Faith Or Gullibility? 5e1i5g

Faith or Gullibility?

David Rex Holt

Copyright © 2016 by David Rex Holt.

ISBN: Softcover 978-1-5144-9619-0 eBook 978-1-5144-9620-6

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Portions of this work may be used for review or as teaching aids provided that full acknowledgement is given in spoken or written references. All hyperlinks contained herein, which may be accessed by typing the underlined word into readers’ Internet browsers, are the copyright of their owners.

“All quotations from the New International Version of the Bible are Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are ed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires permission of International Bible Society.”

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only. Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 06/07/2016

Xlibris 1-800-455-039 www.Xlibris.com.au 742740

Contents

1. An Awakening and a Paradigm Change

2. Some Personal Background

3. Why A Creator?

4. The Harmony of Nature

5. The Alternative: Atheism

6. Did the Creator Know?

7. What Does The Dictionary Say?

8. So What Is Proof and What Isn’t?

9. Some Plausible Secular Suggestions

10. Prophets

11. Spurious Evidence

12. Myths and Folk Stories

13. Myths in Religion

14. Natural Selection, Atdaptation, Mutation or Evolution?

15. The Time Factor

16. Indoctrination

17. Love and the Original Plan

18. Ulterior Motives

19. The Power of Money

20. The Lust for Immortality

21. Robots and Cyborgs

22. Good Works

23. Heaven, Hell and Judgement

24. Deism

25. The Curse of Mankind

26. Tolerance and Intolerance

27. Psychology and Philosophy

28. Religion and Politics

29. Religion and Sex

30. Some Facts (not Myths) about Snowflakes, Fingerprints, DNA and the Tardis

31. Ritual

32. You Can’t Hedge Your Bets

33. A Much Bigger Picture

34. Just a Dream

35. Why Worry?

36. Suppressed Evidence

37. So What IS The Answer?

38. JUST IMAGINE!Open your mind

Appendix A.Extra-terrestrial life

Appendix B. When Will It Be?Some Disturbing Facts—Not Myths

Appendix C.What do you REALLY think?

A Message to My Wonderful Creator

Postscript

1. An Awakening and a Paradigm Change

It is the province of knowledge to speak

And the privilege of wisdom to listen Oliver Wendell Holmes

¹ THE WORLD IS RIFE with religious deception: It’s everywhere and it’s nothing new. ² Most bizarrely, the people who adamantly agree with this statement are deeply religious people—they just say it about every other religion but their own! ³ In fact, it has been thus for thousands of years and for over seventy of them I was as much a victim as of it everyone else. Whilst that naturally saddens me, I am not angry because I’m absolutely sure that no one deliberately intended to deceive me. They were—and most still are—all equally deceived themselves— the huge problem is that they don’t even realise it. Besides, it was my own stupidity that allowed it anyway! I thank my Creator (and I use a capital C in deference to one I personally consider vastly superior to us humans) that is no longer the case. ⁴ Please understand though, that whilst this is primarily an explanation of MY present stance, if it influences anyone else’s, that would please me because it distresses me that most of humanity—and especially many of my own dearlyloved family and friends—dwell in a twenty-first century world that is still very

much governed by policies and laws the foundations of which have their roots based more on medieval superstition, mythology, pseudohistory and folk lore than on common sense, logic, rational thinking and proven scientific facts governed by the immutable laws of physics and nature. ⁵ When (and if) you think about it, this is, in itself, nothing short of ridiculous. Unfortunately though, most people never think about it at all! They just blithely go along with cultural traditions that they have never actually methodically researched or studied to establish their veracity.

Until men like Aristarchus, Magellan, Columbus, Copernicus and Galileo, most people thought the earth was flat and the centre of the universe!

However, with increased scientific enlightenment and understanding, this is inexorably changing. In scientific it has been changing since men like Aristarchus, Magellan, Columbus, Copernicus and Galileo postulated and ultimately proved—often to the ire of despotic religious leaders of their time— that the Earth is neither flat nor the centre of the universe. ⁷ Long before then though, popular fashion played a major part in dictating belief systems as explorers and travellers imported ‘new’ folk lore and traditions which, because they suited the agendas of powerful men like Constantine I of Rome (later canonised by the Roman Catholic Church) better than the status quo, displaced established cultures around the world—often by dictatorial or military force. ⁸ Sometimes those changes have happened and faded as fast as modern pop culture and sometimes they have been pitifully slow because human nature is such that when people sincerely and religiously believe something—no matter how spurious, unreasonable or outlandish—they not only tenaciously cling to it

but because nothing more plausible comes along, they find themselves under some sort of compulsion to defend it with ridiculous illogical arguments and even try to inflict it on everyone they meet (even though most of them have never actually examined any alternatives) rather than lose face by itting they were wrong or, at least, misguided. Such slow changes have been largely generational and educational whereby successive generations, upon receiving knowledge that was unavailable to their parents, realise that what their forebears happily accepted as fact no longer stands up to intelligent scrutiny, logic or, especially, physical law. ¹ That is the principle of fallibilism—the recognition that any claim justified today may need to be revised or withdrawn in the light of new evidence, new arguments and new experiences. Classic examples of this are the enlightenment mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 (above) and we will look at these and others in more detail later. ¹¹ However, one must accept and carefully understand how it is perfectly natural for people to want to share something they sincerely believe to be ‘Good News’ and beneficial with those near and dear to them. That’s what good people do! In fact, not to do so might justifiably be considered selfish. The problem is that most never actually methodically and rationally determine whether what they preach really IS good news or just good legends and folk stories. ¹² Nevertheless, traditional religious beliefs are very personal so that, whilst one person ardently believes his or her doctrine to be true, others hold totally different beliefs and, since practically none of them have any empirical evidence to their thinking (even though they may say they do), none has any right to inflict—less still, enforce their doctrines on others. Unfortunately though, many do with the result that proselytism is rife in the world. ¹³ Whilst I do not intend to follow such a dogmatic course, I am, in the interests of education, the establishment of sound common sense and logical thinking and the erasure of ignorance, happy to share my reasoning which I hope makes sense and goes some way towards those aims for no other reason than because I don’t want to live in a false dream-world dictated to by irrational superstition, pseudohistory and mythology! Whatever conclusions you draw are entirely up to you. If you choose to live that way, that’s your prerogative! All I ask is that, for God’s—or whatever you happen to call your Creator’s sake, open your mind

and, at least, read what I have written objectively. You owe it to him and to yourself. And never forget: “A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it is not open!” [Frank Zappa, 1966] ¹⁴ This study is quite long and detailed but, when it is considered that it deals with how millions of people run their lives, I believe that to simply skim the surface would be, to say the least, as irresponsible as the actions of those who proselytise irrational doctrines. I have spent hundreds of hours researching it so, for your own sake, I hope you can spare the few it will take to read it and even expand the study. ¹⁵ Therefore, if anyone wants to me about this message they can do so at [email protected]. To assist with referencing, the sections and paragraphs are numbered. Also, to assist readers with more in-depth study, appropriate hyperlinks (underlined), which I strongly encourage you to study or watch, are included. A word of warning: If you decide to follow this advice, you may find yourself on a long voyage of discovery and enlightenment but then, when it is considered that we are talking about your very existence, I guess the importance of enlightenment is up to you. Sadly, some people just don’t care but I hope you aren’t one of them! ¹ As I have studied various scriptures over the years and, in particular, some of the incredible (a word meaning “not provable” by the way) stories they contain I have become increasingly vexed by one particular question. ¹⁷ What’s more, this has only been exacerbated (rather than alleviated) by religious literature that has been part of my ongoing studies. ¹ That key question is,

“What is the difference between faith and gullibility?”

2. Some Personal Background

¹ For those that don’t know me all that well, before going any further, perhaps a little of my background will help to endorse my credibility. ² I was born in 1942 to a Christian mother—although I should say that her Christianity was really only a result of the very diverse British culture she was born into and certainly not as a result of any personal research of world religions or rational choice. However, I do that when I was quite young she made a diligent search amongst a number of different Christian denominations for what she called “truth” whereby she—and thus I, as her child—ended up back where she started at the Anglican Church. She died, aged 55, in 1971. My father, a chemist, was, as far as I could tell, basically an atheist who followed Christianity to placate my Mum. ³ Thus, to greater and lesser extents, for most of my life, I considered myself a Christian (if, indeed, I actually thought about it at all)—although I was certainly not actively involved all that time. The more I contemplate why I ever went to churches in the first place (including several other denominations before ultimately attending the Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1996), the more I realize that all I was doing was following a tradition initially instilled into me as part of my upbringing in what is popularly referred to as “Western Christian Society.” ⁴ In clinical tests, my vocabulary has been found to be two-and-a-half-times average and my IQ has been rated by Mensa in the 99th percentile at 161. I also possess two university degrees (neither of which have anything to do with theology) so no one could accuse me of being an idiot (although I am well aware that the demarcation between genius and idiot is a very fine line!). ⁵ Thus, as a child I was schooled in a doctrine whereby, regardless of where they live and thus, which religion they follow, much of humanity has concluded that there must be some ‘power’ or ‘authority’—often referred to as a ‘deity’—higher than themselves that created them. I still hold that view.

3. Why A Creator?

¹ I should explain, however, that the reason I still hold that view is based more on logical reasoning than on any legends, myths or folk-lore because, with all his scientific advancement, mankind has not (yet) been able to produce anything remotely approaching the astounding power and ability of the human brain, an amazing micro-computer weighing only about 1.5 kgs that makes split-second decisions, based not merely on logic—that’s easy to replicate—but, much more significantly, on illogical emotion where two people in identical situations make different ones—and all contained in a small space the size of a human head and fuelled by oxygen! ² Furthermore, man has yet to create self-sustaining and self-replicating life from totally inorganic raw materials. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, to believe in some sort of chemical spontaneous appearance of such a sophisticated entity as humanity, requires more faith than to believe that there must have been some demiurge greater than humanity that conceived and made it.

DID GOD CREATE MAN?

OR DID MAN CREATE GOD?

³ From this statement it is evident that faith can be defined as a profound belief in a concept for which there is no purely logical explanation or endorsement. Nevertheless, it is my personal contention that the human brain does constitute empirical evidence of a creator (although, when one sees the things some people believe, one has to wonder!).

⁴ Let me stress though, that the reasoning I explain in this thesis is mine and mine alone and, as I say in my message at the end of it, I have neither the right or desire to inflict or enforce it on anyone who disagrees with the rationale provided. All I ask is that you read it with an open mind and don’t allow traditional indoctrination to hinder you. ⁵ Anti-creationists propound theories whereby, in the primordial Earth, stagnant ponds containing a soup of amino acids were struck by lightning and the massive electrical action on them produced primitive life forms which eventually evolved into the plethora of species we know today. If that were true, why isn’t it still happening? The amino acids are still here and somewhere around the world there are about fifty lightning strikes every second (that’s over six million a day!). Furthermore, why haven’t scientists been able to replicate the process in controlled laboratory environments? All this brings to mind the age-old conundrum, “Did God create man or did man create God?” ⁷ Actually, the answer is “yes” to both concepts. This is to say that, whilst, in my opinion, man (along with everything else that naturally exists) WAS definitely created as opposed to just randomly happened—that is, they are the products of some superior entity’s inventiveness and artistry—WHO that superior entity is or was is actually unknown and, therefore, to satisfy (some) people’s fanciful ‘need to know,’ many have been dreamed up (created) by different cultures around the world over the ages of recorded history and legend. ⁸ The brilliant physicist, Stephen Hawking entitled his TV series on the origins of the Universe, “The Grand Design” thus implying that even he, an out-and-out atheist, acknowledges that there was a design and therefore, by extension, a designer. Gotcha Steve! Noted Mesoamerican archaeoastronomer Dr. Anthony Aveni summed it up most succinctly: “Unable to find spiritual answers to life’s big questions within ourselves, we turn outward to imagined entities that lie far off in space or time— entities that just might be in possession of superior knowledge.” [‘The End of Time: The Maya Ministry of 2012.’ University Press, Colorado, 2009.] ¹ Technically, Aveni’s description of creative entities as ‘imagined’ is correct although, as I have written, creation itself does constitute compelling evidence to

a concept of intelligent design, planning and execution. And, of course, one of the attributes the Great Creator gave to humanity was imagination! ¹¹ And in 1979, the late Dr Carl Sagan wrote, “I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.” [Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science. Ballantine Books, New York: p.330] ¹² As an ardent irer of Dr Sagan I fully endorse his statement that it would, indeed, be absolute madness to deny the existence of physical laws and, therefore, any proposal that contradicts those laws MUST be regarded with suspicion and scepticism. ¹³ Another rather compelling mathematical suggestion that purposeful design was a factor in creation is what is known as The Golden Ratio (expressed by the Greek letter phi—φ) in which a ratio of 1.618 is found in numerous natural situations that should, on the face of it, be totally random. ¹⁴ Before mankind tried to imagine an anthropomorphic deity, the sun was a natural focus of worship because it didn’t take long for humans to realise that, without the bright, glorious sun, life was impossible and so it was perfectly natural for them to view it with reverence. ¹⁵ Nevertheless, as knowledge increased, the concept of a Creator eventually became more human in character as that was easier to relate to than a ball of glowing gas so that various entities emerged in different parts of the world. ¹ In English, the popular generic term for those various creative entities is “god” and, in most cases, for purposes of specification and identification they were given names—Ahura Mazda, Allah, Amun, Baal, Baiame, Brahma, El, Hashem, Jehovah, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Shiva, Thor, Zeus, and, of course, God—with a capital G, to name but a few.

Unable to find spiritual answers to life’s big questions

within ourselves, we turn outward to imagined entities that lie far off in space or time… Aveni, 2009

¹⁷ Some have been unique (monotheistic) whilst others have been multiplicities (polytheistic) whereby different gods had specific responsibilities for different facets of nature or human activity (Mars, Prometheus, Ceres, Eros, etc.). Many cultures had an individual god for every conceivable aspect of daily life and nature. The ancient Greeks had well over 500 deities and other figures that ruled their lives and philosophy and the Roman Pantheonjust as many. As one Hindu guru wrote, “If you want to follow a religion where you get to worship any god you like, come to Hinduism” and a basic Hindu maxim says, “Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti” (There is only one truth, only men describe it in different ways). ¹⁸ Traditions from one culture have often been ‘imported’ into other cultures without even being noticed by the majority of followers. For example, in the English-speaking Christian culture, the word ‘Easter’—replacing the original name Pesach (Hebrew for ‘over’, the Jewish festival day on which Christians believe that Jesus was crucified)— is actually derived from the ancient Indo-European dawn goddess, Eastre and, interestingly, the Babylonian goddess of fertility, Ishtar, whose festival fell in the northern spring, is thought to have inspired all the rabbits and eggs popularly associated with the Christian festival. ¹ Also, the days of the week are named in English after gods from Roman, Old English and Norse cultures. ² Often, objects have been appropriated to represent or symbolise gods (effigies, totems, animals and imaginary creatures; for example) and thus become focal points of worship. This is also true of most Christian denominations where they habitually bow down to crosses and statues of various Bible characters even though their very own Bible condemns it in the third commandment [Exodus 20:4, 5].

²¹ In the primitive world, natural phenomena such as thunder and lightning, eclipses, volcanoes and earthquakes have also been attributed to godly activity— in particular, expressions of godly wrath whilst rain, sunshine and fertility were expressions of godly providence. ²² In every case, however, gods have always been objects of reverence and/or fear whose devotees make obeisance to them. That obeisance varies from simple verbal worship to highly orchestrated rituals and sometimes the sacrifice of treasured possessions including even human lives (children, virgins, etc.). ²³ In many cases, the sacrifice of human life has not necessarily involved death but a total abstinence from the basic pleasures of daily living (ascetics, monks and nuns, celibate priests, etc.—a sort of ‘living death,’ if you will). In many instances, the latter might well be worse than the former were it not for the masochists and recluses amongst us! ²⁴ My point though, is that I readily it that I have absolutely no idea who (or what) the higher creative power or authority is or was. Furthermore, and much more importantly, I accept in my own mind that I don’t really need to know who he, she or it is or was. That he IS is more than sufficient! ²⁵ As a rationalist, some may say, radical philosophical thinker, this makes me, by definition, what is often referred to as a Deist typified as one who believes in a creative deity based on compelling (if not empirical) evidence and, later, I will address this in more detail. ² Given my upbringing and education, my conclusions have not been reached frivolously. In fact, they are the fruits of much agonising soul-searching and study. As a result of this study, I am probably more familiar with The Bible than most people claiming to be Christians (in itself; a disturbing statistic but not the topic of this study). In practice, this doesn’t make for any sort of credential for Christianity even though it should. ²⁷ Simply knowing the periodic table, for example, doesn’t make a person a Nobel prize-winning chemist—all it means is that he knows the basics for subsequent theories and formulae! In the same way, knowing Scripture doesn’t automatically make a person a believer in its contents even though it may allow them to speak authoritatively about them. ²⁸ However, professing to be a Christian and NOT knowing—or blatantly

altering or ignoring (ref: para. 20 above) what I have erroneously referred to in the past as “The Human Being Manufacturer’s Handbook”—The Bible—has to place that profession into serious question. Would a person needing heart surgery entrust it to someone who hasn’t thoroughly studied the subject? I doubt it! Yet, with their spiritual health, many people do it without question every day of the week! ² People who have a desire to become ministers of religion usually go off to the theological college d with their particular denomination or sect where they spend several years being brainwashed by their previously brainwashed tutors to the point where they sincerely believe that what they’ve been taught is the absolute truth and nothing but the truth. ³ One only has to examine the doctrines of different Christian denominations and compare them with each other and more importantly, as just illustrated, with biblical teaching to see how erroneous they are and to realise that, in many cases, they are the products of fanciful and, unfortunately, political agendas. ³¹ A classic example of this can be found in no less a place than the Roman Catholic Church—the biggest and richest single denomination of (nominal) Christianity in the world—where the church’s teachings are so far removed from the teachings of the scripture it professes to follow that it is hard to understand how they can even call themselves ‘Christian’ at all and the almost pandemic paedophilia of its clergy is only a testimony to its absolute depravity. ³² Another is The Exclusive Brethren which, far from promoting a Christian doctrine of loving fellowship, it is an elitist cult that splits families and can only be described as one of the most absolutely evil organisations on Earth. ³³ The only reason I became aligned with the Seventh Day Adventist Church when I was a practising Christian was because, of all the denominations I encountered, that was by far the truest to biblical precepts. So, in my humble opinion, for what it’s worth, if you believe The Bible to be factual and not just an anthology of Hebrew folk lore, that’s where you should be! At least you’ll be honest!

4. The Harmony of Nature

¹ Before moving on, please watch this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI. (Maximise to full screen and, if you want to, skip the ads and watch the follow-ups—I recommend it. You may be gone for quite a while but don’t worry, this will still be here when you get back.) ² If we contemplate the perfect harmony of the environment we live in, it is difficult to imagine how that could be possible without some sort of planning and execution so I will make my case for the affirmative and you, my reader, can be a juror. ³ Starting with the sun, a gigantic ball of continuous hydrogen gas nuclear fusion that emits radiation, including heat and light which, as with all radiation, under the inverse square law, diminishes as the distance from its source increases so that the Earth orbits it at precisely the ideal distance to provide an ecosphere suitable to life as we know it. This is known as the Circumstellar Habitable Zone (CHZ) and every star has one.

HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF OUR DAYS AND NIGHTS WERE FOUR TIMES AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOW?

⁴ However, in addition to heat and visible light (which, incidentally only represents about one trillionth of all radiation), the sun also emits numerous other types (gamma rays, ultra-violet light, x-rays and radio waves, etc.) that, if unfiltered, would preclude life and so the Earth is protected by an excellent and very precisely balanced atmosphere of different gases which filter out excesses

of some solar radiation whilst allowing others through in just the right proportions to ensure a life-ing environment. The ultra-fine-tuning of this has become increasingly evident as burgeoning human industry has emitted hydrocarbon ‘greenhouse gases’ that, even though produced in relatively minute quantities on a global scale, have altered the finely tuned balance to a point where surface temperatures are slowly increasing in what we know as “global warming.” ⁵ Then the Earth revolves on an axis that is inclined in relation to its orbit around the sun—again, at precisely the ideal speed and angle. If, for example, Planet Earth revolved on its axis at, say, a quarter of the speed that it does, that wouldn’t make any difference to its orbit around the sun but what it would mean is that a year would only be 91 days long (with a leap year every 3 years) and, instead of seasonally variable amounts of daylight and darkness every 24 hours in temperate and tropical zones, there would be roughly 42 hours of sunshine followed by 6 hours of dusk and 42 hours of darkness and then 6 hours of dawn. This, in turn, would mean that the sun’s heat would build up over about 36 hours (rather than 8) following sunrise—by which time most of life on Earth (and certainly humans) would perish unless they retreated to subterranean airconditioned shelters. ⁷ Then, after the sun set each 96-hour cycle, the temperature would continue to drop to well below freezing and conditions in tropical and temperate zones would be like they are now at the poles except that, due to the extreme oblique angle of the sun at the poles, it is nowhere near as extreme in summer. ⁸ Furthermore, if days were much longer, a lot more water would be evaporated from the world’s oceans during the four-times-longer days so that the earth’s cloud cover would be so dense that it would end up blocking out all sunlight and the whole ecosystem would collapse with devastating storms causing flooding and destruction such as mankind has never witnessed. Also, all photosynthesis would cease and plant life would have to adapt (evolve) or die. If such a time scale did exist, then, as a measurement of time, a day would still be 24 hours long but an hour would be four times longer than it is now. ¹ To explain this, when we speak about the rotation of other planets in our solar system, we typically say, for example, that a day on Jupiter, the solar system’s

largest planet, is only 10 Earth hours long and therefore, since Jupiter is just over eleven times the diameter of Earth, if a person could stand on the surface (which isn’t actually possible because Jupiter is gas, not solid), they would be moving around the planet’s centre at about 25 times the speed of a person standing on Earth. ¹¹ So did a Creator determine the ideal speed of rotation for the earth or was it just lucky? ¹² The next factor to consider is gravity which is determined by the mass of a planet or satellite. If Earth’s gravity was much more than it is, animals (including humans) would need to be more muscular to be able to move around freely as they would all weigh more. By the same token, if gravity was considerably less —as on the Moon where a person weighs only a sixth what they do on Earth—a person can jump much higher because our physique is tuned to Earth’s gravity so that the smaller gravity has the apparent effect of making him weigh less and, if Earth’s mass, and thus its gravity was extremely small, things would just float away into space with the slightest push. If this doesn’t make sense to you, just think about how you can sense when you’re walking up a hill with only a three percent slope. ¹³ With less gravity it could, for example, be possible to change a wheel on your car whilst someone just holds the car up in their hands but the down side of that would be hitting a bump in the road whilst driving along and not coming down for quite some distance so that, if it happened on a bend, you would end up in a field or someone’s garden or, even worse, their house. So it is easy to see how Earth’s gravity is just right. ¹⁴ Was that planned or did it just happen? ¹⁵ Then there’s the time it takes for the Earth to make one complete orbit around the energy-giving sun and why our planet is ‘tipped’ 23.4 degrees off perpendicular? This axial tilt is what gives the Earth its seasons so that plants in temperate zones are able to ‘rest’ between periods of foliage and fruit production. Again, the time this takes ensures that the time between harvests is optimum for storing perishable crops so that we have fresh ones in due time. Furthermore, harvest is at the end of summer so that, before refrigeration was invented, storage for crops was in the cooler season thus minimising rot.

¹ Could that have been planned—or did it just happen by chance? ¹⁷ The atmosphere itself is another example of finely-balanced precision where the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life is, yet again, very precisely tuned. When animals (including humans) breathe the earth’s atmosphere, they use up its oxygen content to stay alive and exhale carbon dioxide. However, plants use carbon dioxide to live—converting carbon to tissue —whilst discharging oxygen to replenish the atmospheric balance. ¹⁸ As humanity has increasingly cut down huge areas of forest around the globe for fuel, construction and paper-making etc., the ratios have become imbalanced from what they have been for billions of years which also contributes to upward changes in global temperatures and desertification. ¹ As the sun warms the surface of our planet, it evaporates water from it— leaving all salts and other minerals and pollutants behind in a sort of distillation process and solar-powered winds drive that water around the globe as clouds. At any given time over 12 trillion (12,000,000,000,000) tonnes of water are suspended in Earth’s atmosphere. When these clouds come into collision with high mountain ranges, they are forced upward to where the air is cooler which causes them precipitate the water as rain and snow. Pure mountain water then cascades in spectacular waterfalls and flows as great rivers across the surrounding valleys and plains to nourish the land and provide essential fresh drinking water for plants and animals. ² The proportion of Earth’s surface between water and land is about 73%. As water stores heat much better than land, the vast oceans maintain a much better equilibrium that would be less possible if the ratio was different. Even now, very large land-masses where there are no rivers ing through them are arid deserts and, if the continents were even bigger, this would be yet more evident. ²¹ Why do plants produce more seeds than are required to maintain their species? Well, if they didn’t, what would animals eat? Therefore, plants produce an abundance of fruits which contain seeds so that many animals—and particularly birds—eat the fruit but the seeds undigested through their alimentary tracts and drop them far and wide —complete with a package of fertiliser—thus ensuring that the plants spread across the land and future generations are fed and nourished.

²² The amazing variety of flowers and blossoms in all their vivid colours and instantly recognisable perfumes are (maybe contrary to a lot of women’s beliefs) not there to please humans. Throughout nature there are multitudes of insects and other creatures that are attracted—often exclusively—by those colours and perfumes because they instinctively know or have learned that the particular flower that has that colour and aroma also contains a nectar that is their main or even only food and the only reason that the plant produces that nectar is so that the creature needing it will visit because, when they do, they also pick up pollen (the male reproductive cell) from the flowers’ stamens (male reproductive organs) when it sticks to their bodies and legs and transfer it to the stigma (female receptor) from whence it fertilises the ovules (female reproductive cells). Thus the symbiosis between plant and animal ensures that both continue in a harmonious relationship where the animal gets fed in return for doing the work of fertilisation. And people wonder why their flowers die when they spray insecticides! ²³ Plants also contain chemicals that are produced as self-protection against parasites and other harmful attacks but, throughout history and beyond, mankind has discovered that those same chemicals can be used to effectively treat all manner of diseases and infirmities in humans and other animals. ²⁴ The Chinese and other ancient civilisations have known of these curative properties for thousands of years and used them—albeit randomly (medically speaking)—with varying degrees of success. It is almost unfortunate that modern governments, in what might be deemed over-diligence for safety, now require scientific testing and proving—often lasting many years whilst sufferers continue to die—before allowing refined natural cures to be released for general use where simply chewing a few leaves or roots would have worked just as well. Diseases are often caused by mutations of viruses that mercilessly attack and feed on animal cells so that, if left untreated, victims suffer and die.

HOW MANY COINCIDENCES DOES IT TAKE TO INDICATE A PLAN?

²⁵ Was there a Creator of the Universe who, knowing that this could and would happen, provided biological cures in advance or is it just coincidence that those cures are right there in our gardens and woodlands? ² Another amazing characteristic of living organisms is learned immunity. It had been observed for well over two thousand years and some crude—albeit successful—applications such as drinking the blood of animals known to be immune to toxic snake bites resulting in human immunity to the venom. ²⁷ One of the earliest observed instances of acquired immunity was by the Greek historian Thucydides during the Athenian plague epidemic of 430 BCE when he noticed that people who had had the plague and recovered were subsequently immune from further infection. What he didn’t realise was that deliberate infection with a milder non-fatal form of the disease would create immunity for anyone who had not had it. This was only relatively recently discovered and actively applied scientifically by English physician and scientist, Edward Jenner and others in 1798. ²⁸ By comparison with mental learning, learned immunity is a completely involuntary process of living organisms that has been going on since the beginning of time and, where certain species were, for one reason or another, unable to learn it, those species ultimately mutated or became extinct. ² Was that a collateral risk planned for by a Creator, was it a necessary sacrifice for the greater benefit of Planet Earth or is it a valid reason to doubt the existence of a Creator? ³ That, along with the questions in paragraphs 11, 14, 16, and 25, are questions only YOU can answer for yourself and will, of course, determine whether you are a creationist, an atheist or an agnostic. ³¹ This, then, raises the question, “What, exactly, are atheists and agnostics?” and, to quote Sagan again, “An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God.” although he goes on to say, “I know of no such compelling evidence.” This is just as true as its antithesis which makes either a matter of choice alone and identifies Sagan as an agnostic—a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause as God and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

³² But there’s more evidence. In addition to harmful viruses and bacteria there are some organisms without which humans could not exist. Certain bacteria called probiotics are essential for digestion of food and the processing of body wastes and many other bodily functions. Biologist Cameron Currie has said, “Our bodies have hundreds or even thousands of species of symbiotic microbes inside them and we could not survive without their beneficial effects.” ³³ One prominent bacteria is Lactobacillus which, in particular, creates a lactic acid environment in which other bacteria harmful to living cells cannot exist. It is present in many fermentation processes such as yoghurt, cheese, wine and beer, all of which, in appropriate quantities are beneficial to our health. Without a living body to dwell in, these bacteria would not survive and, without them, we would not survive. For this symbiosis to work, it had to be in place from the very beginning so, did that just happen or was it planned? ³⁴ People say that farming was a human ‘invention’ whereby mankind realised that he could manipulate his environment to ensure better productivity but that is actually not true. Ants have been actively ‘farming’ for millions of years where they collect a particular genus of fungus which is their only food and propagate it in special chambers in their nests where they feed it with detritus collected from their surroundings, water, mulch and weed it. Their ‘farms’ are immaculately well-kept and the quality of their food source would more than satisfy any human health and safety inspector. ³⁵ Mankind has built many machines—especially since the advent of the industrial revolution—but all those machines have to be repaired when they break. Not so living organisms. If animals break a bone or tear their outer casing (skin), they are capable of repairing themselves. Is that evidence that we had a designer who knew something we still don’t? ³ Whilst all this harmony might seem to point towards a planned creation, we need to that, in the vastness of the known cosmos, the mathematical odds of there being another planet just like the Earth are at least 10²⁴:1 (that’s one in a sextillion!) so, if you can accept those odds, maybe you qualify to be an atheist. However, if you look at this a different way, it also means that, out of a possible sextillion planets out there, there is at least one that is exactly like Earth. (See Appendix 1 for more detail on this.) ³⁷ All these—and many more—examples of the amazing harmony of nature on

our planet home speak eloquently to me of a Creator’s awesome knowledge and artistry and I just cannot imagine such harmony as occurring spontaneously. His idea of beauty is the same as mine and not a day goes by where I am not thankful for his provision for our sustenance and enjoyment. And ALL made without breaking one of the immutable laws of physics! For me, this IS empirical evidence! ³⁸ http://www.conservation.org/nature-is-speaking/Pages/default.aspx are some more videos to make you think.

5. The Alternative: Atheism

¹ Having looked at the harmony of nature and its of creationism, it is only fair that we also briefly examine the alternative where, rather than postulating an organised harmony planned in advance, the conditions on Planet Earth—the harmony in which life as we know it could develop as described in the previous section—simply existed as a result of creation so that life inevitably prospered. ² In other words, when life first came into being on this planet, (maybe as the result of pools of amino acids being struck by lightning) it found itself in an environment where it was able to flourish and took advantage of that and, over billions of years developed (see section 14) to the point of sophistication we now take for granted whilst, elsewhere in the universe, where those conditions were non-existent, life just died out or never even got started. ³ This is, of course, an atheist viewpoint and, whilst I don’t personally it, I believe that it is plausible enough to warrant inclusion in this study so that readers can form their own conclusions. ⁴ I will use only proven statistics to illustrate the atheist rationale. ⁵ Astronomers have already established that there are up to four hundred billion (that’s 400,000,000,000!) stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone and hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the universe and those figures can only increase as knowledge advances. This means that there are at least 10²⁴ (that’s a 1 followed by 24 zeros) stars in the known universe and it isn’t unrealistic to presume that many, if not all of them have planetary systems like our Sun’s—and already some 3000 exoplanets have been discovered since the first was confirmed as recently as 2003. These almost-unimaginable numbers could mean that there are so many planets —of which Earth is just one—out there in the cosmos so that the likelihood of there being at least a few with an environment suited to ing life must be extremely high even when all the combinations detailed in the previous section are taken into .

⁷ Having recognised such a possibility, it must also be acknowledged that different conditions of which we have absolutely no knowledge could exist elsewhere in space in which totally different life forms are flourishing and making postulations just like this one and this is examined in greater depth in Appendix B at the end of this study. ⁸ So, if this random-chance scenario seems more plausible to you than a planned creation, you are an atheist and, much as your family and friends may disagree with you, there is nothing they can do to prove their beliefs any more than you can do to prove yours. I would, however, give you the credit of having considered all the alternatives and respect your decision since it is every bit as valid as mine—whether religious people agree or not! Here’s a thought for you though: Given that it has taken about a billion years for humanity (along with all other life) to get where we are now, where will we be in another billion?

6. Did the Creator Know?

¹ We have already looked at the harmony of nature which clearly suggests that the Great Creator had a very complete and comprehensive knowledge of the laws of physics including such things as possible ‘future developments’ within those laws further down the track (which we will examine in more detail in section 14). ² So the question must follow: Did the Creator know the future of everything including what humanity would do with the self-determination we were given? The evidence we see every day would seem to suggest a resounding “No!” Why do I say this? Please bear with me and I will endeavor to answer that in a moment.

DOES OUR CREATOR ENJOY WATCHING US FIGHT OVER WHO WE THINK HE IS?

³ In Biblical language, another way of asking that question would be, “Is our Creator omniscient?” However, that word omniscient can be interpreted in two quite different ways. Literally, it comes from the Latin meaning “all knowing” which suggests that anyone who is omniscient knows everything there is to know which, since it hasn’t yet happened, cannot logically include the future. To put this another way, whist we know it’s coming, the future doesn’t actually exist yet and so there is nothing to know. ⁴ Whichever way you choose to deal with this conundrum, it leaves a key aspect of life that is difficult to rationalise when considering the Creator’s work. That is: Did he know, when he made humans, that they would form vastly differing ideas of who their Creator might be and that those different ideas would result in all the fundamentalist sectarian disputes that are rife in the world today?

⁵ I can’t speak for anyone else but, unless our Creator enjoys watching his premier creation argue and fight to the point of sectarian violence and destruction, to me, that suggestion is totally inconceivable. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if that were, indeed, what my Creator is like, I wouldn’t want to know him! Furthermore, I doubt very much whether anyone else would want to know him either! Would you? So, on the assumption that the Great Creator didn’t make humans like toys for some sort of sadistic ‘entertainment’ whereby he wanted to see just how opinionated, brutal and sadistic his creation could be, what are the alternative possibilities? ⁷ Could it be that he simply did not know what would happen when he gave mankind freedom of choice? Please pause and think about this conundrum in all its alternative possibilities—and you may well think of some that I haven’t—and figure out which makes the most sense to you. ⁸ As I say, I personally find it very difficult to imagine the former which, therefore, leaves the latter which, in turn, means that we are forced to consider the premise that the Creator could make mistakes and that suggestion will, I have no doubt, leave a lot of religious people either very bewildered or very angry. My point is, though, that whichever alternative is true, neither are acceptable to religious people who believe that omniscient knowledge includes the future. So what is their answer and, more to the point, if you are one of them, what is YOUR answer? ¹ OK, to be fair, there is another answer that is actually quite acceptable and that is, quite simply, “I don’t know!” ¹¹ Unfortunately though, in my experience, a lot of religious people—especially professional ministers—are very reluctant to it that and so they either avoid the question or concoct all sorts of very spurious and irrational arguments in attempts to justify their doctrines to the point where rational people just dismiss them. ¹² One of those arguments is that no one knows the mind of the Creator (although, in much of their preaching, they spend most of their time endeavouring to explain it!). Of course no one knows the Great Creator’s mind! Most of them don’t even know their own minds so that, when confronted by

difficult questions in life, they run for cover! ¹³ The question, “Did our Creator know?” is a valid one and, as his supreme creation, we surely have a right to wonder (if not ask). One of the many wonderful gifts our Creator gave to us when he made us was intellect. Why did he do that? ¹⁴ Well, if we accept the principle that he didn’t do anything just on a whim, it must, therefore, follow that we were given intellect to be used. As I’m sure you’ll agree, intelligent use of intellect is greatly preferable to just guessing or surmising. But intelligence is the sagacious application of knowledge so how can we intelligently make intellectual deductions when we have no knowledge? And, whether you believe it or not, we have absolutely no knowledge of our Creator or creation. All we have are myths and folk stories that, when studied intellectually, have very little substance or common sense. ¹⁵ Were we the only animal that was made with intellect? Whilst it is only a personal opinion, I believe that we were—which is why I have referred to humans as the Creator’s ultimate or premier creation. However, you are quite entitled to disagree. ¹ Nevertheless, a person can be as intellectual as he likes and still never be able to fathom the answers to all of life’s deepest questions. Unfortunately, history has shown that not many religious enthusiasts are very intellectual. If asked why the Creator made the universe, they either cannot answer or, in some sort of attempt at a justification of their doctrines, they will tell you that he did it as an act of love. ¹⁷ If you think about that in all its full ramifications, it is ridiculous. Love is NOT a creative motivating force—it is the result of that force. For example, because I like (not love) steam trains, I might build (create) a model railway and someone could say that I did that as an act of love. However, the prototype that I liked and modelled was already in existence but, in the case of the universe, nothing was in existence to either like or love! Any love that the Creator has for his product had to come after his work was done when he could see and appreciate his handiwork. ¹⁸ Please read the previous paragraph again.

RELIGIONS TEACH THAT GOD LOVES HUMANITY BUT

HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS? AND, MORE TO THE POINT,

WOULD YOU IF YOU WERE HIM?

¹ As I wrote earlier in section 3, one of the most compelling aspects for believing in a planned creation rather than a random occurrence, is the human brain which works on illogical stimuli and so it is reasonable to suggest that even its Creator could not know in advance what decisions it would make. I have no doubt that the Creator would have known what decisions it could make and how drastic they could be, and, possibly in spite of that, decided to make it anyway. Does that mean that our Creator was prepared to take calculated risks when making mankind? It would seem that the most obvious answer to that is “Yes it does.” ² This brings me to the here and now. Having made the universe—and, in particular, us—our Creator now loves his creation. But does that mean he is satisfied with it? Well, YOU answer that question for yourself! Just try to imagine yourself as the creator of this world and, to revert to what I wrote in paragraphs 4 and 5, the answer must surely be a resounding “No!” ²¹ It is like a parent who loves their child unconditionally. If that child grows up to be a murderer or a pedophile, does the parent stop loving him? Well, in some cases he does to the point where he feels guilty for producing such an evil. But, in many instances, the parent of a psychopathic criminal cannot simply turn off their love for their own flesh and blood and, as a result of their child’s actions, spend their lives in abject misery. ²² Different religions propound different theories that do, in fact, agree with the idea that the Creator is not happy with the way his creation has turned out (which tends to put their suggestion that he is omniscient into some question— but I won’t dwell on that!) and, in various efforts to “fix” the problem, they have

come up with some wonderful ideas whereby it will be solved. The Christian idea that God sent his own son to pay for all of humanity’s errors is but one of those theories that makes for a good story. ²³ However, if that were true, why has the plan not been brought to a summary conclusion? The very fact that it hasn’t points directly back to the unacceptable idea that God enjoys watching his creation suffer! ²⁴ So, on the presumption that is not the case, did he know what his supreme creation would do or not? The answer must surely be that he didn’t because, if he had known, he wouldn’t have made us in the first place! ²⁵ Personally, I find this actually quite comforting because, for me, it makes my Creator more ‘human’ or, to give that a better connotation, it makes him much more ‘relateable.’ It suggests that he can, indeed, make regrettable mistakes— and the Judeo-Christian Bible openly says that in Genesis 6:6. However, given his amazing creative capabilities, it is not unreasonable to suggest that God can just as easily fix his mistakes. ² But that brings us back to the love aspect, doesn’t it? If, as our Creator, the God of the Bible truly loves us (and, in spite of what some of us do, I believe that he still does—although it often amazes me), how can he simply destroy us? The simple answer for me is that he can’t and, as a result of that conundrum, we are stuck with what WE have made of our lives—and an awful lot of everything that is wrong and painful in this world is the result of religious supremist beliefs whereby one religion cannot tolerate another! ²⁷ It therefore follows that the only ones who can fix the state Planet Earth is in are US and my most ardent prayer is that we will! In the meantime, I imagine our Great Creator is filled with anguish at what he sees. ²⁸ Here’s another short http://www.hefty.co/end-of-the-world/ and, before you judge Richard Williams—AKA rapper, Prince Ea—on his appearance you should know that he also happens to have an anthropology degree. Listen to what he says and then watch some more of his videos.

7. What Does The Dictionary Say?

¹ Before embarking on a detailed debate of questions of faith and gullibility it would seem both appropriate and prudent to be absolutely clear on the actual meanings of the words comprising them and since I am writing this in the English language, where better to look than the Oxford English Dictionary? For the sake of brevity, I have used the Concise Edition but you can use the online version for convenience.

IF THERE IS NO PROOF HOW CAN THERE BE AUTHORITY?

² Faith (noun): a. Reliance on or trust in; belief founded on authority. b. (Theological) Belief in religious doctrines, esp. such as affects character and conduct, spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof; system of religious belief. c. Promise, engagement; (observance of) duty to fulfil trust, promise, etc. ³ There is only one definition for gullible (adjective): Easily cheated or deceived; hence gullibility (noun), a propensity to be gullible. ⁴ It is the second definition of faith that specifically refers to religion and I have underlined what I believe is the crucial aspect where “divine truth apart from

proof” is the authority referred to in the first definition. This paradox concerns me because, if there is no proof, how can there be authority? ⁵ It must therefore follow, if a person accords authority to something for which there is no proof, he is, according to the dictionary definition, gullible since, without proof, deception must be possible and eminently probable. I believe that some clarification of these words is also needed though. ⁷ Truth (noun). The dictionary definition for truth is quite long and detailed but, summed up, can be simply explained as “That which is true.” True (adjective) also has a very long list of no less than 11 definitions. Some of these refer to physical parameters (such as true vertical, true bearing, true north etc.), states of mind (true love etc.,) and are not, therefore, relevant here. In the context of this study, true is defined: In accordance with fact or reality, not false or erroneous, be realised in fact. In accordance with reason or correct principles or accepted standard, rightly so called, genuine, not spurious or hybrid or counterfeit or merely apparent. (Again, I have underlined the relevant portions.) ⁸ A rather more cynical suggestion states that “truth can be defined as ‘that which you can make other people believe’ and the methodology for creating that belief is repetition. Say something enough times and it becomes, for millions of people, ‘the truth.’” [Chuck Lorre, American satirist. 2008] And that, dear reader, is exactly what organised religions have been doing for thousands of years, which is why each and every one of us must use whatever resources we have at our disposal to learn and disseminate the real truth.” There can only ever be ONE real truth. The numerous religious organisations around the world all claim to preach and teach truth but, when you know the meaning of the word, only one of them can possibly be right and, much more likely, none of them! Their claims are arrogant and audacious to say the least! ¹ It is, therefore, obvious that for something to be really true it must be provable (if it isn’t, the dictionary describes it as spurious or hybrid)—which further questions the paradox referred to earlier. What, then, can be reliably considered as proof? ¹¹ Proof (noun): Fact or evidence sufficing or helping to establish a fact. Thus, if there is no tangible fact or evidence—as opposed to some anecdotal story which may or may not be true—for any conjecture, it cannot be deemed to have been

proved. It is, therefore, only a theory so let’s now examine what the dictionary says about that. ¹² Theory (noun): Supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the facts, phenomena, etc. to be explained, opposite to hypothesis; speculative (esp. fanciful) view; the sphere of abstract knowledge or speculative thought; exposition of the principles of a science etc.; collection of propositions to illustrate principles of a subject (as in probability theory). (As before, I have underlined the words particularly appropriate to religion.) ¹³ The use of the expression “divine truth” in the Oxford Dictionary definition of faith suggests that, even in the production of what is supposed to be a totally secular authoritative reference work dealing with the science of linguistics as applied to the English language, the Oxford Dictionary compilers allowed themselves to be influenced by their own religious beliefs. This is disturbing because, if anything, the term is an oxymoron and should not, therefore be tolerated in a scholastic or scientific context.

REAL TRUTH MUST BE PROVABLE

¹⁴ Actually, there is only one way of gaining access to truth and that is by expecting nothing. Unfortunately though, every human being who ever lived is cumbered by expectations from the day he is born. A brand new baby expects milk from his mother’s breast—otherwise he wouldn’t suckle. That is, of course, inherent but then, as he matures, that child learns that, in order to find satisfaction, he must have expectations and those expectations pre-determine their fulfilment to the point where truth becomes totally irrelevant.

