our evolutionary history - type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart diseases, complications of childbirth, osteoarthritis, etc etc.

I would also take issue with people saying we evolved from apes. We are apes; we haven't graduated beyond them. We're just another subgroup.

Pass the bananas.

Les- I'm not exactly sure what gives you the impression that religious belief and evolution cannot be reconciled. Surely it depends upon the nature of each religious belief? Belief in God (per se) and belief in science are two different topics and the way we approach them are distinctly different also. I agree that some religious belief is incompatible with religion, and that's because such belief incorporates creationism of some kind.

But if I draw a circle within which lies all religious belief, a smaller circle can be drawn inside it within which lies only that religious belief involving the doctrine that God created the world (and denying evolution). There are therefore many religious beliefs that do not involve denying evolution and therefore are not contradicted or even addressed by an acceptance of evolution.

Re # 14 Les Reid wrote:

I think that trying to reconcile religion and Evolution is like trying to fit an aeroplane engine into a horse and cart.

I don't know what you are talking about.

1) Buddhism is a religion. What conflict does Buddhism have with evolution?

2) Do you mean that 'belief in a God who created the universe' can not be reconciled with evolution? If so what does the Big Bang whether God created or God non-created have to do with evolution?

I think what you may be trying to say is that a fundamentalist, literal and factual interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures can not be reconciled with evolution?

Nobody believes the Greek myths any more. Why not treat the Hebrew myths in the same way?

If by 'believe you mean taking the Greek and Hebrew myths as 'factual/historical' truth then I accept this statement.

But I do 'believe' in both of these 'myths' because of the 'intrinsic' truths that they tell one about the human condition.

By the way I also believe in Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' and Thomas Hardy's 'Jude The Obscure' for the same reasons. Do you also place these into your 'horse and cart' category? ;-)

Regards,
Michael

Michael- You and I clearly think far too much alike on these issues. ;-)

Perhaps Les is engaging in a tarring-with-the-same-brush trick: defining all of religion in terms of the worst elements so as to discredit it in its entirety. I've seen humanists do that all too often.

SG

like SG..

would like to question an assumption underlying many comments here that religion is totally evil.

To an individual, I would suggest that all the above posters would be terrified at the prospect at having to live in a society that was anything but post-Christian.

And by that I mean any society whose legal and cultural values are based on centuries of judeo-christian foundations.

Its a bit like the department of agriculture demanding that farmers increase their apple production while insisting that all apple trees be hewn down.

PB

PB- "anything but post-Christian" is a ridiculous statement. You're saying you can't envision any society that's based on anything that would make it any better than the one we have? I'd suggest your imagination at least, if not your philosophical vision, is lacking.

no John youre absolutely wrong,

Im not suggesting we couldnt do better.

I am saying that all the athiests and liberals love the benefits of societies that are solidly built on judeo Christian values.

eg the legal system of the English speaking world is modelling on Magna Carta which is in turn based on the 10 commandments.

Our festivals, weekly calendar, sense of justice, habeas corpus etc are all biblically based.

How many athiests would really be interested to live in any of the officially athiestic societies we have seen?

PB

PB- You attributing all the good in this society to the bible is grossly naive and indicative of your Christian worldview rather than the truth of the matter. Take what you said about the ten commandments, for example. It's often said that our legal system is based on the ten commandments. But by rejecting the ten commandments as authorative, is someone approving of murder, for example? Of course not. Murder would be illegal in a society based upon humanism just as it would be illegal in a society based upon 'Christianity'.

What you've said is that both the bible and modern day society disapprove of murder. But the latter does not have to be BASED upon the former in order to do so. You are attributing to the bible something that the bible doesn't even claim for itself. As humans we've come up with a sense of justice, and it is evident in the bible and elsewhere. That doesn't mean it CAME from the bible. Again, the reason you say that it did is because you're a Christian who has a specific interest in preserving the influence of your faith.

If our legal system was based upon the ten commandments as you suggest, then it would be illegal to be anything other than Christian (commandment number 1), citizens could be accused of idolising (commandment number 2), it would be illegal to use the name of Jehovah in vain (commandment number 3), our legislature would have considerable interest in ensuring that the sabbath is kept holy (commandment number 4), there would be criminal suits brought against those who were alleged to disrespect their parents (commandment number 5), one could find themselves in jail for having extramarital affairs (commandments number 7), judges and juries would be employed to prosecute those who have been caught in lies (commandment number 9) and it would be a crime to hanker after your neighbour's ass (commandment number 10).

Hey, two out of ten isn't bad, PB, but even those two aren't "based" upon Scripture!

PB,

I would echo what John said, it is very simplistic to say that our society is Bible-based. Our history is long and varied and we have had the enlightenment.

Our festivals such as Christmas, Easter etc are not Biblically based, in fact these festivals were pagan and hijacked by Christians. Same goes with the weekly calender as for "justice" well thank goodness the vast majority of us reject Biblical values and do not try and justify the mass murder of Chlidren.Nor thank goodness do we put homosexuals to death, nor children who are disrespectful to their parents, nor people who break the sabbath etc etc

You mean like N. Korea(re:atheistaclly based?) no thanks! But then again this is not an atheist society rather it based on the un-thinking, dogamatic, evangelical, fumdamentalist worship of Kim Jong Il. As I said before I prefer to live in a secular society and not in any any kind of tyranny or theocracy. A society can never suffer too much by being reasonable!