¹⁵ The inevitable outcome of this is that, very early in life, human beings supplant a concept of truth with a search for experiences that satisfy their desires so that what works becomes accepted by their subconscious mind as a sort of ‘pseudo truth’ and actual truth becomes superfluous to their immediate desires. ¹ But real truth MUST be provable and religious dogmas are all based on legends, folk lore and mythology, none of which constitute proof. What their proponents refer to as historical evidence—especially when it refers to supernatural events—has to be questioned. ¹⁷ There are a number of words in the dictionary that are almost exclusively religious. For example:-

Religion = superstition Miracle = Illusion, magic trick or other inexplicable event which contradicts the immutable laws of physics Vision = dream or hallucination Prophet = someone who has dreams or hallucinations Devil = imaginary scapegoat Sin = disobedience to someone else’s agenda Cult = anything that disagrees with your beliefs Evil = something that contradicts what you believe Angel = fairy or inexplicable stranger Spirit = person or being with no physical substance Heaven = some imaginary place elsewhere in space Hell = an imaginary place of torment and destruction

¹⁸ In most cases, the evidences proffered to religious beliefs belong in the same category as the central characters of Roman foundation myth, Romulus and Remus being raised by the she-wolf Lupa or the primal Greek mother goddess, Gaia giving birth to the twelve Titans—fantasy. ¹ So why, for example, is it that Christian, Islamic and Hindu myths are so pragmatised and promoted as truth whilst Greek, Norse and Roman ones aren’t because they are all equally fantastic? ² In 1993 Australian historian, Barbara Thiering wrote a book entitled “Jesus the Man “in which she basically discredited Christian beliefs concerning the authenticity of The Bible. Whilst I don’t agree with all of Thiering’s ideas, many theologians have labelled them as ‘pure fantasy’ which, when you contemplate that fully, is the height of arrogance because, if the biblical stories of Jesus are taken literally, ‘fantasy’ is the only word that accurately describes them. Even devout Christians couldn’t argue with that because the Bible contains some of the most fantastic stories ever written. ²¹ Religion is just superstition by a different name but if you ask a religious person what superstition they belong to, they will be highly offended! Have you ever wondered why? Spirituality is something quite different but many people confuse the two! ²² British philosopher, Alexander Bain defined a belief as “that upon which a man is prepared to act” and, when applied to religion, that is certainly the case. Yet, whilst fallibilism is openly accepted in the natural sciences, when it comes to spiritual beliefs it most definitely isn’t and this is not only sad but disturbing.

8. So What Is Proof and What Isn’t?

¹ Religious people (regardless of their doctrine) claim that there IS proof for their theories citing, in particular, their ‘holy’ book(s) and I will examine this with regard to Christianity in greater depth later. ² Most religions claim their beliefs to be axiomatic when, quite clearly, they are not because what they cite as proof is purely anecdotal. ³ Common-sense dictates that written words describing supernatural things that cannot be readily replicated scientifically, are, at best, fanciful ideas that may well be nothing more than fiction and certainly cannot be considered as proof. ⁴ Some religious people also cite what they consider to be personally witnessed present-time ‘miracles.’ A miracle is simply an event that cannot be readily explained logically although most are probably better attributed to good luck, perfectly natural anomalies or, perhaps most likely, cleverly engineered illusions. ⁵ It is also worth noting that one religion’s miracles are often denounced by other religions as counterfeit or even ‘demonic!’ In any context that has to be considered the height of arrogance and bigotry! Miracle is just a religious word for ‘magic’—but religious people don’t like that analogy! ⁷ Another aspect of this debate is the balance between empirical evidence and logic. Whilst certain beliefs cannot be based on empirical proof (simply because there isn’t any), logical deductions from related evidences that do exist are not unreasonable. ⁸ However, as I shall illustrate, when it comes to religion, all too often the related evidences proffered are anecdotal and blatantly illogical and don’t so much exist but are manufactured by people with vested interests. I believe this has a lot to do with why some religions have risen to world prominence whilst others have lapsed into the category of and are viewed by most people as cultural folk legend.

Since the key question that is the prime topic of this study was initially prompted by my own previously-held religious beliefs, I asked it of a number of valued friends and acquaintances of different religious persuasions without getting a single satisfactory answer. In fact some have even evaded the question presumably because they cannot answer it and are embarrassed to simply say, “I don’t know.” So, as a matter of courtesy, I have not persisted. ¹ Some answers have been ill-considered and, to be honest, quite insulting to the intelligence (although it should be ed that that, in itself, is a relative and quantative term whereby those with more of it should not demean those with less). Nevertheless, given the long history as religious devotees of some of those questioned, they should have been able to provide rational answers but, as I say, so far no one has. ¹¹ Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said, “No one who is dumb is curious. The people who don’t ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives.” This study is just one attempt to go some way to improving that situation. ¹² Another thing that people cite as proof that they know that their god intercedes in human affairs is that he answers their prayers but I have to it that I don’t really buy that. ¹³ When you think about it, the logistics of divine communication certainly point to a certain futility in it. How far can the human voice be heard? Not very far at all. When people speak to their god in the privacy of their homes, quite often they don’t actually enunciate the words at all but just ‘think’ them in “silent prayer.” They certainly don’t use any form of radio amplification or signal so how can he hear them? ¹⁴ Even if they did use radio transmission the fastest it can travel is the speed of light which means that, if their god lives in a distant galaxy somewhere out there in the cosmos, it would be years before he would hear them and, if he lived closer, radio telemetric space exploration would have detected him by now. ¹⁵ Religious people claim that their gods “hear” their prayers telepathically and then, in the next breath decry telepathy as evil. This is just another example of double standards in religion. ¹ Nevertheless, whilst I have no idea how the Great Creator could hear messages directed to him verbally, I am still prepared to countenance some form of

communication that humanity has not yet discovered and will continue to praise and thank him and, yes, occasionally ask him (pray) to intervene. If he hears then that’s great and, if he doesn’t, I haven’t really wasted much time. ¹⁷ Yes, because of my cultural heritage prior to my awakening, I have prayed ardently for many things in my life and a few of those things have come to . So I could have run around testifying about how God answered my prayers (and I’m not saying he didn’t). ¹⁸ But what about all those other prayers I prayed where what I asked for didn’t happen? Many have been totally unselfish requests for other people where, if answered, would have brought absolutely no personal benefit to me (other than joy) but enormous relief to those prayed for and, of course, glory to God. So why weren’t they answered? (See Postscript) ¹ It seems to me that, if only some of our prayers are apparently answered, that is merely a predictable percentage of our hopes and aspirations coming to with absolutely NO outside influence at all. It’s called the law of averages. ² That religious people attribute positive answers to their particular deity is nothing more than an attempt at justification of their asking in the first place! ²¹ When the ancient Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, Nordics or whatevers prayed to their god(s) and received positive outcomes—most often, won decisive victories in wars in which they killed large numbers of their enemies (hardly a godly outcome when you think about it), they shouted it from the rooftops and sent their gods tributes and praises so that any observers knowing no better would possibly have become instant converts because people like to be aligned with winners. ²² However, when their prayers consistently weren’t answered the way they wanted, faith waned—sometimes to the point where everyone gave up and turned away from their gods—and, as cultures changed over several generations, history became legend and legend became myth [Tolkien: See section 18:19] and those gods morphed into mythical folk heroes or possibly even disappeared so that the religions died natural deaths and the only people that even know about them today are anthropologists! ²³ So it could be claimed that the religions of successful military strategists have a much better chance of establishment than those of habitual losers. A very well-

known aphorism says that military history is written by the winners! ²⁴ Religious apologists attempt to explain seemingly unanswered prayers by saying, “God always answers prayer—but sometimes his answer is ‘No’”! ²⁵ What an absolute cop-out! Why would a loving, benevolent God (which is what they claim their gods to be) say ‘No’ when asked to heal an innocent little child of some horrible debilitating disease or disability that deprives his beautiful creation of a happy, fulfilling life? They will tell you, “Aah! It’s character building! You don’t know what God’s plans are!” What utter garbage! ² Why would God (apparently) ignore the pleas of hundreds of thousands of his ‘chosen people’ that rose from Auschwitz-Birkenau? (Their suffering, by the way, was immeasurably worse than anything Jesus of Nazareth experienced!) ²⁷ I will deal with these questions later when explaining my personal deistic understanding. ²⁸ It is also worth noting that, whilst many religions offer little or no empirical proof to their doctrines, they go to immense lengths to disprove anything that questions those doctrines, often clutching at the flimsiest of straws. ² Another highly significant factor that cannot be overlooked is that anthropologists, geologists and archaeologists have no agendas other than establishing truth—whatever it may be and even when it contradicts previously held beliefs—whereas theologists have definite agendas that they vehemently and irrationally defend even when faced with irrefutable evidence that questions those agendas. ³ Why do they do that?

9. Some Plausible Secular Suggestions

¹ In the mid twentieth century, the physicist who designed the plaques affixed to the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes as messages to any extra-terrestrial life that might encounter them on their deep-space voyages, the late Dr Carl Sagan and his colleague Iosif Shklovskii wrote a book entitled “Intelligent Life in the Universe” in which they postulated that throughout its history, Planet Earth may have been visited by extra-terrestrials who influenced human culture. To their theories they cited numerous inexplicable (at the time) phenomena that can be found around the world such as the pyramids of Egypt and Palenque in Mexico, the Ottosdal spheres, Easter Island Moai and the famous Nazca Lines in Peru—the latter only identifiable from a high altitude—as physical evidence. ² This thinking was taken up by Swiss author Erich von Däniken in his inaugural best-selling book of 1968, “Chariots of the Gods?” in which he added further for the theory in several biblical ages such as Elijah’s alien abduction in a ‘chariot of fire’ [2 Ki. 2:11] and the fiery vision described in the first chapter of Ezekiel—s written at a time when the extent of man’s technological knowledge was the wheel, the lever, the plough, the shadoof and a few simple tools and weapons. Von Däniken’s ideas were later systematically analysed by NASA aerospace engineer, Josef F. Blumrich. ³ Please pause to watch this 42 minute video, “http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=WYaC9vox19o” before continuing and take particular note of the closing words:

ARE WE ALONE

OR

ARE WE BEING WATCHED?

And if we are, by whom?

⁴ Whilst von Däniken’s theories have not been generally accepted by academics —and certainly not by Sagan or theologians—it should be noted that, like this study, the title of his first book includes a question mark. This endorses that his ideas and suggestions are only hypotheses—albeit ed by the physical evidences provided. ⁵ When he was charged with heresy by the Roman Catholic Church, von Däniken was, like me, at pains to point out that, even if his suggestions were ever to be proved correct ( Galileo—see also section 15), he still believed that any ‘space tourists’ would have been created by the same Creator as us. I strongly suspect that, had he titled his book, “Visitors from Space?” he would never have experienced the hostility that simply using the word ‘gods’ in the title invoked from religious bigots! The independent scientific Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence Institute (SETI) doesn’t attract that sort of hostility today. ⁷ As with most such writings, von Däniken’s books have drawn massive criticism and refutation from religious sources in which he has been accused of plagiarism, concoction and simple misrepresentation. However, what his critics forget to mention is that those same criticisms have been made of numerous religious writers like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. Whiteand John Thomas (to name but a few)— no less bizarre yet all claimed as ‘prophets’ by their respective irers. Whilst eagerly promoted by minorities, radical ideas are rarely well-received by the masses—especially when they challenge their precious traditions. (See Matthew 15:3) ⁸ In the NBC documentary, “The Mysterious Origins of Man “(1996) hosted by Charlton Heston, Dr Richard L Thompson made a very interesting statement regarding, in particular, archaeological discoveries that tend to contradict popular thinking regarding the genesis of mankind. He said, “Basically, what

you find is what we call a ‘knowledge filter.’ This is a fundamental feature of science and also a fundamental feature of human nature. People tend to filter out things that don’t fit—that don’t make sense in of their paradigm; their way of thinking. So, in science you find that evidence that doesn’t fit the accepted paradigm tends to be eliminated. It’s not taught; it’s not discussed and people who are educated in scientific teachings generally don’t even know about it.” This statement can just as validly be extended to include religious people. As most scientists now agree, given the relatively recently-discovered existence of planets in other solar systems (exoplanets), the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life—which is what SETI searches for—is no longer confined to the realms of science-fiction and so von Däniken’s suggestions that some hitherto unexplained events and artefacts around the world could be the work of extra-terrestrial visitors are, in my opinion, much less far-fetched than many religious explanations for enigmatic phenomena. ¹ Using NASA’s Kepler space probe, SETI has discovered Kepler-452b, a planet in the Cygnus constellation that is very similar to Earth in size and distance from its star, Kepler-452—thus making it potentially habitable. However, Kepler-452b is about 1400 light years away and so, if it does have life on it, even if we could set off tomorrow at 95% of finite light speed (which we can’t), we wouldn’t get there to find out until around the year 3500! As it is, given our present capabilities, it would take about 26 million years to get there! What we don’t know of course, is whether the inhabitants of Kepler-452b—if there are any— are more technologically advanced than us and, even now, well on their way here —if not already here. ¹¹ Personally, I believe it is merely a matter of conception and terminology. What scientists refer to as extraterrestrial intelligence, religious people refer to as ‘angels’ and venerate them. Whatever you call them, they are the same because neither is of this planet. (For a more in-depth examination of the plausibility of extra-terrestrial life, see Appendix A.)

You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their

belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deepseated need to believe.

Carl Sagan

¹² Most non-scientific people who do consider the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life still confine their thinking to life as they know it—in other words —humanoid or at least vertebrate aerobic life governed by the same physiological limitations that apply to us but this need not be so. ¹³ Even here on Earth there are extremophilic life forms—that is, life forms such as tartigrades that thrive in conditions that would prove instantly fatal to humans and other more familiar animals. Whilst most extremophiles are microbic some have been found that belong to more complex domains such as worms, insects and molluscs. Although none of those are intelligent in the way humans understand the term, the possibility that intelligent extemophiles might live elsewhere in the cosmos cannot and, in my view, should not be discounted. ¹⁴ It must then follow that, if such creatures have visited the Earth in the past, should they be, for instance, anaerobic (where the smallest trace of oxygen would prove fatal to them), they would have to have stayed in their spacecraft or, if they left them, kept their hermetically-sealed space suits on and left quite rapidly after observing us and collecting samples. ¹⁵ According to panspermia hypothesis, microscopic life—but not intelligent life —exists throughout the universe and is distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets and planetoids. What such potential life may or may not have—if it actually exists—I will address in Appendix B. ¹ The principle limitation to what may be scientifically possible is the individual mind—and some people seem to have very small ones! ¹⁷ Actually, it isn’t so much that some people have small minds but that they

have closed minds. In the twenty-first century the ‘information highway’ is profuse with excellent material that can be studied at leisure to determine the veracity (or otherwise) of virtually any hypotheses but indoctrinated people vigorously promote their beliefs whilst flatly refusing to even look at it—and that is so sadly distressing.

10. Prophets

¹ In the previous section I referred to ordinary people that religious organisations view as prophets and, since much of what those respective religions promote is based on what their prophets have said or written, we need to determine not only what the term actually means but also the validity of those so-called prophets’ claims. ² Actually derived from a Greek word meaning advocate, in religious contexts a prophet is a person who, in the first instance, claims to have had some form of with his or her deity and, secondly, has followers who are prepared to believe that claim. When you think about that—especially when the claims are, in any other context, at least outlandish and, very often, utterly ridiculous—the gullibility of those prophet’s followers has to be a concern. ³ This may have a bearing on why there are fewer prophets acknowledged today than in times when scientific knowledge was much more limited. These days, people who would once have been hailed as prophets are more likely to be considered as suffering severe hallucinations, foresighted scientists, occultists, writers of fortune cookies or simply crazy. ⁴ In most cases, prophets were individuals—and that is particularly significant in that, as such, a prophet usually had few or no independent witnesses to substantiate his stories. Followers sincerely believed that the prophet had had supernatural with the god or gods of their culture for no other reason than he or she said so and whatever stories the prophet told were called prophecies and, no matter how fantastic, when they included instructions to act, were often religiously followed with absolutely no investigative research into their claims which, when you think about it, has to be the absolute epitome of gullibility.

COULD YOU

BE A PROPHET WITHOUT EVEN REALISING IT?

AND, IF NOT, WHY NOT?

⁵ In ancient times when knowledge was much more limited, such research would have been difficult if not impossible. However, today there is no excuse whatsoever for such gullibility. Given their spuriousness, why people today so readily accept such stories has to be questioned. We no longer live in a dark age of scientific ignorance ruled by superstition. No educated person believes in dragons any more (other than the Komodo variety, of course) except when they occur in their religious stories. No one in their right mind would believe that a man could live in the belly of a giant fish for three days except when their religious fables say so. No one believes that a pile of human bones can suddenly get up and dance around except when their ‘holy’ books say so and who on earth would believe that a man could have a chat with his donkey (which doesn’t even possess vocal cords!)? ⁷ Anyone who seriously believes such stories as factual these days needs urgent psychiatric help! ⁸ As I shall illustrate later, the political agendas of many so-called prophets have to be taken into consideration when examining the doctrines that they promoted. Whilst there was obvious bias, that is not to say that they were corrupt. In most cases people who were acclaimed as prophets were nothing more than fiercely patriotic people who ‘used’ the gullibility of their largely uneducated peers to enable them to promote ideas beneficial to their people, which, whilst they were actually their own (often very good ones), they were presented as being direct instructions from their god(s).

A person didn’t need to be educated to be accepted as a prophet either. All they needed to be was clever and insightful! Claims of prophethood have existed in different cultures through history, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in Ancient Greece, Buddhism, Baha’i, Zoroastrianism and many others. Traditionally, prophets are regarded as having a role in society that promotes change due to their messages and actions and, needless to say, that change needs to be for the better. ¹ In the modern world, the term prophet is often used to describe anyone who predicts future trends in business, finance, national security, health and numerous other everyday events. If negative prospects are foretold, even though possible avoiding strategies may have also been suggested, the person is referred to as a ‘prophet of doom’ and sometimes relegated to the ranks of ‘negative thinkers’ and ignored or even ridiculed—often to the later chagrin of those who should have listened to them and acted accordingly but didn’t. ¹¹ One of the most desirable of skills required by ancient and modern ‘prophets’ has always been charismatic oratory. We don’t often hear stories about prophets who sit quietly in a corner whispering their ‘messages’ to a few close friends. We see pictures of prophets standing on mountainsides (or the platforms of large auditoriums) shouting their advice and warnings to crowds of people who, largely due to their own insecurity, will believe almost anything they’re told— especially if the reward for obedience is desirable. That is certainly what we mostly read about in religious propaganda. ¹² In religion, if their messages were more of a warning nature with dire consequences for not heeding them, prophets were not always initially acknowledged as such and, only when subsequent events brought a realisation that they had been right all along, did the people reassess and elevate them and their writings to a historical rather than (poor) fictional status. ¹³ In some cultures, prophets are referred to as ‘seers’ (which simply means ‘one who sees’) and, in some ways, that is probably a better name because, whilst I have no doubt that some of them have seen visions, it is much more likely that those visions were the products of their own vivid imaginations and hallucinations. ¹⁴ In some cultures it is still considered disrespectful to even utter the name of some of their prophets so that, in Islam, for example, many people refer to

Muhammad simply as “The Prophet.” Such respect is indicative of the high regard that millions still hold prominent figures in their cultural history even though they have nothing more than related stories that their prophets have told with absolutely no empirical evidence to them and, given the more recent increase in scientific knowledge, have to be questioned. ¹⁵ Even today, the content of prophecies can vary widely and, where modern prophecies tend to deviate from traditional beliefs of the same basic religion, new ‘branches’ or denominations of that religion spring up where followers of the radical new prophets are their congregations and everyone else calls them cults. This is strange really when one considers that’s how they all started! ¹ For example, whilst I have never seen it written anywhere, when the Anglican Church was formed by the Act of Supremacy in 1534, was it referred to as a cult by the Roman Catholics? Even now, churches such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons are often referred to as cults—in quite derogatory too—by what are referred to as ‘Mainstream Christianity.’ The same applies with breakaway factions of Islam, Buddhism and many others. ¹⁷ If you consider all the dreams that you have had though your life, there were probably many that, had you told them to uneducated people—much harder to find today than even 500 years ago, let alone when many scriptures were written —you would have been hailed as a prophet and your fantasies viewed very seriously as portents. And, having considered that, just try to imagine what influences you might have made on world society for hundreds, if not thousands of years to come. Scary isn’t it? ¹⁸ Also, I believe that a person can be a true prophet maybe only once or twice in their life when their utterances are definitely prophetic whilst, at other times, making statements that are not. In other words, an infallible prophet whose every pronouncement should be taken seriously would be extremely rare if not nonexistent.

11. Spurious Evidence

¹ Mark Twain wrote, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” How true! ² As I researched this study, I learned something quite surprising. Apparently there really are educated people alive today who actually believe everything the news media tells them! ³ An example of this occurred in May 2011 when the world media reported that a United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (previously known as Navy SEALS) and CIA agents had killed Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden at his home in Pakistan and then, within 24 hours, dumped his body at sea. How convenient!! No body to prove the reports and only some video footage (which could just as easily have been shot with actors in Hollywood). ⁴ Yet most of the world blithely accepts that Osama bin Laden is no more. I hope they’re right but, with no tangible evidence, I don’t know how they can be sure. So obviously Mr Gullibility is very much alive and well. (There’s a story going around that he recently attended the funeral of distant relative Common Sense!)

Can you believe there really are educated people who actually believe everything the media tells them?

⁵ When religious people are challenged on the veracity and reliability of their holy books, they invariably quote from the very book in question (often words ostensibly spoken by someone they refer to as a prophet—or, in the case of Christianity, Jesus) to ‘prove’ its validity but that’s like someone named Bill

boldly announcing “I can fly” and everyone else saying, “Bill can fly and I KNOW it’s true because he says he can!!” And that, in a nutshell, is gullibility! For anything to be proved authentic it MUST be corroborated by totally independent and reliable sources (and the more the better). ⁷ If anyone asked Joseph Goebbels in 1942 if Adolf Hitler was a good guy; would he have been able to stake his life on the answer? Of course he wouldn’t! Yet millions did even though Goebbels was himself already thoroughly brainwashed and definitely NOT an independent witness! He was Hitler’s minister of propaganda and thus responsible for successfully conditioning the German people to rigorously the Third Reich! Adi was even best man at his pal Joe’s wedding! ⁸ For a short time, in the form of Nazism, fanatical fascism was a religion in and it could well be again in other countries like Greece, where Golden Dawn, a neo-fascistpolitical movement dedicated to, amongst other things, the preservation of Greek nationalism in the birthplace of democracy where immigrants are taking the jobs of Greek nationals whilst their country goes bankrupt! Just as Germans flocked to Hitler’s National Socialist (NAZI) party during the Great Depressionof the 1930s as they saw their beloved fatherland being overrun by foreigners (in particular, Jews), communists and homosexuals, fundamental Muslims were almost concurrently inspired by Egyptian Seyyid Qutb’s Muslim Brotherhood in the Islamic world where he saw an abandonment of Qur’anic Islam in the face of modernism. Today, following the Global Financial Crisis spawned by American greed and inept leadership in 2007-8, ordinary Greek citizens are flocking to Golden Dawn rather than see the demise of their loved country at the hands of foreigners. Let’s hope they don’t employ the same methods with the same results! ¹ In the same way as those radicals inspired their compatriots, the biblical s of people like Matthew, Mark, Luke, Johnand Paul did almost 2000 years ago but they can hardly be considered ‘evidence’ because, as Goebbels was to Hitler, they were already indoctrinated of the ‘Jesus Fan Club.’ Numerous other writers have followed suit over the last 2000 years basing their work on nothing more than that of their predecessors.

¹¹ Of course followers of many religions will tell you that their holy writings’ authenticity is self-ing by citing such things as fulfilled prophecies. Were that true then I agree, it would be pretty persuasive. However, what their promoters fail to realize is that there is absolutely no evidence (certainly none that would stand up in a court of law!) that the original documents were written before the claimed fulfilled prophecies. ¹² A classic religious example of this can be found in the Judaic and Christian Bible where the prophecies of a Hebrew exile in Babylon named Daniel are claimed to be fulfilled by the arrival of a promised messiah (anointed saviour) some 535 years later. But who actually really knows when the book of Daniel was written? ¹³ The oldest available Hebrew manuscripts from which modern Bibles are translated are the Masoretic Texts and the earliest one in existence of the book of Daniel is dated 1008 CE. Also, particularly significantly, the Dead Sea Scroll remnants of Daniel do not include any of what is now chapter 9—the very part that contains the messianic prophecy! ¹⁴ One only has to look at the fabrications of modern ‘history’ propagated by organisations like the CIA (viz: the aforementioned bin Laden death report) or the FSB (the Russian successor to the Soviet KGB) or Mossad or MI6 to know that you can’t believe everything your government or the media tells you even though millions of gullible people complacently do! ¹⁵ To look at it another (and, perhaps, more plausible) way, who’s to say that some fanatical patriot, having read Daniel’s drama-fantasy, didn’t present himself (or a protégé) to the people of Judea at precisely the prophesied time claiming to be that messiah even to the point of allowing himself to be crucified and ed off as dead (when, in actual fact, he was only in a carefully orchestrated drug-induced coma or hypnotic trance) and then, with the help of ers, ‘rise from the dead’ (according to the popular interpretation of the prophecy) and present himself to selected people. This would not, of course, be nearly as possible with today’s modern medical facilities as it was 2000 years ago when determining between life and death wasn’t a precise science. But it could still be done with identical twins. ¹ And , when a whole race of people’s future is at stake, there will always be zealous fanatics with political agendas who will do anything to mould

the course of history in their people’s favour. They may be heroes whose motives are highly honourable and worthy with a sincere desire to improve humanity’s lot but that is not the point or the subject of this study. ¹⁷ In chapter 2:16-18 of his gospel, Matthew wrote that King Herod the Great of Israel ordered for all male babies aged under two in the area surrounding Bethlehem were to be put to death when the visiting magi (the plural of the Latin, magus, meaning a magician and, latterly a follower of the Zoroastrian religion) told him that a new ‘King of the Jews’ had been born there yet there is absolutely no reference to what would have been headline news by any other contemporary historian and most modern biographers of Herod deny that the incident ever occurred. So was this just a little bit of Matthew’s novel to give it added interest? Herod himself had been dead about 80 years when Matthew wrote it. ¹⁸ There’s an in John 11 in The Bible about Jesus resurrecting a man named Lazarus who, so the story goes, had been dead for four days. In the hot middle-eastern climate, his body would have putrefied in that time (and The Bible actually mentions that). But who is to say that Lazarus (another staunch er of Jesus’ agenda) didn’t simply put on grave shrouds and wait in a tomb for Jesus to arrive and call his name and then walk out? Whatever the answer, Lazarus was definitely not a revenant—they only exist in folk-lore and sci-fi movies. ¹ Likewise, the biblical story of Saul of Tarsus being visited by Jesus on the road to Damascus could very easily have been staged with suitable dramatics and pyrotechnics to convince any witnesses as to its authenticity. And, of course, if Jesus wasn’t really dead, it would have been simple. ² Then, right at the end of The Bible, John, the writer of Revelation quotes a vision of Jesus saying, “Behold, I am coming soon…” [Rev. 22:12] Well, I hate to think how long the world would have to wait had he not said that because it’s still waiting 2000 years and about 100 generations after he said it—and just about every one of those generations have preached that it’s going to happen any day now! ²¹ Let me emphatically state here that none of the foregoing is intended in any way to belittle Jesus’ life and work as told in The Bible. As a patriot, moral teacher and folk hero he was exceptional and much can still be learned from his

examples and allegories—sententious as they were. If he was a clever illusionist who performed amazing feats in attempts to convince the Hebrew people, I believe, unlike those of some unscrupulous modern evangelists whose only motive is lining their pockets, his motives would have certainly been honourable.

AS A PATRIOT, MORAL TEACHER AND FOLK HERO, JESUS WAS EXCEPTIONAL

²² His country (which, by the way, the Hebrews stole from the Canaanites and Hittites in the first place because Moses conned them into believing it was the will of the god of his ancestors) was, at the time, occupied by Roman troops who subjugated and taxed the inhabitants and so it is quite feasible that some enthusiastic ‘ordinary’ people (a carpenter, some fishermen, a tax collector and others) would have wanted to make a convincing and noble statement to encourage their countrymen and women even to the point of their leader suffering a cruel beating and near-death. And, let’s face it; it certainly DID change not only Judea but the history of the whole world didn’t it? ²³ Most significantly though, researcher and author Michael Paulkovich, in his book “No Meek Messiah” records that the overwhelming majority of historical writers of the time made absolutely no mention of Jesus or anyone filling his description. ²⁴ Apollonius of Tyana, a remarkably similar contemporary of Jesus who reputedly possessed equally miraculous powers, is recorded by a number of

Greek historical writers yet most people today have never heard of him. So why was Jesus so famous when Apollonius was not? ²⁵ Liberationists needed spectacular signs to endorse Jesus’ claim to be the promised Messiah and so a few carefully contrived ‘miracles’ would have gone a long way towards fulfilling that objective. Some unscrupulous modern evangelists do the same thing today whereby a supposed cripple is wheeled onto the stage and after some incantations, leaps out of his wheelchair and the crowd hysterically hails it as a divine miracle (and fill the collection buckets with money)! ² What Jesus was to his people, Boudica (Boadicea) was to the Celts in Britain —also oppressed by Rome—and Robin Hood (a popular mythical folk hero based on real-life Roger Godberd?) was to the English peasants oppressed by feudalism, and they were all hunted down by their opponents of the time. ²⁷ A few centuries after Jesus not far away in the same part of the world a similar movement led by an orphan named Muhammad ibn Abd Allah of Mecca in Arabia was just as convincing and he changed history too yet, like Jesus, he was relentlessly vilified and hunted down by the powerful religious leaders of his time. ²⁸ A few centuries earlier a little further east in India, another man named Siddhartha Gautama (AKA Buddha) changed his part of the world. ² In more recent times people like England’s Tolpuddle Martyrs and Poland’s Lech Walęsa have motivated thousands to their causes of improving the lives of working class people. It has repeatedly happened world-wide to greater and lesser extents. ³ The one commonality between such leaders and founders was a charisma wherewith they captured the imaginations of large numbers of followers. ³¹ It has been argued that the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship and I would wholeheartedly agree with that. Government by a committee is, at best, bound to be a compromise. The problem is that benevolent dictators rarely stay benevolent so that, sooner or later, the power their positions afford goes to their heads—Hitler being a classic example. ³² One only has to see what professional illusionists like David Copperfield,

Chriss Angel or David Blaine can do in front of TV cameras and live audiences to delude and intrigue people in the name of entertainment to realize how, whilst it may be very difficult, it isn’t impossible. Did anyone really believe that German entertainers, Siegfried and Roy could change a live tiger into a beautiful girl right in front of them in the blink of an eye? They ire the illusion and the skill to perform it—but they don’t believe it! (Do they?) So why do so many believe equally astounding tricks when they are part of their religious tradition? ³³ There have been famous examples of ‘Marian apparitions’ where Roman Catholics sincerely believe that people have been visited by Mary, the long-dead mother of Jesus (Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) even though the very book that Christians are supposed to follow specifically states that “the dead know NOTHING and have no more part in anything that occurs under the sun.” [Eccl. 9:5, 6] If ever there were good reasons to doubt, those are prime examples. Yet Catholics call themselves Christians and comprise about one-seventh of the world’s population! ³⁴ A popular expression among Christians is, “God is doing great things in our church.” Whilst that may be true, there is no way of proving it and the truth of the matter is that it is the people themselves who are doing great things—albeit inspired by their beliefs. If that manifests itself in good works that benefit humanity, I’m all for it but when all it does is a form of ‘mind control,’ I definitely am not! ³⁵ From the foregoing, some readers might say that I’m a conspiracy theorist and I suppose that wouldn’t be far from the truth. I think it is unfortunate that, in recent times, the term has tended to carry a negative connotation because, in my opinion, there isn’t nearly enough caution in this world. Renowned British journalist, Charlotte Greig wrote, “Often enough, yesterday’s conspiracy theory is today’s accepted history.” [Conspiracy. March 1st 2006 p.6] and history itself is testament to the truth of that. ³ Let me unequivocally state that trust is a wonderful thing but surely it needs validation otherwise unscrupulous people with personal agendas—and there are certainly plenty of them—will inevitably take advantage of unwary and gullible people. That’s why confidence tricksters are so prevalent and successful. ³⁷ Suspicion is not a bad thing—it’s just common sense! There is, however, a need for balance so that caution is not supplanted by paranoia and this is where

sensible rationale is prudent. Otherwise simple rational scepticism would become irrational panphobia.

12. Myths and Folk Stories

¹ When I was a little boy, my grandfather gave me a big yellow book entitled “Fairies and Enchanters” by Amabel Williams-Ellis which was an anthology of old English folk-tales. Until I was about 4 and could read it for myself, my Mum used to read it to me before bed most evenings. I loved that book and my imagination was always stimulated by the stories. But, even at that tender age, I didn’t believe them—they were just great stories! I still have it as a treasured relic of my childhood. But I don’t read it any more. I’ve grown out of it! ² There is, however, one collection of stories that are not included that I believe could very well have been—although it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out why they’re not (apart from them not being old English)! Those are the stories that make up The Bible. ³ There’s a story about three guys dancing around inside a furnace that was stoked so hot that even the stokers on the outside were burned to death! Even if they had been clad in asbestos suits they couldn’t have survived. ⁴ Then there’s Daniel, the lion whisperer. Because the senior politicians of Persia didn’t want Daniel, an immigrant slave, to be promoted over them by the king, Darius, they persuaded him to issue an edict forbidding anyone to pray to anyone else but him for thirty days and anyone who broke it was to be thrown into a den of lions. Daniel, a devout Hebrew, defied the edict and prayed to his own god and so his enemies reported him to the king and, even though he didn’t want to —because he greatly ired Daniel—Darius was obliged to carry out the sentence. So Daniel ended up in a den full of hungry lions that he’d never met before and was left for the whole night. ⁵ The next morning, Darius hurried to the lions’ den expecting to find Daniel torn to shreds and eaten but no, there he was, intact! Of course, Daniel could have been one of those gifted people who can make wild animals obey him but that rarely happens without many months of careful and patient training and keeping the beasts well-fed.

Not only that though, Daniel was also something of a psychic (although religious Jews and Christians don’t like that word applied to him) because, when Darius’ predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar had some disturbing dreams but forgot them when he woke up, Daniel was able to tell him not only what he had dreamed, but what the dreams meant too! And those are just three of the episodes in the Daniel fantasy. ⁷ “Fairies and Enchanters” is still obtainable online and I challenge anyone who is interested to get a copy and read it in conjunction with Daniel and honestly decide if there is any significant difference in the themes of their contents. (It is interesting to note that the web site for Amazon describes “Fairies and Enchanters” as a new book but that is a myth too! Amabel Williams-Ellis compiled it in 1934 and died in 1984 at the age of 90!) ⁸ As a child, I believed in mystical human-like creatures that glowed in the dark and could fly. I called them fairies and, even though I never actually saw one, I was certain they were real because one always left a sixpence under my pillow when I lost a deciduous (baby) tooth! Then I grew up and, for far too long, I still believed in fairies—except that I called them angels! (I never saw one of them either!) I thank my Creator; at long last, I’ve grown out of that too—although I do countenance that an adult concept of angels could be synonymous with extraterrestrials! Herein lies a major clue as to how the world has become so saturated with mythological religious doctrines. They are taught to little children most of whose common sense and powers of logic are nowhere near mature enough to distinguish fairy stories from truth so that, by the time they are, they have become so entrenched that they aren’t even questioned. No wonder the Jesuits have an adage, “Give me the child for seven years and I’ll give you the man!” How true! ¹ And that is why many religious organisations operate dedicated schools where they can indoctrinate naturally gullible, trusting young children with their myths and fables so that, by the time they reach adulthood, they are already thoroughly brainwashed. The practise should be criminalised under child protection laws! ¹¹ Several millennia before Moses wrote his fantasy saga the Egyptians worshiped a plethora of gods for 3000 years and their pharaohs (god-kings) had enormous pyramid mausolea built for themselves and filled them with treasures

to take to the afterlife with them. From those evidences alone it is obvious that they sincerely believed that there was an afterlife and that their gods were very real. For example, the famous boy pharaoh, Tutankhamun’s grandfather, Amenhotep III’s name meant ‘the lord of truth is Ra.’ ¹² So why don’t twenty-first century Egyptians still believe that and, more to the point, will Christianity, Islam and many other currently-held beliefs ultimately experience a similar fate and be relegated to the annals of cultural folk legend too? On the face of it, that seems eminently possible as more and more people realise they have been basing their lives on myths and folk-stories that defy logic and, in so doing, are actually insulting their true Creator by abusing the intelligence he gave to their ancestors at creation. ¹³ The word myth is derived from the Greek word muthos: originally meaning ‘story’ but later condensed to particularly refer to fictional stories that are fables (from which we get the word fabulous) or folk tales as opposed to factual s. Thus, in the English language—and especially in religious contexts— the use of the word ‘myth’ has typically come to describe the stories of other cultures or belief systems than those of the . ¹⁴ This has not, however, been limited to the description of alien belief systems. For example, a number of notably staunch Christians such as George Every and C.S. Lewis have described things as diverse as the Biblical s of creation, the flood and the story of Jesus as myths in their writings—although their use of that word is decried by many less-educated Christians today. ¹⁵ Some prefer to view such events as symbolic rather than factual but, whatever stance you take, the lack of empirical evidence cannot be brushed aside which, technically, does make them myths! ¹ This then raises the question: “Can there be true myths?” and the answer must, of course, be in the affirmative for no other reason than a rhetorical story related by a non-witness ultimately turning out to have actually happened. ¹⁷ Whilst that doesn’t mean that all such stories will be factual, it can also be acknowledged that many are based on fact and enhanced—sometimes just slightly and, sometimes, highly dramatically—particularly when the teller has a vested interest in their acceptance. It’s called dramatic licence. ¹⁸ So, when confronted with such stories, how does a person determine in his

own mind what to believe and what not to believe? ¹ The answer to that question must ultimately be common sense. If something you read or hear makes very little sense based on your own knowledge of the laws of nature and physics—no matter how limited— you must surely question it and, if you don’t, then you must undeniably be considered complacent and gullible. ² One of the biggest factors contributing to this unfortunate situation is that millions of people today have very little knowledge—if any at all—of the immutable laws of nature and physics and ignorance is the breeding ground of gullibility.

Ignorance is the breeding ground of gullibility

²¹ Here are a few examples to illustrate that it’s a sad fact of life that people will believe almost anything they are told if it is told convincingly enough. There are literally hundreds of folk myths that, by many, are seen as historical facts. ²² The English church still venerates as the patron saint of England a Greek-born Roman soldier named George for killing a dragon and saving the wife of the Roman Emperor Diocletian. Do they really believe in dragons? OK, he may have killed a wild beast and saved Mrs Diocletian but it sure wasn’t a dragon! ²³ On the subject of Diocletian, it was only because of his persecution of Christians that, as late as 525 CE, that a monk named Dionysius Exiguus devised the term AD (denoting Anno Domini—the Latin meaning ‘year of the Lord’) for the Julian calendar (itself introduced by Julius Cæsar in the year 709 AU— Annus Urbis which started at the establishment of the city of Rome)—or 45 BCE to replace the 10-month consular calendar of the Roman Empire which, by the time of Dionysius, had become the Holy Roman Empire, basing its starting year on the birth of Jesus but was erroneously at least two years out. This persisted until quite recently where it has been replaced internationally by CE denoting ‘Current Era’ with BC (originally meaning ‘before Christ’) now BCE

denoting ‘before current era.’ ²⁴ In the town of Hamelin in , people still commemorate a story from the 14th century about a piper who had a magic flute that he played to rid the town of rats and, when the citizens refused to pay him, he used his flute to lure away all the children. Do they really believe in magic flutes? ²⁵ The famous Albanian Roman Catholic nun known as Mother Theresa of Calcutta is believed by most of the world to be a “saint” for no other reason than they are told so by the media. Watch this 25-minute video and see if you agree. ² I suspect that millions of people believe the Historia Brittonum and, amongst other things, its tales of King Arthur and his knights of the round table to be, as its name implies, a true history of early Britain. However, that is a myth. Historia Brittonum was a collection of legends and folk stories written around the ninth century CE and embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth (1100-1155) and several others. If Arthur existed at all, he was almost definitely not a king but more of a military leader possibly inspired by a real one whose name is lost in the mists of time. ²⁷ A secular example of this occurred during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England at a time when the literary arts were considered to be a domain of the lower classes to the point where, whilst eagerly patronised by the aristocracy, participation in them was deemed to be beneath them. Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, one of the most senior peers at the court of the queen was one whose primary interest was dramatic writing to the point where his estates suffered from neglect due to his obsession. Thus, there is a modern theory that, in order to placate his family and his queen, his works, whilst extremely popular with the people, were publicly attributed to a contemporary actor who was paid to allow his name to be used. That actor’s name was William Shakespeare. ²⁸ Whilst no records exist of any of de Vere’s works being published in his own name, it has been suggested by a number of Shakespearean scholars that the plays and poems the world now attributes to Shakespeare were, in fact de Vere’s. This is ed by the fact that absolutely no manuscripts of the works credited to Shakespeare exist in his own handwriting. ² So is the authorship of Hamlet or Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet by a lowly playwright/actor from Stratford-upon-Avon just another myth? No one will ever

know the real truth because that, like many religious legends, was long ago buried by social and political intrigue and, most significantly, both are rarely ever questioned anyway and more importantly, today, it doesn’t really matter who wrote them. That we have them is what matters. ³ In neuroscience, living organisms possess senses whereby they are able to react to the information those senses send to the brain. A very common urban myth is that humans only have five senses—sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch —with the often-deemed as occult extra-sensory perception referred to as ‘the sixth sense.’ ³¹ Whilst millions never question it, this is however, again NOT true as there are actually numerous other senses and sight is actually not just one sense but four— focus, brightness, colour and dimension (from the stereoscopic perception of binocular vision). Some that are easily understood and accepted include; equilibrioperception—the sense that provides orientation and stops you falling over—better known as the sense of balance, thermoception—the sense of temperature that causes you to withdraw from excessive heat and thus avoid being burned (not to be confused with the sense of touch which is tactile), hunger, thirst and, of course, pain (nociception) which tells you that something is wrong in your physical body and prompts you to care for it whilst it heals itself. ³² Who invented the light bulb? I imagine that most people reading this will have instantly answered, “Thomas Edison” but, guess what, that’s a myth too. The electric light bulb was invented by British chemist, Humphrey Davy forty years before Edison was born. All Edison did was introduce the tungsten filament to improve the bulb’s life span. ³³ As recently as 1869, on proving the existence of Faraday and Maxwell’s theorised electromagnetic waves (and thus radio)—the frequency of which was ultimately named after him—the German-Jewish physicist, Heinrich Hertz, said, “It’s of no use whatsoever.” That’s one myth that didn’t last very long at all because, within twenty years, he produced his first radio transmitter! ³⁴ the story of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid made famous by the 1969 film of that name starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford? Popular folk culture says that they died in a murder/suicide in Bolivia in 1908 and very few people contest that.

³⁵ However, both of the criminals shot in Bolivia were buried in unmarked graves in the remote town of San Vincente without ever being exhumed by American agents for identification and there are several records of people who intimately knew Robert Leroy Parker (AKA Butch Cassidy) seeing him back in the USA—including his sister, Lula and his doctor—who continued to treat him long after 1908. ³ Another very popular myth is that famous movie magnate, Walt Disney was cryonically frozen immediately following his death in 1966 so that, if and when technology advanced to the point where he could be ‘resurrected,’ he would be returned to his adoring fans. NOT true! The California Glendale Crematorium records clearly show that Disney was cremated soon after he died. The rumour was started by his animation team as a final joke yet many gullible people still believe it! ³⁷ In 1933, a Dutch activist named Marinus van der Lubbe was found guilty of starting a fire in the German Reichstag building—the German parliament—and executed by beheading. At the time, if anyone had dared to suggest that Hitler’s Nazi party had had anything to do with the fire would probably have received the same fate. Yet, today, many historians believe that the embryonic Nazi party was implicit in a plot to incriminate the German communist party and thus elevate the Nazis to a position of dominance—which is exactly what happened. The truth may never be really known but the myths abound still! ³⁸ Similar myths surround the terrorist attacks on the New York World trade Center twin towers on September 11th 2001 where conspiracy theorists propound that the American government knew of the attacks beforehand and were actually implicit in a conspiracy designed to warrant subsequent war in Iraq which was, itself, a cover-up for America’s domination of the oil industry. ³ The families of Texas oil magnates George Bush and Saudi Arabian bin Laden had close ties in the oil business which were strategically significant to the USA’s international relations in the Middle East. After Bush’s as US president had expired those relations deteriorated dramatically—particularly in Saddam Hussein-ruled Iraq—and so Bush determined that for his family’s business interests to be best protected, he was going to have to do all that he could to get his son into the White House. Whilst he succeeded by cheating, unfortunately for the Bush family and the American nation his son, George W. Bush was, as everyone now knows, corrupt as well as intellectually and morally

inept to the point of being an international joke who only brought ridicule to his country. Yet even though the rest of the world could see that, the American people elected him for a second term! Absolutely unbelievable! Well, maybe not when elections are rigged! ⁴ One of the strategies Bush Jnr employed to good effect to secure that second term of office was to present himself to the American voters—the vast majority of whom had little real knowledge of or, for that matter, interest in politics—as a devout Christian. ⁴¹ Given the power of the American political machine, even though numerous forensic inconsistencies have already been identified by researchers to 9/11 conspiracy theories, clandestine witness about-turns and even suspicious deaths indicate that the truth may never be known—certainly not in our lifetimes. Yet in spite of all this, the vast majority of Americans trust their government implicitly. If ever there was an example of faith going hand-in-hand with gullibility that has to be it! If this particular story interests you, I suggest you get a copy of Mike Moore’s video, Fahrenheit 9/11. ⁴² The point is though, that millions of people all around the world implicitly believe whatever myths the American propaganda machine dishes out with one result being the vilification of Islam when, in actual fact, the vast majority of Muslims are bitterly ashamed of the fact that Muslims were involved at all. ⁴³ I’m sure that most readers will have heard the popular saying (particularly among sanctimonious well-off religious people), “Money doesn’t buy happiness.” That’s easy for them to say but it’s a load of absolute balderdash! It’s a huge myth! Just think about it rationally. Certainly, money doesn’t always buy happiness but there’s a big difference. As I’m sure most readers will know, there are people in this world who seem to enjoy being miserable and, more than likely, the reason for their misery is their misery itself because they are such bad company that no one wants to know them and so their bleak demeanour is selfpropagating. But even for those people, if they are poor, money would allow them to be miserable in comfort! ⁴⁴ On the other hand though, there are multitudes of people who have very little in the way of material possessions who are generally happy. That is because they choose to be happy, not because of their circumstances. However, if their financial circumstances suddenly changed for the better, they would be a lot

more happy. They would be able to do things that, hitherto, they had only dreamed about which could, of course, include helping others even worse off than they had been if that’s what makes them happy. ⁴⁵ Take, for example, an extreme case of poverty where a person doesn’t even know where their next meal is coming from. If you gave that person just enough to buy some food, I think it goes without saying that he would be a lot happier than he was before you gave it to him. However, if you give a homeless person money for food and he goes and spends it on drugs or booze, it won’t really make him happy. He may think it does but, in reality, it will only exacerbate his misery. So charity needs to be tailored to suit the circumstances. Buy the drug addict food rather than give him money and your money will do better work. But it will still take money! ⁴ As with many popular maxims and clichés, there is usually another one that says the opposite. “He who hesitates is lost” versus “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” etc. In this case, the counter to “money doesn’t buy happiness” is “money makes the world go round” and, whilst that is not literally true, metaphorically, it certainly is. And don’t forget, long before money existed, humans bartered for things they needed and wanted. Money is merely a means of trading on a broader scale than simply direct exchange. ⁴⁷ There are two myths that are among the greatest falsehoods of all though. The first is the belief that, if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. If you hated them, then you wouldn’t care what they believed! The second is the belief that that to love someone means you believe everything they believe or do. Taken to absurdity, this would mean that a parent who dearly loves their child who becomes a drug addict or murderer (and I know people who have experienced both) believes in drugs and murder. Both are absolute nonsense. ⁴⁸ There are hundreds of legends all around the world that are obviously myths but, for some strange reason, religious folk present theirs as factual which is not only bizarre but highly insulting to the intelligence of any rationally-minded person. So let’s look at some of those next.

13. Myths in Religion

¹ Let’s face it, the whole Bible reads like Greek or Roman mythology or a Grimm’s fairy tale or some of the myths in the previous section! Things like a giant global flood that would have to have to have been over 8000 metres deep to cover Mount Everest mock common-sense (where did all that water go to afterwards?)—and how come nobody but Noah and his family owned a boat at the time? How did the people cross rivers, lakes and seas? A great flood is actually a popular fable of many major world religions. ² Then what about defying one of the most basic laws of nature that requires a mammalian female’s egg (ovum) to be fertilised by a male’s seed (sperm) in the uterus to procreate life? Virgin birth has been used as an alibi for promiscuity for centuries and parents of pregnant teenagers rarely accept it! Yet those same people readily believe it when reading their Bibles! PLEASE!! That takes real gullibility!

IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY,

FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE WERE MURDERED

BY THE CATHOLIC INQUISITION!

³ What makes writers like Moses, Solomon, Muhammad or Paul any different from classical ancient Greek authors, Hesiod, Homer or Ovid (who greatly influenced the writers of Roman foundation myth) or more recent fantasy writers

like Æsop, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Edgar Rice Burroughs, JRR Tolkien or Stan Lee? ⁴ Why has belief in Jewish, Hindu and Islamic mythologies persisted where Norse, Greek and Roman has not? What, for example, makes Hesiod’s s of the genesis of the world, the subsequent fall of mankind and the introduction of sacrificial rituals any less believable than Moses’? Their stories are no more or less fantastic. ⁵ Typically, the pagan Romans treated their traditional narratives as historical, even though they were laden with miraculous or supernatural elements. Much like primitive Hebrew writings, Roman stories are often concerned with politics and morality, and how an individual’s personal integrity related to his or her responsibility to the community or state. In both cases, an important theme is heroism. When the stories illuminated Roman religious practices, they were actually more concerned with ritual, augury, and institutions than with theology. So what changed them? Principal in answering this question is the fact that, as the Romans conquered new territories, the acceptance and adoption of local gods was a common practice to the point where they were ultimately accorded the same status and honour as the gods of the Roman state religion, paganism. ⁷ Nevertheless, for over 200 years, anyone who refused to recognise the state pantheon of the Roman Empire was persecuted and, as the Greek historian, Tacitus wrote, “Nero punished a race of men who were hated for their evil practices. These men were called Christians. He got a number of people to confess. On their evidence a number of Christians were convicted and put to death with dreadful cruelty. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and left to be eaten by dogs. Others were nailed to the cross. Many were burned alive and set on fire to serve as torches at night.” ⁸ Tacitus was, however, somewhat biased in his reporting of Roman persecutions as it was not only Christians who were singled out but any groups (which included Christians) that met in secret and, in particular, refused to conform with Roman religio—the practise of making sacrifices to the long-established Roman gods because this boded of sedition and even treason to Rome. It is interesting that, once upon a time, following Christianity was considered

by the ruling power as an ‘evil practice’! Mind you, as history has shown, in that particular case, it was the ruling power of the tyrant Nero that was evil! Nevertheless, modern Christian depiction of Roman persecution of their forebears is dramatically overstated to the point where it is just another modern myth. Roman persecution was far more encoming than just Christians and, in fact, thirty years after Nero, the Emperor Trajan wrote a letter to Pliny, the Roman proprietor of Bithynia specifically instructing him not to persecute Christians simply for being Christian but only if they refused to acknowledge the state gods of Rome. Christianity was, in itself, of no interest or significance to the Roman authorities. The crime was breaking the law of allegiance to state policies and laws which encomed religio. ¹ Many short-lived emperors later, when Rome was reeling from numerous military campaigns, Diocletian was struggling to maintain control of his empire and, when he consulted his seers, they reported that their sacrificial omens were indicating that it was the refusal of certain citizens to adhere to religio that was bringing down the empire and that many of those responsible were Christians who believed that the crucifixion of Jesus had put an end to all sacrifices.

¹¹ This resulted in what is now known as ‘The Great Persecution’ which, whilst greatly exaggerated by the Christian historian Eusebius, was certainly principally directed at Christians whose treachery was deemed to be responsible for Rome’s gods’ displeasure and thus their withholding of favour resulting in Rome’s diminished fortunes both fiscally and on the battlefield. ¹² The mid-second- century pandemic (thought to have been smallpox, but never confirmed as such) which decimated the Roman Empire, like many emergencies, tended to take attention away from ritualistic ceremony and so Christians became more tolerated, especially as their charitable tendencies were viewed by Roman authorities to be more beneficial than harmful. ¹³ Notwithstanding this increased tolerance, until the fourth century CE, the state religion of Rome was polytheistic Mithraism and only when, in 336, following a dream in which he is believed to have seen a burning cross and told to fight under that symbol, Emperor Constantine I made Christianity ‘legal’ and Roman citizens were allowed to openly practise Christianity. This was, however, with some of his own ‘adjustments’ to suit the already congested Roman religious calendar because he was, first and foremost, the ruler of pagan Rome—a fact often conveniently overlooked by modern Christianity. ¹⁴ One of the greatest myths in Christianity began in 325, when Constantine presided over the First Council of Nicaea in Bithynia where Roman bishops were divided on the very nature of the Christian Godhead. So, using his absolute power as emperor, Constantine burned all the bishops’ submissions and unilaterally proclaimed the doctrine of the Trinity—a totally personal idea that ultimately became the creed of every mainstream Christian denomination around the world. ¹⁵ In addition to this though, the holy day of Judaism (and thus true Christianity) was changed from the seventh day to the first, Jesus’ birth from the autumn to mid-winter and his crucifixion from the fifth day to the sixth and sanctified as “Good Friday”—all total myths! ¹ Then, in 384, as the popularity of the new, simpler religion grew and the emperor Honorius appointed the religious head of the Roman church, Siricius as head of the Christian church, the worship of all other gods but the Judaic God of The Bible was criminalised and the wheel turned full circle. The head of the

Christian church was styled Pappas, meaning ‘Father’ and translated into English as ‘Pope.’ This was as much a matter of expediency in times of financial constraint where many gods cost a lot more than one!

FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD BUT

HE WHO HESITATES IS LOST!

¹⁷ Nevertheless, had it not been for Constantine’s infatuation with the new “cult,” Christianity may never have become the world-wide religion it is today and one has to wonder what other mythology all of today’s Christians would be following now. ¹⁸ As it is though, with Rome as the dominant political and military power throughout Europe, coastal north Africa and the middle east, Christianity—in the guise of Roman Catholicism—became the only major openly practised religion of the western world until 1534 when King Henry VIII of England broke away and formed the Church of England—still nominally Christian but without any Roman authority—because Pope Clement VII refused to recognise the annulment of his marriage to his brother, Arthur’s widow, Catherine of Aragon and ‘legalise’ his marriage to Anne Boleyn (a reason for which Henry interestingly and conveniently cited Leviticus 20:21 “If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.”—especially considering his own earlier ‘liaison’ with Anne’s married sister, Mary). ¹ During those 1143 years of almost absolute Roman Catholic dominance,

anyone who did not and would not sedulously follow its doctrines was unceremoniously tortured and put to death by some of the most inhumane practises imaginable. An estimated fifty million people were executed (murdered?) in the name Christianity during what was referred to as “The Inquisition.” So it isn’t difficult to understand how, after over a millennium of vicious enforcement, an albeit highly corrupted form of Christian mythology became thoroughly entrenched into European culture. ² One thing that I find amazing is that adherents to religions eagerly and happily accept their (often fantastic) folk-stories as absolute truth whilst vehemently dismissing any other religions’ stories as unbelievable! What is more arrogantly audacious than that? A notable exception to this is Islam’s full endorsement of the Old Testament of The Bible. ²¹ For example, it is quite OK to implicitly believe that a man could have a discussion with God disguised as a burning bush yet to absolutely ridicule equally incredible stories from other belief systems such as an angel leading a young American to a pile of golden plates with a whole new set of messages from that same God! (Mind you, about fifteen million people believe that story too! The world is full of gullible people!) ²² Even in The Bible’s own pages there are references to sincere beliefs that contradict its own teaching. For example, when the Apostle Paul visited the city of Ephesus in what is now Turkey and preached Christianity, the city clerk said to the people who were fearing the demise of their religion (and thus the lucrative sale of religious artefacts), “Doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of Artemis and her image, which fell from heaven? Therefore, since these things are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash.” [Acts 19:35, 36. NIV]. If the whole world knew that Artemis (Diana) falling from heaven was undeniable surely that must mean it was true? And if that was true, then it would follow that all the rest of Greek religious belief must also be true! ²³ For six centuries the (nominally Christian) Roman Catholic Church treasured a piece of cloth bearing what looked like a human form as being the grave shroud from Jesus’ tomb—the Shroud of Turin—but it was not until 1988 that the Vatican allowed any scientific examination of the artefact. However, even then, those who conducted extensive tests fell into three distinct categories. There were those who were bent on “proving” it was genuine, those equally bent on

proving it a hoax and the smallest group, those who were dedicated to finding the truth, whatever that may be. Carbon dating of the fabric showed that it was made in about the 14th century CE and thus finally disproved that it was Jesus’ burial shroud. As a result of this the Catholic Church forbade any further testing and locked the artefact away. Another dearly-held myth gone up in smoke! ²⁴ Was the Shroud of Turin just another example of pareidolia where people saw in it a random image basically what they wanted to see like those who have claimed to see Jesus’ face in snow on mountain slopes from aircraft or ‘the man in the moon’? ²⁵ In Victorian England, Christian church ministers took mythology to a farcical extreme when they opposed the building of the London Underground railway because they believed the noise of the trains would disturb the devil! I wonder what that did to their credibility. ² The epistemology of most religious dogmas is highly questionable to say the least. Yet millions of people of all callings simply don’t seem to care. This is, in itself paradoxical. ²⁷ Have you also noticed how the vast majority of religions are male-dominated? Women are rarely given much responsibility or credit beyond child-bearing and rearing and are often portrayed as being highly subservient to men. What does that tell you? Religion is nothing more or less that a male-instigated political tool. Whilst men were feverishly devising ways to dominate their peers, women were in their rightful place at home having babies! ²⁸ Many non-Muslim people around the world believe that the burqa—the allenveloping Islamic gown worn by women that incorporates a complete facecovering and the niqaab, or veil which doesn’t cover the eyes, are fundamental requirements of Islamic awrah (denoting protection of the vulnerable)—the qur’anic onition to Muslims (men and women) to cover their ‘private parts’ [Qur’an, Surah 24, verse 31]. This is yet another religious myth and, in fact, the Quran specifically prohibits women participating in the haaj (pilgrimage to Mecca) from wearing them. “The woman in ihraam is forbidden to veil her face (wear niqaab) or to wear the burqa.” (‘ihraam’ refers to haaj). ² The burqa and niqaab are actually traditional garments of some middle-eastern tribes and have nothing to do with religion and would be better compared with

Hawaiian grass skirts, Dutch clogs or Alpine lederhosen.

14. Natural Selection, Atdaptation, Mutation or Evolution?

¹ Another thing that religious people hotly contest—especially some Christian sects—is any suggestion of evolution and some clarification is required on this because I believe that many people don’t even know the meaning of the word— so, back to the dictionary… ² Evolution (noun): Of the several definitions, the third one applies to this discussion: Development of organism, human society, the universe etc.; origination of species by development from earlier forms, not by special creation. ³ So when does development or (to use a better term) adaptation to accommodate environmental change become evolution and is there a difference? Whilst development is synonymous with some sort of improvement adaptation is simply change. ⁴ Christians and Muslims accept Old Testament s as factual historical records. If that were to be so, it would follow that all humans today are directly descended, not only from Adam and Eve but from Noah and his wife. How, then, do we have three very separate and distinct taxonomic sub-species of the species homo sapiens of the genus homo—namely Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid? All three are inter-breedable and can produce viable offspring in the same way as numerous different breeds of dogs, cats or cattle so that most people on Earth today are actually hybrids with distinct morphology. ⁵ Was Noah a Caucasian, a Mongoloid or a Negro (rhetorical question)? More to the point though, whatever the answer, how did some of his descendants become what he wasn’t? A pure Caucasian man and a pure Caucasian woman cannot produce a Mongoloid or a Negro child or vice versa. A Negro is NOT a suntanned Caucasian (although an Indian is). A skilled anthropologist can tell which sub-species a person was from just a few bone fragments because there are physiological differences. So what happened? The answer must be a scientific explanation of natural development. At some time in ancient history were various animals, including hominids,

exposed to toxic chemicals or radiation—possibly from volcanic eruptions or with extra-terrestrial visitors—that caused them to mutate? Was biosynthesis catalysed by enzymes a factor or did they mutate spontaneously? These are a few plausible possibilities but there are lots of others. ⁷ Quechua people living in the Andean Altiplano of South America at altitudes of 4000 metres and more are much stockier in build but have lungs much larger than natives of The Netherlands many of whom live below sea level. In La Rinconada, Peru, a city of 50,000 people, an ordinary Peruvian could outwork a very fit Dutch athlete because his larger lungs with consequently many more alveoli can physically metabolise more oxygen from the much thinner air at 5100 metres. ⁸ So, if the Quechua are descended from Noah and somehow travelled from the Middle East (where legend says Noah lived) to South America, what happened to them? Is it simply an example of genetic allele frequency or did they gradually adapt to suit their environment or did they evolve—and what’s the difference? The Quechua are, incidentally, thought to be a further sub-species of the Mongoloid having originally migrated from Asia to the Americas via the Bering land bridge many millennia ago. A similar variation occurs between Inuit natives of the Arctic and those of the African and Amazon jungles where each cannot physically cope with the prevailing climatic conditions of the other and, without adaptation, would have died. ¹ Therefore, if you believe The Bible, you must accept that there have been physiological changes over time and whether you call them natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation or evolution is only a matter of semantics. ¹¹ Humans are, of course, all variations within the genus homo of the order primates but the debate doesn’t stop there. Some evolutionists take the theory to extremes where they postulate that all life on Earth—animal and plant—began, as mentioned earlier, when lightning struck pools of amino acids and that life developed over many millennia from single-celled life-forms into the profusion we know today. ¹² Charles Darwin—frequently vilified by creationists—wrote, “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this

Earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” [‘The Origin of Species by Natural Selection’ 1859.] Whether he was right in his theory is still debateable although evidences have been found in fossil records of intermediate stages between species—missing links, if you will. But please note two words in that Darwin quotation: probably and breathed. The first indicates that his deductions from scientific observations, whilst considered probable, were by no means certain and the second, by inference, that he acknowledged the existence of an entity that ‘breathed life’. ¹³ I am not a biologist or an anthropologist and so I am, like most people, reliant on those more knowledgeable than me for information and ideas. To be honest, I find the idea of humans evolving from invertebrates via reptiles and lesser mammals somewhat disturbing but then I also acknowledge that the Great Creator is not answerable to us for how he achieved his goals. So, if natural selection by adaptation was his method, who am I to argue? And it does make sense! That’s how we do things!

15. The Time Factor

¹ Until a Greek philosopher named Aristarchus realised that the idea was wrong, the whole world thought that the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. Then, less than 400 years before I was born, in 1543 a brilliant Polish mathematician and astronomer named Nicolaus Copernicus published a book, “On The Revolutions Of Celestial Spheres” in which he explained that the Earth actually orbited the sun.

“GREAT SPIRITS HAVE ALWAYS ENCOUNTERED

VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS” Einstein - 1940

² A hundred years later, this was further endorsed by the Roman Catholic Italian genius, Galileo Galilei for which he was investigated by the all-powerful inquisition and, because his findings contradicted traditional church teaching, found guilty of heresy, forced to recant or be excommunicated and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. ³ It was not until over 100 years after Galileo’s death that the Vatican, by then no longer able to question heliocentricity due to advancing scientific knowledge, withdrew its opposition to his theories so that, today, the idea of geocentricity is relegated to the realm of primitive ignorance. Yet, for thousands of years, religious despots promoted it to the point where no one dared to question it! The trend hasn’t changed!

⁴ This unfortunate fact-of-life was summed up by no less a man than the eminent Catholic-educated German-Jewish theoretical physicist genius Albert Einstein in a letter sent in 1940 to Morris Raphael Cohen, professor emeritus of philosophy at the College of the City of New York, defending the appointment of Bertrand Russell to a teaching position in which he wrote, “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.” ⁵ In the early 20th century, Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître proposed what later became known as ‘The Big Bang Theory’—a term coined by Fred Hoyle in a radio broadcast in 1949 and endorsed by the famous American astronomer, Edwin Hubble after whom the Hubble telescope is named. The theory was based on increasing scientific knowledge and understanding of the origins of the universe in which the beginning of time (often referred to as ‘the fourth dimension’) occurred some 13.8 billion years ago when a cosmic singularity of matter, no longer able to sustain itself, spontaneously expanded with a huge explosion into the universe as we now know it. At first, the disparity between many creation myths and the Big Bang Theory caused some controversy between science and religion. However, as with many other once-believed concepts which have since been proved erroneous (Galileo et al), with increasing technological ability and rational understanding, most religions have agreed that their highly symbolised traditional teachings on creation can be reconciled with scientific deductions based on cosmic evidence to the point where only a few very simplistic traditionalists cling to a belief in the sophistry of their legends. ⁷ As many theologians now agree, when the Great Creator did his work, he needed raw materials to work with and the Big Bang is how he provided them. This is known as the Cosmological Argument and is in direct contention with creatio ex nihilo (meaning, ‘creation out of nothing’) concept as opposed to the much more credible creation out of chaos. ⁸ With this advancement in knowledge, a major aspect of Biblical mythology that gives more than ample cause to doubt its veracity is the time factor whereby the Judaic Scriptures indicate an age of about 6000 years for the populated Earth.

The concept of a universe and, in particular, an Earth much older than religious mythology teaches has, in recent times—particularly the last 300 years—gained almost universal acceptance with remarkably accurate carbon dating of organic remains at well over four billion years for the Earth in its present general form. ¹ The process, perfected by American Nobel Chemistry laureate, Willard Libby in 1949 uses the physical evidence of the known radiometric decay rate of carbon 14—the radiocarbon isotope of the common element present in all organic existence—to determine the age of material found in archaeological sites and elsewhere to an accuracy of within one percent. ¹¹ In the high Rocky Mountains there are bristlecone pine trees with over 12,000 annual growth rings that are still alive today indicating that they were seedlings twice as long ago as the Biblical age given to the Earth. ¹² Another even more reliable evidence that the Earth is much older than biblical teaching suggests is the analysis of core samples taken from the Antarctic ice cap—with an average thickness of about 2½ kilometres and an extreme of almost twice that—which, amongst other things, like time capsules in nature, not only tell scientists how Earth’s climate and ecology has repeatedly changed cyclically over millions of years but provide evidence that life has existed on Earth for considerably longer than a mere 6000 years. ¹³ Geological studies of such things as the erosive qualities of the rock walls surrounding the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in America indicate that it has taken at least 17 and possibly as much as 70 million years to form. Whilst those parameters are far from accurate (due to uncertain volumes and speeds of water flows throughout history), they are considerably more than the biblical age attributed to this planet. Also, the difference in age between the rocks at the bottom of the canyon and those at the top rim is in the order of 250 million years. ¹⁴ These are but a few scientifically substantiated facts (not myths) that provide empirical evidence that Planet Earth and organic life have existed for a very long time and not a mere 6000 years. ¹⁵ Yet even in this age of enlightenment, depending where geological discoveries are made, religious pressure can be brought to bear. For example, in Roman Catholic Mexico, where man-made tools found at the Hueyatlaco site indicating

human habitation at least 20,000 (and possibly as much as 250,000) years ago has been systematically supressed by the Mexican government. ¹ Reference to this appalling but not uncommon tendency is made in the documentary film, “Forbidden Archaeology Supressed “and also in the aforementioned “The Mysterious Origins of Man “hosted by Charlton Heston – both films well worth watching. ¹⁷ Nevertheless, there are religious people who still seem to bury their heads in the sands of medieval ignorance clinging tenaciously to traditional folk-stories and futilely attempting to refute tested science and that confounds me. ¹⁸ Some will tell you that the Great Creator purposely made those ‘pre-aged’ evidences although they can’t tell you why. But if that suggestion is considered in its full implication, it would make the Creator (in the Judeo-Christian context, God) a deceiver and I find that a lot less acceptable than the scientific evidence. ¹ I can, however, see how, in an age of scientific ignorance, when composing the first five books of the Old Testament, Moses would have used a highly simplified symbolism to make his story seem credible. What I don’t understand is how so many educated modern people cannot see that now. ² But then I must accept that, until quite recently, I was one of them! So why was that? Quite simply, it was because I didn’t want to see it! It wasn’t a deliberate attempt to ignore what was staring me in the face but simply a complacent acceptance of outmoded cultural tradition. I hang my head in shame!

16. Indoctrination

¹ Very significantly, a fundamental aspect of theological teaching is that to question it constitutes doubt and doubt, in turn, constitutes ‘sin.’ Thus, if such doubt manifests itself during the ecclesiastical education process, the aspirant is failed and, therefore, never gets to the point where his or her reservations are allowed to influence others on a mass scale. This is indoctrination—and another word for that is brainwashing! ² My mistake has been just like every other spiritual person who fooled himself into believing religious doctrines (in my case, The Bible) as factual documents more as a matter of convention than commitment whilst, all the time, my interest in Scripture had actually been, had I realised it, an academic study of Jewish and Christian folk lore. ³ This can be compared, for example, to a professor of Greek or Norse mythology who holds a doctorate. Just because he thoroughly knows his subject, doesn’t mean he believes it! Similarly, studying the Qur’an as a means of better understanding the Islamic religion in the interests of harmonic co-existence (supposedly a Christian ideal) doesn’t make a person a Muslim!

MOST RELIGIONS,

WHEN VIEWED UNDER THE IMMUTABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND NATURE, MAKE VERY LITTLE SENSE.

⁴ So why is it that, compared with students of Agatha Christie, Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare (or was that Edward de Vere?) who clearly understand

that, whilst occasionally based on real life, the works are all fictional, students of ‘holy’ books seriously believe every word to be implicitly true and then allow that belief to govern their whole lives? When viewed intelligently with an open mind, it has to be nothing short of ridiculous! ⁵ As previously stated, different people all around the world have spent millennia contriving and sophisticating many different ideas of who or what the creative power may be and, in so doing, gradually those more eloquent and charismatic methodically persuaded their families, peers and compatriots to believe—in many cases, implicitly—that they knew ‘the truth’ when, in actual fact, that truth was nothing more than invented folk lore (more often than not, with ulterior motives—more about that shortly). I say ‘implicitly’ because most of them today never even dare to question the veracity of it and that’s the way religious proponents with vested interests like it! When you think about it, this is blatant brainwashing! They don’t want intelligent examination of their mythology and theories because that runs the risk of people arriving at the very conclusions I have reached. They want their congregations to simply follow like sheep (which, interestingly, they are characterised as in The Bible) because, without congregations, they have no financial ! And herein lays a major key to the reason for institutionalised religion in the first place. ⁷ Along the way, various groups have had opportunistic people in their midst who saw chances for personal elevation by creating stories that their less-gifted contemporaries accepted as portentous ‘signs’ or ‘proofs’ that they had had communication with some superior (often referred to as divine) being or entity— their particular god. ⁸ In other words, the legends, myths and folk-stories have definite political connotations. In the Judaic context, Moses’ conversation with a burning bush is a prime example which I shall examine in more detail shortly. There are, as everyone knows, numerous different ‘disciplines’ around the world and, as earlier referenced, it has long been my contention that history and the place of a person’s birth and thus his cultural upbringing determines which (if any) of those disciplines he follows. ¹ For example, if Christian forces had failed to defeat the advancing Muslims at

the battle of Vienna in 1683, would I (along with most other people of western European origin) have been raised as Muslims and never questioned it? Think about that. ¹¹ Similarly, a native of India would have grown up knowing (quite likely, only —depending where he lived) Vedic Hindu or Sikh religion without ever questioning it to the point where, just like Christianity of the western world, it is regarded as absolute truth and, as such, to so much as question it would be sacrilege (with dire consequences). ¹² If he or she was born in Saudi Arabia, he would be a Muslim and, as such, forbidden by law to study anything but the doctrines and fables of Islam. (What are they afraid of?) Yet one of Islam’s basic instructions reads, “Cooperate in righteousness and piety but do not cooperate on furthering sin and aggression.” [Qur’an 5:2] ¹³ Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of irony is that, according to The Bible, the Jewish religious hierarchy demanded Jesus’ execution because, as a cynic philosopher and prophet of social change, he challenged their traditions and posed a serious threat to the leaders’ security! Fortunately not all religions are that exclusive! ¹⁴ A wonderful illustration of how religions (I prefer the term ‘belief systems’) are readily accepted by millions of people without ever being clinically researched can been seen in the following allegory. ¹⁵ A group of scientists placed five monkeys in a cage and, in the middle of the cage, a ladder with bananas on a small platform at the top. Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water. ¹ After a while of this, whenever a monkey started to climb the ladder, the other four beat him up until, eventually, no monkey was prepared to attempt to climb the latter even though the temptation of the bananas was very powerful. ¹⁷ The scientists then replaced just one of the monkeys and the first thing he did was climb the ladder to get to the bananas. Immediately, the other four monkeys beat him up. After several beatings, the new monkey learned not to climb the ladder although he never knew why because the scientists had stopped soaking the others.

¹⁸ A second monkey was replaced and the same thing happened including the first replacement monkey taking part in the beatings. This was continued with each monkey being replaced a few days apart until all five of the original monkeys were gone and what was left were five monkeys who beat up any one of their number who attempted to climb the ladder even though not one of them had ever had a cold shower. ¹ If it had been possible to ask the monkeys why they beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder, none of them would be able to say other than, “That’s the way things are done around here.” and, if you asked a lot of people why they go to church, mosque, temple, synagogue or any other pace of worship every week that’s the sort of answer they would give too! ² As I have said, I am not well-versed in all the world’s religions—which, when you think about it, is evidence that I may not have even heard of the ‘best’ one! ²¹ Including atheism (the third-largest belief system in the world after Christianity and Islam and to which about one-seventh of the world are ive adherents) there are about 22 basic belief systems, each encoming numerous sub-groups, sects or denominations (Christianity has well over 400 so what does that tell you). Some principle tenets of most religions are as follows: ²² Tenet A. They are almost all supernatural. That is to say, if viewed under the laws of physics and nature as we know them, they make very little logical sense. ²³ This, in itself, is interesting, even fascinating, because, as previously mentioned, whilst their followers readily and happily believe the amazing stories associated with their own belief systems, they vehemently rubbish those of others such as ghosts, astrology, crystals, anthropomorphised animals, reincarnation, stigmata, Marian apparitions, transubstantiation or extra-terrestrial life—the latter actually a LOT more plausible than their religious stories given the previously discussed extent of the known universe. ²⁴ Please pause for a moment and imagine this: Sometime in the future there occurs a huge global cataclysm (nuclear accident, global war, giant hurricane, asteroid strike, whatever) that devastates Planet Earth—and, believe me, it isn’t so much whether that will happen but when! (See Appendix B at the end). There are only a few survivors in remote villages whose first priority is, quite naturally, re-establishing order and civilization. Then, after a few centuries, the

descendants of those survivors find a strange tiny plastic card with electrical terminals (an SD memory card) in an urban ruin somewhere. Eventually, as their technology advances, they figure out how to access the information it contains. What they discover absolutely amazes them. Way back in history before the great cataclysm there was a wonderful, benevolent man-like creature who came to Earth from a distant planet called Krypton and who, in complete defiance of gravity, flew around doing only good things for mankind? He even disguised himself as an ordinary man in order to ‘fit in.’ His name was Superman. They have moving images of him to prove he really existed so one of the first things they do is elevate him to the status of a god and build a temple in his honour! (Think about it and don’t laugh because, if you do, you could be laughing at yourself!) ²⁵ Tenet B. Some form of life after death is available as the ultimate reward for loyal followers who sincerely believe whatever their particular religion teaches and obey its rules. ² Tenet C. That to so much as question (in other words, doubt) what the religion teaches (arrogantly referred to by its proponents as ‘the truth’) will result in forfeiture of that reward—thus implanting fear of some sort of loss into followers. This fear factor is a very important key aspect—but what sort of mental anguish does constantly living in fear engender?—“Do it MY way or you’re dead!!” No thank you! Not for me! ²⁷ Tenet D. In just about every case, regardless of which religion, the promised life-after-death will be much better than this life—another very important aspect in the process of subjugation because it makes the reward desirable. ²⁸ Tenet E. The arrogant denouncement of any other religion as ‘pagan’ or ‘false’ (because it directly contravenes what ‘we’ believe) and—with the notable exception of Judaism, which is a racial rather than a religious system, thus must be evangelised and its ‘saved’ or, if that is unsuccessful, they are either written off as ‘lost’ or, if you’re fundamentalist, exterminated by whatever means that takes (crusades, jihads, sectarian wars, inquisitions, anarchy, etc.). ² This is particularly evidenced by extreme adherents being prepared to pay the ultimate price of sacrificing their own lives for the cause such as Muslim suicide bombers, Buddhist self-immolators, Shinto kamikaze pilots or fanatical Christians who commit suicide rather than surrender or compromise their beliefs

(Zealots, medieval martyrs burned at stakes, People’s Temple, Branch Davidian, etc.)—and this, of course, only because they believe that the next life will be much better anyway—therefore no real sacrifice at all—they just get there sooner! ³ The Bible, promoted by many of its proponents as a love story, is packed with s of whole nations who didn’t agree with its teachings (Amalekites, Moabites, Arameans, Philistines, etc.) being brutally wiped out even though in its own pages, one of the basic rules ostensibly laid down by the Creator was “You shall not kill”! Talk about double standards! Steve Wells’ book “Drunk With Blood “thoroughly details this yet very few even question it. (I can just hear all the religious fanatics screaming, “You don’t understand” here so please tell me, what’s not to understand about, “You shall not kill.”? It ends with a period which means there are no following conditions!) ³¹ Let us now look at a story of the Spanish colonisation of Cuba as told by writer Leonardo Moran. “Hatuey (pronounced at-way) was a chieftain from Ayiti (now known as Hispaniola) who sailed to the neighboring island of Cuba to warn the natives there of the impending invasion by Spanish conquistador, Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar. Most people are unfamiliar with Hatuey’s accomplishment but in Cuba he is known today as “Cuba’s First National Hero.” ³² Describing Cuba’s natives to his sponsor, King Ferdinand of Spain, Christopher Columbus wrote “They are well-built, with good bodies and handsome features. They are the finest people on Earth, lacking any knowledge of evil. They neither murder nor steal [and] display the most singular loving behaviour… always gentle and always laughing. They are ingenious and free with all they have; of anything they possess, if it be asked of them, they never say no. They are a very loving people and without covetousness. They are adaptable for every purpose, and I declare to your Highnesses that there is no better country or better people in the world than these. They do not bear arms and do not know them. They would make fine slaves. With fifty [armed] men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we will.”

The Spanish conquistadors raised gibbets on which to

hang their victims, roasting them alive thirteen at a time honouring their Saviour and the twelve Apostles.”

³³ The Spanish promised to impart their Christian faith in exchange for the Indians’ labour, a system they called la encomienda (‘the entrusted’). ‘Labour’ in this case meant chattel slavery and starvation in the mines. It was annihilation. Indians who fled the Spanish were hunted down like game. The priest Bartolomé de las Casas documented their stories; they fill a book. A minor example: ³⁴ “(the Spanish) forced their way into the native settlements, slaughtering everyone they found, including small children, old men, pregnant women, and even women who had just given birth. They hacked them to pieces, slicing open their bellies with their swords as though they were so many sheep. They even laid wagers on whether they could manage to slice a man in two at a stroke, or cut one’s head from his body, or disembowel him with a single blow of their axes. They took infants by the feet and dashed them headlong against the rocks. They spared no one. They raised gibbets on which to hang their victims, roasting them alive thirteen at a time honouring our Saviour and the twelve Apostles…”—all in the name of Christianity! Need I say more? ³⁵ Few among the conquistadores were normal men. Many were psychopaths, murderers and rapists freed from Spanish prisons. They had never before experienced absolute power over others. With no restraint over his actions a Spaniard would, for amusement, order an Indian child to hold out an arm, simply to test the sharpness of his blade.³ The native Taínos had faced prior enemies. They had fought a fierce and warlike tribe called the Caribs (for whom the Caribbean is named). But all agreed: they had never met a race as savage and as lustful for gold as the Christian Spanish. ³⁷ The chieftain Hatuey gathered his kinfolk. Taking a basket full of their gold he threw it into a raging waterfall. “Here is the god the Spanish worship! For our baubles and our trinkets they torture and kill. For our trifles and vanities they hunt us down, butcher our children, murder our women, and take us as slaves to a distant, joyless place. Throw your gold into these waters! Then they may sail home and leave us in peace.”

³⁸ But the Spaniards did not sail home. They longed to own the Indians’ final possession - their labour. Hatuey led the resistance. With sling and spear and tortoise-shell shields they battled the invaders. They were defeated. ³ Hatuey was sentenced to burn at the stake on a pyre of the trees he worshiped. Every nation has its defining moment. This was theirs. On that unjust day he became more than a rebel. On that day he became legend.⁴ He was bound to the stake. A Franciscan priest urged him to accept Christ as Saviour. “For baptism in the blood of the lamb,” promised he, “ensures your place in paradise! There will you rest among ever-blossoming flowers. There you will sleep beneath everfruitful trees. The islands of heaven run with streams of wine and honey. Such is the glory of Christian Paradise!”⁴¹ The Indian retorted. “And should I reject your faith, what will become of me? On what island shore will my spirit find peace?” ⁴² The priest’s gaze turned cold. “My son,” he hissed, “anyone so wretched as to die outside Christ’s embrace is forever doomed to a place of darkness! There you will find no fishes, no fruits or flowers. He foolish enough to reject God’s infinite comion will be punished with equally infinite torments in the fiery cauldrons of hell! And what’s more,” he promised, “a Christian baptism allows you a quick beheading. Rather than the agonizing death by fire which you now face!” ⁴³ The Indian asked warily: “Should I go into your Christian heaven…will I also see them?” With bound hands he indicated the Spaniards who had butchered his kinfolk. “Those bloodthirsty savages who accompany you? Will they me there?” ⁴⁴ “But of course!” laughed the priest. “How could heaven be otherwise? All Christians dwell eternally with Christ and His saints!” ⁴⁵ Hatuey lashed out at his tormentor. “A heaven for torturers? A paradise for child-killers? What god would so defile his creation? I want no part of your paradise. Send me to hell!” And so the fires were lit.⁴ One hundred and fifty years after the burning the Indian’s sentiment was echoed in a great poem. It was written by one who had never set foot on Cuban soil. It is titled “Paradise Lost.” In it the Archangel Lucifer, exiled from heaven for disobedience, is cast into the netherworld. He embraces fate with these words, “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice, to reign is worth ambition, though in hell: Better to reign in

hell than serve in heaven.” ⁴⁷ Hatuey knew something his conquerors did not. He knew that even paradise with all its glories, if shared with oppressors, will prove an agony and a hell. Better therefore to reign in hell than serve in heaven. Better to die with dignity than suffer the indignity of a slave. His example is taught to every Cuban schoolchild. Perhaps this is why we tend to embrace rebels, poets, malcontents, and visionaries, an indulgence not always to our profit. ⁴⁸ The Spaniard’s Bible said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.” Hatuey said no; the meek shall have that which is theirs when they rise off their knees, stand fast on both feet, and claim it. Freedom is nowhere freely given. It must be fought for, and sometimes, but not always, won.” [Leonardo Moran, Cuba: A Leap of Faith 1952] ⁴ Does that sort of indoctrination of innocent people of other cultures seem like the desire of a loving Creator to you? It sure doesn’t to me! But different religions have done similar things for centuries. This has been just one example. ⁵ On the subject of indoctrination and double-standards, perhaps one of the most bizarre contradictions frequently heard is where Christians proclaim that Jesus died for their sins and then, almost in the same breath, that “Jesus lives!” Well, did he die or didn’t he? ⁵¹ When (and, perhaps more sadly, IF) you think about it, this “ours is the only true religion” paradigm is utterly pathetic! They are ALL based on ancient legends, traditions and folk-lore—most of which are impossible to and, given their defiance of the basic laws of physics and nature, extremely difficult for an intelligent person to countenance and brutally enforced as just illustrated in Hatuey’s story.

17. Love and the Original Plan

¹ One has to wonder why the Creator made things like viruses and other parasites that invade his beautiful creations with sometimes devastating and horrible results—things like the GBM brain cancer that my 42-year-old son, Clinton fought for two-and-a-half years whilst his pregnant wife and two-year-old son and all our family could only watch in anguish. Yes, I prayed my heart out to my Creator that the cure that he provided along with all the rest of his creation would be found in time but, when it wasn’t, did that mean God doesn’t care? ² Religious people will say that things like cancer didn’t exist until man ‘allowed sin into the world’ but that doesn’t answer the question. For one thing, how on Earth do they know that?—it is only an assumption and, for another, where did cancer and other diseases come from? Anyway, since sin is just a biblical word meaning (to quote 1 John 3:4 in The Bible) ‘lawlessness’—in other words, disobedience—it wasn’t ‘allowed into the world’ it was simply something that (in my view) inevitably happened. Like it or not, disobedience is a natural human trait—especially when self-preservation or satisfaction are at stake.

WE CAN’T CONTROL OUR BRAIN’S PRODUCTION OF EMOTIONAL HORMONES,

BUT WE CAN CONTROL

OUR RESPONSE TO THEM!

³ Besides, how could disobedience possibly ‘create’ a malignant invasive parasitic neoplasm like cancer? By the way, for anyone interested, my daughter-in-law, Alannah gave birth to a beautiful, healthy daughter, Poppy on November 5th 2013. ⁴ As discussed in section 14, could diseases that inflict the world’s population, be mutations that the Great Creator, whilst foreseeing their possibility, couldn’t prevent (for no other reason than that they are mutations and not creations)? If that is so, then all he had to do was be prepared for it and create cures in nature for man to discover as and when necessary. Such things as Opium, Cocaine and Cannabis whose curative properties have been known for centuries by native cultures but, because idiots have abused them, are illegal—even as controlled medicinal cures—in many countries. ⁵ Even there though, people whose only objective is money have persuaded politicians to believe that the cures that the Great Creator provided free for all have to be ‘refined’ and tested before they can be made available to the public. But I and many herbalists believe that the Creator made them just right in the first place! An example of this occurred once when I was suffering from severe diarrhoea while on a visit to a Maori marae and my late father-in-law—a tribal Rangatira —pointed me to a Koromiko (Veronica Stricta) bush and said, “Just chew on a few leaves of that and you’ll be fine in half-an-hour.” He was absolutely right! No cooking, no refining—just chew it! And there are plenty more just like that. ⁷ I must it that, as a deistic creationist, I still do wonder about some aspects of creation like viruses, poisons and venomous animals but that is also another— albeit related—topic for possible future debate. ⁸ The answer to these questions could well be summed up in a single word— predestination—whereby the Creator of the universe, having done his work of creation, including the setting in place of environmental systems governed by immutable laws of physics and nature that made his creation self-sustainable and, where necessary, self-repairing, left it to run according to whatever circumstances occurred with no further interference from him and, as we now know only too well, many of those circumstances have been enormously and

adversely influenced by humanity with vested self-interests.

IF ONE PERSON HAS AN IMAGINARY FRIEND THEY’RE CALLED CRAZY. IF ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE HAVE AN IMAGINARY FRIEND THEYRE CALLED A CULT. IF ONE MILLION PEOPLE HAVE AN IMAGINARY FRIEND THEY’RE CALLED A RELIGION.

But even that doesn’t explain why a beneficent god would create things like hurricanes and earthquakes and floods and forest fires started by lightning strikes that destroy thousands of lives, homes and livelihoods through absolutely no actions of mankind. ¹ Many Christians will tell you that they know Jesus personally. How can a person possibly KNOW someone they have never seen or met or even spoken with? Certainly they know ABOUT him (or, to be more correct, what their folkstories tell them about him) but to say they actually know him is like a young child who has an imaginary friend. It would seem that a lot of people never grow out of that either! ¹¹ There is a maxim that so succinctly says, “If one person has an imaginary friend they’re called crazy. If one thousand people have an imaginary friend they’re called a cult. If one million people have an imaginary friend they’re called a religion.”