Posters here have assumed that the incompatibility between religion and evolutionary biology that I was referring to when I said that trying to combine them was like trying to fit an aeroplane engine into a horse and cart, must relate to the Creation story.

Not so. I wrote at the time that my concern was the "supernaturalist baggage" that religious belief entails. Evolutionary biology is part of a naturalistic account of planet Earth and the organisms that inhabit it. It has no truck with the supernatural and thus it is at odds with traditional religious beliefs.

One such belief is belief in life after death. Every Christian funeral that I have attended has referred to "The sure and certain hope of the resurrection". Christians used to talk about heaven, hell and life everlasting which one could only acquire by joining the church.

Evolutionary biology renders highly improbable any notion of life after death. Human beings are a species of primate and have a common ancestor with the other primates only a few hundred thousand years ago. Humans have no more chance of an after-life than a chimp or gorilla. Likewise, since we have a common ancestor with all the mammals further back in our history, we have no more chance of an after-life than a rat or a wolf.

Ancient myths about life after death, with heaven, hell, angels, demons and the rest, are the sort of beliefs that mark religions as belonging to a primitive understanding of the world. Those myths belong to the early history of our species and are now obsolete. Sadly, however, people learn them in childhood and become emotionally attached to them, so much so that they cannot escape from them.

As Ignatius of Loyola said,"Give me a child until he/she is seven, and I will show you a devout believer who will never think straight again."

Les,

Your last comment is a misquotation of Loyola.

DD, JW

Please note I described countries such as the UK as "post-Christian";

- Of course there have been many other influences by this time but I stand by my assertion about the foundations.

The biblical work ethic on which our economies are based, the biblical model of traditional marriage and family, have you any idea how many figures of speech we use from the bible?

...eg let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

this is not inconsequential, it shows how our thinking has been moulded by the bible.

goodbye actually means "God be with you".

Of course Christmas and Easter were originally pagan but they have been celebrated as national Christian holydays in the UK for centuries.

The question remains, how many of our athiests and liberals would prefer to live in a society that has NO judeo Christian roots?

Can anyone name a "nice" society that has been totally secular/humanistic with NO judeo Christian roots?

And how many of those people would prefer that they and their children grew up in a traditional biblical type family, or otherwise?

PB

Indeed, though the extent of the misquotation suggests that it wasn't an accident.

Hello Will. This is my first time commenting on your blog. I have little of substance to add to this thread,, except a quote from Daniel Dennett:

"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone who doubts that the variety of life on this planetwas produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant - inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learnt to read and write" ("Darwin's Dangerous Idea", p.46)

Let's hope that our country is now awaking, Kant-like, from it's dogmatic slumbers. Consciousness raising is what we need here if we are ever to clear away the cobwebs of our "troubled" minds.

Welcome, Christopher.

I certainly share your hope that consciousness can be raised here in benighted N Ireland. It often seems that news of the Enlightenment has only just arrived and that Darwin is regarded as an agent of the devil (see the video clip that accompanies our survey). As any Martian would admit, the source of this Unenlightenment is probably our sectarian schools (with the honourable exception of BRA which produces geniuses by the score, apparently). Rousing the sleepers from their dogmatic slumbers is quite a task - like cleaning out the Augean stables. Thankfully the age of the internet brings technology to our aid and we can now clean them with a blog-roll.

FAO Les Reid

Thank you for the welcome, Les. You'll be hearing a lot more from me.
In relation to the topic, whilst I hope (for their sake) that people ACTUALLY move towards the metaphorical light (as opposed to just shouting about it).... I don't labour under any anticipation of the future "utopia" of clear thought. There will always be people of low intelligence, and whilst they exist there will always be populists to gain advantage from their vulnerability. You either laugh, or you cry... we each must decide which it is to be.

FAO pb

What exactly is your point? Our historical tradition is what it is. Even if it was agreed that it was a "wholly undesirable past", it would still have influenced our use of language ( etc. ) in the ways you quite rightly point out it has. To suggest we can attribute non-judgementalism in our society to our "Judeo-Christian" heritage merely because "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a ridiculous assertion:

1. Our society is anything but non-judgemental. In fact, in my experience the most judgemental of all are to be found in Christian communities.
2. This line is tantamount to moral relativism, considering none of us are without sin.
3. I suspect you'd be the first person to denounce the "relativism" of the modern world.

Likewise, to attribute the existence of altruism in our society to Jesus' words in the Gospel is also a bit ridiculous. For one thing, the Golden rule does not have its origin in Judeo-Christian culture.

It is clear that we all cherry pick the moral lessons of our culture's holy book (i.e. the Bible). We no longer follow ALL the moral teachings contained in the aforementioned book. The criterion by which we select which to obey and which to throw out is our morality. And, considering that we indulge in the sort of cherry-picking exercise I have mentioned, we are in this respect no more Christian than we are "Dostoevskian" or "±«Óătvrian" or "Platonic", etc....

you want to hear of a "nice" country that lacks our Judeo-Christian heritage? lol... the implicit zenophobia in your words leaves me nearly speechless, but not quite, for I must provide you with at least one example.. let me see... what about Japan? Very backwards over there, aren't they.... compared with us open-minded moderns of the six counties! ;-)

PB,

Marriage as a practice was around long before the Bible, and don't really see how our economy is influenced by the Bible-can't really remember Milton Friedman or Keynesian biblical economics.