¹² As I have already stated, I am certainly no authority on every world religion but it seems to me that they all contain elements that make them palatable to their followers. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be any followers because another natural human trait is “What’s in it for me?” At first glance that may sound very mercenary but as I will explain, that isn’t necessarily so. ¹³ One of the most palatable of those desirable elements is what is popularly referred to as ‘love.’ Everybody, regardless of religious persuasion, likes love— although actually defining it would pose quite a difficulty for many! Cultural differences in conceptualizing love further impede the establishment of a universal definition. ¹⁴ In a human context, unconditional love is said to be demonstrated whereby the one feeling and giving it makes personal sacrifices with no apparent personal benefit. ¹⁵ However, what people fail to realize is that there is ALWAYS a personal benefit, although it is often only emotionally intrinsic. Even in the most selfless examples of charity the personal benefit—that “what’s in it for me” aspect—is a form of self-satisfaction or self-gratification. It makes them feel good—and very often, that is more than sufficient! ¹ Scientifically, love is a response emotion or series of emotions triggered by outside stimuli that cause the brain to instigate the release of neurotransmitter hormones such as dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and oestrogen. Those stimuli can be as varied as the number of people on Earth since they are individual to each person’s physiology and mentality and can be compared with such things as hunger and thirst or the need to sneeze or relieve the bowels. ¹⁷ It is my belief that the release of emotion-producing hormones cannot be controlled although the conscious response to the emotions they generate can. However, this often places a severe strain on a person’s mind since it involves an internal mental battle between desires and responsibilities that can be exhausting and debilitating which, in turn, diminishes their ability to make rational judgements and decisions so that they end up in a downward spiral that may ultimately require psychiatric help to overcome. ¹⁸ The emotions that are triggered can be biologically categorised. For example, in her book, “Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love,”

Canadian anthropologist, Helen Fisher lists three basic types concerning romantic love—Lust, Attraction and Attachment—where love can begin with any one. ¹ Religious people tend to decry lust as an irresponsible failure to control animalistic desires but that is way too simplistic. I believe that, if they actually thought about it, a large proportion of those who are married or engaged, would have to it that the initial stimulus that led them to want to know their partner better was a visual assessment that determined his or her desirability—that is, they were pretty or handsome—they ‘caught their suitor’s eye.’ The animalistic desires are when a person acts to satisfy the lust (itself an emotional product of pheromones and neurotransmitters released as a result of a basic need to procreate inherent in all animals) without first going through the processes of friendship and commitment which typify the higher human psyche—in other words, unless the lust is mutual, it’s rape! ² Attraction is akin to lust but is, perhaps best described as going beyond the visual and being much deeper whereby the one attracted takes time to get to know the object of his or her interest’s personality and character and, hopefully, discovering that the feelings are mutual. ²¹ Attachment is when both parties have got past (but NOT left behind) the lust and attraction phases and established a stable loving (that is, mutually caring, dependant and if not permanent, long term) relationship. This, along with commitment. is what religious people deem to be the only situation in which a sexual relationship should exist and, when it is considered that a sexual relationship’s ultimate purpose is procreation, one would have to agree that it is certainly an ideal situation in which to lovingly raise children. ²² However that is what might be described as ‘a perfect world’ but, unfortunately, we don’t live in the Great Creator’s perfect world—we have messed it up! ²³ It has been said that nothing in life is more certain than change and, as circumstances change so can emotions so that a married person in a monogamous culture may meet someone that they are attracted to more than their spouse which raises the question, “Should they live in what has become an unhappy situation for them or break those ties and establish new ones?”

²⁴ That is a moral issue with different priorities to different people and I don’t propose to express an opinion here other than to say that, if one party does decide to move on, they have a moral obligation to ensure that their existing family are not disadvantaged. ²⁵ A significant factor in such situations is that, in many cultures, if a girl isn’t married by the time she’s 20, she is considered to be ‘left behind’ and, as psychologists now know, the prefrontal cortex of the human brain—the part that deals with, among other things, forward planning and abstract thinking—is not fully formed until the age of about 20. So how can a 16-year-old know, or even understand, how he or she will feel in ten years’ time. The recent trend in developed countries to delay marriage well into the twenties and even thirties has to be a positive move given such knowledge. ² The same type of categorisation as is applied to love can be applied to all types of emotions that the unconscious release of hormones produces and, more often than not, some sort of conscious response has to be made. For example, if a person who is acutely arachnophobic is suddenly confronted by a huge spider, the brain will instantly release large quantities of fear hormones which initiate a series of immediate responses, the first being an instinctive startle response where the person’s muscles contract and they either freeze or jump and, possibly, scream. They don’t think about or plan this at all—it just happens. ²⁷ If the person and the spider are in an open environment, the next instinctive reaction of the person (and, perhaps, the spider too) is to place as much space between them as possible as quickly as possible and that is when conscious reactions begin to take over from instinctive ones. The person may take a split second to decide which direction to run or, if they have already overcome the initial hormonal stimulus, they may look for a weapon with which to attack the source of their fear. ²⁸ Yet again, if a person witnesses, or, even worse, is the object of cruel or unkind behaviour—particularly if it is excessive—the emotion triggered may be one of hatred. Religious people will say that hatred is intolerable to them and, more particularly, to God and that could well be true. What they forget is that the hatred may only last very briefly after the initial release of hormones (which, , is uncontrollable), and, as soon as the conscious mind has overcome that automatic response, the hatred is modified to distaste or disgust and the response to the stimulus tailored to responsibly deal with the offender as

opposed to instinctively lashing out.

DOES

“DO IT MY WAY OR DIE!”

SOUND LIKE THE WORDS OF A LOVING CREATOR?

² An example of this could be when someone sees a man brutalising his wife or child. The instant mental reactions in any decent person to that are anger and hatred but, being a responsible person, rather than just grabbing the nearest weapon and bashing the offender’s head in, he first calls the police and then, possibly at personal risk, attempts to defuse the situation. ³ And that is where the initial instinctive anger and hatred is replaced by love— the love for a fellow human being (the wife or child) who is being subjected to pain and suffering—and a sincere desire to help where simply waiting for the police to arrive could be fatal. ³¹ From these examples it can be seen that love is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of emotions that the brain can produce although it could justifiably be considered the ‘highest’ since it produces pleasing results. ³² The love generating hormones naturally produced by the body include the same compounds released by amphetamines, stimulating the brain’s pleasure centre and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement which is why so many people resort to supplementing the natural ones with manufactured—and, in most counties, illegal—drugs.

³³ In his original plan, our Creator provided all those amazingly intricate chemicals in our bodies to warn, protect and, in particular, to stimulate us to make rational decisions concerning every aspect of daily living and, unless a person has some genetic or otherwise-caused defect, we each have the ideal quantity to enable us to conduct our lives according to his plans. ³⁴ It is only when an imbalance occurs that irrational behaviour happens. So does that mean that ionate murderers, paedophiles, rapists, kleptomaniacs or megalomaniacs are not responsible for their actions? That is a question still hotly debated by neuroscientists and legislators. ³⁵ Research has shown that the amount of time it takes for a person’s consciousness to overcome their instincts would seem to be directly related to the amount of hormones released whereby a person who is subjected to an inordinately large amount will take longer to ‘calm down’ and react responsibly and that extra time could make the difference between rational and irrational behaviour. ³ Another emotion many people experience is jealousy. Technically, jealousy is a form of fear in which a person is frightened of losing something or, more particularly, someone they love or losing a perceived status among their peers by an inability—often financial—to emulate them. Jealousy is typically considered to be a negative emotion yet The Bible describes God as being jealous [Exodus 20:4-6] when it comes to anyone worshiping anyone or anything before him. ³⁷ Not only that though, the same commandment (the second of the famous original ten) describes those who do that as hating God. That seems a bit polarised and, to be honest, hard to rationalise. However, we need to that it took Moses 40 days to carve all ten on stone with a chisel—not God with his finger (that’s another myth)—as part of his (albeit well-meaning and responsible) programme of keeping the Israelites ‘in line’ and minimising sedition and anarchy. ³⁸ Many languages use multiple words to express some of the different concepts of love whilst (maybe unfortunately) English relies mainly on ‘love’ to encapsulate them all. One example is the plurality of Greek words for love as can be found in the original texts of the New Testament. Basically though, pure love is an interpersonal emotional process whereby people consider each other’s well-being with a view to living harmoniously together and thus securing their

own well-being. After all, it’s much better to live in that sort of environment than to be constantly in contention! ³ So it would be safe to say that the founders of most religions made that principle a priority (call it a principal principle!). The point being, when loving harmony is promoted, some people will accept whatever is on offer. Harmony makes the doctrine ‘saleable!’ This can be used to prey on gullibility and nowhere is it more prevalent than amongst uneducated and insecure people. ⁴ There are those who attempt to quantify love whereby the highest form is totally unconditional love—expressed by the word agape in Greek—sometimes called ‘grace’ which is simply a word meaning unmerited favour—epitomised by the one giving it requiring nothing tangible in return. ⁴¹ The Bible teaches that this is the love God has for his creation yet also relates many stories about dramatic retribution wreaked upon those who disobeyed him. This “Do it MY way or die!” seems somewhat inconsistent wouldn’t you say? But then we should that the Old Testament of The Bible is a Hebrew political document, not a human one! ⁴² The difference between loving and liking is that we can like inanimate objects or activities or even people (that is, they please us) whereas, in loving, there is two-way traffic—that is, there is both giving and receiving and, when one stops, so (eventually) does the love. Unrequited love is doomed to an early demise. If it weren’t, someone betrayed or bereaved would have a severe psychological problem and be condemned to the rest of their life in abject misery! ⁴³ You may recall that I wrote earlier how, as a child, I ‘loved’ my story book ‘Fairies and Enchanters’ and say that contradicts the previous statements—and you’d be right. However, the context in which I purposely used the word was a reflection of the way a child sees things in a much more polarised way. Children tend to love things that make them happy but, as they mature, they learn that true love can only really be applied to people and maybe pets (who, incidentally, reciprocate better than a lot of people!) ⁴⁴ Also, love should not be confused with ownership. Perhaps the best example of this can be seen in many marriages where, in some cultures, men view their wives as hardly more than chattels or trophies and the poor wives know nothing of being valued and cherished for themselves as human beings and, to me, that is

heart-breaking. ⁴⁵ It will be interesting to see how many people who I thought loved me suddenly don’t when they read this and discover I don’t share their mythological beliefs any more!

18. Ulterior Motives

¹ Going back to the origins of religions, in just about every case, the promoter has his own agenda to address so that once the basic concept has been sold, ulterior motives start to surface. And they have all done it! Because I know more about Judeo-Christian legend than any other belief systems, I will cite examples from that.

“THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD”

An epic fantasy novel by Moses ben Amram c. 1200 BCE

² Moses, who was a member of the Hebrew Levite clan, devised a story whereby (HE SAID) he was personally selected by a god who declined to give his name but, to give the story credibility, was identified as none other than “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Moses’ ancestors in his story) to lead the Hebrew people out of what was a very disharmonious situation—Egyptian slavery. The simple peasants of the day actually believed his story about being spoken to by a burning bush! What is amazing is that some gullible people in the enlightened 21st century insult the intelligence God gave them and still believe it! ³ Whilst in Moses’ story he says he was spoken to by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jews and Christians should bear in mind that Abram (later renamed Abraham) was an Arab from the Sumerian city of Ur, now in modern Iraq where

their god’s name was (and still is, even among Christians), Allah and polygamy was legal. Moses would, of course, have known that. The Qur’an says, “Follow the way of Abraham who was ever inclined to Allah and was not of those that set up equals to him” [Qur’an 16:124] ⁴ Something that modern Christians conveniently choose to overlook is that it is only because of Abram’s taking his wife Sarai’s maid, Hagar as a second wife in a successful attempt to produce what was, in his time, an essential heir for himself that much of today’s global sectarian hostility between Muslims, Jews and Christians exists. That liaison produced Abram’s eldest son, Ishmael who he was, quite understandably, proud of to the point where, in a fit of jealousy, Sarai (later renamed Sarah) dismissed her maid who then became an unmarried mother with no welfare state to her. ⁵ Nevertheless, as the first-born son of Abram, Ishmael ultimately followed in his father’s genetic propensity to leadership to become prominent in Abram’s hereditary religion—now known as Islam whose adherents are the Muslims—the followers of the One true God—who, quite understandably reject the claimed birthright of Abram’s second son Isaac who was subsequently born to Sarah. However, it was not Ishmael, but Isaac who was the direct ancestor of Moses and therefore the one that Moses claimed his birthright from and through whose son Jacob (later renamed Israel, meaning ‘he wrestled with God’) in his story, he adopted the title, ‘Children of Israel’ and accorded them recognition as God’s ‘chosen people’ even though the Bible clearly states that God has no favourites (Romans 2:11). ⁷ There wasn’t anyone there to endorse Moses’ story about his conversation with the burning bush but, in a very clever little ploy designed to further increase the credibility of his , Moses added a bit about his own reluctance to do as God directed him. In a classic use of reverse psychology he even included some narrative about arguing with God! He thus not only promoted himself as the chosen leader but also all his immediate relatives—the Levites—to the point where they would never have to work again except as priests financed by the other eleven tribes of Israel (funny that!)—not a very labour-intensive job in a time when all work was labour-intensive, I think you’ll agree. ⁸ Of course, this needed a lot more authentication than just a story about a chat with a burning bush and so, whilst he may have had some speech impediment,

Moses certainly didn’t have any problem as a creative story-teller! Thus he set about producing his master-work, “The History of the World According to Moses”—an epic fantasy saga in which the Hebrew people were set apart from all other humans as being ‘God’s chosen people’—a pretty cool story if you happened to be a Hebrew at the time! We need to that Moses had been brought up in the royal court of Egypt and was thus highly educated in a time when the vast majority of the populace—especially the Hebrew slaves—were basically ignorant and so he already had a major advantage in gaining a form of respect among the peasantry —and that is a key factor in the whole saga. ¹ In that sort of environment, who among the rank-and-file would have dared to argue with Moses’ claim that God had personally appointed him? Clever chap, that Moses! ¹¹ A similar scenario occurred in 16th century China when a man named Wu Cheng’en wrote a story titled “Journey to the West” (paraphrased into English by Arthur Waley as “Monkey.”) Even today in communist China, huge numbers of people base their lives and culture on lessons taken from Wu’s writings although the state correctly rates them only as folk-lore. It’s a pity some western states don’t adopt a similar responsible policy concerning some of their writings! ¹² Moses was also a pretty accomplished conjuror who, through careful study and practice, was able to pull off some amazing stunts that would convince just about anyone. Some of his successors were in that business too. The story in 1 Kings 18: 20-46 of Elijah on Mount Carmel is an example. (I have actually witnessed a dramatic re-enactment of that using off-the-shelf chemicals. It was very exciting and convincing!) ¹³ Rather like the famous twentieth-century Roman Catholic author, J.R.R.Tolkien, Moses set about compiling a whole series of exciting stories ranging from the creation of the universe (about which, in his day, man had no scientific knowledge at all—, they even thought the Earth was the centre of it and flat!) to a huge global flood and the adventures of his Mesopotamian (Iraqi) nomad ancestor, Abram right through to his own selfpromotion.

Moses’ promotion of a single family of nomads has to be one of the greatest political master-strokes in all of history!

¹⁴ Like most good thrillers, there were dramatic tales in which he concocted a protagonist who he called “God” and an antagonist who he described as a talking snake (who was later called Satan based on the Hebrew linguistic connotation of ‘adversary’). He even had the audacity to actually quote words ostensibly spoken long before he was born and of which there was and could be no written or even traditional record! But then I suppose we must that his was a work of fiction! In other words, Moses created a tradition (rather like the monkeys I described in Section 16) and a Creator God—or, to be more precise, an identity for the Creator. Today, gullible people say that he was divinely inspired! How can they possibly know that, let alone justify it? ¹⁵ Whilst their works are both classic fantasy works of their time, I personally find Tolkien’s much better and a lot more entertaining. ¹ The main differences between the writings of Moses and the writings of Tolkien are purpose and timing. Moses concocted his yarns in a time of extreme need, to gain political supremacy and independence for his extended family, “the children of Israel”—a population of an estimated two million people descended in only 430 years from twelve brothers—the sons of Israel—and their immediate families. ¹⁷ When Moses compiled his stories knowledge was much less than in the mid twentieth century when Tolkien typed (or dictated?) his. In fact, Moses didn’t even commit his work to hard copy—it was only handed down verbally for at least three centuries until writing was invented. , at that time, the Egyptians who educated Moses only had pictographs and hieroglyphics painted on papyrus or engraved on stone whereby they recorded their history and, following the exodus, the Torah was encapsulated in the Mishnah (‘that which is

learned and memorised’) and only communicated orally since written Hebrew didn’t exist until 300 years after Moses’ death. ¹⁸ Much the same was the case of the Qur’an which wasn’t committed to writing until 100 years after Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. Thus both stories could have subtly changed numerous times before that happened and, in fact, Muslims openly acknowledge that is exactly what did happen to the Qur’an. ¹ Tolkien never suggested his work was anything but fiction designed to entertain his readers although, in the opening preamble to his epic fantasydrama, ‘Lord of the Rings,’ he made three statements that suggest it was not just fiction but a moral message to humanity. Referring to the distribution of rings to mythical beings and humans, he wrote, “Nine were given to the race of men, who, above all else, desire power” and when the one ‘ring of power’ comes into the possession of a human, he writes, “…but the hearts of men are evilly corrupted” and then, when it is lost, “…history became legend, and legend became myth.” Three very true statements that, I suspect, went right over the heads of most of his readers! ² Tolkien’s work was written in a time when mass-production meant that (eventually) he made enough money from the publishing of his work to sustain him and his family for the rest of their lives—a facility that wasn’t available to or wanted by Moses—another key point which meant that Moses needed to add to his story some factor that would provide for his future. Hence the appointment of the Levites as a special priestly class to be financed by the rest! (Not a bad strategy actually! Many modern evangelists have followed his example. Same motive, different method!) ²¹ It should be said, however, that whilst he was highly imaginative, Moses wasn’t a very good verbalist because the literary quality of his work leaves much to be desired by modern standards. In many cases, his lack of cross-referencing leaves some noticeable anomalies and continuity errors. For instance, he works very hard to promote his own extended family (later generically referred to as Jews) as being specially chosen by the Creator (and thus superior to all other families or races) yet, elsewhere in The Bible, readers are clearly told that God is no respecter of people (individuals or groups) [Acts 10:34]. ²² Nevertheless, Moses’ promotion of a single family of nomadic Arabs and their descendants to a position that millions of people still accord them some three-

and-a-half thousand years later has to be one of the greatest political masterstrokes in all of history! ²³ It would seem that Moses must have had a slightly warped sense of humour too because there was one really funny twist he put into his story. He decided that, as in many such sagas, his male family should carry a ‘badge’ to prove they were one of God’s chosen. It would, of course, need to be something that couldn’t be easily stolen and so the identification mark he chose was, of all things, circumcision! One can only speculate how of the tribes readily proved their qualification when challenged but it certainly conjures up some highly amusing mental pictures. I’ll leave that to your own imagination—and, this time, you are allowed to smile!

19. The Power of Money

¹ The same ulterior motive that drove Moses has been perpetuated all the way through the ages to today whereby of most religions are encouraged (and, sometimes, required) to donate a percentage of their incomes to a priesthood and its backing system. In Christianity, this is referred to as tithing and (would you believe!) is based on a brief mention [Gen. 14:18-20] in Moses’ novel—thought by some scholars to have been added to Moses’ narrative later— about a gift that Abraham gave to Melchizedek, the priest of Salem (Jerusalem). I wonder how many billions of shekels/pounds/dollars that has poured into church coffers over the centuries! ² I don’t know, but I wouldn’t mind betting that, by time Malachi wrote his essay (included right at the end of the Hebrew Tanach—the Old Testament of the Christian Bible), the people had got a bit slack with their tithing and the Hebrew priesthood was feeling the pinch and so he wrote the piece about “robbing God” [Mal. 3]—along with some terrifying penalties associated therewith—to get the coffers filling again! Here again we see the use of fear as an effective tool in marketing the concept. Not really much different to modern advertising techniques—“eat Special K or you’ll get fat!”—“take out life insurance or your family will be destitute!” etc.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that SUNDAY MINUS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IS NOT FRIDAY

³ Are you beginning to get the point here? I do not believe that The Bible is a divinely inspired document. It is certainly inspired—but not divinely! It is, for its time, very cleverly written political propaganda designed to promote a fiscal ‘taxation’ system and persuade the people to WILLINGLY allow themselves to be subjugated and even to give them some sort of gratification that they were doing the will of their creator! ⁴ There are millions who still believe that and, whilst I feel sorry for them, I don’t want to stop them—it’s their money to do whatever they like with! Just so long as their imagined ‘will of their creator’ doesn’t make them think that they have to indoctrinate everyone else with their myths and superstitions. But of course, the teachings of their religions do demand that they bring in as many converts as possible! ⁵ More mean more income and one of the saddest things of all is that many very sincere clergy never realise just how they are being used to boost funds to the point where they would hotly deny it! Distressing extensions of what started out as Christian mythology—because Jesus wasn’t born at the time of the winter solstice or crucified on the sixth day (now Friday)—are Christmas and Easter where what were once religious festivals have become commercial bonanzas. Advertising using the almost guaranteed leverage of peer pressure aimed at children who have no idea about financial prudence has them pleading for and even, sometimes, demanding gifts that their parents and grandparents can ill afford to the point where credit-card indebtedness becomes an embarrassment or even a disaster. ⁷ To add insult to injury, in many cases those children are taught that gifts are brought by a fictitious character called Santa Claus or The Easter Bunny for no other reason than because the children want them and with absolutely no Christian connotation at all! I once heard a Christian pastor tell during his sermon of how his children got lots of enjoyment from their visit to Santa at a local department store! Was he confused? ⁸ At the same time, adults exchange gifts that they neither need nor want using money they don’t have simply because convention demands it. And retailers’ cash s just keep right on ringing! All, ostensibly, in the name of religion! How ridiculous!

Personally, I would much rather give a gift that I know the recipient needs and will benefit from or enjoy when he or she needs it without being prompted to do so by some religious calendar. ¹ What these dedicated followers of fashion seem to totally overlook is that the greatest gift they could be giving to their children and loved ones is their time. Children and old people, especially, often forget who gave them things but quality time shared happily together lives long in their memories. ¹¹ If you claim to be a practising Christian and you’re wondering why I wrote that Jesus wasn’t crucified on Friday then you are obviously either a lousy mathematician, don’t know your Bible or are happy to believe whatever myths your church tells you because, in Matthew 12:40, The Bible records Jesus himself as saying that he would be ‘in the earth’ for three days and three nights. It also records that Jesus was crucified at nine in the morning on the day before the special Sabbath (John 19:31) which was the Jewish Feast of Unleavened Bread and, in the year of Jesus’ crucifixion, fell on the sixth day (now called Friday in honour of the Norse god Frig)—although The Bible doesn’t name it— and resurrected during the night time (which, in the Jewish culture comes before the day time) of the first day (now called Sunday in honour of the Roman sun god) (John 20:1) so it doesn’t take an Einstein to work out that there’s no way you can get three days and nights between Friday afternoon and dawn on Sunday. Yet Christians rarely even question it! ¹² Have you ever noticed how different religions and denominations ask followers to ‘’—as opposed to simply attending regularly for fellowship? That is largely for statistical and taxation purposes as, in many counties, the size of an organisation determines its eligibility for charitable status and tax concessions. ¹³ Whatever religion you happen to be, are you happy to be paying government taxes whilst every Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious group doesn’t pay a cent? Worse than that though, if you happen to be a keen lawn bowler or golfer or, like me, a railway preservationist or member of any other personal interest group, unless you can claim it as being a religion or a charity your group will pay tax on its activities. Maybe I should myself as a dedicated ‘steamologist’ and get the same tax breaks as Scientologists do! Would you be happy with that?

¹⁴ Not only that, if your religion happens to operate a business under the auspices of their ed denomination, in many countries that business is also tax exempt—which has to be the epitome of ridiculousness yet very few hardworking tax payers ever bat an eyelid. So it is obvious that, financially, the best hobby a person can have is theatrics under the guise of playing out ancient mythological fantasy. ¹⁵ Returning for a moment to the writings of Tolkien, I wonder how they would be treated today if, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they had been discovered in some cave inscribed on sheets of vellum and scientifically dated to several millennia ago. Would the saviour of mankind be called Frodo or Gandalf and the king of evil be called Sauron or Saruman? If history is a yardstick, quite possibly they would! ¹ If you haven’t read Lord of the Rings, it is actually every bit as good a read as The Bible—and just as fantastic (meaning “the product of fantasy”)! The basic story is, just like The Bible, a mammoth power struggle with angelic elves and demonic orcs, battles and romance, loyalty and treachery and all the elements of high drama. In fact, it’s a better read because it doesn’t contain pages and pages of boring genealogies! It is all action, intrigue and emotion. Even better, watch the movies. ¹⁷ Having said the foregoing, I will acknowledge that not all the contents of The Bible are myths or folk-tales. As evidenced by those genealogies, there is some Hebrew history incorporated (albeit somewhat embellished by suggestions that there was ‘divine intervention’ along the way). Yet even that history is somewhat nebulous and certainly biased to Hebrew advantage promoting them as the chosen race of that God who doesn’t have favourites! ¹⁸ For example, one character who gets a very prominent profile in biblical legend, my namesake David, doesn’t occur by name in any other contemporary historical writings and there are only a few minor references to an unnamed Hebrew tribal leader (as opposed to a king) who lived around that time and roughly fits some of the biblical stories. ¹ The famous ‘Ten Commandments’ are actually an excellent set of basic rules for harmonious living and, as such, a vital and highly significant part of Moses’ manifesto. (That includes the fourth one whereby a valuable and necessary weekly day of rest was mandatory thus avoiding exploitation by employers and

slave-masters.) But they weren’t written on stone by God using his finger because, as mentioned, Hebrew writing wasn’t even invented at the time! ² It is interesting that Christians today still refer to “The Ten Commandments” even though, according to the tax-collector, Levi (Matthew), when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied with two commands that are not in the original ten written by Moses. The first and greatest, he said, was; “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” And this was immediately followed by; “And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself.” He then said that all the law (referring to the original Ten Commandments) and the prophets hung on those two commands [Matt 22:37, 38]. However, he had previously said on another occasion that Heaven and Earth would disappear before the least stroke of a pen would disappear from the law [Matt 5:18] so the two new ones didn’t replace the original ten, they augmented them. ²¹ From this it is quite obvious to anyone who believes The Bible to be a true record, that, after Jesus added those two new commandments, there were then twelve with the original number one becoming number three. ²² Were all twelve to be sedulously followed today, there would be a lot less crime and people would have far more respect for one another! Likewise, the proverbs of Solomon contain some excellent common-sense advice which today’s world could well heed to its benefit. ²³ On the subject of the original Ten Commandments, the sixth one clearly instructs, “You shall not kill.” [Ex 20:13] and, four chapters later, we read, “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord has said will we do.” [Ex 24:3] and then, just two verses later, “And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.” How’s THAT for obedience and consistency?! ²⁴ Also on the topic of the ten commandments, The Bible is quite specific that they were given to Moses at Mt. Sinai [Exodus 19ff] and students of The Bible will know that this was after the Hebrews had crossed the Red Sea immediately after leaving Egypt [Ex. 13:17-14:31] whilst the Egyptian army was still chasing them and yet the mountain traditionally acknowledged as Sinai today is on the

Egyptian side of the Red Sea! ²⁵ No historians or theologians have ever suggested that the fleeing Hebrews went due south (and thus deeper into Egypt) and then crossed the Gulf of Suez arm of the ‘Red Sea’ into Sinai which only leaves the Gulf of Aqaba between the Sinai Peninsula and Arabia. ² Many Christians who can afford to, make devout pilgrimages to what they sincerely believe to be the site of Moses’ meeting with God without ever checking that they might just be in the wrong place. Well, they may be rich in funds but they sure aren’t in knowledge! ²⁷ Fortunately recent research by educated people indicates that the real Mt. Horeb (Sinai) is on the Arabian Peninsula. What’s more, the Christians’ own handbook actually says Sinai is in Arabia [Galatians 4:25]! The traditional site is actually only on the Sinai Peninsula because Helena, the mother of Constantine I, the Emperor who legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, decreed it. Helena was obviously uneducated in geography or Jewish mythology (or both)! However, whilst that is a more modern myth and not a biblical one it is nontheless interesting. ²⁸ Another form of religion that makes no apology for being a business is Astrology—the analysis of a person’s character and prediction of events in their life by divination based on the relative positions of celestial bodies at the time of their birth and during their lives. ² Whilst many people religiously believe astrological pronouncements provided by people who have studied the mystic art, they simultaneously profess to be of recognised religions that specifically condemn divination which is anomalous to say the least. Not only that but many astrologers themselves sincerely believe that their gifts of interpretation are God-given and that, just like many religious figures, they are messengers from God. ³ Daily newspapers all around the world publish horoscopes that readers eagerly study and, in many cases, tailor their subsequent activities around. ³¹ However, unlike just about all other religions, astrological practitioners make no pretence of any charitable status and openly charge set fees for their services which, in many ways, makes them more honest—especially when they sincerely believe what they practice.

³² It is the same with psychics such as Tarot card and Ouija board readers and Necromancers and other Occultist practitioners except that they don’t generally hide behind the title of religion. They are, nevertheless, religious in their beliefs in supernatural phenomena and so warrant mention here. ³³ When one considers that the word ‘occult’ actually means ‘knowledge of the secret,’ which simply refers to a belief in the paranormal, it is difficult to understand how some religions condemn it. A bit of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ wouldn’t you say?

20. The Lust for Immortality

¹ It seems to me that the overriding incentive that duped billions of human beings into following various religious disciplines is tenet B (section 16)—life after death. For some reason that I am unable to figure out, nearly everybody seems to want that! Of course they only want it if it is going to be better than this life hence the promises of different religions—no crying or pain, 72 Virgins (more male orientation), Nirvana, Abhaswaras, the Happy Hunting-ground in the sky, etc. etc…

WHAT IS IT WITH IMMORTALITY THAT PEOPLE SO ARDENTLY DESIRE IT?

² This prompts the question, “Should people allow wishful thinking to determine their beliefs?” I don’t believe they should. It’s irrational. Yet it would seem that the vast majority of the world’s population do exactly that to the point where it rules their very existence. Are people SO insecure that they cannot appreciate THIS life and live and enjoy it to the best of their ability and then, when their time is done, simply cease to exist? Maybe it is just simple greed. ³ What is it with this immortality thing that people so ardently desire it? I certainly don’t! In fact, the very idea of living for ever scares me to death (pardon the pun)! Has anyone got the faintest idea what “for ever” really means? There are two words in the English language that are actually incomprehensible to humans—eternity and infinity. In the human mind everything has an end eventually and somewhere! ⁴ According to Judaic, Islamic and Christian mythology, man and woman were created immortal just over a mere 6000 years ago and were told by God to go

forth and multiply. They only lost their immortality when they disobeyed their Creator. ⁵ Here’s a sobering thought. Have you ever contemplated what the world would be like today if that myth were true? If Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God they would be over 6000 years old now and the population of Earth would be somewhere in the order of about 90 billion people and increasing by 1000 every six minutes—and if, as The Bible suggests, women could give birth well into their 90s (ref: Abraham’s wife, Sarah – Gen. 17:16-17), that would be a whole lot more! Also, those figures only apply to a 6000-year-old Earth and, as illustrated earlier and most educated people now know; it’s a lot older than that! We are having difficulty feeding 7 billion so the theory doesn’t hold up too well does it? Not only that, some sanctimonious people tend to decry plants genetically modified to increase productivity in a responsible scientific attempt to feed the starving we have now. ⁷ To further exacerbate the overpopulation problem, The Bible forbids coitus interruptus [Gen. 38:8-10] and religious organisations like the Roman Catholic Church specifically forbid contraception—so sex for fun is definitely a no-no! And, if sex wasn’t fun, why would anyone do it! The end result is that predominantly Catholic countries like Mexico are dramatically overpopulated with impoverished people. In my view, that is nothing short of blatant irresponsibility. ⁸ One has to ire the one child policy stance that burgeoning China made in 1978 to legally limit the number of children a couple can have. Here’s an even more sobering thought: With no death, how many rats and mice —let alone flies and mosquitos—would there be now? One single fertile female rat can bear up to seven litters of young adding up to over two million in a single year so, even if the myth that life has only existed on Earth for six thousand years were true, the number of rats would have been so great long ago that they would have died of starvation simply because they would have outgrown the supply of food. ¹ Throughout history, the only events that have limited the burgeoning population of Planet Earth have been pandemics, famines, wars and, to a lesser extent, natural disasters which tend to be more localised.

¹¹ The Black Death of the 14th century is estimated to have reduced the world population to such an extent that it took over 200 years to recover. The more recent AIDS pandemic has decimated the African population as have other major epidemics in the past. However, advances in medical science continually reduce the effects of such events with the net result that populations continue to rise at an exponentially ever increasing rate. ¹² Since reliable figures have been possible, it took 123 years (1804–1927) for the world’s population to double from one to two billion but only 47 years to double again to 4 billion and, according to United Nations demographic projections, it will take a further 52 years to double yet again (although this would seem to be more likely in about 50). The present growth rate (that is: births minus deaths) is approximately three per second! Statistics do, however, indicate that growth figures have been declining since peaking in the 1980s. ¹³ In any event, unless some major mass-extinction occurs, within a hundred years at the present rate of growth, there could be over 30 billion people vying for space and, more significantly, for food on our planet. At these rates, the population of Planet Earth will be increasing by one billion people every year by about 2150—and, if that sounds like a long way off, if you are under 50 now, your great grandchildren could be one of them! So, whatever your persuasion, you have to it that there has to be a limit. ¹⁴ Some religious people attempt to answer such questions by saying that their god would have dealt with such anomalies by, for example, changing his creation’s ability to reproduce when the Earth’s population reached its optimum but, again, how do they know that? It is just another assumption in an attempt to provide answers to embarrassing questions! ¹⁵ Like it or not, for want of a better way of putting it, death is an integral part of life—and it’s permanent! One good thing about this is that all those gullible people who believe in life after death will never know how wrong they were! ¹ But then, I suppose, if believing it has some sort of placebo effect on their lives and provides security, no matter how false, it has some usefulness. ¹⁷ If an immortal person falls off a cliff and is dashed to pieces on the rocks at the foot, he will be dead! Therefore, immortality is—and only ever can be—a genetic and preservative condition where death by unnatural causes will always

be present. ¹⁸ Many scientists believe that, within a few years (that is, in the lifetime of many people alive now), rejuvenation and organ replacement processes will make it possible for humans to live indefinitely and this has already been demonstrated in limited ways. However, living indefinitely is not immortality and the two should not be confused. ¹ When you think about it, animals, including human beings, are comprised of an assemblage of working parts that, like an inorganic machine, require maintenance and, when they wear out—which they all do—repair or replacement. ² However, as most people know, unlike machine parts, some living cells are self-regenerating and thus negate the need for replacement. The most wellknown examples of this are where reptiles have the ability to naturally replace lost limbs and tails and the processes this involves are the subject of scientific study with the aim of replicating it in mammals and, ultimately, humans. In the meantime, we have ever-increasingly sophisticated prosthetics (see next section). ²¹ Nevertheless, as everyone knows from painful experience, the largest organ in the human body, the skin, is self-repairing, broken bones mend themselves and blood, the means by which nourishment is transported throughout the body is constantly renewed. ²² So, in very simple immortality is, in reality, just the ongoing maintenance of body parts in sound working condition and the replacement of worn-out ones. ²³ There is a clear distinction between conditions and diseases. The former are where certain body-parts are defective—sometimes due to the effects of the latter but, sometimes generic or due to damage caused during gestation, during life or simple wear and tear. The causes are numerous ranging from oxygen deprivation at birth to the ravages of old-age. Some are repairable whilst some are not. ²⁴ Whilst the term ‘disease,’ as the word itself implies, is generally used to describe any malfunction of a living organism, more typically, it is used to refer to infectious diseases that occur when the body is subjected to invasion by destructive or modifying organisms such as viruses and germs. In such cases,

treatment involves the attempted destruction of those invaders without destroying the host. Where this fails the patient can be either left with an ongoing disabling or degenerative condition or dead. ²⁵ The religious concept of immortality is somewhat different though where it is seen as a hitherto unknown condition where bodies and minds don’t age or wear out – ever – and whether this is achievable or even rational is a matter of speculation. However, we should bear in mind that the religious concept does not apply to this existence but to a hypothetical one that they believe occurs after this one is over. ² In any event, the aspiration is the same. Religious people expect some supernatural event whilst scientists hope to achieve it by rational means. ²⁷ One aspect of religious beliefs is that many see immortality as a sort of mental thing only whereby the mind (which they refer to as the ‘soul’) lives on in an indestructible new body—which may or may not look like the old one. ²⁸ This idea of an immortal soul (and that’s all it is—an idea) is generally considered by many religions to apply solely to humans although some notable Christian philosophers like the 13th century theologian, Thomas Aquinas taught that, whilst all living creatures have souls, only human ones are immortal. ² Personally, I believe that ‘soul’ is just a word coined by primitive people to refer to a concept of uniqueness that science has since revealed as DNA, chromosomes and genetics. ³ By comparison, some religions—particularly (but not only) those of more primitive indigenous people such as native Americans or Australian aboriginals —teach a form of animism where they believe that even inorganic things like mountains, oceans and rivers have souls to the point where they don’t even consciously consider it in that light but simply take it for granted. Some, more culturally sophisticated people might sanctimoniously dismiss that as ‘cultural mythology,’ but I ask, “Is there really much difference between their beliefs and yours?” ³¹ The concept of what might be thought of as ‘soul preservation’ has been scientifically postulated whereby a process called Whole Brain Emulation (WBE)—better known as ‘mind ing’ or ‘mind transfer’—is possible whereby a person’s entire brain content, including memories and emotions, is

copied or transferred to another device incorporating an artificial neural network so that, even after the person has died, their mental processes incorporating their own unique rationales, would continue for as long as the device exists. And, of course, unlike most brains a computer can recall everything it has ever been told in nanoseconds and can also be backed up! ³² The ultimate aim of such technology is the ability to repeatedly the mind of a genius into the mind of a child ad infinitum thus virtually immortalising the original genius. This is dramatically portrayed by the repeated regeneration of the popular science-fiction character, Dr Who! ³³ Another project that has been developing since 2005 is the Swiss-based Blue Brain Project in which all brain functions—originally those of mice and rats but, latterly, those of humans—are methodically being replicated bit-by-bit in a supercomputer to a point where the scientists working on it have now set themselves the date of 2023 to create a complete synthetic human brain. ³⁴ When complete, the Blue Brain will synthesise all a brain’s functions including emotions so that, in effect, it will be able to think and make rational decisions based on information it receives. ³⁵ This, in turn, will mean that the Blue Brain will need to be taught not only facts but also how to interpret those facts and respond to them. So does this mean that such a brain could be programmed with certain rationales—rather like the human brain has been for time immemorial with religious or political biases —or will it form it’s own? And, if it does, since it will have the same reasoning abilities as a human brain, will it justify or reject them? ³ Fifty years ago, when computers were in their infancy, they required an airconditioned, temperature controlled rooms bigger than a family home to accommodate a computer with the same technological capabilities as the mobile ‘phone everyone carries in the pocket or handbag today—and, every year, they are getting smaller! ³⁷ If the Blue Brain project is successful—and there seems no reason why it shouldn’t be—the potential is mind-boggling. No more would we need elected governments to make decisions on our behalf. Everything could be safely entrusted to a simulated brain that would be fail-safe and would make decisions for the overall good of humanity rather than just for the wealthy few—and,

unless it was destroyed, it would never die! ³⁸ Is this desirable? Well, maybe you only have a few short years to decide! Or will you just let someone else do that for you? Whilst all that might sound like science-fiction today, what will be possible tomorrow is virtually limitless. ³ On the subject of science-fiction, have a read of 1 Corinthians 15:52-54 and, if you’re able, imagine it is the screenplay for a new zombie movie because that’s what it reads like! ⁴ I guess the way each individual views immortality is different although, as I have written, I don’t think that those who desire it have really thought the whole concept right through. ⁴¹ Have you ever noticed how, when you plan some special event like a holiday or a wedding, you get as much pleasure from the anticipation as you do from the actual reality? In fact, the pleasure from the anticipation often lasts much longer than the event itself which, when it eventually comes, seems to be over in the blink of an eye. So looking forward to an afterlife—if you really believe it— could be said to provide a lifetime of pleasure and, as I have said, when it doesn’t happen, you won’t be disappointed because you’ll be dead! ⁴² There is, however, another form of immortality that is available to everyone and that is history. The memory of dead people lives on in the minds of their survivors but, unless they have made some major contribution to world affairs, that memory will die with those who personally knew them. ⁴³ However, if they did something that made a large enough impact on Earth’s history—whether it was good or bad—that will be recorded by historians and thus “ed” for thousands of years and, if what they did permanently changed history, the effects of their actions may be felt by humanity for thousands of years if not for ever. Examples of the latter are people like Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Neil Armstrong and Alexander Fleming. ⁴⁴ The people who fall into this category are and will be minutely few and even with computerised records to boost the list, “historical immortality” will never be achieved by more than 0.9999999% of the population. ⁴⁵ Personally, I would much prefer to live this life as harmoniously with my

contemporaries as possible. I realise that even this short treatise might bitterly upset some of them although I hope YOU aren’t that small-minded! I readily accept that I am not nearly as good at living harmoniously as I would like to be and, as I realize that my time is running out, I am making greater efforts in that department! But my question is: Did the various writers of what are today regarded by different people as ‘holy books’ ever consider how their agendas have influenced lives for many centuries (even millennia) with what are, in actual fact, merely their own superstitious or politically motivated fictional writings? Well, they’re all long dead now so we’ll never know! ⁴ For a little cartoon that expresses death very well, please visit, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pR7e0fmfXGw.

21. Robots and Cyborgs

¹ So, what if humanity eventually does perfect the ing of people’s minds into robots that are able to perform all the physical tasks that humans do every day but where every action is based on logic so that the only thing required will be maintenance—and that will be done by other robots that they build? ² It does sound like science-fiction doesn’t it? But is it really? In fact, the question should be, “What when humanity makes robots that can do everything they do?” because it’s already starting to happen. As long ago as 2002, Kevin Warwick of Reading University, England implanted computer chips into himself and his wife so that they were able to communicate by thought alone. Whilst that communication was very limited, it clearly demonstrated that it was possible and the advances since then are enormous. ³ Robotics is one of the fastest-growing industries of the twenty-first century. It is only the coupling of computer technology with mechanics whereby mundane tasks can be performed for very long periods without interruption. Half the jobs done by humans twenty-five years ago can now be done by robots. ⁴ Typically, robots are designed to do single specific tasks—like assembling one part of a car, a refrigerator or an aircraft—and any other job is totally unfamiliar to them.

IS YOUR TIME BETTER SPENT DOING SOMETHING CREATIVE THAN DOING MUNDANE CHORES?

⁵ However, there are already robots—called cyborgs—that are actually enhanced

animals (usually—but not exclusively—human) that look and behave very like humans where they have prehensile hands and camera “eyes” that are coupled to computers so that the hands and movement can respond to visual images being received. A principal difference is that they can react far faster than a human. Professor Warwick explains it in this short video. Then look at this too. Even your everyday mobile telephone already responds to voice commands so that you no longer have to type instructions onto a keyboard so that all you have to do is ask a question and, if there is anything anywhere on the Internet, Siri (Speech Interpretation and Recognition Interface—the voice on your ‘phone) will give you the answer immediately. ⁷ Then we come to what might be called “super humans” that can not only do every physical task a human can do but a whole lot more. They’ll be much stronger and maybe they will have extra arms and hands. Maybe they’ll have more eyes providing a complete sphere of vision. Maybe they’ll be able to travel much faster and fly—after all, why limit them? And they will, of course, be able to do numerous tasks at the same time—multitask—which, as all we men know, only women have been able to do ’til now! ⁸ All joking aside though, are you getting the picture here? This ISN’T sciencefiction! It’s science fact! The only remaining thing to be perfected (and it may well have been perfected by the time you read this) is the ing of a human mind into one of these machines and it will be able to make rational decisions concerning everything it has ever learned plus everything available to it on the World Wide Web. ¹ My name is not Jules Verne, H.G. Wells or George Lucas. I don’t write this to amaze or excite you—although it certainly is exciting! By the same token, I don’t write this to scare you either and, if it does scare you, perhaps you should ask yourself why—and I will address that shortly. ¹¹ What I’m referring to here are NOT living humans although it could be argued that, when a machine can make rational decisions based on knowledge that it has readily available to it, it might as well be human. And when that knowledge is the entire Internet, it is virtually limitless and, not only that, it will be able to recall all that information in nanoseconds! Just think how long it takes you now to look up information you need to make an important decision—sometimes

hours whilst a robot can do it virtually instantly. ¹² However, unless such machines are made by very irresponsible people, they should all have an on/off switch whereby they can be shut down in an instant. But that’s not my point. That’s for those who build them to determine and I hope they have the good sense to never lose control over their creations. ¹³ My point is that machines that can already do all the everyday tasks that people have to do now—and a lot more—should always be humanity’s servants whose sole purpose is making life less mundane and more enjoyable. Doors have opened themselves for decades and self-parking cars are rapidly becoming normal! ¹⁴ Robots doing all the work need not be mandatory. If you enjoy mowing your lawns on a sunny day then you’ll still have that choice but then, if mowing is an unpleasant chore that is the price of having nice lawns, let the robot do it! If you enjoy cooking, then there’s no reason why you shouldn’t do the entire job from start to finish but then, if you enjoy eating perfectly prepared food without all the work of preparing it, one day, you’ll just be able to tell your robot to do it!