PB it is difficult or indeed impossible to find a western society which does not have Judeo-Christian roots that includes the former communist countries. We have evolved from those roots and had things like the rise of rationalism and the Enlightenment.

I do not want to live in an obstensibly Christian nor atheist society rather a secular one.

PB

Re: traditionalist Bible family...do you mean like LOT!?

Christopher good point re: modern Japan, this is a society which never embraced Christianity(they make up less that one % of the population), it is a obstensibly an atheist(since neither Shintoism nor Buddism have gods and are more ways of life)secular, humanist society and has a fraction of the problems with crime that are associated with countries which have Judeo-Christian roots.

FAO pb

May I recommend to you a book, namely "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Please read it, and educate yourself on the real reasons for the pre-eminence of western societies in recent world history.

Re #29

With the honourable exception of BRA which produces geniuses by the score, apparently

Les: Thank you for that compliment to we of the BRA fold. BTW the word is not apparently it is actually ;-)

Rousing the sleepers from their dogmatic slumbers is quite a task - like cleaning out the Augean stables.

Les: Glad to see that you do agree on the usefulness on occasions of 'myth' as demonstrated by the stable reference. But the secular humanists suffer from the same 'dogmatism' as do the 'literalist' Christians. The problem is not Atheism, Christianity, or Buddhism (I capitalize 'atheism' as I believe it can be classified as a 'religion') the problem is 'fundamentalism' - those who speak with certainity and who leave no place for doubt in their lives.

As I pointed out on my own blog the secular humanists in the USA intend to rouse all of the sleepers here with their five year "Jesus Project". Might I suggest that you start a similar program through the Belfast Humanists and see if you might make more progress than beating up poor busdrivers, housewives etc on the streets of Belfast about their views on Darwin.

Why don't secular humanists stop whining and present a more positive image of their position? Has anyone ever been persuaded with an argument that attacked one's position with language as used by the SHs?

30 Christopher Eastwood wrote: In relation to the topic, whilst I hope (for their sake) that people ACTUALLY move towards the metaphorical light

Good heavens, do I have a soul mate here? Mark what have YOU got to say about this!!

Regards,
Michael

ps Christopher: The rest of the readers probably get this inside joke with Mark. To help you with it read comment #7 written by me in this tread...

Re #29

With the honourable exception of BRA which produces geniuses by the score, apparently

Les: Thank you for that compliment to we of the BRA fold. BTW the word is not apparently it is actually ;-)

Rousing the sleepers from their dogmatic slumbers is quite a task - like cleaning out the Augean stables.

Les: Glad to see that you do agree on the usefulness on occasions of 'myth' as demonstrated by the stable reference. But the secular humanists suffer from the same 'dogmatism' as do the 'literalist' Christians. The problem is not Atheism, Christianity, or Buddhism (I capitalize 'atheism' as I believe it can be classified as a 'religion') the problem is 'fundamentalism' - those who speak with certainity and who leave no place for doubt in their lives.

As I pointed out on my own blog the secular humanists in the USA intend to rouse all of the sleepers here with their five year "Jesus Project". Might I suggest that you start a similar program through the Belfast Humanists and see if you might make more progress than beating up poor busdrivers, housewives etc on the streets of Belfast about their views on Darwin.

Why don't secular humanists stop whining and present a more positive image of their position? Has anyone ever been persuaded with an argument that attacked one's position with language as used by the SHs?

30 Christopher Eastwood wrote: In relation to the topic, whilst I hope (for their sake) that people ACTUALLY move towards the metaphorical light

Good heavens, do I have a soul mate here? Mark what have YOU got to say about this!!

Regards,
Michael

ps Christopher: The rest of the readers probably get this inside joke with Mark. To help you with it read comment #7 written by me in this tread...

LOL I'm enjoying seeing all these comments starting with "PB,....."

But, umm, PB- Can I just clarify something for a second... are you saying that since our society is post-Christian, the ideal society would be Christian and therefore the ideal society would enshrine the ten commandments in law?

In 34 M Hull wrote: "Why don't secular humanists stop whining and present a more positive image of their position? Has anyone ever been persuaded with an argument that attacked one's position with language as used by the SHs?"

Why don't you address the topic of Evolution, instead of resorting to ad hominem criticisms? Your assertions that Humanists whine, etc, really do not contribute anything to the discussion.

Do you accept that human beings have evolved from creatures that looked very different from our species today? Do you accept that we have a common ancestor with the other primates and, further back in time, another common ancestor with all the mammals? Do you accept that Evolution is probably true and that it makes life after death highly unlikely?

Or do you take your understanding of human origins from Hebrew folktales, mostly attributed to Moses?

Re Post 36. Les Reid wrote:

Why don't you address the topic of Evolution, instead of resorting to ad hominem criticisms?

I am delighted to do so!

Do you accept that human beings have evolved from creatures that looked very different from our species today?

I think the probability (x) is very high.

Do you accept that we have a common ancestor with the other primates and, further back in time, another common ancestor with all the mammals?

The probability of this statement is >x

Do you accept that Evolution is probably true and that it makes life after death highly unlikely?

I answered the first part of this question above. As to life after death, if by 'life' you mean 'biological life' then I would say the probability is close to zero.

[As an agnostic scientist and an agnostic Christian nothing in my book is ever certain in terms of a probability]

Your assertions that Humanists whine, etc, really do not contribute anything to the discussion.