WILL WE RUN THEM? OR WILL THEY RUN US?

¹⁵ The recipes will all be instantly available and it will know where all the ingredients are kept and it will be fully capable of using all your kitchen gadgets so that all you will have to do is wait for your dream meal to be served! All you will need to do is call your robot by name—either to it directly or by your mobile phone—(oh yes, it WILL have a name!!) and tell it what you want and for how many people and then your guests for some stimulating conversation over a glass of wine at just the right temperature (which “Robert” will serve, of course). However, if you enjoy being creative, there’s no reason why you can’t give Robert the night off and prepare the meal yourself (or maybe

even ask Robert to help). But would you want to load all the dishes and pots into the automatic dishwasher afterwards? I doubt it! ¹ OK, that’s not quite yet—although I would guess it will be commercially available within the next 30 years (it’s possible right now!). Film-makers have foreseen it for decades and when films like The Terminator and Robocop series were released, most people thought of them as pure sci-fi. But today, many of those same people are having second thoughts. ¹⁷ In paragraph 10 I hinted that all this technology shouldn’t be scaring anyone— and I sincerely hope I’m right. The technology itself shouldn’t! However, if some tyrannical governmental regime were to ever have cyborgs and programmed them to perform specific tasks where government agendas rather than public good were the controlling influence, then being scared wouldn’t even scratch the surface. If that ever happens then it could very well be the end of humanity. Unless the cyborgs could see any use for humans (which, when you think about it, is doubtful given their very flawed reasoning), they would simply systematically exterminate them all and become the new rulers of Earth. ¹⁸ All I can say is, let’s hope that remains a science-fiction theme and never actually eventuates. ¹ Perhaps a more believable scenario is like that which was portrayed in the Stanley Kubrick film masterpiece, ‘2001, A Space Odyssey.’ When it was released in 1968, it was, indeed, a somewhat radical glimpse into the future. But that future (2001) has already long ed and robots like HAL 9000 are no longer the stuff of fantasy. ² So then the question arises: If a robot or cyborg that has been programmed to deliver the best possible outcomes for the whole of humanity rather than a few individuals encounters a situation where human behaviour doesn’t those outcomes, will it override its human masters in their own best interests? ²¹ Well, the obvious answer to that is that it not only will—it must! However, one would hope that the robot would fully explain its reasoning before acting and that the human would be able to discuss the situation rationally with it and, dare I say, the rational logic of the robot’s reasoning would become evident to the human and the best result achieved. ²² So am I saying here that I think humans should abrogate their biological

superiority to artificial intelligences? Well, I suppose I am—but there is a provision. ONLY when artificial intelligences are proven without any doubt to be superior to human intelligence (which, as I have said, is all too often governed by irrational emotions) should robots and cyborgs be given ultimate control.

How would you like to go to Paris or Tokyo for lunch today?

One day, you may be able to without even leaving home!

²³ And THAT, my friends, is when humans may willingly become the secondary species on this planet! ²⁴ Now it should be stated here that there are already robots that will do many everyday chores right now. I have a robot vacuum cleaner that does a pretty good job. It detects when it comes to a step and changes direction so that it doesn’t fall down a flight of stairs and smash itself to pieces. It also detects when there is a particularly soiled area and stays there until it’s clean. It knows when it is running low on power and takes itself to its recharging station. But it looks like a little flying saucer and I still have to empty it. ²⁵ Perhaps the mark 6 or 10 models will have arms and be able to vacuum shelves and cornices and it will certainly be able to empty themselves (and, yes, they will know where the rubbish bag is)! When it first comes out I won’t be able to afford it but, once the R & D costs have been amortised, the price will come down so that every household will have one—after all, that’s what the manufacturer will want! These days, manufacturers are far more interested in

mass production where jigging and tooling costs are spread over the maximum number of products! How long ago is it that only the richest of homes had a vacuum cleaner or a washing machine? Now every home in the developed world has at least one of each plus a whole lot more. ² So, if you don’t mind waiting a few years, you will be able to have your own personal servant who will do whatever you tell it to do without complaint and, even if it does have a complaint (like needing lubrication or repair) it will fix itself (and you will have the right oil in the proper place where your robot can get to it because the robot will have put it on the shopping list and put it away when it was delivered!) ²⁷ Robots in industry are commonplace now and, as the technology advances, domestic ones will become more and more common. ²⁸ All this will, of course, give humans more and more leisure time and how they spend it could, for some—especially the unimaginative ones—be a big problem. ² One major requirement will be maintaining physical fitness that is no longer being contributed to by manual work and so gymnasia and adventure camps will probably burgeon dramatically. More people will have pet dogs that need exercise and so pet-friendly parks will become more plentiful in urban areas. Even now, there are people who watch their TVs whilst walking on a treill because they spend their days sitting at desks and putting on weight. ³ Homes will increasingly incorporate exercise facilities like swimming pools and home gyms. Sports competitions on the Internet will also become more popular where, for example, a home treill will be linked to others anywhere around the world and people will be able to race each other and no ‘fixing’ will be possible. Just imagine: The 2050 100 metres treill Olympic title will be won with the winner never leaving home—and the watching crowd, all watching in their homes, may number 5 billion! ³¹ Already, right now, I can sit in my armchair and chat with friends anywhere in the world via Skype on my 80 inch TV set just as though we are in the same room together so this isn’t some fantastic dream. To take this to the absolute limit (although I’m not sure where that is!) robotics could, eventually, do away with even such things as holiday travel where you could go into your home theatre or put on a virtual reality helmet and tell it to “take you” to anywhere on

Earth. ³² You can already do this to a limited extent with Google Street View. For example, I have “driven” through the Killarney Lakes region of Ireland, again sitting in my comfortable recliner chair in Australia and looking this way and that and, even in that limited environment, felt as though I’d actually been there. It’s only a matter of time until those panoramic pictures on a screen will be replaced by holograms so that the illusion of actually being anywhere on Earth is complete. And, yes, the air in your entertainment room will be just like the air of wherever you go and, if you want to swim in the lake, your pool will be exactly like it! ³³ After your swim, you’ll be able to stroll into your home and your robot will serve the local cuisine prepared exactly the way the locals would have done it. Very little will be impossible! ³⁴ After meeting inventor Gene Dolgoff (inventor of the digital projector), film producer, Gene Roddenberry incorporated the technology with Holodeck in his popular TV and movie series, “Star Trek” (and he’s been dead since 1991!) These ideas are nothing new but they are much closer to reality than when Roddenberry wrote them. In fact, scientists predict that holodeck technology will be available within ten years. ³⁵ Who knows? Maybe, one day, you’ll even be able to climb the Matterhorn or Mt Everest with ice and snow provided right there in your very own holodeck! ³ Sure, some of these things will only available to a few rich people—but that’s not the point. The point is that they will be available if you’ve got the money. If you don’t believe me, go to Hollywood and see what some of the fabulously rich film stars have in their homes right now. ³⁷ Futurist, Fereidoun M Esfandiary (better known as FM-2030) foresaw and wrote about a time when “enhanced humans”—referred to as transhumans— basically cyborgs will be predominant. ³⁸ I doubt that I will live long enough to see such facilities become commonplace but my grandchildren certainly will. They will get out of bed in the morning and, most likely, work from home for two or three hours and then their robot will serve lunch and they’ll spend the afternoon strolling around Neuschwanstein Castle or Angkor Wat or Disneyland (where, of course they’ll be able to ride the

attractions and their chair will bounce and tilt in coordination with the movements of the rides—we have that now. I’ve done it at Warner Bros. Movie World!) Then, when they’ve had enough of that, Robert will have a lovely, perfectly-cooked dinner for them to enjoy. ³ So where does all this fit into this study? Well, if the contents of a human brain can be ed to one of these cyborgs, it may have the ability to make decisions in exactly the same way that its “parent” human did but, being a machine/computer, it will basically be able to live forever—repairing and updating itself regularly—and, whilst it may never have the ability to procreate, that won’t really matter because it won’t need to. It won’t be going anywhere! ⁴ This then brings us to the truly unknown aspect of robotics. Will robots with ed human knowledge ever experience emotions? If they will, does that mean that two robots could “fall in love” with each other? By this, I mean, would they share empathetic logic whereby their reaction to it might seem illogical? And, on that, your guess is as good as mine! ⁴¹ It does, however, bear thinking about and has already been the topic of numerous movies. Logic suggests that it could be possible (especially when one re that brain functions are just micro-electrical responses to neurotransmitters in our nervous systems). ⁴² And, if all that is possible and its creator’s brain is ed, could a robot, using that knowledge, build a replica of itself which, whilst not procreating in the biological sense, would, in effect, be the same thing? ⁴³ Whilst this paints a picture of a thinking machine, it would also seem logical for the builders of such machines to limit their thinking abilities to those that would only be of positive service to humanity but the question then arises, “Which humanity?” You see, a military robot could easily be programmed (instructed) to only attack the enemies of its masters but then how does it know who those enemies are if they aren’t wearing identifiable uniforms? Maybe it will be able to scan the DNA before acting and, unlike a human, it will have an eidetic memory that can instantly recognise millions of faces and voices. ⁴⁴ No doubt the experts in robotics and their programming will work out solutions to such challenges to the point where the world will have “superhumans” that will do all the jobs that humans don’t want to do as well as being

able to work out the best way to do them. ⁴⁵ The real problems will arise when the wrong people get their hands on the knowledge and skills to make and, in particular, programme such machines so that they serve corrupt agendas rather than the overall human good. ⁴ And then the question will arise with recurring frequency, “What is the overall human good?” because one group of people will see the very opposite to what another group sees and humanity will be no further ahead than it is today with all its competing religions! But the robots will know—and superstition will NOT have any part in it! ⁴⁷ Don’t say you weren’t warned though because the rise of the machines is coming. With proper programming, they will be our friends but without it, they could be our worst enemies. ⁴⁸ There is a scripture in the Bible that may also hint of a technological future where, in Revelation 13:16, 17, we read, “It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.” ⁴⁸ In 2004, a company called Applied Digital Solutions (since renamed, Digital Angel!) introduced an implantable chip called the VeriChip that could be painlessly inserted under the skin and, rather like a bar code, used to digitally uniquely identify a person (or animal) and replace any and all plastic cards so that, as was prophesied in Revelation 2000 years ago, a person could conduct financial transactions by simply scanning his hand. And when the world eventually becomes cashless, will that prophesy be completely fulfilled? I guess we’ll just have to wait! ⁴ Finally, robots will, in effect, be immortal because, when they wear out, they will simply update themselves into improved models which will then scrap the old ones with no emotions at all since the new ones will, in effect, BE the old ones—rather like Grandpa’s axe which has only had three new heads and seven new handles since it was new!

22. Good Works

¹ I want to take a few moments here to acknowledge that some of the positive things that religious organisations do such as running welfare centres and soupkitchens for less-fortunate people, international aid programmes and disaster relief etc. are VERY laudable and the world is undoubtedly a better place as a result of such activities. ² However, with a single exception, those activities have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrines they push and the two should not be confused. Good works may be a fruit of their beliefs but that should only be the impulse that drives them and not a reason for doing them. Good works should come from the heart (actually the mind—but you know what I mean) in response to a perceived need and not from some doctrinal compulsion. ³ The single exception is contraception. Those religious organisations whose doctrines frown on or even ban contraception encourage their to contribute to food-aid for such areas as sub-Saharan Africa—where birth rates are the highest per capita in the world—where education in birth control should be the priority and this, in my view, constitutes gross irresponsibility. ⁴ If some of the churches involved in welfare activities concentrated on those and forgot their doctrines, they might be a lot better off morally! But then they wouldn’t be churches—they’d be philanthropic organizations. And, of course, there are already many such organisations that don’t hide behind religious agendas. ⁵ As some readers may know, I once wrote a book entitled “God’s Deal With YOU” about religious inaccurate interpretation and manipulation of The Bible and I believe, in this context, I now need to explain and justify that. Sure, the way in which it was written clearly illustrates that it was done from a biblical viewpoint. The only reason for that is that, back then, whilst I had spent a lot of time examining what it was I was believing, I hadn’t examined the actual veracity—the fundamental basic truth (or otherwise)—of it. In other words, I was still very gullible.

EVIL IS A HUMAN CREATION

However, for anyone who is a committed Christian today, that book is every bit as valid now as when I wrote it. Any Christian person must acknowledge that the ONLY authority for his or her beliefs is the collection of writings known as “The Holy Bible” and, as “God’s Deal With YOU” points out in detail, most so-called Christian churches do not teach or practice what The Bible teaches—and some blatantly disobey its most fundamental teachings and have even changed its wording to facilitate that—and are therefore jeopardising their ’ entire spiritual future—if, indeed, they have one which, as committed Christians, they sincerely believe they do. (That is, of course, their personal and private commitment and, as such, the making of it is not open to discussion unless they instigate it.) ⁷ Nevertheless, because their churches need income—not only to pay their leaders and istration expenses but also so that they can spend millions on grandiose infrastructure equipped with the latest technology and send evangelists and loyal ers on world trips in private jets propagating their agendas— they will do their utmost to convince whoever they meet that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is a ‘lost soul’ because more people mean more income! In other words, they are fanatics! As mentioned earlier, one such fanatic who managed to persuade almost a whole nation into believing he was right was an egotistical control-freak sociopath named Adolf Hitler! I rest my case! ⁸ When viewed in a totally disionate way, churches are not really any different to sports, social or cultural clubs. They are just places where people with common interests gather to share fellowship and plan events designed to promote their particular ions and boost their hip and their incomes and thus maintain their viability.

If all the money spent throughout history on building and maintaining what are often spectacular religious buildings (cathedrals, mosques, temples, etc.) had been spent on housing for the poor, I suggest that there wouldn’t be any homeless people today. ¹ I hope that this message does not distress whoever reads it but would suggest that, if it does, there can be only two reasons. One (which, if any, I hope is the one) is that you are concerned for me because, having read this far, you sincerely believe that I am one of those lost souls I mentioned earlier. If that’s the case then PLEASE do not be distressed because I’m not—it would only be YOUR opinion! ¹¹ The other reason is rather more insidious (for me) and that is that your distress may be for yourself inasmuch that I have ‘shaken’ some of your long-held beliefs. If that is the case then may I suggest that it must follow that those beliefs were shakeable in the first place and all that tells me is that you have a working brain and the power of reasoning—albeit a bit cluttered, as was mine, by myths and folk-stories. ¹² It may mean that, after some serious self-examination, you decide that your beliefs are as valid as they ever were and you can then relax with an even greater conviction because—maybe for the first time in your life—you actually examined it in detail rather than just followed tradition. ¹³ If, on the other hand, you no longer find that you are able to embrace your previously-held convictions, then that is YOUR choice and all I will have done is prompted the self-examination that instigated it. It is, as I have said, very personal and no one should tell anyone else what to think or believe. (Not even husbands and wives—but, hopefully, they would respect each other’s beliefs when they differ!) What I am saying here is that I have NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to ‘sell’ what I have concluded to anyone! I have no agenda whereby I want to gain some place of power, fame or money. I will leave that to others. ¹⁴ If the ‘warm fuzzy’ sensation that having something or someone higher than themselves to depend on makes people feel good then so be it. If they are content to abrogate their personal Creator-given responsibilities to some unseen ‘higher power’ (real or imaginary) that is for them to deal with. Having so said, I will it that I personally hope my Creator still has some interest in me but whether

that is ive or active I have absolutely no idea. ¹⁵ Evil is a human creation born of selfish lusts for power, fame and wealth and, once created, rather than stand up and be counted, man, depending on his culture, invented various ‘forces of evil’ to the buck onto. How very convenient! But who is he kidding? The only evil influences that affect human behaviour are personal benefit and other humans! Therefore I take responsibility for my own decisions and actions and certainly don’t blame bad ones on some imaginary spiritual adversary manipulating me! ¹ This is endorsed in the teachings of the Qur’an which states that each person is responsible for his own actions and only he can make restitution for them [Qur’an 6:164], unlike the Christian belief that Jesus did so for all humanity. ¹⁷ For all we know, the Creator may be, for want of a better analogy, like a scientist who creates circumstances whereby he can examine and test his ideas and, having learned from them and reached conclusions, commits them to his files and, equipped with the knowledge gained, progresses to other projects. ¹⁸ This, of course, totally refutes the religious doctrines that teach that their gods are infallible (and most of them do). Where such a notion came from I have no idea other than to say it is just another of the tools of those political opportunists who, by promoting such an idea, made it a heinous crime to question anything they claimed their god had told them. ¹ What is wrong with a Creator who is fallible? Does such a concept make him any less powerful? Fallibility should not be equated with incompetence although I suggest a refusal to it it should! Why could the Creator not be like us and learn from his mistakes; ever improving his creations and, in subsequent work, eliminating dysfunctional aspects and modifying others to improve their functionality—especially when one considers that believers in the Mosaic creation story accept that humans are made in God’s image? ² One of my favourite sayings is, “He who never made a mistake, probably never made anything!” Who’s to say that, somewhere across the vastness of space, there are creatures similar to humans with extra eyes in the backs of their heads and two pairs of hands who can fly? After all, aren’t those attributes humans have often wished for? Maybe the Great Creator heard our wishes and said to his colleagues, “What a good idea! We’ll do that next time!”

²¹ Another statement sometimes heard is, “God must be SO disappointed with us?” But it occurs to me that, even though, when one sees the degradation of the world today, that may not be the case. ²² Why do I say this? Well, perhaps—just maybe—when The Great Creator did his original work, part of his agenda was to observe just what humanity would do given self-determination and left to their own devices. If that is so, then everything we have done since creation has fulfilled that agenda and I have to wonder if God isn’t all that surprised by what he sees. After all, he knew what he had made. Just a thought. ²³ Of course, were that to be the case, it is just as possible that, just like a human manufacturer who modifies his products as unexpected flaws are observed, God may have made small amendments to his creation over millions of years since “Homo Erectus.” Who knows? And, does it matter? It certainly doesn’t diminish the Creator’s greatness.

23. Heaven, Hell and Judgement

¹ Two popular myths that religious people of many different belief systems subscribe to are the concepts of some places of either eternal bliss or eternal torment or destruction—Jews, Muslims and Christians call them Heaven and Hell. ² If, like me, you believe in a Great Creator (regardless of who you believe him to be or what you happen to call him), then you probably also accept that everything that exists was made by him. So why would the creator of life also create a place of torture or destruction? It sounds downright spiteful and makes no sense. ³ With a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of Christians have a notion that the place they call Hell is an eternally-burning lake of brimstone (sulfur)— although no one knows where it is! They believe that, if a person disobeys just one of the biblical commandments without sincerely and genuinely repenting, that’s where they’ll end up. ⁴ They say that Hell is a place of final punishment where ‘divine justice’ is meted out to unrepentant sinners because God has no further use for them. Yet those same people quite possibly (and, sometimes, very vociferously) were at the forefront of campaigns for the abolition of capital punishment in their home countries. Talk about double standards! ⁵ Hell doesn’t sound much like the product of a loving creator to me. Does it to you? Of course, those religious people will also tell you that only God can judge because that’s what their book says. What they fail to understand is that, in English, the verb ‘to judge’ has two very distinct meanings. One is to make judgement and the other is to judgement. Everyone makes thousands of judgements every day like deciding when it is safe to cross a road or what clothes to wear based on the weather. ing judgement is the determination of another person’s treatment based on that person’s actions. It can be as trivial as simply deciding to have nothing to do with someone who has offended you or

rewarding them if they have done you a kindness or it can be as momentous as a high court judge ing a life imprisonment (or even a death sentence) on someone who had been found guilty of committing murder.

IT ISN’T IMAGINARY DEVILS OR DEMONS WE SHOULD FEAR IT’S PEOPLE!

⁷ Judgement is a responsibility! And some people hate taking responsibility for anything so they it over to their deity and sincerely believe they’re off the hook! I don’t think so! ⁸ Like evil, Hell is just another of those concoctions of early politicians (like Moses) to instil fear and thus, submission into their followers. Yet, in The Bible, every reference except one that is translated as ‘Hell’ is taken from words meaning ‘the grave.’ As I wrote, clever fellow, that Moses! I suggest that, if, indeed, Heaven and Hell do exist, some people aspire to one and live in the other! Yes, we live in Hell right now! Mankind has transformed the beautiful paradise that his Creator made for him into the pit of depravity that today’s world has become. In fact, a lake of terminally burning sulfur would be a better place than much of this world where the corruption and torment goes on and on, day after day. This is Hell and it is US that made it so! ¹ Only recluses who live in remote forests or mountain caves and those who choose to turn a blind eye to what’s happening all around them could argue with my previous statement. ¹¹ You don’t need to look far away to see it either. Whilst bodies lie in the streets of war-torn and terrorist-dominated countries and millions of people live and die in abject poverty in Asia, Africa, and South America, there are still thousands of homeless people in so-called affluent countries where excellent public welfare exists. (Whether that is a situation of their own rebellious choosing rather than circumstance is arguable though.) ¹² The earlier-discussed population explosion in the world is a major contributor to these situations yet it is the poorest people who seem to have the most children. Whether this is because they are incredibly stupid or simply can’t

afford contraception is debateable—but not here. That is for world demographers. ¹³ Survival is a dominant fact of life. If a person can’t afford to feed his or her children and no welfare is available, many will steal and even kill to fulfil the basic needs of their families and will also defend them to the death if that’s the only choice. Like it or not, in this respect, human beings are just one of Earth’s animals where self-preservation and protection of their young are paramount. ¹⁴ A question I would like to ask all those sanctimonious people who decry capital punishment and retaliation is, “If you are driving your car along your street with your five-year-old child is in his or her jump seat in the back and a drug-crazed psychotic runs out waving a gun at you, would you stop and ask him what he wants or, if it is impossible to miss him, run him down and maybe drive on a safe distance and then call the police and an ambulance on your mobile ’phone?” ¹⁵ Summed up quite simply, the situation I have just described is, “Will you risk your own and your child’s life or risk taking a stranger’s?” and that, as far as I’m concerned, is a real no-brainer! ¹ The immediate response to such a question would probably be, “Oh dear! I hope I’m never in such a situation.” But what that person forgets is that, if they ever were in it, they would probably have a split second to make a judgement and, then having made it, carry it through. ¹⁷ As it is, a responsible person’s natural instinctive reaction would be to slam on the brakes rather than run another person over and, if that’s what they did, then they may well end up dead themselves. And that’s the world we live in! ¹⁸ How about this then? You are the widowed mother of three small children flying in a small ’plane with just the pilot and an 85-year-old man when a problem occurs and the pilot tells you that it’s going to crash and then says there are only two parachutes. Would you give one to the pilot and one to the old man or would you keep one for yourself? Does your answer condemn another person to death or ensure that three little children who have already lost their Daddy don’t become orphans? You have to make a judgement and, in making it, also one! ¹ There is little question that humans are the most intellectually developed of all

animals but it also remains a fact that we are animals and it is us that have turned Paradise into Hell and we are paying for it every day whether merely by paying for insurance to cover us in case of assault or robbery or by constantly looking over our shoulders in fear whenever we walk in our neighbourhood. ² It isn’t imaginary devils or demons that we should fear—its people!

24. Deism

¹ There is nothing new about Deism, its foundations lost in the mists of ancient antiquity. As a recognised religion though, it rose to prominence in the late 17th century when scholars expressed it in logical and understandable . Since it is based on reason and not some individual’s claimed ‘divine revelation,’ Deism teaches to question authority whatever it costs. ² Thomas Paine, the famous 18th century Anglo-American revolutionary author encapsulated deistic principles in his best-selling book, “The Age of Reason “and, following its publication in three parts starting in 1794, there was a dramatic upsurge in the popularity of rational-thinking deism—especially in America. In more conservative England, Paine’s work was actually banned with printers and publishers being prosecuted even though his arguments were actually nothing new.

Deism teaches to question authority no matter what it costs as it is based on rational reasoning and not some individual’s claimed ‘divine revelation.’

³ To quote from the Deism website, “Deism has the potential to connect with every human being because every human being possesses God-given reason. Because of this fact, Deism clicks with the vast majority of people who are made aware of it.” I strongly urge anyone serious about their spiritual walk to make a point of checking it out in more depth.

⁴ Original Classical Deism held that humanity’s relationship with God was impersonal whereby God created the universe setting in motion the physical laws of nature and, having done so, retired from the scene and no longer actively intervenes in human affairs. What this means is that God gave humanity such things as free will, reason and comion, intelligence and, most significantly, a capacity for wisdom which apply to all and, since he is not an ‘Indian giver,’ he does not reclaim those gifts by way of intervention—global or individual. ⁵ Part of this agrees with the view held by many Christians that God gave humanity freedom of choice. They aver that God did not make robots but individuals with self-determination. Yet those same Christians, rather than arduously seeking knowledge and intelligently cultivating and using the capacity for wisdom they were given at creation—the sagacious application of that acquired knowledge—regularly ask God to exert his influence on their lives by granting supernatural favours—often in the pettiest of situations. In other words, they claim one thing but ask for another! So, like many things, when left unused, sagacity eventually atrophies and dies leaving gullible idiots who will believe whatever outlandish fables people with agendas thrust at them! ⁷ Our Creator is not our nursemaid! We are not babies without the abilities or the means to deal with life’s everyday necessities and adversities. God provided us with those abilities and means when he originally created this planet. He didn’t do half a job! He left nothing wanting! Yet, rather than take any responsibility themselves, some people go running to their god whenever anything seems too much for them to use the gifts they were given to deal with it. ⁸ Some people also claim that God is omniscient (meaning he has infinite knowledge—including the future) and, if that is so, it must follow that there can be no free-will at all because everything is pre-known anyway! This is why I believe that prayers—particularly those seeking personal intervention or favours —are rarely (and maybe never) answered and why God apparently ignores those questions I raised earlier about disabled children and things like the Holocaust. The Deistic contention is that, when he created the universe, God provided everything it needed to progress (or regress) and, having done so, he no longer intervenes or interferes. This makes a lot of sense because, let’s face it, whilst there has been some amazing technological progression, there has also been an awful lot of psychological regression over the millennia!

¹ This is why I believe that humans should use a lot more of the time they spend talking to the Great Creator thanking him than asking him. ¹¹ Nevertheless, I do wonder whether God occasionally ‘tweaks’ situations where it seems that a small influence will make a big difference. Quite simply though, I don’t know and neither does anyone else—but I must it, I kinda HOPE he does!

DID THE

GREAT CREATOR

WRITE THE LAWS OF

PHYSICS AND

NATURE OR

WAS HE GOVERNED

BY THEM?

¹² But then, if he does, we circulate to questions like, “Why didn’t he do so in situations like the 1976 Tang Shan (China) earthquake or the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami?” (Between them, killing over a million people and injuring many more) because, unlike human-instigated disasters like the Holocaust or the 2001 World Trade Center attacks or history’s many wars, they were solely acts of nature. ¹³ The answer to that must be that, as acts of nature and thus subject to immutable physical laws, they could not be altered—which brings up another question: Did the Creator ‘make’ the laws of physics or was he governed by them? That is to say, when he set about his work of creation, was that work limited by the unalterable physical properties of the materials he used? ¹⁴ The question is, of course, rhetorical because no one will ever know the answer. However, if the Creator of the universe did also ‘make the rules,’ so to speak, it seems to me that he could not be like human political legislators who laws into statute and then themselves blatantly break them without batting an eyelid! That would be decidedly ‘ungodly’ wouldn’t it? By the same token, if he didn’t make the rules, then it must be obvious that he is as constrained by them as everyone else. I leave you to form your own opinion—but you can’t have it both ways and you can’t have it neither way—and besides, both ways would make God a lawbreaker! What sort of example would that set to creation? ¹⁵ It often amazes me how deeply religious people of different belief systems (especially Christianity) also vehemently acknowledge that their Creator provided everything they need for a healthy and happy life but whenever they get any ailment, they condemn natural healing such as acupuncture, iridology or reflexology as occult whilst happily taking chemically manufactured drugs prescribed by GPs. If they believe that God is omnificent, then why don’t they have more faith in herbal and naturopathic cures that he provided right back in the beginning? More double standards! ¹ There is one thing that I believe we should pray to God for though and that is forgiveness since, try as we might not to, we all do things contrary to our

Creator’s design and aspirations for us and, when we realise what we have done (in other words, instinctively know that we have done wrong when we see the sometimes catastrophic results) apologising to our Creator is, if nothing else, only courteous. The obvious desire of a sincerely repentant person is forgiveness and, because I believe our Creator is a loving God, I would like to think he is also comionate. Furthermore, since forgiveness requires no abrogation of any law, physical or otherwise, why would our Creator not grant it? ¹⁷ To take this a step further, whilst God may willingly forgive a contrite person, where that person’s behaviour has invoked a detrimental natural consequence, he cannot change that consequence because the physical law that determined it is immutable. To put this into a contemporary context, it’s a bit like a person doing something expressly forbidden like climbing a power pylon to rescue a kitten, accidentally touching the cables and being instantly killed. Even though his motive for ignoring the “Keep Off” sign was honourable and thus forgivable, the consequence was inevitable. ¹⁸ Compared to the ancient—classical—view, the more contemporary view of Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than anything humanity is capable of backed up by mankind’s personal observation of designs and the laws of physics and nature and perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received any sort of special divine revelation. ¹ Some contemporary Deists believe (with the classical Deists) that God created the universe exactly as he wanted it, so no amount of supplication, request, or begging can change the fundamental nature of it. ² Whilst this actually makes obvious sense, for now (at least) I still make supplication to my Creator on the principle: “If you don’t ask, you don’t get!” I may be wasting my breath but I have the time—and besides, I have much to thank my Creator for so I’m talking to him anyway! This is, after all, a personal progression (I choose to think) from surrealism to realism! ²¹ Referring back to my analogy of the Creator as a scientist, in the case of Planet Earth his thesis may have been: “What will these creatures I have created do if left to their own devices and how can I use what I learn from them when creating other civilisations on some newly-coalesced planet somewhere else in the cosmos?” In particular, one thesis that I personally find very plausible might be,

“Is it a good idea to give my supreme creation freedom-of-choice and selfdetermination?” I suspect that the conclusion to that question might be a resounding “No”! But what’s the alternative? ²² This conjecture refutes the notion that The Creator is omniscient but that is, again, just a facet of religious mythology. There are even ages in The Bible that suggest that God learned things after his creation and thus contradict the idea [Genesis 6:5ff for example]. ²³ That concept may offend some but, you have to it, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility and thus probability because mankind certainly hasn’t used freedom-of-choice and self-determination very wisely has he? After all, how many millions of projects have humans embarked upon that were merely pathways to better ones and, once the better ones were achieved, the old ones discarded? If that weren’t so, we’d all still be living in caves and rubbing two sticks together to make fire! Isn’t it somewhat audacious to think that the Creator might be any different? ²⁴ Another concept that (in particular) Judaic, Christian, Muslim and Bahá’í religions insist upon is that the Creator (God/Allah) is a singular being (with the exception that Christians believe that being has a son and a ghost!—but again, that’s only based on biblical folk lore). However, there is absolutely no empirical evidence of that and in actual fact, humanity has no knowledge of it whatsoever. ²⁵ Referring to the plethora of Greek gods mentioned earlier, I find it hard to conceive a lonely monotheistic deity—only because it doesn’t make sense to me —and so I imagine the deity as a whole race of beings vastly superior to their creations and they are now comparing notes on how it has turned out! That race would be referred to as “God” in much the same way that nations or companies are referred to collectively by their generic names. However, I guess one of those beings would have to have been in charge so maybe that is the one we now think of as “God”—the CEO of “Creation Inc.”! If that should happen to be the case, I personally have no problem with it—and besides, I’ll never know and nor will anyone else. ² Consider this: If the whole world were Deists, regardless of what name they happened to call the Great Creator, all sectarian conflict would cease and the world would know a peace that hasn’t existed for millennia!

25. The Curse of Mankind

¹ It is a sad statistic that, throughout recorded history, more humans have suffered and died because of religious differences than all other unnatural causes combined. So what recommendation is that for following what is, in truth, no more than cultural mythology? ² Did the Great Creator know this would happen when he set the universe in motion? Quite possibly not (ref. Genesis 6:5-7 again) but I don’t know, and neither does anyone else! What business is it of any person what another person believes or disbelieves? Organised religion is an agreement between a group of people about what God is but each person’s perception of and relationship with his or her Creator is private and personal. It is only religious organisations that try to manipulate that.

Throughout recorded history, more people have suffered and died because of religious differences than all other unnatural causes combined. THIS IS POSSIBLY THE MOST PROFOUND STATEMENT IN THIS ENTIRE THESIS

³ Whilst different religions teach that there are demonic forces that have corrupted humanity, the real curse of mankind is, as I have explained, his own creation for political and personal purposes—namely, organised, denominational religion based on nothing more than the promoter’s own conception of his creator. Denominational religion is intellectual pollution which is why I no longer want any part of it. ⁴ Yes, as this dissertation is evidence of, just like all those referred to in

paragraph 2 (above), I have formed my own perception of my Creator—but it is MY perception! It wasn’t foisted onto me by any organisation—I formed it all by myself in spite of religious indoctrination since childhood—using the capacity for rational reasoning that my Creator gave to me and not on some individual’s claimed ‘divine revelation’ as expressed in the fundamental Deist principle (see previous section). It just happens to agree with that principle so that, by definition rather than by hip of any organisation, I am a Deist. If anyone agrees with it, that’s OK but, if they don’t, that’s equally OK. Since neither they nor I have empirical evidence to our beliefs, they must remain just those —personal beliefs and, as such, at least deserving of respect as long as they don’t harm anyone. ⁵ On the subject of harming people, what about fundamental religions that dictate to their ridiculous behaviour like allowing sick or injured people and defenceless children who have no knowledge of what’s being inflicted upon them to die because they weren’t allowed to receive blood transfusions or vaccinations because some idiot told them such things are contrary to their God’s will? First of all, how dare they presume to know the Creator’s will? The answer to that is nothing more than whatever their claimed ‘prophets’ tell them and, as far as any rational-thinking person is concerned, those prophets are nothing more than charlatans and fakes who, in many cases, manipulate their respective scriptures to say what they don’t.

ANYONE DENYING TREATMENT SUCH AS VACCINATION OR BLOOD TRANSFUSION TO SICK OR INJURED PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY REFUSE THEM AND WHO SUBSEQUENTLY DIE SHOULD BE

CHARGED WITH PRE-MEDITATED MURDER AND PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW

⁷ Vaccination, for example, is nothing more than a process of teaching the body’s natural immune system to recognise a mild form of a much more virulent disease so that, should the chronic or lethal version strike, the body is armed and ready to deal with it. But some stupid religious people who have little or no knowledge of modern medicine say that introducing a disease someone doesn’t have is invading “God’s temple.” That’s a bit like saying that putting a mouse trap in your kitchen to prevent a rodent giving you a fatal disease is making it a den of murder! ⁸ Pioneered (although not discovered) by the famous immunologist, Doctor Edward Jenner, the son of an Anglican vicar, in the late 18th century when the fatal disease, smallpox was rampant throughout Europe, vaccination is actually named from the Latin for ‘cow’—vacca—because he discovered that, by injecting patients with the relatively harmless cow pox virus, their immune system not only became able to combat cow pox but also the deadly smallpox. This was the world’s first vaccine—more correctly medically termed, inoculation—and, almost 200 years after Jenner initiated the treatment, in spite of some religious groups’ hostility to it at the time, in 1970, the World Health Organisation declared smallpox eradicated. Today, immunisation against numerous diseases using the Jenner process is readily available with new discoveries every year. It is, nevertheless, unfortunate that, psychologically, the majority of humans tend to concentrate on easily seen negative events a lot more vividly than unseen positive ones so that, when a new vaccine is announced with fanfares and rejoicing and then a handful of recipients suffer disability or die, people scream for the vaccine to be withdrawn and litigation against health services and drug companies makes headlines all around the world whilst statistics such as a 90% drop in the incidence of whatever disease the denounced vaccine was made to prevent go practically unnoticed. ¹ This is largely due to an inherent insecurity, ignorance, and downright irresponsibility on the part of the media and, in particular, some religious leaders who demand that a vaccine be withdrawn and, if it isn’t—because the authorities realised that the cost of a few lives against thousands or even millions saved is an acceptable risk—forbid their followers to submit to vaccination even if their

nation makes it mandatory. ¹¹ A notable example of this was the production of a live-virus polio vaccine by virologist Hilary Koprowski in 1950, some 150 years after Jenner’s initial smallpox discoveries, and further developed as a deactivated vaccine by Jonas Salk in 1955. 3145 people died of polio in the USA alone in 1952 but, when Salk’s vaccine, manufactured in Britain by Glaxo, was istered to thousands of Indian children, four died and the Indian government banned the vaccine. ¹² It was later discovered that all four children who died did so from other causes and, eventually, vaccination was restored to the point where, from 38000 cases of polio reported in India in 1999, only one—the final one—occurred in 2011 and India was declared polio-free. ¹³ A statistic that is not so readily available is how many Indian children died of polio between 1952 and 1999 because of the government ban. That won’t be published for obvious reasons! ¹⁴ It has now been medically established that, where a person has an unknown genetic immune deficiency, there will always be a possibility that vaccination will have the opposite outcome to that for which it was designed and istered so it is obviously advisable for thorough checks to be made before immunisation. However, in third-world countries where epidemics are decimating populations, that isn’t always practical or possible and so a few deaths can and do occasionally occur but does that mean that immunisation should be condemned or withheld? ¹⁵ The answer surely lies in numbers and, as I have said, the numbers from India on polio victims during the 47 years it took for the government to wake up will probably never be known. If statistics show that deaths from a disease have decreased dramatically following the introduction of mass-vaccination whilst only a few have died from associated problems that may have killed them anyway and, in most cases, rendered those people far more prevalent to the disease, isn’t the answer obvious? ¹ Collateral damage is inevitable but surely the overall result is what counts. ¹⁷ The fight against pandemic diseases is a war and, in wars, there are casualties. What really counts is the ultimate outcome and mindless religious dogmas do nothing to constructively help change that. They only exacerbate it!

¹⁸ Similarly, if a person is the victim of an accident where they lose blood, yes, the body will, over time, automatically produce more blood to replace that which was lost—the Great Creator made it that way—but if copious amounts of blood are lost and, because the auto-replacement system can’t work fast enough, they are on the verge of death, the temporary provision from another person of compatible blood tested for impurities can and frequently does ‘tide the injured person over’ and keep them alive until their own body can produce enough new blood to take over.

DENOMINATIONAL RELIGION IS NOTHING MORE THAN INTELLECTUAL POLLUTION

¹ The same cults (I’m sorry, I can’t legitimise or dignify them by calling them religions) that ban such treatments as inoculation and blood transfusion claim to value the sanctity of life and I personally find that extremely difficult to rationalise. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that anyone denying anyone such treatments to sick or injured people who are not in a position to personally refuse them and who subsequently die should be charged with pre-meditated murder and prosecuted to the full extent of the law because their doctrines are, indeed, a curse on humanity. ² Did you know that, for thousands of years until relatively recently, many religions around the world actively promoted trepanation (drilling a large hole in a person’s skull) as a cure for epilepsy, headaches and other traumas stating that it created a means for trapped evil spirits and demons to be banished? Please excuse me if I just take an aspirin! ²¹ Religion takes many forms and fortunately not all belief systems demand the indoctrination of everyone their meet. Buddhism, for example, is really more a way of life than a religion (although it is referred to as such by demographers and theologians). Study of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism certainly presents a more palatable concept than most other religious doctrines— especially when it is understood that they are not a pessimistic view of life but a realistic one with solutions.

²² Unlike other religious founders and promoters, Gautama—The Buddha—did not so much promote a doctrine as he did a discipline based on his own wisdom with no claim of divine intervention or guidance in so doing such that disciples of Buddhism are followers by choice rather than duty or social demands. Nevertheless, tradition still plays a part. ²³ Similarly, the Bahá’í Faith is a true belief system rather than a dogmatic set of rules to be followed rigorously and enforced on everyone else. It recognizes all major world religions as valid but, unlike the deist belief, accepts divine intervention through prophetic characters such as Abraham, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. which it views as manifestations of the One Creator through the ages of human history whereby enlightenment was provided by the Creator as and when he deemed it appropriate to human development. ²⁴ You don’t have to compare different religions to see the pathetic disharmony within each of them. As previously mentioned, there are well over 400 denominations of Christianity and numerous sects within the two basic denominations of Islam, Shia and Sunni. Similarly, there are many within the three basic branches of Hinduism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism.

If only the world could concentrate on living harmoniously in the realisation that there could only ever have been ONE true creative entity. Imagine that!

²⁵ All of those sects and denominations believe that they are the only ones who know the true interpretation of their respective scriptures and the others have ‘got it all wrong’ with the end result that all their credibility is blown to smithereens and all that’s left is infighting and rational people sadly shaking their heads at the way they allow their whole lives to be governed by superstition and myths!

² If only the whole world could concentrate on living harmoniously in the realization that there could only ever have been ONE creative entity and that different concepts of that entity are merely personal, sectarian conflicts would cease and humanity could focus on more important things than the names they give to the Great Creator. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and every other believer in a supreme Creator could worship that Creator side-by-side in the understanding that, whatever they choose to call Him, he is the same. Imagine that! ²⁷ Then, instead of fighting each other over something so pathetically trite as who or what their Creator is or was, they could unite together to address genuine world problems like starvation, crime, pandemic disease and pollution of our only home—to name but four. ²⁸ Quite simply, I know absolutely nothing about my Creator other than that I sincerely believe I had one (or, at least, that there was once one who set the laws of nature in place, including the whole procreation process, of which I was a predictable product). Therefore, I revere my Creator not only for His wonderful knowledge and ability but also for the amazing and beautiful environment He devised for my sustenance and enjoyment during the time I have in it. I call my Creator ‘God’ but if my neighbour wants to call him Allah, that’s fine with me. ² However, if my neighbour wants to break the laws of the land or try to force his doctrines on others, that’s not fine with me! It would have nothing to do with his or my perception of our Creator. It would have to do with his own moral integrity which his religious beliefs would not. ³ Maybe, when humanity has succeeded in destroying itself (which, you must agree, it seems bent upon), the Creator will keep a ‘Celestial Museum’ for future (and much more sophisticated) creations to view, with virtual reality records of just how humans have misappropriated their gift of self-determination through the ages. I imagine that will generate great interest! Perhaps, not surprisingly, those displays might be far more sophisticated than anything we have yet even dreamed about but may well discover sometime in the future yet which the Creator may have known about since the very beginning. A bit like a enger on a modern high-speed train watching a hologram of Stephenson’s Rocket or children viewing life-size animated dinosaurs a museum (or maybe even a zoo with cloned ones—Jurassic Park come true!)