My opinion stands especially when you continue with

Or do you take your understanding of human origins from Hebrew folktales, mostly attributed to Moses?

I am curious as to what all of these questions have to do with whether God (or some piece of supernaturalist baggage as you prefer to call Him) created the universe? Why are you secular humanists so worked up about God and Jesus?

Perhaps you should get over it and go on to something else that might better further your worldview?

Regards,
Michael

Re post 38. I am pleased to see that Evolutionary biology has another supporter in M Hull. It is always encouraging to see that rational argument can sometimes make a litle headway, despite the strong current of religious feelings that threaten to carry it away. Most of us are indoctrinated with supernaturalist beliefs from our earliest years and so it is difficult to shake off those beliefs in later life and adopt a naturalistic outlook like Humanism.

However, I suspect that are lingering traces of supernaturalist thinking when I read that you, Michael, limit the mortality that evolutionary biology implies to our "biological life". The phrase suggests to me that you imagine there is a bit of you that can survive death: in traditional terms, the soul. Theologians have peddled this line for centuries: only the body dies, the soul secretly carries on to another life in heaven or hades or valhalla, where it meets up with millions of other souls.

I wonder when it was that human beings acquired this allegedly immortal accessory, the soul? Where exactly in the millennia of our evolutionary descent did our ancient ancestors develop their immortal bit? The unconvincing aspect of this idea is that evolution is a slow gradual process, but the acquisition of an immortal soul would have been a sudden event. One generation of proto-hominids would not have had it, but the next generation would.

I think that this is an example of trying to fit an aeroplane engine into a horse and cart. Evolution is a modern account of human origins and so it is like an aeroplane engine. Stories about immortal souls and reunions in the after-life are ancient myths and so they are like the horse and cart. You can combine them - in an ugly mess of incompatible world-views - but it is more intellectually satisfying and more convincing simply to abandon the supernaturalist mythology completely and adopt a thoroughly science-based world-view instead.

The old world-views divide us human beings into separate tribes and then we waste our resources and our lives in tribal disputes. The Humanist credo of 'One Life, One Earth, One Humanity' offers us an escape from that.

Re post 39.

Les, thank you for that admirable sermon on the nature of the ‘soul’.

Some comments on your last post.

I am pleased to see that Evolutionary biology has another supporter in M Hull. It is always encouraging to see that rational argument can sometimes make a litle headway, despite the strong current of religious feelings that threaten to carry it away.

I’m happy that you have been ‘encouraged’ by my response but would it not have been better for you to have shortened the ‘sermon’ and simply admitted your false assumption about my beliefs?

However, I suspect that are lingering traces of supernaturalist thinking when I read that you, Michael, limit the mortality that evolutionary biology implies to our "biological life".

Another assumption! It is the secular humanist worldview that limits everything to ‘biological' life and ‘physical processes’. I was making sure that we stayed within the parameters of this worldview in responding to the question.

The phrase suggests to me that you imagine there is a bit of you that can survive death: in traditional terms, the soul.

Off and running again with several paragraphs of assumptions! I have never mentioned the concept of a ‘soul'! I am agnostic about the existence or non-existence of the afterlife. I figure that the afterlife will take care of itself.

It is more intellectually satisfying and more convincing simply to abandon the supernaturalist mythology completely and adopt a thoroughly science-based world-view instead.

Not if that requires a worldview of ‘either/or’ rather than ‘both/and’. The early universe was simply matter/energy (they are interchangeable). Today’s universe has a small amount of matter/energy that is for some reason able to ‘think’ about itself as having come from ‘matter/energy’. This part of the universe that presently ‘thinks’ I define as ‘spiritual’ or ‘metaphysical’. Secular Humanists define ‘spiritual’ as another form of ‘physical’. My worldview combines the ‘physical’ with the ‘metaphysical’. The Secular Humanist worldview says that ‘metaphysical’ is ‘supernatural baggage’.

The old world-views divide us human beings into separate tribes

In my opinion I think that my ‘tribe’ has a better chance operating with ‘both/and’ than yours has limiting itself to ‘either/or’.

Les in post #38 I answered your questions concisely and with precision about evolution from the perspective of one Christian.

I would like a similar courtesy from you on the following questions regarding physics, and particularly quantum mechanics as seen from the perspective of a Belfast Secular Humanist.

My assumption is as follows: You have a good understanding of both physics and metaphysics.

1) What is your belief on the existence of, and the probability of, parallel universes?

2) String theory requires there to be one dimension of time with ten dimensions of space. Do you believe that string theory is a theory that offers a better explanation of the universe than a metaphysical theory which says the universe is a ‘creation’?

3) Would you agree that the question of free will is now ‘open’ as far as modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, is concerned? Do you agree that physicists are now saying that free will is a prerequisite for inventing theories and planning experiments? Would you agree with a quantum physicist who said recently that quantum randomness was “a hint, telling us we have free will.”

4) Do you agree that modern physics has now discovered numerous forms of energy in the universe and are coming to see ‘consciousness’ as one form of ‘energy’?

5) What is your definition of ‘truth’? Would you agree that there are two types of truth – “factual, historical” truth and “metaphorical, instrinsic” truth? If so would you agree that metaphorical truths are equally as important as factual truths? Would you agree that metaphorical truths are not amenable to scientific study but are amenable to metaphysical study?