³¹ If you are familiar with the famous and beautiful Christian hymn, “How Great Thou Art,” based on a poem written by Swedish poet Carl Boberg (interestingly, a carpenter’s son) and put to music by Stuart K. Hine, you will understand how I can sing the first two verses and chorus with as much enthusiasm and feeling as I ever did. But when it comes to the last two verses, all the mythology comes in and I cannot sing them. Of course, anti-creationists would say it is all fanciful mythology but, for now at least, I prefer to differ and I hope I have adequately explained why. (I would, however, make one small change to the chorus and replace the words “my saviour” with “Creator.”) ³² I hope this clarifies my present situation. Some may choose to go running to their priests or pastors in an effort to ‘save’ me but I really hope they don’t. I would much prefer that they simply accept that my convictions are different to theirs, try to understand them and accept me as I am. I haven’t reached them lightly—it has taken seventy years of living and learning to reach this point! If anything, I apologise to my Creator for allowing myself to be sucked in by all the money-making political propaganda proliferated by religion for so long. ³³ It has taken me far too long to realise that religions are nothing more than mind-control organisations on a par with the CIA or FSB except that they appeal to people’s insecurities and, to be honest, in hindsight that makes me feel incredibly foolish. ³⁴ However, there has been an awesome upside to that realisation too. Whilst the reasons for those insecurities are as real as they ever were (see Appendix B), the insecurities themselves have totally disappeared and that has made me realise that I don’t need the placebo of religious superstition to live a full and—most significantly—relaxed life. ³⁵ I realise that, if you are a committed Christian or Muslim, your convictions include a requirement for you to do your best to make everyone you encounter believe the same things as you do (which is, of course, how the whole system is self-perpetuating and how all those sectarian deaths have happened). How you deal with that is your problem—and it certainly is one—but, if dealing with it means that you no longer want to be my friend, then I must respect that and live with it—and, believe me, I will! ³ However, if I ever see you “set upon by robbers “at the side of the road, I will not cross to the other side like the religious men of The Bible but will certainly

stop to offer help (including if unavoidable, killing your assailant)—just as I would if you are a Muslim, Buddhist or a Hindu (or even a Scientologist—now that would test my rectitude since it was they who took my wife away from me because I opposed her association with them!). ³⁷ And if anyone wants to visit my home to with me in thanking and praising our Great Creator, be assured, you will be most welcome. Please, just don’t bring any denominational baggage with you.

26. Tolerance and Intolerance

¹ As part of my research for this thesis, I spoke with a number of people from many different persuasions—most of whom quite naturally did their best to justify their own beliefs. There was, however, one person who offered a different and, perhaps, unusual perspective.

LO! GOD LOVES NOT AGRESSORS!

Qur’an 2:190

² Rather than directly offering his personal answer to the question that forms the title of this, his response addressed the mind of each individual whereby, concerning matters of spirituality where there is an absence of empirical evidence to or refute a theory, he suggested that whatever a person believes, that is truth to that person and no one can dispute it no matter how radical it may be. I was unable to disagree with that suggestion. ³ So I then directed our discussion to debate what, in his opinion, constitutes empirical evidence—in particular concerning my own conjecture that the universe in all its complexity is evidence of a planned design rather than random chance. ⁴ Like me, my respondent immediately referred to the laws of physics and their immutability. Do the laws of nature apply, for example, to emotions? Certainly, emotions are chemically governed by hormones and neurotransmitters which are, of course, governed by the physical and chemical laws to which they are subject.

⁵ But what triggers the bodily production of extra chemicals in response to external stimuli such as sight or sound? Why, for instance, does one person respond with fear and horror at the sight of a snake or spider whilst another has virtually no reaction? More to the point, why does one person choose to believe an unsubstantiated story whilst another rejects it? As my respondent pointed out, if a person expresses belief in something for which there is no tangible evidence—and I think we should be clear here that ‘feelings’ don’t constitute tangible evidence—that belief is nothing more than a matter of personal choice which can neither be proved or disproved and thus, in his opinion, is not disputable. ⁷ This can be likened to Austrian quantum mechanics physicist, Erwin Schröedinger’s famous paradox wherein he postulated a cat being placed in a sealed box for one hour with an air supply, a tiny piece of radioactive material, a Geiger counter and a vial of poison. If just one of the atoms of the radioactive material decays, the Geiger counter will record this and trigger the breaking of the poison vial thus killing the cat. Therefore, until the box is opened at the end of the hour, the cat must be considered both alive and dead and the air supply maintained as though it were alive even though it may not be. ⁸ However, when applied to beliefs, unlike Schröedinger’s hypothesis, there is no ‘box’ that can be opened to discover whether a myth is, indeed, a myth or whether it is actually a fact. Therefore, according to my respondent, the ‘air supply’—that is, credibility—must be afforded to individual beliefs. What, then, when two or more people hold diametrically opposing beliefs? Well, as long as they keep those beliefs to themselves, no harm can ensue—but, when it comes to religion, no one keeps their beliefs to themselves and so we inevitably end up with disagreement and friction. ¹ It would therefore seem that, as long as human beings insist on pushing their “Me right, you wrong” attitude, there will never be the world peace that they all pray (hope) for! ¹¹ It should be noted that, unlike most other religious innovators, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, did not so much start a ‘new’ religion as strive to restore the original purity of Abrahamic monotheism which, by his time in the early seventh century CE, had become widely corrupted to the point where the Kaaba

—traditionally the first building established as a place of worship to Allah thousands of years earlier by Ibrahim (Abraham)—had become littered with over 350 idols to other gods. As with the Jewish practice of tithing, this brought the Quraysh (the Arab tribe that controlled Mecca) substantial income in the form of offerings to this plethora of gods whilst the majority of the population were abjectly poor—including Muhammad, who was an orphan. Thus the Quraysh worked to bring Muhammad down and destroy Islam but failed. ¹² Unlike the Bible, which includes Jewish history and biographies, The Qur’an is solely a revelation of messages claimed by Muhammad to have come to him directly from Allah via the angel Gabriel including a spelling out of both the duties and the rights of faithful followers of God. Was Gabriel an extra-terrestrial visitor or Muhammad a dreamer—or neither? Or was he a visionary who, like Moses, seeing the corruption of true monotheism, decided to do something about it rather than just complacently accept it? ¹³ It is sad that, in the 21st century, a relatively few extremist Muslims have taken the Qur’anic doctrine of Jihad (an Arabic word meaning ‘struggle’) to extremes of violence and caused vast numbers of non-Muslims to see the religion as aggressively evil when that is not so. Whilst Muhammad’s revelations expressed in the Qur’an certainly do condone defending the faith even to the point of killing in self-defence, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are much more preoccupied with a loving and ive brotherhood and living in peace with their neighbours. ¹⁴ Militant jihadists, seeing how major world powers like the USA and Russia attempt to exert their political and military might in affairs that don’t concern them, resort to the only way they know of defending their beliefs. Yet The Qur’an specifically says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loves not aggressors.” [2:190] and, concerning Muslim jihadists, world-famous boxing legend, Muhammad Ali, wrote in a statement in 2015, “I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world… Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people’s views on what Islam really is.” ¹⁵ If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is not permissible in Islamic law. It is

forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” [2:256]. It is worth noting that this verse was written in 622 CE or after Muhammad had fled to Medina and was never abrogated by any other verse of The Qur’an. Islam’s holy book specifically forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it. ¹ In that context, both The Bible and The Qur’an convey a similar message where, in the former, Joshua wrote, “If serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” [Josh.24:15] whilst, in The Qur’an, it says, “And report to the people the truth from your Lord. Let him who wills believe it and let him who wills reject it.” [18:29] ¹⁷ What ISIL is to Islam, the KKK is to Christianity and THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE! Both are so cowardly that they hide behind masks and, using religion as an excuse, bully and terrorise anyone who disagrees with them. ¹⁸ So, whilst most major world religious doctrines promote peaceful cohabitation of Planet Earth where tolerance of other people’s beliefs—as long as they are not intrusive or destructive—is onished, a relatively small minority of fundamentalists have crossed the line between peaceful promotion of their religion to violent rejection and persecution of non-believers. This typically manifests itself as terrorism where human life and freedom of thought is seen by its perpetrators as totally intolerant and, therefore, to be eradicated from the face of the Earth by whatever means necessary. It is unfortunate that those small minorities are the ones that make the world’s headlines and foment hatred in people who only know what the media tells them. ¹ A well-established human characteristic is a type of cognitive bias called confirmation bias where, rather than rationally study all the alternatives to a given situation, a person will actively seek out confirming aspects of and then vigorously defend their already-accepted beliefs. This is a systematic error of inductive reasoning that is tremendously difficult to overcome because, as my respondent said, entrenched beliefs are an essential part of the person holding them. In other words, irrational as this may be, it is a fundamental part of being human. Only by completely opening the mind to rational thinking and reasoning

can it be overcome and, statistically, very few people are prepared to do that. ² I wonder whether the Great Creator is dismally saddened or wildly amused at the way humanity has concocted so many different ideas of who they think he is —or, maybe, he isn’t surprised at all!

27. Psychology and Philosophy

¹ The meaning of life—its significance, origin, purpose, and ultimate fate—is a central concept and question in philosophy and religion.

Wonder is the feeling of the philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder. Plato - c. 400 BCE

² Both philosophy and religion have offered interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and on related issues such as life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife. Different cultures throughout history have had widely varying approaches to these issues. ³ Yet, as I pointed out earlier, nearly all those cultures share a common precept— that there is only one creative entity. As also mentioned, in some cases that entity is seen as singular whilst others view it/him/them as multiple but, where the latter is the case, the predominant view is that the Creators are unified in purpose —except, of course, where there were creators of evil sharing credit. ⁴ The concept of a soul is a religious one whereby many different belief systems propound the existence of some sort of ethereal identity that survives and is separate from the living body. There is, however, absolutely no empirical evidence of this and so it actually falls into the realm of myth or superstition. ⁵ It is even worth noting that such a concept is not even in convention with the Mosaic of creation where, in the King James Version of Genesis 2:7 it

says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.” It does NOT say that man GOT a living soul—it says he BECAME one when he was animated with the breath of life. It must, therefore follow that, when he dies and the breath of life ceases, so does the soul. Etymologically, soul simply means ‘living person’ or ‘being.’ From everything discussed thus far it becomes obvious that religious and cultural beliefs are matters of both philosophy and psychology. ⁷ Psychology is the study of the workings of the mind—that is; why people make decisions that lead to actions and behaviour. Psychologically, everything people do is done for —although they often can’t tell you what that reason is which indicates that some actions are instinctive or compulsive. So a psychological study of why people actually entertain religious beliefs at all must be the basis of understanding the paradigm and the only reason for that is philosophical. ⁸ Philosophy, from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom,” is what drives people to learn. It is, I believe, present in all of us to greater or lesser degrees. It is what prompted me to critically examine and research this question on the veracity of religious beliefs, not just in my own personal experience, but, because I’m not an island, around the world generally. Two-and-a-half millennia ago Plato wrote, “Wonder is the feeling of the philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” With this wonder a philosopher coherently expresses his thoughts sometimes making life easier for millions. Commonly called ‘thinkers’ or ‘seers,’ philosophers search for hidden meanings of things and then nurture them into a system of thoughts. Often they share these thoughts with the world even though they know the fragility of society. ¹ Sadly, that fragility means that there are many people—maybe the majority— whose desire to learn anything is almost non-existent, being limited to extreme basics sufficient to get them from dawn to dusk every day with as little hassle as possible. To attempt any sort of philosophical debate with such people seems almost futile. In order to avoid the frustration of such an exercise, it becomes necessary for the more intellectual person to himself understand that different people have vastly different mental capacities. ¹¹ Does this mean then, that followers of religious doctrines that openly

contradict established physical laws and logic are not philosophers? ¹² Absolutely not! One only has to look at history to know that that isn’t true. Through the ages some of the greatest philosophers to have ever existed— Confucius, Avicenna, Vātsyāyana, René Descartes and Albert Schweitzer, to name just a few—have been dedicated followers of their various religions. ¹³ Yet even such eminent people had their reservations. Schweitzer, for instance, once wrote, “The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed.” [The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition, trans. W. Montgomery, et al., ed. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 478.] ¹⁴ Never existed!! Did I read that right? Never existed?? Surely Jesus’ existence has never been in question—after all, numerous historians and commentators of the time have written about the carpenter’s son from Nazareth named Jesus. I have never doubted his existence—only his claimed birthright. So did Schweitzer actually write that, or is that a myth? Well, he lived in my lifetime and his works are far better recorded than those of many ancient writers so one has to wonder why such a man wrote such a thing. ¹⁵ What is it that makes otherwise rational—often boringly sensible—people openly and enthusiastically endorse very irrational ideas that fly in the face of everything their academic knowledge propounds? It is this question that, for me, engenders much more contemplation than why millions of unthinking ‘sheep people’ flock to churches, mosques and temples every week.

“The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon Earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed.” Albert Schweitzer

¹ The most insidious parasites of all are not bacteria or viruses but ideas. An idea is resilient and highly contagious so that, once it has taken hold of and embedded itself into the human brain, when given intellectual nourishment, grows until it is almost impossible to eradicate and, eventually becomes an integral part of its host. It’s how the mind works. ¹⁷ Therefore, it could be said that, when a person ‘owns’ a belief, his mind closes around it to the point where it is no longer merely a belief but an integral part of what makes that person who he is—even though he may still refer to it as a belief. ¹⁸ However, it needs to be ed that the overwhelming majority of religious dogmas are other people’s ideas—often centuries old—with very few originating in the minds of individual believers. The exceptions are founders of ‘new’ doctrines, religions or denominations who have an idea (which they may choose to call ‘divine enlightenment’) and, if they are charismatic, extrovert and enthusiastic enough, share it with others in just the same way that other parasites are ed on and so the pandemic begins. ¹ Much of this is the result of ‘thought reform’—the implanting of ideas by trained professionals whose job it is to indoctrinate people before a competitor does—where a sort of ‘conscious hypnosis’ generated by euphoria is used to ‘condition’ or brainwash prospective candidates. I will examine this in more detail in section 32. ² The advertising industry has, only recently, found that they can, by studying the brain activity of volunteers using an MRI scanner whilst playing TV ments to them, determine what images, words and music produce the best emotional responses for them to make a positive buying decision. And we complacently watch the ads without even realising we’re being subliminally programmed to want the product! ²¹ What the advertising industry doesn’t realise is that religions have been doing it without the MRI for years! And, if the laws of most countries were followed to the letter, churches that life after death should be prosecuted for false advertising because there’s absolutely no way they can guarantee what they offer!

²² The practitioners of this process are more often than not totally unaware that they are being used in this way because the ideas they expound have, as I say, become an integral part of their own psyche to the point where, unless they are out-and-out charlatans with personal agendas, they sincerely believe they are ‘doing their god’s work’ and improving the world. ²³ At some point in time, either as a child trained by parents or, if occurring later in life, as a sort of lifeline emanating from some deep sense of insecurity, a person grasps at whatever belief system happens to be prevalent in his environment. It’s what you might call his religious security blanket. ²⁴ This can be compared in many ways to the craze—rampant in the early 21st century—by otherwise normally intelligent people of permanently and painfully mutilating their bodies with often grotesque tattoos and piercings under a guise of “freedom of expression” simply because their pop idols and peers do it. Whilst young people pollute their bodies for life, in the same way, religious fanatics pollute their minds. ²⁵ From what we have so far seen, it becomes apparent that religious people fall into three broad categories. By far the largest group are the ‘followers’ who unquestioningly uphold cultural and family traditions without really questioning or even examining them. These people form the backbone of religious culture in the world and always will. They do, however, fall into two distinct subcategories. ² The first of these follower sub-categories are those who (maybe fortunately) follow what I will refer to as the sincere believers (who form the second main category)—those who, having made a deep and personal study of (at least) their chosen religion, have concluded that, even though the doctrines may be of a fantastic nature, they are able to philosophically justify following them in their own minds. ²⁷ It would, of course, be somewhat more significant if such people had also studied other belief systems before making a rational choice as that would tend to improve their credibility to their followers. ²⁸ The second sub-group of followers pose, in my opinion, a far greater threat to the stability of human society and follow the third main category who are what I have referred to as ‘out-and-out charlatans’ —that is, those unscrupulous

itinerant evangelist showmen and women whose sole real interest is in making huge amounts of money using established religions—especially Christianity— enhanced with their own claimed ‘revelations’ coupled with the basic inherent insecurity of modern life in this corrupt world by way of offering ‘placebo tranquilisers’ that uneducated, miseducated, insecure and thus gullible people soak up with avid enthusiasm. ² Have you ever noticed how recruits into the latter group seem to attain a level of absolute ecstasy when first introduced—especially where they have been ‘rescued’ from a life of depravity like physical or sexual abuse, drugs or crime— only to descend into an even deeper abyss of depression when they discover they have been duped? ³ In my view, itinerant evangelists (who make a specialty of working low socioeconomic areas and third-world countries—occasionally interspersed with very rich areas where they top up their coffers) should be indicted for criminal fraud. Fortunately, in a few far-too-rare instances, this has happened! ³¹ A popular myth is that the average human only actively uses about ten percent of his brain’s capacity but it is not true. If we are healthy, we use all the parts and functions of our brains if we choose to. The problem is that to do so requires a form of work and that’s where the problems start. To some people, merely thinking is too much effort! ³² What we tend to do is ‘compartmentalise’ our brains in such a way that, as we receive information, we ‘file’ it in whichever memory category we determine it fits. The same information will be filed in different categories by different people. Thus, to some people, a piece of information will be considered extremely important—especially where it fills some perceived or imagined need —and is therefore filed in a readily accessible part of the memory whilst another person will consider the same information trivial and, whilst never actually erasing it—we can’t do that—it gets put into what is often referred to as ‘the back of the mind.’ In the context of this study, so it is with supernatural religious information. To some it’s important whilst, to others, it simply isn’t. ³³ Much more of the information we have received—no matter how long ago—is typically accessed unconsciously in dreams than during consciousness when the brain is constantly being stimulated by outside influences. That is why people often have quite vivid dreams that feature what seem to be completely unfamiliar

situations, people, places and experiences—and , the original stimulus could have only been in a movie or a book if not in real life. ³⁴ It could be said that, even though the title of this dissertation, “Faith or Gullibility?” is in the form of a question, the debate that the question prompts opens up a plethora of philosophical ideas almost as vast as the number of participants regardless of their spiritual calling. So perhaps the real question is, “Why do otherwise intelligent, rational people believe myths, folk-stories and legends that defy everything else set in place by the Great Creator of the universe in conformation with physical laws?” And THAT opens a philosophical debate that could last forever!

28. Religion and Politics

¹ Whilst the relationship between religious beliefs and politics is varied around the world, it is certainly extant in all societies. ² Even in the so-called ‘Christian World’ about which this study is principally (but not exclusively) concerned, the influence of biblical teaching on national governmental policies is inconsistent. For instance, religion carries a much greater weight in predominantly Catholic countries than in protestant ones. Even in Greece, the neo-fascist Golden Dawn Party mentioned earlier claim that their policies are based on their God-given right to ‘national purity’ although I know of no such biblical promise. ³ Nevertheless, even in only nominally Christian countries, the influence of religious doctrine can be found in civil legislation whether it is itted or not. This is, when you think about it, inevitable because, as I have previously stated, when an idea (religious or otherwise) is adopted by a person, it becomes an integral part of him and thus conditions his thinking in all other matters. It therefore must follow that, if a person becomes part of a legislative body (government), his personal beliefs are bound to influence any decisions he makes.

THE GOLDEN RULE

Do to others as you would like them to do to you.

⁴ In many Muslim countries Sharia (the moral code and religious law of Islam) is synonymous with national law whereby the s of the law are the

qadis or judges directly responsible to the imams—the Islamic equivalent of Christian church pastors or priests. Thus, the clergy is the of law in such countries. ⁵ Whether such extreme melding of religion and politics is a good thing is highly questionable—especially when it is borne in mind that religious doctrines are based on cultural mythology. Carl Sagan once said, “A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.” And it certainly makes a lot of sense.⁷ Whilst the influence of sound moral principles typically promoted by mainstream religions is obviously a sensible aspect in the formulation of legislation, is it a good thing for everyday secular activities to be governed by superstition—a dominant aspect of many religious teachings? I believe not. ⁸ A well-known adage of many religions in one form or another is what is popularly referred to as “The Golden Rule” whereby all people are onished to ‘do to others as you would like them to do to you’ and this, surely, is a paramount fundamental basic for harmonious living—not only within individual religious communities but between all people of differing belief systems worldwide. Were all other laws based on that single tenet and intercultural respect encouraged rather that deplored, violent sectarian deaths would be virtually eliminated and life on this planet would be far more harmonious and thus more pleasant. That is, of course, an idealistic view that, sadly, will never eventuate because, as I have also previously stated, philosophical enthusiasm is limited to a fairly small percentage of the world population to the point where very few people even think about it. ¹ This is not helped by the fact that at least one sixth (and, more likely, a quarter) of the world’s population are living in abject poverty whereby simply surviving occupies all their thoughts and efforts leaving no time or motivation for philosophical contemplation—less still, study. In fact, most are illiterate— thus making any academic study impossible—and, after the demands of daily living, the only thoughts that occupy their minds are unquestioned religious traditions that are part of their cultural paradigm.

¹¹ The United Nations and The World Bank are working tirelessly to improve this situation through education and such things as improved agricultural fertility and health care in third-world countries, but the lack of birth control—often exacerbated by religious condemnation of it—means that resources can’t keep up. The inevitable outcome is all-too-often wholesale starvation and pandemics that wipe out enormous numbers of people. ¹² Was this envisaged by the Great Creator when he set the wheels in motion? I don’t know and neither does anyone else—although religious people will tell you that their god is omniscient and therefore must have known. If that is the case, what contingencies has he already put in place to deal with it—for a benevolent creator surely wouldn’t have had a cavalier attitude to such eventualities? So I reiterate my earlier question; does its Creator have a predetermined use-by date for Planet Earth? ¹³ Technology is rampant. Even scientists don’t know for sure what tomorrow’s discoveries will bring. World-changing developments could, in the space of just a few years mean that there will be more than enough food and fresh water to sustain ever-increasing populations. Entire global weather systems may be controllable to the point where desertification can be reversed and devastating storms prevented before they develop and, perhaps, most of all, disease will become a thing of the past. Science did it with smallpox and it will be done again. And, of course, solar energy will be very easily and cheaply better harnessed so that everything else that is energy dependant will also become cheaper and thus more available. ¹⁴ So does this mean we are on the verge of annihilation due to religious differences and poverty or are we on the threshold of a new age of prosperity like the world has never seen since its creation? I like to think that our Great Creator planned the latter!

29. Religion and Sex

¹ There is one activity that has pervaded human—and, indeed, most animal life —since the dawn of creation. That activity is, of course, physical copulation without which life as we know it would have ceased within a very short time of it beginning. ² Some religions, including Christianity, teach that, until humans disobeyed their Creator, they were immortal and, therefore did not need to procreate. However, that does not concur with the Bible where, in Moses’ famous novel, in Genesis 1 verse 28, we read that the very first instruction given by God to the newlycreated humans before they disobeyed him was, “Be fruitful and increase in number.” [NIV] ³ If you think disionately about the method that the Great Creator devised whereby mammals (including humans) would be able to ‘increase in number’ anyone who has done it would have to agree that, if the whole act weren’t enjoyable, no one would bother doing it! Let’s face it, apart from being a bit weird (come on—think about it!!), it’s exhaustingly hard work, messy and there’s a 40-week wait for an outcome so the Creator added a master-stroke and made it fun! That way, people actually wanted to do it!

HOW COME THE POPE MAKES THE RULES WHEN HE DOESN’T EVEN PLAY THE GAME?

⁴ Now I have no doubt that there will be some readers who may find this statement offensive and I ask them to that this is intended to be a scholastic study and not some frivolous “penny dreadful’ titillation. So, if you are one who finds this section affronting, before you go rushing to your keyboard and taking me to task, ask yourself why. What I am talking about here

is a perfectly natural act that is an essential part of life. It is no more or less significant than breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping or defecating. Every animal on Earth does it instinctively but humans have the added bonus of it being fun! If, for some reason, you find mention of it problematic, then I suggest the problem is yours so please don’t share it with me—unless you can do objectively. ⁵ As discussed in section 37, whilst modern Christianity is nominally a Jesusbased religion, its doctrines are much more Pauline. Jesus actually had very little to say on the subject of sex and the Jewish religion—of which, of course, he was a member—was by no means monogamous. King Solomon—described in the Bible as one of the wisest men of all time—had no less than 700 wives plus 300 concubines (basically, sex slaves)! How he even ed their names is amazing! Jesus briefly spoke about adultery but he was not speaking about what is called adultery today and the differences are extremely significant. Today, for a person to have a sexual relationship with anyone who is not their spouse is considered adulterous. Even modern dictionaries define it as such but, in biblical times, that was not the case. Back then, adultery specifically referred to someone having sex with someone else’s spouse whilst casual sex with a single person was referred to as fornication—still considered sinful but much less so and, in particular concerning Jewish law, not even mentioned in the Commandments. ⁷ Paul wrote more on both subjects than all other biblical authors combined which, considering the fact that he was never married, suggests a personal agenda. He even advised his readers to remain single unless they were consumed with physical desire. Was he accepting that sex was not only fun but actually designed to be fun? ⁸ Modern Christianity embodies far more of Paul’s teaching than Jesus’—which should be a cause for concern among true Jesus-followers—but it isn’t. Whilst Jesus’ principal message was one of loving coexistence, Paul’s was much more than that. Another term used in the Bible is “marriage” but, again, its meaning was very different then from what it is now. In biblical times, all a couple had to do to be married was make a public declaration of the fact and consummate that declaration by having sex. In fact, the Christian church had absolutely nothing to

do with the formalities of marriage for well over a thousand years after Jesus’ time. It was not until the 11th century CE that a papal missive decreed that all marriages of Christian believers should be ‘solemnised’ by the church. More money? ¹ Then, in 1073 CE a particularly opinionated pope, Gregory VII came to what was then the absolute seat of power in Europe and noticed that, with wives and numerous children to , Catholic priests were spending far too much of their church’s income from the sales of indulgences on their personal family needs and church coffers were suffering. This was definitely unacceptable to the megalomaniac church so he immediately set a brand new church requirement in motion—priestly celibacy. Up to then, the clergy—including the Popes—had been free to marry as they chose. Only monks and nuns were celibate. ¹¹ We all know the outcome of that decree and, because of the rampant sexual molestation—particularly of children—by the supposedly celibate Catholic clergy and the much more open freedom of information in the 21st century, moves are now afoot to abandon to Catholic celibacy requirement. But why, a thousand years ago, did the only significant Christian church—the Roman Catholics—suddenly change its rules? ¹² Gregory argued that, as Augustine of Hippo had pointed out five hundred years earlier, all sex—even within marriage—was sinful and that it therefore followed that, with family interests to compete with pastoral ones, priests were unable to satisfactorily do their jobs. ¹³ Where Augustine got his idea that sex was sinful is unsure. The son of an African tribesman who only accepted Christianity on his deathbed, Augustine was raised with a Platonic view of life but, when he adopted Christianity, he formed some individual ideas that, not unlike Paul’s were very much his own. However, because his logic and rhetorical abilities appealed to the basically peasant populace, he was seen as a wise man and, therefore, his ideas were widely accepted. More modern thinking now questions much of his thinking but, for well over 1500 years, he was considered as “blessed” with great vision and canonised by the Catholic church—a distinction even perpetuated by the reformist church. ¹⁴ Whilst Pope Gregory initiated his revolutionary celibate clergy doctrine, it was not until seven popes later, in 1139 CE that a council of bishops in Rome made it

‘legally invalid’ for all Catholic clergy to be married. The added idea that the ‘lusts of the flesh’ detracted from priests’ pastoral duties was cited as an additional justification of the decree as well as taking attention away from the mercenary financial aspect. ¹⁵ Another Catholic requirement—concocted from goodness-knows-where—was that marriage was sinful for any couples who were more closely related than seventh cousins! This would have been very difficult to police in the middleages when birth and death records—particularly for the peasantry—were either sparse or non-existent. It would also pose a major problem for British royalty today where Queen Elizabeth II of England is married to her third cousin—both being direct descendants of Queen Victoria! ¹ At various times marriage has been deemed a sacrament by the Roman Catholic Church but this was adamantly questioned by the founder of the reformation, Martin Luther who saw marriage as a civil contract—albeit one that could, if the participants so desired, be blessed by the church. The difference was that, as a civil contract, it could be terminated whereas, as a sacrament, it was a holy institution—interestingly, a term still used by some protestant churches— which could not. Divorce was, therefore, ‘illegal’ in Catholicism and anyone who had been divorced could not have a subsequent marriage recognised or ‘solemnised’ by the church. ¹⁷ More rational modern thinking—including that of the protestant churches— recognises that people can and do make mistakes or change their thinking with the age of time and that, sometimes, marriages do not turn out to be as harmonious as was, at first, hoped. More importantly though, what was, in earlier times considered to be a stigma—divorce—became increasingly recognised as a humanitarian and civil way to solve problems of incompatibility. ¹⁸ An ever-increasing trend today is for couples who are totally devoted to each other to live together and have families without ever formally marrying. When it is borne in mind that the “licencing” of marriages is just another way for governments to extract money from citizens and in many countries, couples who live as husband and wife are treated in law as though they were—de facto—it is understandable how the ridiculous expense of a formal wedding is waived in favour of providing, for example, a home. Furthermore, when it is borne in mind that, once-upon-a-time, all a couple had to do was make a public declaration to be considered husband and wife, the world is coming full-circle.

¹ So sex is NOT a dirty thing. It is a beautiful thing especially when it is done as an expression of love and commitment. But it is still a beautiful thing when it is done purely for its own sake provided that both parties want and enjoy it. This was never truer than it is today where contraceptive means are readily available and the risk of unwanted children can be eliminated. ² It is religion that has made sex “dirty”—principally for financial reasons— because religion realised what I had the brazen temerity to point out in paragraph 7 (above), that our Creator made it to be fun. ²¹ In fact, over a thousand years ago, the Catholic Church realised that sex was so much fun that there was a need for it to be available to (mainly men) who didn’t have ready access to it and so, as an additional means of income, it opened brothels—called ‘stews’—adjacent to its churches. They didn’t miss a trick! ²² Long before that though, in the middle-east, Arab and Hebrew temples employed qedesha—Temple Prostitutes—to celebrate fertility rites and other rituals. Babylonian religion actually required every woman, at least once in her lifetime, to go to the temple of Mullissu (the Assyrian counterpart to the Greek goddess of procreation, Aphrodite) and have sex with a total stranger for which he had to pay her. ²³ Another aspect of marriage and sex is that, whilst a man can produce an almost unlimited number of offspring, a woman is limited to just one confinement every ten-or-so months. It was, therefore deemed necessary for powerful leaders—the equivalent of ‘alpha males’ in the animal kingdom—to be able to produce as many progeny as possible—especially when life expectancy was much shorter and further lessened by the fact that rulers led their troops into battles rather than, as is more the norm nowadays where they sit in strategy rooms and direct their troops by radio from relative safety. Therefore polygyny (where a man can have more than one wife) was not only acceptable but desirable for strategic reasons. Not the least of those reasons was the maintenance of what was deemed to be a ‘superior’ blood line. ²³ Whilst several Muslim countries no longer endorse it and any polygamy is illegal, in Islamic religion, even today, polygyny is legal although polyandry (where a woman can have multiple husbands) is not. This is based on the Qur’an where it says, “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall

not be able to deal justly, then only one, or that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.” [Qur’an, Sura 4 (AnNisa), Ayah 3] ²⁴ For similar reasons to such ancient thinking, the infant Mormon church in colonial America advocated unlimited polygyny so that church member numbers could be built up as quickly as possible as greater numbers meant more income and more voices in the fledgling American government. ²⁵ As previously pointed out, monogamy in Christianity was only ever a doctrine of Paul and, like many other religious leaders before and since him, it was nothing more than his personal opinion but, because most religious people never conduct any sort of research or study to determine the veracity of what they are taught by their spiritual leaders, it has become almost standard practice. ² Naturally, human beings are not monogamous animals. That is not to say that males of the species cannot be devoted to their chosen females and defend their exclusive rights to the death. Many other animals do this and, dare I suggest, also possess a form of devotion to their chosen mates—often a lot more demonstrably that some human men! So it could be said that forcing monogamy onto homo-sapiens is in conflict with natural law. You don’t have to like this paradigm but you do need to recognise it. ²⁷ When the Roman Catholic Church was vehemently opposed to any sort of contraception (and, in some places, it still is), a popular joke among nonCatholics was, “How come the Pope makes the rules when he doesn’t even play the game?” ²⁸ On the subject of making ‘rules’ about relationships, I can’t let the opportunity to mention another aspect which, whilst it may, at first, seem to be a matter of national laws rather than religion, there are, I believe, a lot of religious factors involved. ² I refer to what is popularly referred to as “the age of consent.” Where, in most countries it is illegal for a man to have any sort of sexual relationship with a girl under an arbitrary age (typically 16) even if she does consent (although, surprisingly, until 1885, the age of consent in Australia was a far more realistic 13). ³ Do the legislators know more than the Great Creator? When he made all the

animals on this planet, he made the new-born females incapable of reproduction until they reached a certain age—predetermined by HIM—when they became fertile. In humans, this is usually referred to as puberty and differs in different subspecies of homo-sapiens where some (typically those where life expectation is shorter) become fertile younger than others. In most Caucasian communities this age is between 10 and 12 and is most easily determined by the onset of menarche—the beginnings of menstruation. ³¹ In modern society, this is counterbalanced by the girl’s perceived mental ability to effectively mother—and, in particular, feed—a child. However, in nature, that ability is inherent. It is a naturally occurring aspect of being a female. It isn’t actually learned at all—although, these days, society is rife with pre-natal clinics and other institutions designed to make women believe differently and, they claim, make mothering easier—but, in truth, it is instinctive and every animal has it. ³² So why do politicians and clinicians decree that young women who are at the peak of their reproductive cycle (as determined by their Creator) risk being branded as wanton tarts and lawbreakers? ³³ Of course, some readers may cite examples of young girls being taken advantage of by unscrupulous males but that doesn’t answer the question. For one thing, it certainly isn’t confined to any age group. Rapists have been convicted of attacking 80-year-olds as well as little girls. Maybe girls in their early teens are more vulnerable than their older counterparts but that doesn’t automatically preclude them from experiencing true love. My point is that simply putting an arbitrary number on all people clearly contradicts our Creator’s plan because each girl is an individual. ³⁴ It is also a fact that, when a female is at her most productive, her body produces pheromones that are undetectable to other senses but tell males that she is ready for reproduction. Again, that is a sign provided by our Creator to ‘publicise’ her condition and arouse the male’s hormonal responses so that the healthy reproduction of the species is maintained. When a male with the inherent urge to reproduce is subjected to those pheromones he is only obeying the natural instincts implanted in his brain by his Creator. ³⁵ There have been stories about men who have run away with under-age girls and cared for them (and their offspring) very responsibly for several years well

past the girl’s legal age of consent who, when they have eventually been caught, are sentenced to long jail whilst the girl he loves and who loves him, is left to raise their child alone! Is this what our Creator planned? That makes no sense to me. ³ As a first-hand illustration of my point here, many years ago, I had a niece who I met for the first time when I married her aunt and she was ten. To preserve her privacy, I will call her Jane. After just a few meetings with her, I realised that this was no ordinary child. I was able to hold much more meaningful conversations with her than with many of my peers. We could just sit and just chat about all sorts of intellectual subjects for hours with absolute ease. ³⁷ It soon became apparent that Jane was visiting my wife and me with increasing frequency to the point where, one day, my wife said to me, “You do realise that Jane’s in love with your brain, don’t you? She comes here because it’s the only place she can get a meaningful conversation!” At first I dismissed the suggestion but, the more I thought about it and, in particular, ed that both of Jane’s parents were (shall we say) severely limited in their intellectual capacities, the more I realised that my wife had been a lot more perceptive than me and so I decided it was prudent to limit the time spent with my niece. ³⁸ Then, one day, when she was about 13, Jane came to me with a very serious expression and said, “Uncle, I need to ask your advice. Should I pursue a career as a mortician or a concert pianist?” I don’t my exact response but I do telling her that there was no reason why she couldn’t do both if she wanted to. I arranged for her to spend her school work experience at a friend’s who was a funeral director. At first he was somewhat reticent about taking someone so young but, on my assurance that she would be OK, he did. Afterwards, he told me that she was amazing for a child her age and that he would employ her any time! (She was, by the way, also an excellent pianist as well as proficient on several other musical instruments.) ³ Eventually, our problem was resolved when my wife and I moved away from the area. However, at our going-away party, Jane met another friend of mine who happened to be a professional violinist and, later (by which time she was 16) we learned that they had become engaged to be married. He was in his 40s! Since then, they have had three beautiful children and are still married after over twenty years.

⁴ But then, after she reached puberty (which I would guess was at about 9!), Jane never was a little girl again! I certainly never thought of her as such! ⁴¹ By the way, Christian readers, how old was Mary, the mother of Jesus, when she became pregnant? Whilst there is no evidence to it, the general consensus of opinion is that she was about 12 or 13 (that being the norm for Jewish girls at the time). But religious people don’t like to talk about that or, if they do, palm you off with trite comments like, “Oh! Things were different back then!” Is that so? Please excuse me if I disagree. ⁴² In conclusion to this topic then, as far as religion is concerned, it can be seen that, far more important that the actual sex act, was the money it could be related to and, in many ways, that hasn’t changed!

30. Some Facts (not Myths) about Snowflakes, Fingerprints, DNA and the Tardis

¹ If you don’t know what Tardis refers to, you should stop reading now because you live in a little world of your own and everything in this dissertation is probably mumbo-jumbo to you! Actually, I personally don’t believe there is any English-speaking person in the developed world (plus a whole lot of those who have dubbed translations available in their countries) who hasn’t, at some time in their life, at least heard of (even if they don’t like it) the British TV science fiction series, “Doctor Who”—which began in 1963 and is still going over 50 years later (indicating its popularity)—and so I will assume everyone is still reading! ² Like many of the supernatural stories in religious beliefs, ‘Doctor Who’ is pure fantasy. It isn’t even what might be called a glimpse into the future to a time where a Tardis (actually an acronym for Time And Relative Dimension In Space) machine might be a reality. How can I say this? Well, just think about it —if it ever happened and planned time travel became possible, then we would be meeting people from the future who have travelled back to here and now wouldn’t we? And, since we aren’t, it obviously isn’t ever going to happen! QED?

You’re not as special as you may think you are!

³ Not to be confused with an Einstein-Rosen Bridge or ‘wormhole’ which is a hypothetical concept whereby ‘timeless’ travel between parallel universes could be possible, a concept like the Tardis or H.G. Wells’ time machine propounds (in a world of fantasy) time travel between different historical periods at will

WONT, as I say, ever happen. ⁴ Events should not be confused with existences. Things can exist for exceedingly long periods of time whilst events only happen at a single minute point in time and, once they have happened, they no longer exist. They can, of course, be recorded videographically but a video image is not the actual event. So, whilst travelling to a past event cannot be possible, observing it can and the only way we can travel to a future event is by living until it happens when it happens. ⁵ Having said all that, time travel should not be confused with suspended animation whereby human beings can be ‘cocooned’ using such techniques as induced hypoxia or cryonics for very long periods during one-directional deepspace voyages lasting maybe even centuries so that, when they are reanimated at the end of the voyage, their physical age is the same as or very close to what it was when the journey began. In such cases— technically possible (it’s done now with embryos) but still only hypothetical—the journey would only be one-way with no possibility of a return to the point or time of departure. In other words it may, one day, be possible to travel to the distant future but impossible to travel back in time. Strictly speaking, that isn’t time travel any more than, together we are all traveling forward in time at 86400 seconds every day and in space as we hurtle through the cosmos at nearly 4.4 million kilometres per hour! (Click the link if you don’t understand this.) ⁷ As popular belief has it, all snowflakes are of a basic symmetrical hexagonal formation and each one is unique. Both of those statements are untrue. In other words, they are just more myths that most people accept without question. ⁸ Firstly, only 1% of snowflakes are perfectly symmetrical. Certainly the central ‘core’ or nucleus has symmetry but one only has to look at pictures of snowflakes to see that the individual ‘arms,’ or dendrites, are not identical. Since snowflakes form in a tiny microcosm the conditions governing the formation of the arms is, of necessity, subject to the same prevailing conditions—which is why most snowflakes are almost symmetrical yet, even in such a minute environment—the initial nucleus of a snowflake is around 10 micrometres (millionths of a metre) in diameter and the arms grow around that as it falls

through moist air—there is sufficient variation to preclude perfect symmetry. Bear in mind also that a typical snowflake comprises an ice nucleus—often formed around a tiny speck of dust—which is built upon as it falls. Secondly, whilst most snowflakes have a basic hexagrammetric structure, certainly not all do. Typically snowflakes occur in the upper atmosphere at temperatures of around -36°C and are usually hexagonal. However, in rare instances where they form at lower altitudes in the much warmer temperature of -2°C, they are more usually triangular in form. ¹ Thirdly, the so-called uniqueness of snowflakes is merely a reflection of the fact that a typical one is made up of around ten quintillion (that’s ten million million million or a 1 followed by 19 zeros!) molecules of water so that the law of averages dictates that to be the odds against any two randomly observed flakes being identical but, having so said, there is absolutely no physical reason why they can’t be. Since even a light snowfall contains many more than ten quintillion individual flakes, it must follow that, somewhere, there must be two the same. However, finding them both might be difficult—not to mention pointless! ¹¹ By the way, snow only appears white because the light striking it is scattered by the many tiny facets of each individual ice crystal fused together to form the snowflake. In actual fact, in microscopy, snowflakes are clear. ¹² The same as can be said for snowflakes can be said for fingerprints. Every primate—including humans—has friction ridges on their hands and feet the primary purpose of which is the amplification of tactile sensation through the nervous system. In other words, they enhance the fingers’ sensitivity to different surfaces touched so that a person can, for example, relatively easily distinguish between silk and linen or metal and wood. These ridges are a bit like contour lines on the skin where they form loops, arches and whorls in a huge diversity of patterns. ¹³ Because the skin constantly secretes fatty acids, when a person touches something a print of the pattern is left behind. This almost unique pattern variation can be recorded in a methodical scientific process of fingerprint identification and recording called dactyloscopy. Used primarily by law enforcement agencies as a forensic tool to prove the presence of a person or persons at the scene of a crime, it can also be used in security personnel

recognition systems whereby a scanned fingerprint will be recognised by a computer to open doors and safes or access software etc. ¹⁴ Because they are formed randomly, the number of variations is virtually limitless which is where their usefulness comes in. and, of course, everyone has ten digits, each with its own pattern so the possibility of all ten being identical with someone else’s set of ten is hugely unlikely although not impossible. However, like snowflakes, there is no physical law that says two people cannot have at least one identical fingerprint. As yet, no one knows whether clones would possess the same fingerprints as their ‘parent.’ ¹⁵ In a scientific sense, the term uniqueness has to be replaced by the probability of finding two identical fingerprints from different fingers. This probability may be determined empirically by comparing all fingerprints of a forensic data base against each other. For example, if such a collection contains 100 million fingerprints, a probability of nearly 10-14 should be provable (due to interdependencies this probability is assumed to be higher but should still be below 10-6). However, such a large trial has not yet been undertaken. ¹ DNA profiling—sometimes referred to as genetic fingerprinting—has, wherever possible in recent times, greatly augmented fingerprinting in criminal and other identification processes. Again, many people assume that a person’s DNA profile is unique. However, that is just yet another myth in that, statistically there is 0.0001% chance that there is someone else in the world who is not related to you having identical DNA to yours which means that there are over 700,000 people out there somewhere genetically just like you! ¹⁷ All these are facts which, whilst not all as yet substantiated, are scientifically provable under the laws of physics. Yet many of their antitheses have been readily accepted without question by millions of people in just the same way as unprovable religious doctrines. No wonder the world is in such a mess! ¹⁸ And no, you’re not as special as you may think you are—but you are unique. Enlarge http://www.thisblewmymind.com/the-video-thats-taking-the-internet-bystorm-today-will-leave-you-questioning-everything/ to full screen and listen to it!

31. Ritual

¹ One aspect of religion that is common to the majority of belief systems throughout the world is ritual.

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT YOUR CREATOR ENJOYS HEARING THE SAME RECITED WORDS DAY AFTER DAY?

² Whilst I imagine our Creator appreciates gratitude from his creations for the provision he has made, it is significant to note that, as far as we know, of all the millions of life forms he made, the genus homo is the only one that actually demonstrates it. But then we should that our species is named (by ourselves, of course) Homo Sapiens which means ‘wise man’ suggesting that humans possess more wisdom than any other lifeform on this planet. ³ However, regardless of what the various producers of religious manifestos (Vyasa, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, etc.) have written throughout history, mankind doesn’t really have any idea what form that demonstration of gratitude should actually take. ⁴ Does the Great Creator expect his supreme earthly creation to face a particular place and prostrate himself chanting prescribed words at five precise times every day (as Muslims do)? Does he expect the burning of incense or lighting of candles and monotonous chanting (as Catholics do)? Does he expect selfflagellation or sacrificial offerings (as some ascetics do)? Does he expect selfdeprivation (as Amish and Mennonites do)? Does he appreciate the same words recited week after week from a book of liturgy (as just about all of them do)? In actual fact, no one really knows the answers to any of these questions: they just follow tradition.

⁵ Surely, the most meaningful demonstration of reverence and gratitude people can make to their Creator is how they treat other people and their environment and every time something good happens ing to say, “Thank You” speaking words from the heart (actually the mind—but you know what I mean!). As already discussed, before politics became recognised as a separate science, many early politicians parading as ‘prophets’ or ‘inspired’ religious leaders persuaded their followers and devotees to believe that they received ‘divine revelation’ in which various ritualistic theatrical ceremonies were prescribed for the worship of their god(s) and many of those rituals have persisted through many generations right through to the present. But that’s all they are—traditional rituals.

Whilst it may seem like you’re sitting quite still reading this, you’re actually traveling through space at over one thousand two hundred and twenty kilometres a second!

⁷ What is most distressing (and disgusting) is how huge numbers of people diligently perform their particular culture’s rituals in tandem with abusing—from corrupt business dealings and pollution of the environment to sexual abuse of children and sectarian killings (where they even thank their gods as they watch their enemies die). Does this please their Creator? Well, that question is a nobrainer isn’t it? Of course it doesn’t! Surely spontaneous joy—whatever form it takes—over what the Great Creator has provided would be more meaningful to him than empty liturgical recitation. ⁸ There is, of course, nothing to stop groups of like-minded people ing together from time to time to sing joyful songs of praise and thanks to their Creator and share stories and food. But following some pre-prescribed liturgical format is utterly hollow and meaningless and I imagine that our Creator is as disgusted by it as I am.

I once being in a church where a newcomer who was known to have some musical talent was invited to present an item. The young man had long hair, jeans with rips in them and a guitar and performed a song of praise to God that he had written himself. The style was, as far as I could tell, what is popularly referred to as ‘heavy metal’. ¹ The negative comments that followed his performance were prolific and, no doubt, eventually filtered back to the singer. He was never seen at that church again! Was that what God wanted—or was he filled with joy and pride over one of his ‘children’ who wanted to praise him in the only way he knew and disgusted at how his professed followers treated him? ¹¹ I know that there are people who go to the theatre to see the same play or movie many times and I must it that makes no sense to me. Maybe they just have bad memories! Sure, a really good professional production might be worth a second or even a third look but that’s it! Do you think our Creator—whoever you believe him to be—really wants to see the same ritualistic performance over and over and over again for eternity? That makes no sense to me either. ¹² Some belief systems encourage and even demand all sorts of deprivations and strictures of their followers concerning diet (no meat or alcoholic drink), dress (women covering their hair and faces and no fancy clothes) and behaviour (no wearing make-up or sex outside marriage) etc. We need to bear in mind that, long before all those ‘rules’ were devised by humans, primitive hominids did all those things without compunction. They hunted animals for food, they didn’t wear anything and they certainly didn’t practice marriage although, in some cultures, but not all, men often fought off suitors for their chosen mate (but lots of other animals do that too). ¹³ There are some things that, for no other reason than that they are physically harmful, are best avoided. Smoking, for example, is scientifically known to cause lung cancer. In most cases, determining them is as much a matter of common sense as anything and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. ¹⁴ Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í Faith said, “Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of his servants as truly

believe in him. Eat ye, O people, of the good things which God hath allowed you, and deprive not yourselves from His wondrous bounties. Render thanks and praise unto Him, and be of them that are truly thankful.” [Advent of Divine Justice, page 44]. I assume the first part of that statement was intended to cover women too. ¹⁵ It isn’t the wearing of jewellery or fancy clothes that makes a person bad, it is how he or she behaves when they wear them. Eating meat or drinking in moderation won’t kill anyone. But note what Bahá’u’lláh wrote beginning with that little word, ‘if.’ And that, I think, sums it up very well!

32. You Can’t Hedge Your Bets

¹ I have heard some Christians say that they feel better ing the Christian doctrine than not because, if it is true and they awaken from death at the resurrection, they will be justified whereas, if they reject it and then awake to discover they’d made a terrible mistake the outcome would be more than they are prepared to contemplate. In principle, I actually agree with them! ² However, that precept is flawed because their motives are wrong. Simply hedging their bets won’t work! They will still receive the same sad outcome as me (if I’m wrong)! Religion is not an insurance policy! If he can create a universe, God is not stupid! ³ As the second-century Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, wrote, “If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” ⁴ It doesn’t matter whether you are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, Zoroastrian or Buddhist, Maya, Aztec, Inca or Shinto or even an Australian Aboriginal who still believes in Dreamtime, if you don’t sincerely and implicitly believe without question whatever it is that your chosen (or inherited) culture and religion teaches you’re nothing but a fake! ⁵ And if that ultimately turns out to be the one true religion (which I sincerely believe it won’t!), your god(s) WILL know. The Christian Bible actually sums this up very aptly where it says, “…he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from God!” (I haven’t cited chapter and verse because, if you’re a Christian and you don’t know where that is in your Bible then you can’t really claim to be a Christian anyway because you don’t even know your own handbook!) There is no place for the word ‘hope’ in religion. If a person hopes he will

receive whatever reward his religion offers as opposed to emphatically knowing it, then that person is actually still harbouring some doubt! And hoping that he qualifies is nothing more than an ission that he doesn’t know the requirements for qualification! ⁷ Having so said though, I do believe that it is acceptable for a person to hope that he or she is able to fulfil the requirements because that is only expressing a doubt in their own fortitude—not their beliefs. ⁸ Personally, I have decided that for me to glibly accept the fantastic stories of organized religions without question would be to insult the amazing intelligence that my Designer and Creator gave to me and to all humans. Most significantly though, it would be a mindless denial of another gift that our Creator gave to us —a very simple and basic concept called common sense. Therefore it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to say otherwise and, as I say, God would know anyway! ; going and sitting in a church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than sitting in a mosque makes you a Muslim or going to Stonehenge makes you a druid! You may fool yourself but you can’t fool God. ¹ And politicians need to realize that no amount of coercion, threats or legislation (ref. Saudi Arabian law mentioned earlier) can make a person believe anything. Oh yes, such dictatorial action can make people SAY they believe what you want them to believe to preserve their freedom or even their lives but, when you think about it, that is nothing more than lip-service because their real beliefs are known only to themselves and, even if they live in such places where powerful bullies want to control their very thoughts, as long as they keep those thoughts to themselves and pray privately to whichever god they truly believe in they are safe—so what’s the point of such laws?

YOU MAY FOOL YOURSELF BUT

YOU CAN’T FOOL GOD!

¹¹ On the other hand, if they live in so-called ‘free’ countries where, as long as they don’t have some compulsion to inflict them on everyone else, a person’s spiritual beliefs are not deemed to be of any national importance then whose business is it what they believe? If the logic of their beliefs is faulty and they live in a dream world, their influence will be limited only to the very gullible who, dare I say, get what they deserve. Unfortunately though, there are an awful lot of very gullible people in the world! ¹² In the early 20th century, as mass-production of consumer products began to change the whole concept of manufacturers’ selling their products, this became very clear to marketing guru, Edward Bernays, born in 1891, a nephew of the famous Austrian ‘father of psychoanalysis,’ Sigmund Freud, who realized that, to sell the increased production, the acquisition of ‘things’ which, since the dawn of time, had been based on needs had to be changed to an emphasis of marketing on a basis of wants. ¹³ One way of achieving this was to rely on the natural gullibility of people whereby they readily and happily put their faith in things that will make them and their lives more attractive—and let’s face it, no one wants to be less attractive which is the inevitable corollary of everyone else being more attractive —more comfortable and, in effect, happier as a result. ¹⁴ So, using his knowledge of the human mind learned from his uncle, Bernays set about establishing what, today, is an almost universal consumerist society driven by desires. Regardless of what religious zealots may say, with only a few exceptions such as the Amish and Mennonite people, everyone wants to have the latest technology and comforts and therefore work harder and longer to achieve their desires. ¹⁵ Thus, for example, when a person has to travel any distance to work, in most societies, he can do this using public transport (and, as the roads become more and more clogged in urban cities, many do.) But, if that person occupies a high enough position at his place of work where he is allocated a personal parking

space, he not only wants to use it, but wants to put a vehicle on it that reflects his position in the firm as well as the world at large. It’s human nature! ¹ Bernays was dubbed, ‘The father of public relations’ because, during his 103year lifetime, he almost single-handedly, (initially) completely changed for ever the way that the world shops. One strategy he used to good effect was that people are individuals. ¹⁷ After the First World War, everyone wore the same clothes (as many still do in China) with two basic ‘uniforms’—one worn by the upper classes and one worn by the working classes. The film industry was in its infancy and actors and actresses who were once only seen by those who could afford to go to theatres, were being seen by the masses. Because of their somewhat more flamboyant lifestyles, people in show business dressed more radically than ‘ordinary’ people and clothing manufacturers were encouraged, with the promise of more sales, to produce much wider varieties of clothing at affordable prices. This, in turn, meant that working class homes needed wardrobes—an item of furniture that they had not, hitherto needed. ¹⁸ Electricity was becoming more available to homes and, along with it, laboursaving gadgets powered by it so that life became easier for many people and, quite naturally, people wanted that! Yet it remains, even today—in fact, probably more so today than ever before—that much of what most people have in their homes, they don’t really need. ¹ I stress the ‘really’ part of that statement because there are needs and there are needs. That is to say that there are things people need to live and there are things people need to live a lifestyle and it is the latter that dictates how they live. ² To explain this, I will pose a few questions for you to ask yourself. Don’t be glib with your answers because I don’t want to know them. Only you need to know them and so, if you’re honest with yourself, you could find yourself living a lot simpler. ²¹ Would you rather live in a working-class ghetto or in an architect-designed home with air-conditioning and a private well-tended garden? Would you be happy to be watching that 21 inch TV you had ten years ago or would you rather have a high-definition 50 inch (or bigger) flat-screen one? (Or maybe you’d rather have no TV at all and thus not know what’s going on in the world—like

an impending storm or other disaster that you could have prepared for had you known about it.) Would you rather be washing the family’s laundry in a local river or popping it into your automatic washing machine? Could you get rid of your car and maintain your chosen lifestyle? I could go on but I’m sure you’ve got the point by now. ²² Think about this though. On the subject of your car, would you rather put your faith—and your family’s safety—in a modern car with numerous features like ABS brakes on time payment or an old jalopy with none of those features but fully paid for? ²³ After answering those questions—as well as some more you may have thought of—do you really think you were gullible to put your faith in all those things that have provided the lifestyle you enjoy—and don’t say you don’t because, if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have bought those things! ²⁴ And isn’t it that very same desire for good things that leads people to religion? They don’t necessarily need immortality or any of the benefits promised by different doctrines but they want them because they want the good life they promise for ever! ²⁵ And that, dear friends, is why those religions with the best marketing strategies succeed the best.

33. A Much Bigger Picture

¹ When I began to write this, it was just intended to be an explanation of my own personal change in beliefs and an attempt to justify that change. This obviously required some in-depth study of various religious doctrines as well as science, history, mythology and folk lore in order to present a logical and balanced presentation. However, as my studies progressed and became increasingly comprehensive, I realised that the debate concerning faith and gullibility is much larger than merely an examination of religious traditions to the point where I had to make some major decisions on how far I wanted to take the original question. ² Should I confine myself to the original purpose or should I look at a much bigger picture than just my personal stance? In contemplating that question I realised that the bigger picture has a bearing, not just on my stance, but on that of everyone reading this and the two are, therefore, inseparable and so, as a duty to humanity, what I originally wanted became far less important than what the world needs. ³ Therefore, this section is no longer an explanation of my own position but an exposé of the much wider secular question. So here’s a very brief history lesson that may or may not surprise you.

HUMANS ARE NATURALLY BORN GULLIBLE AND MOST OF THEM STAY THAT WAY

FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES

⁴ According to global demographics, interest in organised religions is declining as more and more people realise, as I did, the irrationality of them. However, statistics confirming that are sketchy at best and, when political influences are taken into , unreliable. ⁵ Problems arise because political interests often use religion as justification of their strategies because, when they do that, ordinary citizens—particularly those less educated and thus more gullible—tend to extend whatever traditional trust they have in in their religions to their governments. This is evident in many parts of the world where the names of countries are often coupled with the names of religions so that we speak of “the Islamic kingdom of…,” “the Buddhist state of…” or “the Christian republic of…” etc. where the religion—no matter how irrational—becomes state policy and, in some cases, acceptance of it is even a pre-requisite for citizenship. Not only that though, we frequently hear people speak about having faith in their government and, as previously mentioned, that is more likely their government taking advantage of their gullibility and it is this aspect of faith that has a much greater effect on humanity than the religious aspect because, whilst the religious aspect may act as form of placebo to relieve insecurities, in many countries, the political aspect rules them to the point of mind-control. ⁷ In democratic countries the fickleness of voters’ ‘faith’ is blatantly evident where huge political ‘swings’ from one election to the next show how easily that faith can and does change and what was, one day, the ruling faction becomes the opposition. ⁸ Nowhere is this mind-control more apparent than in the United States of America. For one thing, the only true Americans are Native Americans who are still, even today, often referred to as ‘Indians’ based on the misconception early European explorers who sailed west in search of an alternate route to Asia that the people they encountered in the Americas were natives of India. Indigenous Americans actually comprise less than 1% of the total population. All the rest are immigrants of whom 13% are the descendants of slaves forcibly taken from their African homelands to work the cotton plantations of colonial ‘Christian America.’ It is a very sad fact that the power-hungry USA has, in the space of just over 520 years since the first European set foot there, risen to become the most

powerful nation on Earth. I say sad because it has done so, not only by illegally and immorally kidnapping slave labourers to unrealistically boost their production and thus their profits as a fledgling nation but, more recently, by diverting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money into building an arsenal of such military might and power that no other country dares to challenge it—and, if they do, they very soon learn their error. ¹ In other words, as a national entity, the hubristic USA is a bully. If any other nation on Earth has the temerity to refuse to toe their line, the US istration will, one way or another, depose or defeat them. It doesn’t matter which party— Republican or Democrat—is in power, the basic agenda is the same. Dominate! As one wise old Native American once said, “What if I told you that the left wing and the right wing are both attached to the same bird!” ¹¹ In 1946, the USA asked the native islanders of Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands—possibly one of the most idyllic places on Earth—to temporarily move to Rongeric Atoll so that, in America’s insatiable lust for world domination, they could detonate at least 25 (and possibly as many as 67) nuclear bombs between then and 1958. Those islanders were conned into believing that they would be able to return to their ancestral home after just a few months. In 1913, the levels of strontium 90, the radioactive isotope of strontium produced by nuclear fission with a half-life of almost 30 years, were still too high for safe habitation of Bikini and the whole population still live in ‘exile’ on other islands. ¹² Now, before every American citizen who happens to read this has a seizure and puts a price on my head please note that I did say that the USA as an entity is the bully—NOT the American people who, just like folk of every ethnicity all around the world, are predominantly attempting to live their lives in peace and give their families the best existence they can. The vast majority are decent, honest people who are never heard about (unless they get killed by a maniac mass-murderer) and it is unfortunate that most of those who do make the headlines are not decent or honest and cheat their way into positions of power. ¹³ Having so said though, it cannot be overlooked that national policies established by corrupt politicians (such as the right to bear arms) can have dramatic bearings on citizens’ behaviour but that isn’t the topic of this debate either so I will move on. ¹⁴ American (and I am referring to the USA here—not all of the American

continent’s countries) politicians very early realised that, by the time the USA became an independent nation in 1776, there were very few places left on earth to colonise and so, rather than invoke international indignation and anger by simply using their military prowess to take over lesser countries, a much better strategy was, for want of a better way to put it, to woo them (by way of financial and material aid that made them look very charitable to the rest of the world) or, if that failed, bully them into a form of submission whereby they called themselves allies. ¹⁵ One classic historically documented example of this strategy was the CIAbacked overthrow of the democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende government in Chile in 1973 because the USA didn’t want what was, basically, a communist regime anywhere in the Americas and especially one that, in sincere efforts to improve a struggling economy, nationalised the country’s huge USA owned copper industry. ¹ Another was the infamous Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s in which, against United Nations recommendations, the USA secretly sold arms to Iran (a then enemy country) and used the income generated to fund a rebel force in Nicaragua called the Contras who were fighting the, again, Marxist government (the Sandanistas). In both cases, when the plots were exposed by the media, the respective US istrations of Nixon and Reagan claimed no knowledge of the conspiracies and individuals were forced to be “fall guys” and, as the saying goes, “take the rap.” For anyone interested, full details of these conspiracies can be studied in depth by following the hyperlinks. ¹⁷ As time has progressed, this has even extended from impoverished third-world countries—many of whom eagerly grasped American alliance as a lesser evil at the time—to counties that were themselves once major world powers like Britain, and many other “western democratic” nations. It has also extended to places like Australia and New Zealand where relatively low populations and strategic locations have rendered them to positions of vulnerability where the only other political powers of any real consequence— China, India, Indonesia and Russia—could attempt to annexe them through trade concessions and the like. ¹⁸ As previously mentioned, in the wake of the September 2001 events in New York and Washington DC, the American government led by George W Bush— arguably the most ignorant, inept and dishonest president the USA has ever had

(including Nixon)—almost universally persuaded everyone—not just its own citizens but much of the world—into believing that the attacks were Muslim backed and inspired rather than the work of a few extreme fundamentalists who just happened to be Muslim. ¹ As I also previously said, that was where a relatively small cabal of very financially powerful people—many of whom had been hand-picked of the American congress and senate—played on the gullibility of the American people as well as those of numerous other nations to believe everything they said. ² Ask American citizens if they have faith in their government and most will place their hand on their heart and tell you that they do to the point where they will even the American military and go wherever they are sent to fight (if necessary, to the death) for something that their government tells them is “the defence of their country!” Their country doesn’t need defending! No other nation’s leader in their right mind would even think about attacking them. It would be national suicide! ²¹ It thus follows that the only way ethnic groups that have any reason to feel oppressed by American bullying to retaliate is by clandestine terrorism. In other words, America brings it upon itself and, dare I say, deserves what it gets. ²² The American 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on extremely fragile grounds that Saddam Hussein’s istration was accumulating weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America. ²³ What I would like to know is how a nation that has, arguably, the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction on Earth (actually bigger than the next twenty-six nations combined) has any right to dictate to another sovereign nations what they can and can’t have on their own territories for their own defence—especially when a large proportion of said weapons were sold to them by America in the first place. If that isn’t bullying, what is? Indian author Arundhati Roy wrote, “Once weapons were manufactured to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured to sell weapons.” And veteran American actor, Donald Sutherland summed up the USA’s agenda most succinctly when he said, “War is for profit. It’s not ‘to save the world for democracy’ or ‘for king and country.’” Nowhere are these truer than in the USA!

²⁴ Iraq had never made so much as any threat to America and, apart from their (claimed) re-occupation of what was originally theirs anyway—Kuwait—and some minor disagreements with their neighbour, Iran some ten years earlier had hardly set a foot wrong internationally. However, what Iraq does have is 6% of the world’s known oil reserves—and that’s what America really wants control of. But Saddam Hussein, as a loyal Iraqi, saw no reason to compromise his nation’s vast oil wealth to anyone—and why should he—Iraq doesn’t have much else to sell? So, when faced with defiance (how dare he!), the corrupt American power-machine moved on to plan B and not only unleashed their weapons of mass destruction but dragged many of their lap-dog mates with them (including, I’m ashamed to say, Britain, New Zealand and Australia). ²⁵ As I have written, America realised very early on that colonisation of thirdworld or, for that matter, any other countries is bad business—and never forget, business for profit is what America is all about—especially business that lines the pockets of already fabulously rich individuals whose greed knows no bounds! You see, when a country is colonised, not only do its resources (i.e.:oil) come under the coloniser’s control but so, also, does responsibility for everything else—national security, health, education, commerce, defence, ad infinitum and America doesn’t want the expense of providing all that paraphernalia for free. Oh, no! They’d much rather let them stay independent allies and sell it to them! ² So what is the much better strategy? Form an alliance or concord with nations that are of commercial or strategic interest and ensure that their governments are totally pro-American and, when they aren’t, pose as ers of the downtrodden masses by, if possible, backing peaceful coups or where that fails, fomenting civil wars and providing military assistance by way of training guerrilla forces and providing arms to the side that they want to win until a puppet istration is installed that will kowtow to every demand “Uncle Sam” makes of them because they owe them.

WHAT RIGHT DOES THE OWNER OF THE BIGGEST ARSENAL OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ON EARTH HAVE TO TELL ANOTHER SOVEREIGN NATION

THAT THEY CAN’T HAVE ANY?

²⁷ That’s exactly what they did in Afghanistan when they backed and trained Islamic fundamentalist Taliban nationalists to fight against the Russian invasion encouraged by Afghan President Hafizullah Amin who wanted a more “western” istration (albeit based on communism) rather than a traditional one based on Sharia Law. ²⁸ However, once the Russians were expelled, thousands of Afghan citizens, wanting to restore their country to fundamentalist Islam ed a guerrilla group called the Mujahideen to fight everything that Amin stood for—which wasn’t quite what America wanted—with the end result that America ended up playing the “international policeman” where they had no jurisdiction and fighting Afghan patriots whilst dragging as many of their allies into the conflict as they could and their ‘puppet press’ tells the gullible masses whatever the government tells them to. ² Where a more equitable philosophy exists—such as in most western European nations, Canada and Australasia, the promise of the of America’s military might in times of need seems to have been sufficient to bring those countries into line peacefully where their governments unquestioningly grovel to American wishes and demands. As an Australian, I am sad to say that is exactly what our government does. At least New Zealand told the USA not to bring their nuclear-powered or armed warships into their territorial waters! Good on them! ³ It is a statistical fact that most rank-and-file American military personnel are recruited in areas where unemployment is high and hopes for the future low and the promise of a military career—and that’s how it is presented—as a career, not just a job and less still, ‘cannon fodder’—where most of those recruited had IQs even lower than George W Bush’s (reputedly below 90!) and thus, without Bush’s family money to set them up, had absolutely no prospects of a job— much less a career—EVER! Most of those recruits have no more idea what national security means than they have what their own state capital is. ³¹ This highlights another aspect of submission in America. Whilst many other so-called ‘educated’ nations provide free or subsidised education to their citizens, tertiary scholarships in America are only awarded on already proven

outstanding academic merit or—would you believe—sporting ability so that universities are, for the large part, populated by dedicated boffins, intellectual morons who can handle a ball or the progeny of rich people who can pay for their kids’ education. That is, of course, somewhat of a generalisation and there are notable exceptions who make it in spite of the system. ³² It is an internationally well-known fact that, even though it has the thirdlargest population of all the counties on Earth, the USA’s national welfare and health strategies are pathetic in comparison with other developed nations, and certainly nothing to favourably compare with relatively little (population-wise) countries like Australia and New Zealand as well as most West-European nations. ³³ The USA doesn’t have a health care system—it has a disease management system. There is no profit for the corrupt American medical mega-businesses in healthy people! Along with munitions manufacturers, drug companies are among the USA’s biggest profit-makers. ³⁴ In America, if a totally innocent person is injured in a road accident or suffers a stroke or heart-attack and is rushed to hospital they have to be able to not only pay for whatever treatment is required but also accommodation fees at the hospital and even the ambulance transport to get there. If they can’t prove that they either have adequate insurance or personal funds to cover everything, they can be—and frequently are—turned away! ³⁵ Another well-known fact (and I can speak from numerous personal encounters with American tertiary students) is that the average American’s knowledge of anything outside their own country or specialist subject is less than most Australian primary school children. They even ask questions like, “How far off the coast of England is Australia?”! What is most scary about this is that I believe that is the way the American government wants it because keeping the rank-and-file populace in ignorance is to their ultimate advantage.³ American power-brokers have developed a super-elite minority (largely based on money— lots of it) like the Bush family whose children are provided with a very carefully controlled education so that, by the time they complete it, they are, just like those religious demagogues mentioned earlier, totally brainwashed with a sort of blind patriotism where even to so much as question their national leaders’ decisions and policies is tantamount to heresy and treason.

³⁷ From all of this it is clear that, in “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” nothing is free and a person needs to be brave to live there because, if he doesn’t get beaten up or shot at school, in the street or in a home invasion, his government will send him (or her) off for reasons he barely understands to a faroff land—where families just like his own are trying to live their lives in peace —to kill people he is told are “enemies of the state” and, if women and children happen to get killed in the process, he is told that they are “unfortunate collateral damage.” And if he happens to get killed by those women and children’s husbands, brothers or fathers trying to protect their loved ones, the American government will call him a hero and go to the expense of putting his name on a memorial in Washington and give his family the flag his coffin was draped with! Wow! ³⁸ A similar situation existed in the Soviet Union of the mid-20th century— although that was a lot more based on physical bullying that psychological mindcontrol—whereby anyone who questioned the communist regime was expediently dealt with and, if not summarily killed—as some 50 million reputedly were, sent to remote salt mine gulags in Siberia. As with religions, such domineering policies have come and gone throughout history and they will continue to do so. ³ Religion is only a tool for controlling people; it is often used to cause divisiveness, but religion is not the root cause of divisiveness; the root cause is certain people. Could religion be used the other way? Could religion be used to bring people together? Religion as a builder of bridges between cultures suffers from the problem that it is easier to use for destruction than building. Those who would tear down bridges and bring divisiveness will always win. ⁴ There are always going to be people in this world who want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Those of us who treasure the simple things in life, our families, our friends, our play, and our work put ourselves at a disadvantage because there are people who will think nothing of using us and discarding us to get their pile of money and power. It is those people who must be dealt with if humanity is ever to have peace and prosperity. ⁴¹ In every instance of political domination of rank-and-file citizens a primary objective has been to gain the faith of subjects in their leaders to the point where they are prepared to die “for king and country” or “for the father (or mother) land” without needing to even know why. All too often political leaders (with

their obvious axes to grind) use the national religion to reinforce their policies so that those slogans become “for God and country” or, as in the case of America, the all-time master of mass brainwashing, “In God we trust!” Even if he did have any inclination to intervene in human affairs, do you really think that trust in the Great Creator printed on money would make any difference?

⁴² This must be, surely, the height of gullibility and, from history, it seems that humans are naturally born gullible and most of them stay that way for their entire lives.

A SPEECH MADE BY CHARLIE CHAPLAIN in OCTOBER 1940:

The speech itself is from the comedy, The Great Dictator, written, directed by and starring the great British actor, Charlie Chaplin. First released in October 1940, the film portrays Chaplin in two characters who look strikingly similar - a Jewish barber and a dictator who looks like Adolf Hitler. Near the end of the film, after a series of bizarre incidents, the dictator gets replaced by his lookalike, the barber, and is taken to the capital where he is asked to give a speech. This is it and its truer today than it was 75 years ago! To see the speech, please visit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1fMvLbE85E

34. Just a Dream

¹ It is unfortunate that the whole Earth is now colonised because I would dearly love to be able to claim a piece of hitherto unclaimed land—preferably where the climate is temperate—and found a brand new nation—a sort of “New Utopia” if you will. ² It would be open to anyone who wanted to come and live there provided that they had skills wherewith they could contribute usefully to society and, in particular, that they were not of or even sympathisers with any organised religious movement and signed an affirmation to that effect. ³ All applicants for citizenship would also have to be free of any criminal records with the exception of “crimes” deemed to be of such a nature that could be said to have been committed honourably such as, for example, someone who, in defending another person being assaulted, had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to the original offender—in other words, where the law (or the s of it) has been an ass. (Such exceptions would, in reality, be extremely rare though.) ⁴ Whilst they accepted the concept of a superior Creator being, what individual citizens chose to call him/her/it would be entirely their own business so long as they accepted that there is only one creative entity and, since no one really knows who or what that entity is, they would accept that every other citizen’s concept of it is as valid as their own and that citizen’s personal prerogative and right. ⁵ There would, of course, need to be laws but whatever laws that an elected legislative assembly ed would be solely based on common-sense moral principles with absolutely no religious foundations and the very first law of the land would be the criminalisation of proselytising with the punishment for breaking it being permanent banishment from the country. Structures built solely as public places of worship would also be illegal although ‘family shrines’ as part of private residences would be allowed. Before being granted citizenship, immigrants (which everyone would initially

be) would be required to serve a one-year probationary period in the country during which any antisocial behaviour—including proselytising—would be recorded and reviewed before the granting of citizenship. ⁷ The rationale behind this would be that the country would not be desirable to ardent followers of established religions, adamant atheists or hippies who don’t want to work and contribute to society so that those people wouldn’t really want to live there anyway. ⁸ Obviously there would need to be some sort of taxation system but it would not be punitive to the point where everyday hard-working people couldn’t live in reasonable comfort. Taxes would only be used for the provision of essential services such as government, education, policing and public health and safety. There would be a legal limit to the amount of money that any individual citizen (including politicians) could earn structured in such a way that there would not be an elite society and, as much as possible, all would, indeed, be equal. Thus the objective of a society where a reasonable quality of life took precedence over monetary wealth would be sustainable. ¹ Further to this, all citizens with any foreign business interests (including shares in foreign companies) or foreign bank s would be required by law to pay a much higher proportion of money earned from those interests than they would from domestic earnings. The penalty for breaking this law would be banishment to wherever those interests were. If they couldn’t get asylum in those countries, that would be their problem. The purpose and thinking behind such a law being that, whilst a citizen may have the ability to capitalise on knowledge or skills elsewhere than in the country, if he chooses to live there, those skills will benefit the country as a whole rather than him as an individual so that such people would, when using the word “home” be referring to their country rather than their personal house. ¹¹ Having so said, dual or multiple citizenship would be mandatory so that citizens (who, , are all immigrants) would still retain ties with their homelands and customs. On that point, if those customs include worshiping a particular deity, they would be perfectly at liberty to do so within the confines of their own home just as long as they didn’t proselytise. Anyone convicted of breaking the proselytising law would be provided with transport to the country of their other citizenship for themselves and their immediate families and, rather

than being treated like criminals in the traditional sense, they would be afforded the utmost respect as human beings. ¹² The government would be prohibited by law from engaging in any commercial activities (such as power generation, transport or consumer services and supplies) and all businesses would be required to provide profit and loss statements annually. ¹³ Any citizen being convicted of any crime against another individual or society would be immediately deported to the country of their other citizenship with no right of return and their citizenship of “New Utopia” revoked. Thus any remand facilities would be minimal and only temporary where offenders would be held until their deportation. If a ‘first offence’ was deemed more ‘anti-social’ than criminal, courts would not have the facility to determine sentences as the law would be quite specific and mandatory providing fixed non-custodial sentences appropriate to the offence—including full recompense to any disadvantaged victims. Repeat offenders would be deported. ¹⁴ Obviously, such a society would never be totally self-sustainable due to its limited size and so things such as electric power and refined petrol—not to mention the cars that used it—would probably have to be purchased from neighbouring countries but then how many already well-established countries of the world do that anyway? ¹⁵ Since all this may sound a bit ‘pie-in-the-sky’ and since there isn’t anywhere to do it (unless some generous land-rich country gave up some of its territory), it is all hypothetical but just imagine it—a homeland where there would be no sectarian arguments and very little crime. The government would be no bigger than absolutely necessary and politicians’ remuneration would be covered by the same law as everyone else’s. Maybe it isn’t so hypothetical to hope that, somewhere in the world, there is a country that aspires to such a structure. ¹ The ideal place would be one where there are no mineral or other resources or strategic location so that no other country would have any desire to take it over and, therefore, the enormous expense that other nations go to for defence wouldn’t be necessary. ¹⁷ Idealistic and hypothetical it may be but, if such a nation existed, would you want to live there?

35. Why Worry?

¹ After just a few weeks of sharing the thoughts expressed in this document, I was overwhelmed by messages of love and understanding from dear Christian friends who have missed me at church and they may never fully know how deeply their messages are appreciated. ² Happily, they have far outnumbered those who have made it obvious that I am anathema to them and they no longer want to know me. No doubt the latter few will, should their beliefs ultimately prove to be right (and mine wrong), have to answer to their God for that but I can’t help wondering how they comply with Jesus’ onition to love their neighbours and how much their attitude will make them anathema to him. Perhaps they read their Bibles to say “Love ONLY thy Christian neighbours and shun everyone else.” ³ Nevertheless, they have made it quite clear to me that my presence at church for simple fellowship with people I love would be an unwelcome embarrassment. I suppose that, in such circumstances, anomie is inevitable and so it doesn’t surprise me. I bear them no malice and repeat, there will always be a welcome at my home for anyone who wants to visit and, amongst other things, praise and thank our Creator with me.

DANGER IS REAL BUT FEAR IS OPTIONAL

⁴ So, for those who have told me I will always be welcome, I am sorry to say that, since the very last thing I want to do is foment disharmony, I will not be there very often. However, when the pre-published programme s a speaker whose spiritual topic sounds interesting, I would like to go and hear what he or she has to say because I don’t have a closed mind.

⁵ One interesting comment that a very dear friend made was that, in some places, my wording was a bit harsh to the point where he was left feeling that I had called him stupid for being a believer in the Christian doctrine (Section 24:6 perhaps?). At first, that deeply concerned me because it was never my intention to evoke such an emotion. But then it occurred to me that the only reason he could have felt that was because what I have written made him realise that his beliefs were, at the very least, somewhat dubious and, that being the case, he had probably also realised —maybe subconsciously—that, for him to cling to those beliefs was, in his own mind, stupid. Otherwise, why would he feel that way? A popular expression for this is, “If the cap fits, wear it!” How my friend resolves that is, of course, entirely up to him. Fortunately he is very well-educated and so I have no doubt that his ultimate decision will be both logical and sensible to him. ⁷ Eleanor Roosevelt summed it up most succinctly when she said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent!” ⁸ If he continues on his traditional path and is able to comfortably live with himself, he is answerable to no one but himself. However, if he continues to proselytise those beliefs in the knowledge that they are spurious, he will be committing a blatant act of corruption and he will know it! On the subject of bearing malice, as I have discovered the hard way—by experience—that, like worrying, there is absolutely no point in it. Unforgiveness is just a ive form of anger. Think about how you feel when you’re angry. As a result of hormones that the negative emotion of anger and worry produce in your body, your heartbeat increases, your blood pressure rises and numerous other unpleasant reactions occur with the end result that you feel rotten. ¹ Meanwhile, it is quite possible that the person you are bearing grudges against isn’t aware of it and may not even realise they have—maybe unintentionally— upset you. So whilst you are grinding your teeth and seething with unforgiveness, the cause of your discontent is happily getting on with his or her life oblivious to your suffering. Does that seem right? I don’t think so! ¹¹ Forgiveness is as much for the forgiver as it is for the forgiven—in fact, probably more so. It could, therefore, be said that to forgive is selfish and, in many ways, it is. If someone has done you a serious wrong and you know that

they know it (, evil is a human creation), you may decide that you no longer want anything to do with that person. That’s just simple common sense— after all, they have given you adequate reason not to trust them. ‘Once bitten, twice shy’ is a well-known expression. However, when you forgive that wrong and forget all about it and get on with enjoying your life, your health no longer suffers and life (for you) is generally a lot better. ¹² You don’t even need to tell the offender that you have forgiven them. Do you see the point here? The act of forgiveness was for you, not for the other person— especially when they know they offended or hurt you in the first place. ¹³ Having said all that, there is a possibility that they didn’t know so that, if you quietly and politely explain to them what their actions have done to you without being in any way confrontational, they may be totally mortified and not only beg your forgiveness but also ask how they can make restitution with the end result that your friendship is stronger than it was before. ¹⁴ So never make assumptions. It is quite possible that the other person truly values your friendship and, unless you tell them how they have made you feel, they will spend the rest of their life wondering why you no longer want to be their friend and both of you will have lost something valuable. Sure, you’ll get over it—but what a stupid waste! ¹⁵ It is just the same with worry—which is usually nothing more than a fear of the unknown. There’s a huge difference between worrying and being concerned. ¹ When you worry, all you do is fret and produce similar hormones to those that unforgiveness produced and make yourself ill whereas being concerned means that you think positively about possible future events that might affect you negatively and figure out ways to avert them or, if that isn’t possible, deal with them. ¹⁷ Danger is real but fear is optional! Fear is our imagination of something unpleasant in the future that hasn’t happened and may never happen. The difference between fear and prudence is common sense! ¹⁸ If, for example, you live in an earthquake-prone place and earthquakes terrify you, the answer is simple. Move away! And don’t make feeble excuses why you can’t because your family are all there or your job is there. If your family care enough about you, they’ll still visit you in your new home and, I’m sure, be a lot

happier to see you contented than constantly in fear. ¹ Likewise, your employer could go broke tomorrow and you’d have to find another job anyway so finding one at your new home would be no different and, if you’re honest and diligent, getting a good reference should be easy too. ² Unforgiveness and worry are just two very common forms of mental anguish and both are very bad for you—so give them up right now and add many more extra healthy years to your life. Not only that though, everyone else will probably like you better! ²¹ One thing that has surprised me is my own feelings since reaching my present position. The adjustment wasn’t a sudden life-changing decision but more of a gradual realisation that I could no longer accept what were, when considered disionately, nothing more than, myths, folk stories and superstitions. ²² At first I was actually quite apprehensive. I almost expected to be struck down in some devastating way by a vindictive god like the one portrayed in the Old Testament—but it didn’t happen! ²² In fact, if anything, I feel as though a heavy burden has been lifted from me. If there were any negative feelings at all, they were ones of stupidity for allowing myself to be hoodwinked for so long. Far from feeling guilty of some heinous sin, I feel liberated! My step is lighter and the air I breathe seems fresher. I opened this dissertation with the words, “An Awakening…” and that is what I sincerely believe I have had. I feel unfettered from the shackles of medieval superstition and, in short, life is psychologically better!

36. Suppressed Evidence

¹ If we are going to consider the difference between faith and gullibility—and, in particular, as it concerns Christianity—we need to be fully aware of how Christian beliefs came to be what we know today.

SHOULD RATIONAL PEOPLE BELIEVE EVERYTHING THEY ARE TOLD WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE?

² Bearing in mind that, in the years immediately following the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, it was Paul and Constantine who were principle promoters of the ‘new’ religion which ultimately became the Roman Catholic Church and, whilst not the only one, was by far the dominant ‘authority’ of Christianity for well over 1000 years, we need to examine just how what we know as “The Bible” came into existence. ³ The term used by scholars to refer to the collection of writings by at least 40 authors covering roughly 2000 years of middle-eastern legends but allegedly written over a period of 1500 years is ‘The canon of Scripture’ and has, by order of the papacy, been closed—meaning that it cannot be added to or removed from in any way. The word ‘canon’ is derived from a Greek word meaning ‘yardstick’ or, in more simple , ‘rule.’ ⁴ The early church leaders who, relying largely on legends, made those rules and thus determined which documents were canonical claimed that all the writings included were written under divine inspiration which directly disagrees with the deistic belief that, once the Great Creator had completed the work of creation and provided everything it needed to be self-sustaining, he had no further with it.

⁵ This raises two distinctly different questions: One is how the letters written by Paul to various churches in which he expresses what he openly acknowledges as his personal opinions can qualify as inspired. The other is how church authorities readily acknowledge the writings of much more recent people as inspired prophecies and their authors as prophets yet refuse to even consider adding their writings to the canon of Scripture. Some churches—notably the Roman Catholic and its offshoots—readily accord the rank and title of ‘saint’ to various people throughout history who have been deemed to have specially inspired powers (including at least two documented “miracles.”) Those powers are, however, much more likely explicable illusions (magic tricks) than genuine “God-given” abilities. ⁷ Nevertheless, there are a few breakaway Christian movements (often arrogantly referred to as ‘cults’ by the established orthodox churches) that claim to have what might be referred to as ‘extra-canonical’ writings. A notable example of this is the Mormon Church which affords its Book of Mormon equal authority with The Bible—even though no original texts of it exist. ⁸ The ‘orthodox Christian’ Canon of Scripture is the Jewish canon—comprising the Torah (the teaching books of Moses), the Nevi’im (the prophetic writings) and the Ketuvim (other writings), collectively making up the Tanach or Old Testament—and the New Testament writings of the four Gospels plus The Acts of the Apostles, various letters or ‘epistles’ (thirteen of which were written by Paul) and the Book of Revelations. In addition to these, the Roman Catholic canon includes 16 additional writings called “The Apocrypha “(meaning ‘secret’). So, even in Christendom, there are clearly differences between different groups which make finding anything purporting to be truth very difficult for anyone attempting a rational scientific study with the inevitable result being not unreasonable scepticism. ¹ However, the “mainstream” canonical collection by no means encomes all the ancient texts that could have been included and, in fact, numerous texts (at least 20) that are not included are referred to in other texts that are. ¹¹ Examples include The Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29), The Annals of Jehu (2 Chronicles 20:34) and the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13) plus

additional letters written by Paul. In many cases that is because no texts of those writings had been found. ¹² In addition to those that are mentioned, during the almost 2000 years since the last components of the Bible were written, many ancient documents have been discovered—the most famous example, but by no means the only one, being the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned earlier in section 11. ¹³ The best-preserved of these have, understandably, been found in arid places like Palestine and Upper Egypt where moisture had not deteriorated them but, even so, they have been fragmented and it has taken many painstaking hours by expert scholars to restore them as much as possible whilst portions are still missing. This has meant that the missing texts have had to be meticulously worked out using advanced linguistic syntactical knowledge along with a large amount of intuition. ¹⁴ Coptic Christianity, founded in Alexandria, flourished during the early centuries CE long before the advent of Roman Catholicism. A predominantly Greek city—albeit on Egyptian soil—Alexandria was founded by Alexander the Great some 330 years before the birth of Jesus and many papyrus documents have been found in the nearby deserts. ¹⁵ These include the Gospels of Mary Magdalene, only discovered in the late nineteenth century, and the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, found even more recently in 1945. All of these and many other texts are copies of the originals (which would have been written in Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek) written in Coptic—a derivative of hieroglyphics—in about the fourth century CE and tell stories about Jesus that are not included in the four canonical gospels such as Jesus relationship with Mary Magdalene where it clearly states that Jesus frequently kissed her on the mouth—something never done between casual friends at the time but only between lovers whilst kissing friends of either sex on the cheeks or forehead was commonplace (viz: Judas identifying Jesus to the temple guards with a kiss [Luke 22:48]). That Jesus kissed Mary on the lips has led many scholars to deduce that he was actually married to Mary. ¹ That suggestion has, not unexpectedly, greatly angered traditional religions— and especially closed-minded Catholics who have based a thousand years of priestly celibacy not only on Paul’s onition that it is better for preachers to remain single (1 Corinthians 7:7.8) but, more particularly on the presumption

that Jesus was a virgin. ¹⁷ Before Egypt adopted more rigorous antiquities policies, many ancient documents were sold by the finders—often poor nomadic animal-herders—to the highest bidders who were collectors of such materials so that some of them didn’t immediately come to the attention of genuine archaeologists and historians. ¹⁸ One such item is a small fragment—thought to have been cut from a larger papyrus relic by unscrupulous treasure hunters—where a fraction of the Coptic script says, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife….’” And that’s where the fragment ends until the following line where it says, ‘she is able to be my disciple…’ How much is missing is unknown and there is no indication, other than the name, that the Jesus referred to is the Jesus of the Bible although, earlier on the fragment, the words “the disciples said to Jesus” and “Mary” occur so one might safely assume that it was “the” Jesus. ¹ Whilst it may anger some, a rational person has to ask, “What is wrong with an itinerant preacher being married? No one ever questions Jesus working as an ordinary carpenter in his father’s workshop. Several of the disciples were married and that didn’t ‘downgrade’ them at all. What it does raise though, is the possibility that Jesus and Mary had children and that their descendants could be alive today and there is, of course, little doubt he had nieces and nephews through his brothers and so his DNA is highly likely to be still with us. ² As discussed in section 29, it is only religion that has made physical love (sex) a “dirty” subject to the point where that has become exacerbated by the telling of risqué jokes with sex as their theme and the very mention of it in “nice” company is frowned upon. Not only this though, because of the stigma that religion has placed on sexual relations—especially extra-marital ones—any discussion on the topic, let alone actual participation in it, carries a ‘supressed guilt’ that can be manifest in various ways. ²¹ This guilt is unique to humans unless other animals have been trained to experience it—rather like a dog can be trained to feel guilty for disobeying its owner. We have all seen pets cowering in fear of tyrannical owners who have repeatedly beaten them for doing something they have been taught is ‘wrong’ but this is a human trait that has been imprinted onto otherwise innocent animals and not a natural response.