6) Can you explain in naturalist terms how matter can be converted into other matter that is able to recognize the process of its own conversion and how that matter is now able to intervene in its own evolution and break out of its’ deterministic arrow?

7) Secular Humanists hold that the universe can have no 'purpose'. Given that you are a small piece of this universe what is the purpose from your perspective in having this discussion?

Regards,
Michael

If indeed 'Belfast has embraced Darwin', then it is a tribute to years of media and educational bias against the traditional Christian view of origins, ie that 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.

But would people in Belfast really be foolish enough to embrace a philosophy which teaches that we came from nothing, are here for no reason and are headed nowhere? Little wonder that too many young people give up on life, faced with such a philosophy of despair.

Thankfully, the Bible gives a more realistic view of human beings: both their sinful nature and their opportunity for new life in Christ.

Philip- You appear to believe that the most important factor in a discussion of human origins is 'How does it make us feel?' rather than 'Is it true?'

If evolution occurred, then the universe does not owe you hope, purpose or any such thing. Neither is it capable of doing so, neither do we require it to do so. If evolution is true then it is not a "philosophy of despair" at all; it is simply the way things are. If you believe that denying evolution, regardless of truth, will give hope to people, then you have a fundamental question to ask of yourself: 'What's more important; truth, regardless of its nature, or feeling good, regardless of truth?'

If it's the former, you will not regard evolution as a "philosophy of despair", rather you'll be enthusiastic about considering all evidence and listening to the best minds in the world on the matter so you can come closest to the truth. Despair may be a consequence of truth, but in this case I don't see why it needs to be. If, however, it's the latter, then you have no place in a discussion about origins, because regardless of what is actually true and what actually happened, you will believe whatever makes you feel better and encourage others to do the same. That makes you (and what you believe) irrelevant to this discussion.

Philip

Your post contains the typical creationist misconceptions about evolution.

It is a very common misconception that accepting evolution means that you are automatically an atheist-this is rubbish as plenty of Christians have no problem with evolution.

As for your boringly repeated creationist canard that evolution is a 'philosophy', that too is rubbish-it would be like saying that Einsteins theory of special relativity is a philosophy or indeed any scientific theory instead evolution by natural selection is one of the strongest ideas in science and gives no indication on how to live ones life. It is noted that you are not against evolution because of science but because of your faith.

Re Post 40. I wrote: "It is more intellectually satisfying and more convincing simply to abandon the supernaturalist mythology completely and adopt a thoroughly science-based world-view instead". M Hull replied:"Not if that requires a worldview of ‘either/or’ rather than ‘both/and’."

The bad news is that science DOES require us to dump some outdated notions. The 'both/and' approach that you advocate has often proved mistaken. Ancient writers like Moses assumed that the stars and planets all revolved around the Earth. The Christian church denounced Galileo for heresy when he promoted a heliocentric model of the Solar System. However, Galileo was right and most people today agree that the heliocentric view is corrrect and the old geo-centric model is wrong.

Likewise, the discovery of micro-organisms led to a different view of illness and disease. The old view that evil spirits possessed people and made them ill was replaced by an explanation in terms of viruses, bacteria, organ malfunction, etc.

The same is true as regards evolutionary biology. Darwin's ideas have run into a lot of opposition from people who are committed to an ancient world-view which they have been taught as part of their religion. Objectively, they should accept a well-founded, evidence-based, scientific account of the origin of species, but their emotional attachment to their religion gets in the way and they end up arguing in defence of ancient notions which have passed their sell-by date.

Your random topics from the frontiers of physics and the philosophy of science seem to me to be irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to be throwing out topics like a drowning man clutching at straws: string theory, free will, quantum physics, etc.

Perhaps your argument boils down to: "We do not know everything, therefore we can believe anything, including Christian theology". I trust that the elementary illogicality of that is clear to all.

In post 42 John Wright wrote to Philip:

You appear to believe that the most important factor in a discussion of human origins is 'How does it make us feel?' rather than 'Is it true?'

Hi John:

Some thoughts given our prior agreement on these matters.....

The question of what is ‘true’ is at the heart of this matter. For example, Les Reid has invited me to drop ‘supernatural baggage’ in favor of a wholly scientific explanation for my worldview.

I am happy to do so if he can convince me that the probability of his beliefs is greater than the probablitity I hold for my own. So we will await his response to my earlier post #40.

I believe, with say a probability of 60% to put a figure on it, that the universe has a ‘creator’. That leaves a lot of doubt in my life. But lets say that this is the highest probability I can place for the formation of the universe for all of the theories I have examined. Should I not base my actions on this belief?

My son has left for work, I think there is a 60% probabality that he has arrived in his office and is at his desk but there is a 40% probability that he has not yet arrived at work.

I wish to call him at this moment - should I dial his office phone first or his mobile phone which is turned off while he is at the office? I think a rational person would call the office phone first.

The secular humanists offer a theory of the universe in terms of string theory (among others). What probability do I personally place on this theory being correct - maybe 40%. Parallel universes and multiple dimensions are a mathematical construct – there is no reality associated with them that I can see. Yet saying this I know that ‘imaginary’ things in science are needed for science to operate and to advance.

Imaginary numbers are a good example of what I am talking about. Without imaginary numbers in its vocabulary modern science would grind to a halt.

But consider this; if I have a number of objects and wish to give you some of them and you ask for three I can respond to that. But if you ask me to give you a number of objects equal to the square root of minus three there can be no response on my part. I understand completely what the square root of minus three is. Though it doesn’t exist in reality it does exist as a real ‘construct’ in my mind.

I am content with the use of imaginary concepts (parallel universes and imaginary numbers) in science and I am comfortable with similar concepts in metaphysics (God)? Secular humanists appear to be comfortable with only the former and I respect their right in that matter, limiting though that is to their participation in an intellectual discussion.

However, if I can handle the concept of God in metaphysics in the same way as I can handle the concept of square rooting imaginary numbers in physics and mathematics why should I listen to secular humanists referring to imaginary concepts in metaphysics as some kind of ‘supernatural baggage’?

When secular humanism is able to provide me with a theory of the universe, and my place in it that is more probable (as judged by my own intellectual analysis and not someone else’s) than the belief I now hold, I will move to acting in my life on that theory.

I shall remain agnostic. I shall still have doubt in my life but I shall have moved a little closer to the truth which is a belief of 100% probabality.

Maybe the secular humanists can accept this as a fully 'rational' and 'reasonable' position?

Regards,
Michael

Re Post 42.
Well said, John. I agree with you entirely. Far from being a council of despair, evolutionary biology presents us with a wonderful narrative of how all the various species on planet Earth have evolved over thousands and millions of years. It is a fascinating narrative, full of surprises, as species change and develop in the face of new threats to their existence, whether from predators, or drought, or geological change, etc.

The narrative that Darwin began is far superior to ancient Hebrew myths, in my opinion, because it encourages us to study this world and appreciate its history, rather than simply taking the assertions of Moses and his like as undeniably true.

Re #44

Les wrote Your random topics from the frontiers of physics and the philosophy of science seem to me to be irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to be throwing out topics like a drowning man clutching at straws: string theory, free will, quantum physics, etc.

I wrote post 45 before reading post 44.

Les:

I don't think I need to add anything further. This is sad. From horse and cart my response has now been relegated to that of a drowning man clutching at straws. I presume I picked up the straws in your cart?

Regards,
Michael

Michael- I appreciate your comment #45.

Ultimately I don't have a postmodern definition of 'truth'. If something is true, it is true regardless of what people believe about it. Belief has no bearing on truth. There are different degrees of knowledge, but not an iota of knowledge influences that which the knowledge is about; that will remain, regardless of what thoughts happen about it. As Don Rumsfeld once famously said:

"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."

Off the cuff, that was pretty good! Science is the discipline of observing by whatever means we can and then cataloguing things we can observe to be true. It also involves theorising on that which we don't know to be true but which may be true. In science, theories explain facts.

The theory of evolution is the theory which best explains the facts.

As you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean that we know it for sure (or, as you put it, 100%) but, IMO, it doesn't mean that we need to be 'agnostic' about evolution either. Are there degrees of agnosticism, and, if so, does that permit me to be 'agnostic' about something which, by all observable science, is extremely likely to be true? In practice I am not agnostic about whether or not a ball will drop when I let it go, even though the theory of gravity is still just a theory to explain why (in our experience) things tend to drop when you let them go.

I agree with you that humanists are wrong to refuse to deal with metaphysical discussions about the human situation. They believe that, because science has provided the best explanations of origins to date, they should not look to anything but science to explain the rest of it. I would suggest that such a belief is flawed.

Michael- I wrote you a longer response this morning but it appears to have disappeared.... I hope it will display so I don't have to rethink everything!

Why do comments keep disappearing from this blog?

Did the secular humanists erase them? ;-)

Peace,
Maureen

ummm

Re Post 48. John wrote:"I agree with you that humanists are wrong to refuse to deal with metaphysical discussions about the human situation."

You are quite mistaken, John. Humanists do not refuse to join in metaphysical discussions. For example, Daniel Dennett is a leading Humanist and a front rank philosopher. His writings cover a wide range of philosophical issues: consciousness, free will, the philosophy of science, truth, etc.

Speaking broadly, I would say that there are more leading philosophers of a Humanist outlook than of a Christian outlook, just as there are more scientists pro-Darwin than anti-Darwin. Bertrand Russell, AJ Ayer, Anthony Flew, Thomas Nagel, Sidney Hook, WV Quine ...... philosophers like those deal with all the big philosophical issues.

So metaphysics is not something that Humanists avoid.

In terms of this message board, the topic for discussion is Evolution and the issue of life after death arose directly from that. My refusal to go into a wild goose chase about quantum mechanics and string theory was based on a desire to keep to the topic under discussion and not be side-tracked into irrelevancies.

The idea has been suggested here that life after death gives meaning to life. It has been said that if life ends at the grave, then all meaning and purpose have been lost.

Not so. Extending life beyond the grave does not add meaning to it. Extending life beyond the grave merely adds years to it. It is merely an increase in quantity of years, not an increase in purpose.

People have many purposes in life. They find satisfaction in many different roles and activities: parenthood, friendship, playing the piano, making money, serving the community, etc. Most of us find things to do that give our lives a sense of purpose.

If you cannot find a purpose for your ordinary, finite life, then you will not find a purpose by imagining it extended into eternity. Adding on billions more years to your life will not provide a purpose if you cannot think of one yourself.

Re 52: Les wrote:

In terms of this message board, the topic for discussion is Evolution and the issue of life after death arose directly from that. My refusal to go into a wild goose chase about quantum mechanics and string theory was based on a desire to keep to the topic under discussion and not be side-tracked into irrelevancies.

Les: The issue of life after death is a question that should be considered from all angles, physical and metaphysical. "Physical" includes physics, chemistry in addition to the more narrower field of biology.

You are leading me to think that you know something about biology and less about quantum mechanics and how it is now being linked to metaphysics. I may be wrong but that is the belief I will now operate with until you provide me with a more probable belief.

The question that you avoid is extremely simple - If the square root of minus three 'exists' in mathematics as a non-physical construct which is critical to the understanding of many of the sciences, why do you not, as a matter of logic, permit a similar non-physical construct to exist in a study of metaphysics?

In post 45 I wrote:

When secular humanism is able to provide me with a theory of the universe, and my place in it that is more probable (as judged by my own intellectual analysis and not someone else’s) than the belief I now hold, I will move to acting in my life on that theory. Maybe the secular humanists can accept this as a fully 'rational' and 'reasonable' position?

You have failed to convince me of your position. My question remains - can you as a Secular Humanist accept that my views as expressed in this thread are fully 'rational' and 'reasonable'?

Please do me the courtesy of replying to that question.

Regards,
Michael

ps John: My definitiion of 'truth' is something that is the same for all persons, for all time, in all places. Unfortunately many science theories don't meet this test which is why I am more agnostic than you. For example, not too long ago we were convinced as scientists that light was a wave like sound and so it had to have a medium 'the ether' to carry it just like 'air' carried sound. But we were wrong.

As to a ball dropping under the influence of gravity I see your point. But consider this, I believe to an extremely high probabality that the sun will rise tomorrow but I am not 100% certain of that. Why? Because I can not guarantee that within the next 12 hours or so the sun will not suffer a thermonuclear disaster.

Re Post 53.
When we talk of life after death we are not talking about the existence of numbers. Life after death refers to persons. People want their mental states to survive the demise of their bodies. The fact that their toe-nails survive is not in question. Neither toe-nails, nor bones, nor atoms of bones, nor quanta of atoms, nor number of atoms, none of that is any use. People want their mental states to continue.

Sadly, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: at death, life comes to an end. For many people, indeed, the end is gradual, not sudden. They gradually lose their bearings in the world, forget the people they knew, lose all the skills they had and slide into dementia long before they die. The idea that their dementia continues for billions of years after they die is quite repulsive. Better to die and end it all.

David Hume put the arguments for mortality very effectively more than 200 years ago. It is sad that our education system does not teach these sensible conclusions to young people, but instead fills their heads with ancient myths of immortality.

David Hume, Of the Immortality of the Soul, 1755. (extract)

"The Physical arguments from the analogy of nature are strong for the mortality of the soul, and are really the only philosophical arguments which ought to be admitted with regard to this question, or indeed any question of fact. -- Where any two objects are so closely connected that all alterations which we have ever seen in the one, are attended with proportionable alterations in the other; we ought to conclude by all rules of analogy, that, when there are still greater alterations produced in the former, and it is totally dissolved, there follows a total dissolution of the latter. -- Sleep, a very small effect on the body, is attended with a temporary extinction, at least a great confusion in the soul. -- The weakness of the body and that of the mind in infancy are exactly proportioned, their vigour in manhood, their sympathetic disorder in sickness; their common gradual decay in old age. The step further seems unavoidable; their common dissolution in death. The last symptoms which the mind discovers are disorder, weakness, insensibility, and stupidity, the fore-runners of its annihilation. The farther progress of the same causes, increasing the same effects, totally extinguish it."

Well said, David Hume! Your words ring true to me!

Re #55

Ok, Les, let's leave it there!

You are not able to respond to the questions but thank you for another sermon, this time on David Hume.

Your response to my questions regarding quantum mechanical arguments and their relevance to metaphysics has ranged from 'cosmic conjurer', (Sunday Sequence), 'supernaturalist baggage', 'horse and cart', and 'drowning man'.

Enough!

Michael

Re Post 56.
I hope you read the extract from David Hume carefully. He really did answer that question about life after death. His comments about how the mind grows from infancy, to maturity, to senility, to annihilation, make a powerful argument from ordinary everyday experience. The mark of a great philosopher.

Re 56

Michael: Reid espouses a scientific worldview within humanism. However, it is clear he is not up to date with modern physics and particularly those discussions you mention involving quantum mechanics and the role of uncertainity in physics.

Spare me from seeing you point out that a quotation from an 18th century philosopher can not respond to a question from a 21st century physicist.

Peace,
Maureen

In post 58. Maureen McNeill wrote:

Spare me from seeing you point out that a quotation from an 18th century philosopher can not respond to a question from a 21st century physicist.

Hi Maureen – are you still lurking here? – you have been very quiet recently!

Have no fear #56 was my last comment!

Peace to you too!

Regards,
Michael

Re Post 58.
M McNeill writes that I have ignored the references to modern physics. In fact I did refer to quanta. What I said was:

"When we talk of life after death we are not talking about the existence of numbers. Life after death refers to persons. People want their mental states to survive the demise of their bodies. The fact that their toe-nails survive is not in question. Neither toe-nails, nor bones, nor atoms of bones, nor quanta of atoms, nor number of atoms, none of that is any use. People want their mental states to continue.

Sadly, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: at death, life comes to an end. For many people, indeed, the end is gradual, not sudden. They gradually lose their bearings in the world, forget the people they knew, lose all the skills they had and slide into dementia long before they die. The idea that their dementia continues for billions of years after they die is quite repulsive. Better to die and end it all."

Quanta survive, yes. Atoms survive, yes. But the central issue is whether mental states survive the death of the person. Empirical evidence regarding the gradual demise of dementia sufferers shows us that death is not necessarily a sudden on/off event. So the onus is on the supporters of life after death to explain how the FACT of gradual demise can be accommodated within a theory about survival.

Perhaps, instead of simply dismissing Hume's argument because it is old (!!!??? - it's not as old as Christian mythology!) you would address the point being made - that theories of life after death do not fit the evidence regarding gradual demise.

Mr Reid:

In following this very interesting thread as a mathematician, physicist, and theologian I was very interested in seeing you respond to 2 questions from Mr Hull which you have studiously avoided.

I have also noted your philosophical misquotes which another reader corrected you on.

I listened to your last appearance on Sunday Sequence where Will asked you about the pejorative (my word) use of the term 'cosmic conjurer'.

Since you addressed one comment to me in particular I will reply - but just one time!

Mr Hull asked if you would accept that it was a reasonable position to adopt probabality theory in choosing which belief to follow. He asked if you would accept that such a worldview was "rational and reasonable". Simple question! In my view the only possible answer you should give is 'Yes that is a rational and reasonable position'.

I suspect you refuse to accept that anyone who places a high probability on a worldview that is not humanist is "rational OR reasonable". That is arrogant thinking which leads eventually to fundamentalist thinking.

Mr Hull also asked that if he can get his mind around the existence of imaginary concepts in science (imaginary numbers, parallel universes etc) why you would not, as a matter of logic, permit a similar "non-physical construct" as he put it to be employed in a study of metaphysics.

Again you avoided the question. That was very revealing!

You asked him a series of scientific questions on his views concerning evolution which I noted that he answered directly and succintly. He put probablities on his beliefs about evolution which make it transparent what his views are.

Hull then followed up with a similar set of very interesting questions for you about parallel universes, string theory etc which you avoided with demeaning personal attacks (drowning man clutching at straws etc). That is the response that I have seen from many secular humanists when forced off their attack on religion and into a defence of scientific evidence that is raising questions about determinism, certainity, purpose etc.

All of this is evident to the readers of this blog especially those of us who are trained in both the philosophical and scientific fields. I have been watching Hull's attempts to engage you and there was some early support from Wright on the general philosophical ground I saw him staking out around you. You ran for every exit that could be found.

Hull commented at one point that your response about 'straws and drowning men' was 'sad'. I think it was beyond 'sad' it was pathetic from a person who represents the Belfast Humanists and who is invited to appear as an 'expert' on the airwaves.

This is my last comment to you on the matter. Ramble on if you feel the need.

Peace (I think)
Maureen

As the title at the top of this page shows, this discussion is about Evolution. I have argued that acceptance of Evolution is incompatible with belief in life after death. As far back as Post 25 I wrote:

"Evolutionary biology renders highly improbable any notion of life after death. Human beings are a species of primate and have a common ancestor with the other primates only a few hundred thousand years ago. Humans have no more chance of an after-life than a chimp or gorilla. Likewise, since we have a common ancestor with all the mammals further back in our history, we have no more chance of an after-life than a rat or a wolf.

Ancient myths about life after death, with heaven, hell, angels, demons and the rest, are the sort of beliefs that mark religions as belonging to a primitive understanding of the world. Those myths belong to the early history of our species and are now obsolete."

The notion that only human beings, alone in the animal kingdom, have another life after death is highly implausible. When we resemble other mammals so closely in terms of skeleton, brain, respiration, digestion, etc., it is quite improbable that death should mean the end for all of them, whereas we human beings only appear to die and secretly continue in another form. The extra helping for human beings looks very much like a piece of fiction.

This challenge to religious ideas of immortality can be given more weight by adding further empirical detail. One can ask not only whether human beings are different from all other species by virtue of being immortal, but also how and when immortality was acquired. Most people accept that the scientific account of the history of the Earth is well grounded in the evidence of the rock strata. Planet Earth has a history of many millions of years, not just the few thousand recorded in the Bible, and the various species that inhabit the planet have evolved down the millennia in order to survive the geological changes that have occurred.

Evidence of that biological evolution is seen not just in the fossil record but also in the obsolete relics found in our own bodies, eg. the appendix, toe-nails and male nipples.

The human species has changed and evolved down the millennia like every other. Our ancient ancestors were ape-like creatures which lived in caves and hunted in packs. So when did we acquire our special additive, an after-life? At which point in our evolution did we step away from the rest of the living world and achieve the special status of being immortal?

When we trace the evolutionary process back in time, back towards that common ancestor which we share with the other primates, is there a point in time where one generation of our ancestors counts as human and immortal, and the next generation counts as ape and mortal? Surely the arbitrary nature of the change makes it seem improbable. Evolution is a slow, gradual process taking millions of years. It does not readily admit an abrupt change from mortal to immortal.

Thinking about Evolution in this way, the outcome is a straight-forward choice. Either you accept the scientific account of human origins (which renders immortality completely improbable) OR you cling to religious myths which peddle fantasies about the hereafter. The latter course is the safe, cosy, conventional way to go, but I prefer to follow where reason and the evidence lead me and that is why I am a Humanist, not a Christian.