²² For this reason, any documents that suggest Jesus may have had any sort of perfectly natural human relationship have been vigorously suppressed by almost all churches who declare them sacrilegious which leaves anyone with an open mind seriously wondering where the real truth begins and ends. ²³ It is thus that the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture’s closed syllabus has been virtually ‘sealed’ against fallibilism to the point where, no matter what discoveries are made—especially any that challenge established doctrines and supremacy—are branded as forgeries or unrelated and summarily dismissed with no right of appeal. If that isn’t tyranny, what is? It is almost as though church hierarchies are not the least bit interested in truth but only in preserving their myths. ²⁴ This, in turn, prompts speculation as to how many ancient documents have been surreptitiously ‘filed away’ by church tyrants never again to see the light of day or even destroyed rather than allow them to throw doubt on established church doctrines? If the latter has happened, no one will ever know so that sincere believers are left following lies or only partial truths at best. But then those church leaders have jobs to protect so it’s hardly surprising really!

37. So What IS The Answer?

¹ So what IS the answer to the question that prompted this self-examinationturned-long-study in the first place?—what IS the difference between faith and gullibility? ² Well, as I have said, so far, no one has been able to answer that to my satisfaction—although I must acknowledge that the people I have asked have mostly been ardent followers of religious doctrines and thus obviously felt a need to justify what they call their faith. Why then, should I be able to answer it either? Nevertheless, since I brought it up in the first place, I will offer MY answer. ³ Basically, there is no difference! ⁴ You see, there are three distinct paradigms on this Earth: religion, politics and science and only one of those is permanent. Religious and political dogmas ebb and flow but science only flows. Whilst religious and political values change to suit mankind’s whims and agendas, scientific knowledge always advances forward without regard for personal prejudices or desires for power. Unlike the others, it cannot be manipulated. ⁵ In a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQQAv5svkk chaired by Magnus Magnusson between Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan and himself, cosmologist, Sir Arthur C Clarke smilingly said in answer to the question, “Are politicians or priests setting the agenda - or scientists?”, “Science is a self-correcting subject – not like politics or religion.”

ANYTHING THAT IS SUPERNATURAL

BREAKS THE IMMUTABLE LAWS OF

NATURE AND PHYSICS

AND IS THEREFORE, BY DEFINITION, ILLEGAL ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THAT?

Science can be and certainly is used prejudicially but only when knowledge is lacking. Politicians and religious people with vested interests will often attempt to use people’s scientific ignorance to delude them, but, sooner or later, that gets exposed and their agendas crumble into nothing more than what they always were—basically, elaborate confidence tricks. ⁷ If anyone accepts as truth any story that defies all common sense and, in particular, breaks the established laws of physics and nature (and is, therefore, supernatural), they are, by definition, gullible. ⁸ However, religious people attempt to justify that gullibility by the sincerity of that acceptance in that, whist they readily agree that it is supernatural, they also express a personal conviction that the supernatural IS possible—which is, in itself, an oxymoron. Of course, also by definition, if the supernatural were possible then it wouldn’t be supernatural—it would be natural—just very rare! ¹ Synonyms for supernatural are occult and unnatural which, when you think about it, if something breaks physical law, it is illegal—but religious people don’t like that because it makes their god a lawbreaker—and, as far as Christianity is concerned, don’t ever forget 1 John 3:4 where The Bible says that

lawbreaking is SIN? ¹¹ Nevertheless, religious people believe that not only could supernatural events happen (or have happened in the past), but they sincerely believe that they will (or did). That is a personal choice and, as such, sacrosanct since no one has the right to dictate to another what he or she should or should not believe—no matter how ridiculous or illegal it is. ¹² Unfortunately though, most people who have made such a choice become bent on convincing everyone they meet that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong—and I have dealt with this earlier! ¹³ Religious people will tell you that their god is “above the law” (including the laws of physics that governed creation in the first place)! If you stop and really think about it, that is like saying, “For God there IS no law” and, if there is no law, there is no stability or order and, with no stability or order, there can be no hope because everything is nebulous! ¹⁴ Perhaps the most awesome responsibility humans have in life is what they spiritually teach their children because, as I have explained, what is implanted in the virgin mind of a child becomes an integral part of that child’s persona later in life as an adult. ¹⁵ Therefore, an exception to my statement in paragraph 11 that no one has the right to dictate to another what he should or should not believe is what parents teach their children. ¹ One hypothetical idea would be for all children in the world to be actively protected by law from any and all religious influences until they are old enough to make rational decisions for themselves (I’d say at least 18) and then given synopses of every major world religion including Deism and atheism as well as significant extinct ones such as Greek, Roman, Norse and ‘New World traditions’ (African, American and Pacific in particular) without being told which were and which were not still extant and allowed to make an unbiased choice as to which, if any, they would like to follow based on how much sense it made to their otherwise educated minds. Whilst highly impractical—especially where children witness their parents actively participating as of a religion—it would be interesting! As Malcolm Forbes (publisher of Forbes magazine) wrote, “Education’s purpose is to replace an empty mind with an

open one.” ¹⁷ I can’t help wondering how many would choose atheism and how many would, as I have chosen to do, choose creationism by an unknown Creator—in other words, some form of Deism where they would acknowledge a creative entity but accept that no one knows who or what that entity was or is. ¹⁸ As it is, a much more plausible and realistic approach would be to ask religious people of all belief systems the question, “Why do you believe what you do?” ¹ If those people actually had to rationally think about their answers and give sensible, rational reasons as opposed to simply, “Because I choose to,” I think a lot of them might end up feeling very foolish! ² Another suggestion would be that every person who wants to belong to a particular religion should make a detailed study of that religion’s history so that answering the question would, at least, be rational (as opposed to something as trite as, “Because the people are nice.” or “Because I want to live forever.”). ²¹ If, for example, the history of Christianity is studied, the status that religion holds in the world today could be attributed to just two people. One is the apostle, Paul and the other is Roman emperor Constantine I. As already explained in section 13, Constantine’s contribution was expedient because the Roman Empire was facing severe financial difficulties resulting from numerous military campaigns and the vast expense of a polytheistic regime that was placing his leadership under duress to the point where a monotheistic regime devoid of expensive and wasteful sacrifices was clearly a tactically prudent move and, as absolute emperor, Constantine’s ruling was incontrovertible. Had he not taken the course that he did in what was, at the time, the ruling power of most of Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa, who knows what religion the western world would now be following? ²² On the other hand, Paul’s motivation is much less apparent. For one thing, he was a Roman citizen which, in his environment, afforded considerably more power, security and immunity than if he had not been. He was also a highly educated Jew who, in his earlier life as Saul of Tarsus, as part of his duty as a Pharisee in the Jewish culture, had actively persecuted Christians for what was deemed their heresy in recognising an imposter as their promised Messiah.

²³ Some event in Paul’s life—described in the Bible as a vision whilst travelling to Damascus to round up Christians and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial as seditionists—clearly caused him to experience a diametric change in attitude whereby, instead of hunting down Christians for prosecution, he became an avid preacher of what is popularly referred to as “the Gospel” (a word derived from Old English and actually only much later applied to the story of Jesus). ²⁴ Why this dramatic change? Well, that is a question not easily answered. The vision on the Damascus road is described by Luke in his book, “Acts of the Apostles” [chapter 9] in the Bible but Luke was not there when it happened and so the story is at least second-hand. Bearing in mind that much of the Bible relies on vivid dramatization to drive its messages home, there is every likelihood that this was no exception and a much more plausible explanation of Paul’s change was his strong objection to the new Roman emperor, Caligula’s plan to erect a statue of himself in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. ²⁵ In his own writings, Paul merely states that “God was pleased to reveal his son to me” [Galatians 1:15, 16] without going into any other detail. ² Whatever the answer, Paul obviously experienced some highly motivational event that ultimately made him the principle advocate of what became known as Christianity and, because of the protection of his Roman citizenship, able to preach his gospel widely throughout the eastern empire. Had this not happened, there is every possibility that a largely Pauline version of Christianity would have never become more than a radical Jewish cult and died out before Constantine was even born. I say, ‘largely Pauline version of Christianity’ because, as Muslims point out, Paul purposefully corrupted the teachings of Jesus—who, we need to , is also a recognised prophet of Islam—and made them into a theology of the cross. ²⁷ It also needs to be borne in mind that the principal references we have of Paul are in his own writings to the various groups (described by him as ‘churches’) that he visited. Just as people have done throughout time, Paul would have written what he believed his addressees needed to read for them to embrace policies and practices sympathetic with his programme of evangelism and to take those writings as appropriate for all readers is not necessarily expedient and yet it is quite common to hear Christian preachers saying words like, “Paul tells us…” where, in actual fact, what they quote was Paul telling a totally different ethnic group of people almost 2000 years ago and totally out of context for

people today. ²⁸ As it is, it is not easy to determine Paul’s motivation other than to accept that he was an avid enthusiast who, as an eloquent single man, was able to travel extensively throughout Asia Minor expressing his opinions. He certainly didn’t do it for personal gain and actually suffered persecution for his beliefs. ² Psychologically, it is not unusual for someone who has experienced a paradigm change in beliefs to become such an enthusiast. After all, you have an example right in front of you – ME! As I have said, what started out to be a simple explanation of my own change of beliefs has ultimately become an intensive study of religious doctrines and their rationales (or, more correctly, their lack of them). ³ As it is though, just two men literally changed the world and, had they not done so, who knows what a different story history might tell? ³¹ Personally, I enjoy the supernatural—but I don’t BELIEVE it! That is to say: I thoroughly enjoy watching clever illusionists and like fantasy stories and movies. As a genre, fantasy would be one of my favourites ( my childhood “Fairies and Enchanters” stories). When I was a movie producer/director, I often contemplated making an epic film about the life of King David as told in The Bible. The story has all the essential elements for an epic fantasy movie. (Maybe I should suggest it to my one-time neighbour, producer/director, Sir Peter Jackson!) ³² Experience has shown me that it is very easy to become immersed in entertainment fantasy whilst it’s on but, once it’s over, that’s it! I don’t live in it every day. Unfortunately, it would seem that many followers of religious dogmas do to the point where it rules their entire lives! ³³ In the end, I guess one has to live with that paradigm and accept it as part of life on Planet Earth because it will never change. As the Australian bushranger, Ned Kelly so succinctly said when told he would be hanged the next day at 10:00 AM: “Such is life!” So we might as well accept it as it is! (Yet another myth: Popular culture says that Kelly said those words whilst on the gallows but that’s not true either!)

IF THE SUPERNATURAL WERE POSSIBLE,

IT WOULDN’T BE SUPERNATURAL

IT WOULD JUST BE UNUSUAL!

³⁴ Actually, religions are just social organisations where the common interest is ancient mythology and, like many other social organisations, most of the conversation and activities at their meetings centres around the main interest. That is, after all, only natural. However, unlike other social groups, religions tend to be burdened with dogmatic tunnel vision where any digression from the established pattern is not only discouraged but deemed heretical and, as a result, due to fear of vilification, it rarely happens and when it does, a new denomination (which the original one often calls a ‘cult’) often forms—a particularly significant example being the birth of the Anglican Church as described earlier. ³⁵ To put this into perspective, I am a member of a local rugby union club even though I have certainly never played the game and don’t even particularly like it (I much prefer Rugby League)! But the social atmosphere at the club is excellent. The restaurant serves great meals and the conversation doesn’t solely revolve around rugby union all the time—in fact the groups I socialise with never talk about it whereas, at churches, mosques and temples, with a notable few exceptions, the ONLY topics of conversation are their own particular religious doctrines so that, if a person doesn’t share them (or, at least, aspire to), he feels totally out of place. Some even frown upon secular conversation in church! You can the footy club to make friends but you can’t do that at a religious meeting unless you also endorse their doctrines. ³ At the rugby union club they play videos of matches on the big screen but

everyone isn’t obliged to watch them. The rugby union fans will refer to my game, rugby league as “Mobile Wrestling” and AFL as “Ariel Ping-Pong” but it’s just friendly banter they all still socialise together and share other common interests. It seems that the main difference between social clubs and churches is that the former are there for social enjoyment and the latter for indoctrination. ³⁷ This is actually quite sad because, in most cases, religious people are pleasant company and genuinely nice folk who sincerely care about their fellow humans. As I wrote earlier about the good works that many churches do, it’s a great pity that the people who tend to embrace religious interests cannot keep those to themselves. As I have also written, what they choose to believe is no one’s business but their own but, for some reason that is hard to understand, religious people of all doctrines seem bent on inflicting their mythological beliefs on everyone they meet—but then I suppose that’s what indoctrination is all about! ³⁸ I pray to the one who I believe conceived and created the universe that what I have written here will be received in the same spirit in which I have written it— enlightenment—although, as I have said, I have no knowledge of whether my prayers are heard or not. (that’s no reason to stop saying them though!) ³ If you are happy to accept any cultural mythology (whatever it may be) and allow it to govern your life, it’s YOUR life and how you run it is no one’s business but your own. If your logic tells you that your beliefs make sound common sense, who can argue with that? When it comes to spiritual matters, none of us has any guarantee that we are right—although, of course, we all hope we are and sincerely believe it, otherwise we would only be fooling ourselves. If you are content with your beliefs and keep them to yourself, surely that’s all that matters in the end. ⁴ Ultimately, I believe there is only one choice to be made and that is whether there was a creative entity or whether there wasn’t. That is a personal choice that you don’t have to justify to anyone but YOURSELF. As I have suggested, denominational religion is the curse of the world and thus, if you have any logic at all, to be avoided like the plague! ⁴¹ There is one request I would like to make to my readers and that is, if what I have written makes good sense to you but you are still clinging tenaciously to your particular religion, please consider why you are doing that. If it is because you are scared that turning your back on it might result in some terrible curse

befalling you then you are allowing yourself to be ruled by superstition. Is that what you sincerely believe your Creator wants? Isn’t it time to face up and be honest? ⁴² At the end of this study, I will close with a few words of gratitude and praise to my Creator and HOPE that He hears them. ⁴³ You will notice that, in the prayer part of my message, I don’t ask our Creator for things like world peace, good government, an end to pollution and crime because none of those things are his to hand out like sweets in a lolly scramble. All those and many more are situations that WE, humanity have created since the day we ourselves were created and therefore, it is up to US to rectify them. To put that into popular vernacular, if we could but hear what God might say to such prayers, it would be something like, “YOU broke it—YOU fix it!” ⁴⁴ Therefore, I don’t ask our Creator for anything except forgiveness for genuine mistakes because he has already given us everything else, and to be honest, I think the answer to how we perceive him has been staring us all in the face since the beginning of time! Unfortunately, it is as John Heywood wrote way back in 1546, “There are none so blind as those who will not see!” And that, would you believe, is based on a quotation from The Bible in Jeremiah 5:21! ⁴⁵ Also, wherever I use the word “you” I do not specifically intend it to be singular or plural—simply because I have absolutely no idea whether our Creator is one or many. Should you wish to speak my words or similar words of your own to your Creator, I leave it to you which (if either) you prefer. Personally, I find the concept of our Creator being the only one of his species somewhat bizarre and so I prefer the idea of a Creator who has companions of his own kind to help him. ⁴ If you are not alone when you pray, wherever it occurs, replace the word ‘I’ with ‘we.’ My words to my Creator follow the appendices.

38. JUST IMAGINE! Open your mind

¹ Now, on a lighter note and just for fun, here are some thoughts to stretch your mind that you might find interesting: ² Everything that exists is made up of 92 naturally-occurring elements (plus some man-made transuranic ones) or combinations thereof and those elements are made up of atoms so that, for example, our own bodies consist of trillions of trillions of them. ³ However, about 98.7% of our body is comprised of just six with the biggest proportion being oxygen (65%) and hydrogen (9.5%)—much of which are combined as water—with carbon at 18.5%, nitrogen at 3.2% and, very interestingly when it is considered that an average person’s skeleton weighs about 14% of their total weight, calcium at only 1.5% and phosphorous at 1%. Traces of another 22 elements (including arsenic and lead—both lethal in larger proportions!) make up the other 1.3%. 99.9999999999999% of an atom is just empty space so that, if you could remove all the space in the atoms, the entire human race could fit in the volume of a sugar cube. ⁴ Atoms are the smallest recognised divisions of all basic elements and are, shall we say, the building blocks of all creation. They are so small that physicists, whilst postulating their existence for thousands of years, did not actually scientifically establish it until the late 19th century. The very name—atom— comes from the Greek word atomos, meaning ‘indivisible’ because, when the early philosophers proposed their existence, they reasoned that they were the ultimate components of matter and could not, therefore, be divided. ⁵ However, as we now know only too well, like early theologians (and some today), though those ancient philosophers were sincere, they were wrong! Since the invention of the electron microscope and the first actual sighting of a single atom, hundreds of sub-atomic particles, such as quarks, leptons, mesons and hadrons have been discovered—so what is yet to be discovered can only be imagined.

Some men see things as they are and say ‘why?’

I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?’ Robert Kennedy

Even today, most physicists believe that the speed of light is finite and the laws of nature prohibit it being exceeded. As most people know, when a whip is “cracked,” the crack is actually the tip of the whip breaking the sound barrier which clearly indicates that, even in a length of less than 5 metres, a human has enough power in their wrist to achieve this. Therefore, if you get the most powerful high-speed electric motor available (I understand that one has been built that spins at 300000 RPM) and connect a very strong line (say, carbon nanotube) with a ball on the end of it through a feed device through the centre of the spindle of the motor and feed it out, the further the ball gets from the spinning spindle, the faster it will travel until, at some point (relative to the speed of spin in RPM) surely the ball MUST reach the speed of light (which, after all, is only a number). If that postulation is correct, then what happens if more line is let out so that the ball is further from the spindle? It may be that an experiment to test this would have to be conducted in space where there would be no air pressure to place undue stress on the line and ball—although it would also seem that the motor assembly would require a very firm anchor too. Therefore, the best place to conduct such an experiment might be Mars. I just wish I had the facilities to enable me to try it. ⁷ Of course, this is already being attempted in a more scientific way at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern in Switzerland —the biggest machine in the world powered by the world’s largest computing grid over 35 countries. Basically a giant particle accelerator, the LHC has already achieved speeds for ions of 0.999991% of the speed of light but never exceeded it. ⁸ This video suggests that exceeding the speed of light is, indeed impossible!

And , speed is only a relative term (see section 30 para 5). So is it a myth or a fact? The speed of light is governed by the duration of the present moment, calculated by Nobel laureate, Max Planck. Light, or anything else, cannot outrun time itself. Light is emitted in discrete units, or quanta and, like everything else, must obey the laws of physics. ¹ Nevertheless, I am prompted to suggest that, if a black hole is simply a region of space time where the gravity is so great that even light cannot escape from it, surely, for light to be pulled back, it must regress relatively faster than the speed at which it was being emitted—which is, of course, the speed of light—since the gravitational singularity pulling it exerts a greater force. But I’m not a physicist and this is not about quantum mechanics so I will get to my point. ¹¹ As everyone now knows, atoms are very similar—though not identical—in appearance to solar systems. Electrons spin around nucleii just as planets spin around stars and satellites spin round planets. The Earth is like a hydrogen atom with just one electron—the Moon. Mars is like Helium with two whilst Jupiter Saturn and Uranus, with lots of moons, are more like gold atoms which have 89 electrons. ¹² The Milky Way galaxy, of which the solar system is a relatively minute part, is similar to a molecule—a collection of linked atoms—comprising billions of solar systems just like ours. In turn, the Milky Way galaxy is just one of billions of others in the known universe and it has been hypothesized by some scientists that the known universe may actually be just one of many similar universes—a multiverse—ad infinitum! ¹³ Even that tiny speck of dust that you can barely see on your computer monitor comprises about three trillion atoms (that’s a 3 followed by 12 zeros!) which is, atomically speaking, about the same number of particles as there are stars in a whole galaxy of solar systems. ¹⁴ Here’s a thought to blow your mind. If the entire known universe were reduced to the size of Planet Earth, the Earth would be about the same size as a single electron of one atom—in other words, so small that it would be invisible to everything except an electron microscope! Yes, that’s how insignificant this planet is from a cosmological point of view. Yet humans arrogantly think they’re

important whilst they actually have no idea what’s actually on the closest planet outside our own Solar System and didn’t even know the planet was there until this century! ¹⁵ Whilst man’s present knowledge encomes everything from microscopic atomic structure to the vastness of the universe, he still doesn’t know the details. So who’s to say that there are not both smaller and larger entities possessing the same basic sun-planet-moon spherical orbital structures? ¹ And, if you accept that possibility, who’s to say that, on certain sub-atomic particles, there may be nanobes (miniscule living creatures) whose life-spans are only nanoseconds to us but are, of course, a ‘lifetime’ to them, with ‘suns’ (nucleii) whose atomic decay is like that of stars—only much quicker? ¹⁷ Then, if you can see the possibility of that, who’s to say that the whole known universe is not just a collection of molecules comprising part of an unimaginably enormous table leg—or maybe part of a living being whose size and lifespan are so huge that they are incomprehensible to us (see Appendix A, para. 69)? I call this my “God’s Brain Hypothesis!” ¹⁸ As Robert (Bobby) Kennedy said, “Some men see things as they are and say ‘why?’. I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?’” It’s not what we know but what we don’t know that conjures up the imagination! And that, dare I say, is heaps more fun than reading Scriptures! ¹ And, even if all that IS possible, it still had to have a creator didn’t it? And, as far as I’m concerned, that was Jehovah/Allah—call him what you will—The Great Creator!

Because I have made statements in the body of this study concerning things that are not, in themselves, a direct part of it, I believe I need to offer some facts to what I have said. The following two appendices will, I hope, be both helpful and interesting.

Appendix A. Extra-terrestrial life

¹ When contemplating the possibility of extra-terrestrial life as discussed in section 9, first of all, we can only realistically examine conditions for life as we know it since anything else would fall into the realm of science-fiction and this whole study is about facts, not myths or fantasy. ² Having so said, and as also already mentioned, there are life forms that we know about that, whilst they exist, can hardly be considered intelligent in the way humans understand intelligence. Therefore, for the moment, I will initially confine myself to earthly-type aerobic intelligent life and then look at some alternatives.

‘THE UNIVERSE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAKE SENSE TO YOU’

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Director: Hayden Planetarium, New York

³ If we ever meet living organisms on or from other planets in the universe—and, given the stage we are currently at concerning interstellar travel, the latter would seem more likely in the foreseeable future—a primary indicator that they are intelligent would be some way whereby they could be able to communicate with us.

⁴ The properties of carbon that allowed it to become the basis for all life on Earth are unique to that element whereby the prolific variety of chemical bonds that can be formed by carbon enable it to be the basis of complex chains of different molecules. No other atom seems to be able to do this in a similar way. Even silicon, which has the same number of valence electrons as carbon, cannot form the variety of molecules that carbon can. However, this does not mean that all life would necessarily be based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and cells, as it is on Earth.⁵ An essential requirement for life as we know it is water. Any life which is based on molecules almost certainly requires some kind of liquid solvent to be able to move them around. Whilst chemical reactions can take place in gases and solids these are much less ideal than liquid. Gas phase reactions happen only with molecules that are volatile enough to be present in large quantities in a gas whereas reactions in solids can take place only very slowly. Both of these limitations make it much more likely for life to develop in liquid, as indeed it has done on Earth. Even science naturally takes the easiest path wherever possible! It therefore follows, for there to be water (chemical symbol, H2O), two elements that would be required in abundance are oxygen and hydrogen. ⁷ Many of the unique physical and chemical properties that make water particularly well suited to the complex chemistry required for life include expansion when it freezes—preventing oceans and lakes from freezing solid—and dissolving many substances easily. It also has a high heat capacity, meaning that it requires a lot of energy to cause water to change temperature. It is this property of water that gives Earth its relatively moderate climate and the proportion of water to land (73%) is a relevant factor in that. ⁸ Water is also the commonest liquid and the second most common molecule in the universe (after pure hydrogen). Other liquids exist naturally in the universe, but not in the abundance that water does. Furthermore, most of those liquids don’t have many of the other key properties of water that make it so eminently suitable as the basis for life. The planet (or satellite of a planet) where life could exist would need to be orbiting its star at a distance—relative to the star’s size—where the prevailing temperatures will not cause water to permanently freeze or rapidly evaporate into space. This is referred to by astronomers as ‘The Circumstellar Habitable Zone’ (CHZ).’

¹ The planet would also need to have a stable atmosphere. This would, firstly, have sufficient free oxygen to sustain aerobic (oxygen-breathing) life without containing lethal levels of poisonous gases and, secondly, to provide a protective filter for screening radiation and burning up incoming space debris (see Appendix B, following). It would also need to be able to water vapour in the form of clouds to enable the natural distribution of water by way of rain and dew to nourish plant growth which, in turn would require a significant proportion of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) to provide the molecule that plant life requires for conversion to fibre. ¹¹ Another requirement would be that the planet revolves on its axis at a speed that doesn’t produce extremely long equatorial days and nights so that photosynthesis of plant life isn’t suspended to the point where it would die and thus fail to use up the carbon that, without them doing that, would be present as too high a proportion of an earth-like atmosphere to sustain animal life. In other words, a certain equilibrium would be essential.

COULD THE EARTH HAVE ALREADY BEEN VISITED FOR MANY CENTURIES BY CYBERNETIC MACHINES RATHER THAN ALIEN LIFE-FORMS?

¹² Then the planet would not have to spin on its axis at such a speed that the centrifugal force at its equator didn’t overpower its gravity and fling anything not firmly rooted into the ground—including small stones and topsoil—into space. ¹³ An interesting fact that not many people know about that illustrates the truth of this is right here on Earth where, even due to our relatively gentle spin, the summit of Mt. Chimborazo at 6268 metres above sea level, just a few kilometres south of the equator in the Ecuadorian Andes, is actually further from the centre of the Earth than the summit of Mt. Everest at 8848 metres because the centrifugal force caused by the Earth’s spin means that it is not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid where its diameter at the equator is 12756 km whilst the polar diameter is 12714!

¹⁴ Also, if the planet’s axis is, like Earth’s, inclined (tilted) in relation to its orbit, the period of its orbit would need to be within a range whereby seasons are not too long since that would contribute to quicker desertification, both arid and icy and, over extensive periods, ultimately result in an inhospitable environment. ¹⁵ And, having so said, the planet would need to have a porous surface capable of holding water and thus sustaining abundant plant life to provide food and, as already mentioned, photosynthesis. ¹ If the planet’s axis happened to be at right angles to its orbit, there would, of course, be no seasons as we on Earth know them so that life forms would be noticeably more diverse at different latitudes. That would not, however, pose a survival problem although it could make life on that planet very stratified to the point where animals (including hominids) living in Polar Regions would not comfortably survive for any length of time in the tropics and vice-versa. ¹⁷ As with life here on Earth, it would seem inevitable that a survival-of-thefittest paradigm whereby those life forms that are best able to adapt to suit the environment would be predominant if not exclusive. Depending on prevailing temperatures, it is possible that life might only be viable at extreme latitudes or altitudes just as natural life on Antarctica is limited to just a few species on the extreme outer rim. ¹⁸ And, of course, all of the foregoing would require the planet to be of such a size that its gravity is within a range whereby living creatures would not be crushed by their own weight or float off into space. The gravitational attraction at the surface of a body is proportional to its mass and inversely proportional to the square of its radius so that a very dense planet could be smaller than Earth and still have the same gravity whilst a much larger planet would need to be much less dense than Earth to exert the same gravitational force. ¹ The normal awareness we have of the concept of mass is when we talk about weight, which is the effect of an energy field (in this case, gravitation) upon mass. Hence, for example, we can talk of ‘weighing’ one sixth as much on the Moon as on the earth because not only is the Moon’s radius a quarter of Earth’s but it is also much less dense. In actual fact, weight is just a relative term referring to effect and, in the case of living creatures, feeling. For the same reason that the earth is an ellipsoid an object at the poles actually weighs 0.5% more than it does at the equator—although its mass doesn’t change.

² That is not to say that the gravity on another inhabited planet would need to be identical with that on Earth since, if, for example, it was stronger, the muscular development of life forms—although still basically as we know them—would adapt to cope with it because, in such an environment, they would be heavier. However, if humans were ever to visit such a planet, they could be crushed by their own weight. Interestingly, this is not an aspect often considered in sciencefiction stories and movies of space travel. ²¹ Yet another requirement would be the geological age of the planet tectonically speaking. If it is still in the (cosmologically) early stages of cooling, there would be numerous volcanic eruptions and earthquakes making stability of life hazardous at least, and probably impossible. ²² There are also certain requirements of the star itself. Our Sun is a yellow dwarf —itself, a misnomer (another myth?) since it is only the age of the Sun’s light through Earth’s atmosphere that makes it appear yellow when it is, in fact, white. This means it is not rapidly expanding and thus liable to envelop the Earth in such a short time (again, cosmologically speaking) that life wouldn’t have time to develop sufficiently to become intelligent—let alone technologically capable of intragalactic travel (we’re only just beginning to understand it after 4 billion years!). By the same token a very small bright star would be more likely to explode as a super nova and destroy any life that had developed. ²³ Another aspect of life as we know it—yet potentially very different on another planet—is its morphology—that is, its physical structure. ²⁴ If, for example, the production of peptides (growth hormones) was only slightly different in otherwise identical species to those known on Earth, their relative sizes could be vastly different so that what we know here on Earth as small creatures, which, whilst unchanged in any other way, might be dramatically larger in size so that a very fast huntsman spider the same size as a human would be able to run 400 times faster than him! (Now there’s a cheerful thought for all you arachnophobes out there!) The same could apply to any number of other small creatures such as ants or bees (both already pretty intelligent) or katydids, scorpions or mantids etc. ²⁵ Whilst that may, at first, sound like a great script for a horror movie, if it were normal on another planet, hunting arachnids, with their lethal fangs and venom, would probably be a dominant life-form and the only change (other than their

size) that would be needed for them to achieve total dominance would be intelligence and, as the physically dominant life-form, that may only require time for development. ² Numerous other animals on Planet Earth right now have a lot more intelligence that most people realise. Have a look at this short video of an everyday crow for an example. If necessity demanded that this sort of intelligence be further developed for survival, who knows what could happen. ²⁷ If rational thinking is borne in mind, the only reason that humans are the dominant creatures on Earth is their superior intelligence. Many animals of numerous different domains are vastly superior to humans in selective ways. ²⁸ For example, lots of birds and insects have much better eyesight and numerous carnivores are far better equipped with devastating weaponry ranging from claws and fangs to deadly venoms. As already mentioned, size for size, there are hundreds of species much faster than humans and, in very specialised ways, many are exceptional strategists when it comes to overpowering potential victims for food. ² It therefore follows that life as we know it, with only minor differences in size and/or intelligence, could be hugely different on another planet. So “Planet of the Apes” may not be as far-fetched as it at first seems (although apes would probably not be the dominant creatures if insects or arachnids were the same size as humans). ³ Numerous species of small animals like insects and arachnids are amazingly efficient killing machines that, without superior intelligence, humans wouldn’t stand a chance against if their sizes were the same. They have natural camouflages, devastatingly strong pincers and mandibles, amazing eyesight (some have as many as eight eyes providing 360 degree vision) and, as previously mentioned, paralysing venoms that immobilise prey in seconds. Not only these, but they can walk on downward-facing surfaces and produce immobilising nets of sticky silk at phenomenally fast speeds that almost instantly render victims helpless. ³¹ In fact, if bugs were the same size as humans, intelligent or not, they would rule the world. So who’s to say that, somewhere out in the cosmos, there isn’t a planet where they do?

³² That, on its own, doesn’t mean that those giant bugs would be able to travel intergalactically because to do that would also require the mental abilities to understand and master physics and construction of vehicles but there’s no reason why they may not be there on their planet not even thinking about creative engineering and will only be known about when (and if) some other more technologically capable creatures (us?) find them. ³³ Nevertheless, if humanity had to deal with man-sized hunting spiders or army ants or whatever in equal quantities, the bugs might just win and then, having eliminated the more intelligent humans, go on to develop intellectually without hindrance themselves and, if that has, in fact, happened elsewhere in the cosmos, there’s no knowing what might be already on its way here. ³⁴ The answer to these hypotheses are, of course, anyone’s guess although the relationship between physical and mental prowess in Earth’s biological history has definitely appeared to favour mental where it is present. But what about where it isn’t? ³⁵ These are just a few (though certainly not all) of the basic requirements for life as we know it and that may seem quite a tall order. However, when it is considered that there are up to four hundred billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone (that’s 400,000,000,000! – more than 50 for each person on Earth!) and hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the universe—making a conservative estimate of at least 10²⁴ (that’s a 1 followed by 24 zeros) stars in the known universe, it isn’t unrealistic to presume that many, if not all of them have planetary systems like our Sun’s—and, as mentioned earlier, some 3000 exoplanets have already been discovered since the first was confirmed as recently as 2003. The closest of those is in the Alpha Centauri system which is only 4.37 light years away although that one is not in the habitable zone where liquid water could exist. Also, due to the present limitations of equipment, only very large planets have so far been discovered. ³ Some astronomers have suggested that every star in the universe will ultimately be found to have at least one planet. However, I have been unable to find any scientific basis for such a postulation and it is, therefore, only an assumption—albeit one worth bearing in mind. ³⁷ As Carl Sagan wrote, “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner

of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” ³⁸ So is it audacious to suggest that, of all those potential planets out there, there will be some that fill all the requirements for life? And, if there are, is it audacious to suggest that some of those actually have life? And, if they do, is it audacious to suggest that, in some cases, that life could be more advanced than us? And, if it is, is it really audacious to suggest that they might have already visited Earth? And, finally, could it be possible that those visitors have been a lot more intelligent than—and thus more cautious and less aggressive—than us? I leave you to decide. ³ As I wrote at the beginning of this appendix, all of the foregoing has referred to life as we know it. But what about life as we don’t know it? ⁴ If we allow ourselves to contemplate that topic, the only limitation is our own imagination and, since this is not an exercise in science-fiction, I will confine myself to merely touching on it because, when you think about it, the only limits are those enforced by the laws of physics. ⁴¹ Of all the requirements I have listed for life as we know it, the only ones that would apply here are those of gravity, relative mass (of the creatures and their planet), some form of nourishment and, of course, some sort of a brain (, we are talking about intelligent life). It is probably safe to assume that some form of liquid (if not water) that would enable the physical laws of motion to be met would also have to be present. ⁴² But what about those cyborgs that we looked at in section 21? Whilst defining them as “life” may be somewhat nebulous, technically, if there is any part of them that contains living organisms, they can be considered as life. After all, even normal humans have ‘attachments’ (like lenses or glasses) and tools that are extensions of their natural abilities (like computers and communication devices) and no one ever questions that. ⁴³ If and when Whole Brain Emulation becomes possible (if it hasn’t already by the time you read this) and a cyborg is created that is able to exist (live?) forever —given that it can constantly upgrade and update itself, journeys across the cosmos to distant planets will become as ‘normal’ as sending an astronaut to the International Space Station (ISS) is now. ⁴⁴ The principal differences will be: Who will send the cyborg(s)—other cyborgs

or humans, will they be one-way or return trips and, assuming that the return journeys will take longer than a human lifetime, who will benefit from their discoveries? ⁴⁵ Personally, I believe that any extra-terrestrial life is much more likely to be chemically similar to life on Earth (DNA based) with the only differences being what they actually look like and such things as extreme temperature tolerances, physical strength and somatotype suited to their environment whereby, for example, if the gravity was notably stronger than the earth’s, mesomorphism would be prevalent (and that could pose a problem for us because they’d be a lot stronger!). ⁴ However, I also believe that any extra-terrestrial visitors to Earth could much more likely be robots or cyborg-type machines with specific programming designed to observe rather than communicate. After all, isn’t that exactly what we have already sent to Mars and into deep space? ⁴⁷ In section 11 I discussed a number of enigmatic features here on Earth that could be attributed to extra-terrestrial visitation but now I would like to take a brief look at actual claimed sightings of and meetings with aliens. ⁴⁸ Claimed sightings of UFOs are commonplace and, in many of those cases, that is exactly what has been seen—an unidentified flying object. That is, an object in the sky that they couldn’t identify as something familiar. But that doesn’t automatically mean it has come from another planet. It could, for example, be a top-secret aircraft or missile on a test flight and, let’s face it, it’s pretty hard to ‘hide’ something flying in the sky. ⁴ However, some sightings have been of objects less likely to be military hardware and many people have inevitably filmed or videoed them too. Sometimes films or videos have been confiscated by government ‘security agencies’ and witnesses sworn to silence under threats of prosecution for treason so that the world at large hears no more about incidents that could be “Earthchanging.” ⁵ It is unfortunate that such cover-ups by governments around the world—and particularly those in politically ‘sensitive’ countries—have left ordinary people —especially those who claim to have actually had such encounters—bewildered and feeling cheated because, whilst those people know what they have

experienced and what a huge impact it has had on their lives, fear has prevented them from sharing it. ⁵¹ The most notorious such event was the famous Roswell Incident of mid 1947 —only two years after the end of the Second World War—where an ‘alien’ spacecraft was reported to have crashed near the small town of Roswell, New Mexico and even alien spacemen encountered. Within hours, the whole area was virtually shut down by the American military and all journalists’ films and reports confiscated. This was followed by a government press release stating that it was just a super-sophisticated high-altitude surveillance balloon that had crashed. ⁵² There is, however, another possibility that shouldn’t be discounted. Could Roswell have been a very meticulously engineered stunt by some Hollywood studio that somehow went wrong (in that it set the American paranoia machine into overdrive) so that the perpetrators did a quick disappearing trick and left the government to try to explain it all? If that was the case, one would have expected it to have been itted to after nearly 60 years and the most culpable people are now long dead. But then maybe a delay of 100 years was agreed on before the stunt ever took place. Who knows? ⁵³ So, is Roswell just a myth or not? Although there have been many subsequent claims by witnesses at the time that the crash was, indeed a UFO, because the whole incident was meticulously supressed by the American government, it is highly probable that no one will ever really know the truth. ⁵⁴ Since then, and in more peaceful times, there have been lots of claimed UFO sightings and, even more interesting, abductions where very normal, emotionally stable people claim to have experienced meetings with extra-terrestrial humanoid beings. In many cases, people claiming to be abductees have been scientifically examined using hypnosis and polygraph technology to establish the veracity of their stories and scientists are convinced that, whilst some have been nothing more than drug-induced hallucinations or simple attention-seeking, far too many have been genuine to be dismissed. ⁵⁵ Two common reports of abductees has been their abductors’ total absence of hostile behaviour and a particular interest in their physiology and especially their reproductive systems.

⁵ Could the latter be because they are interested in ‘purifying’ the human race by genetic selection using technology superior to anything currently known by us or could it be that they are investigating the possibility of breeding with us? No one knows the answers to such questions and, unfortunately, political overlords don’t want people to know because, ultimately, it could threaten them! ⁵⁷ What is particularly strange is that the American government actively and meticulously suppresses any ‘unauthorised’ encounters with extra-terrestrial visitors to our planet whilst ing organizations like SETI. Mind you, they only do that on their ! ⁵⁸ Personally, I would dearly love to meet an intergalactic visitor to our planet. I imagine that the technology learned would be amazing because, as I have suggested, if it happened in the immediate future, simply for aliens to be here means that they would be technologically superior to humans. ⁵ Would such an encounter be frightening? Well, I guess that would depend on both of us. If the visitor behaved threateningly then one would be foolish not to act defensively. But that people who claim to have already had such encounters have never reported hostile behaviour on the part of aliens. And obviously I wouldn’t (and neither would any other sane person) behave threateningly toward them. What could that possibly achieve when it is considered that such a meeting could well be the most momentous event in recorded world history? If conspiracy theory were to be carried to what might be deemed a ridiculous (but still possible) level, one scenario could be where visiting aliens, having surveyed and studied Earth for some time, had determined who our leaders were before making and gone directly to them. Then, using mind-control techniques or threats, they could have convinced them that, with the well-being of the world in their control, it would be in political leaders’ best interests to comply with the visitors suggestions (demands?)—particularly if it was patently obvious that they knew better anyway! And, foremost in those suggestions could well be utmost secrecy with the aim of minimizing the risk of mass panic and riots. Makes sense doesn’t it? ¹ Another aspect we need to bear in mind concerning extra-terrestrial visitors is what they might expect to find when they get here and why they would come at all.

² As already mentioned, the closest exoplanet so far discovered is 4.37 light years away and so, even if the aliens were able to travel at 10% of light speed (we can’t do that!), it would have taken them over 43 years to get here and, for them to want to come—and assuming they had telescopes capable of closely viewing Earth’s surface, the images they would have seen would be another 4.37 years old (because that’s how long those images took to get there). ³ In reality, since the Milky Way galaxy is over a hundred thousand light years in diameter and the Solar System is about a quarter of the way across it, those figures are more than likely considerably higher so that the only images extraterrestrials had of Earth before leaving their home planet would have been as it was hundreds—maybe thousands—of years ago. No electric lighting to illuminate huge cities, no mega-highways, no airports or any other man-made structure easily visible from space, maybe nothing other than animals wandering the surface. ⁴ It therefore follows that any visitors we may have had would have been explorers rather than ‘people’ on a specific mission. ⁵ One wonders how the very early European explorers might have reacted on first seeing people with black skin and very different features to themselves and vice versa. How much of those reactions would have been the result of first visual impressions and how much of behaviour? Were they friendly encounters or violent ones? History tells us that, in some cases, the natives saw the paleskinned visitors as gods and presented them with lavish gifts—even including their daughters whilst others saw them as invaders who had come to steal their lands and property and thus fought them off with ferocious severity. When that happened, because the Europeans usually possessed greater fire-power in the form of muskets and cannons pitted against spears and poison darts, mass genocide resulted with the result that survivors spread the word throughout their lands that men with pale skin were to be killed on sight. So what would you do if, totally unexpectedly, you met a humanoid-type creature with green skin and four arms? Would you scream and run even though the creature had given you no reason other than its appearance to do so? Would you attempt to befriend it or, if you lived in a country like the USA where bearing arms is legal, would you pull out your weapon and shoot to kill? Think about your answer very carefully because, if that ever happened to you, as I have said, it could be the most momentous event in recorded world history!

⁷ Before you go rushing off to study the sky in the hopes of seeing a visitor from outer space there is one technological advance that may pose a few problems for you. That is the relatively recent development of highly sophisticated drones— unmanned radio-controlled flying machines—that any moderately knowledgeable home hobbyist can build in his garden shed to look like the popular concept of a ‘flying saucer.’ ⁸ All it takes is for a prankster to do that, fly it rapidly over some populated space where someone might grab a few seconds of video and then just wait for it to go viral on some social network like YouTube or Facebook and suddenly half the world will be screaming, “Alien invasion.” Back when Daniel told his stories that are now part of the Old Testament of The Bible, he wrote about a shining humanoid being who told him that he had come in answer to his prayer that only he could see. (One has to wonder about that! What social drugs were popular in the fifth century BCE?) ⁷ Let’s pick up the story at Daniel 10:11. He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling. Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.” ⁷¹ If we discount the 21 days that the messenger said he was detained by the king of Persia that would mean that he came more or less instantaneously from wherever Daniel’s god was when he heard his prayer. This would indicate that “God” was quite close since nothing can exceed the speed of light and, for God to be somewhere remote in space would thus be impossible. ⁷² So did Daniel encounter an extra-terrestrial with political motives? If we go back a few verses to his description of the being he saw, it would not be so foolish to suggest that he did. “I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite (an archaic name for the gemstone, green peridot), his face like

lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze and his voice like the sound of a multitude.” [Daniel 10:5, 6] ⁷³ An alternative explanation could, of course, be that the whole vision was a product of Daniel’s own imagination! Or perhaps Daniel had discovered some plants whose fruits or leaves tasted “funny”! Yet another factor to bear in mind was that Daniel was also a high-ranking politician. You decide. ⁷⁴ This all poses another pertinent question: If, indeed, there is a supreme Creator, where does he live? Given the sophistication of modern optical and radio telescopy, shouldn’t we be able to, at least, detect him even if we can’t see him? ⁷⁴ For an interesting graphic portrayal of possible life in the cosmos, watch this 50-minute video. ⁷⁵ There is, however, one other possibility that, just as there are trillions of atoms inside our brains, we, along with the entire universe are inside—part of—God’s brain. Fantastic as that may seem, when you think about some of the religious explanations, it is no less fantastic and it certainly would answer a number of anomalies like how can God hear praise if he is thousands of light years away! ⁷ In May 2016, three earth-like planets were discovered in the habitable zone of an ultra-cool brown dwarf star just 40 light years away from Earth. These newlydiscovered planets are similar in size and temperature to Earth and could harbour liquid water and host life on at least part of their surfaces. ⁷⁷ So, if scientists are able to perfect neo-lightspeed propulsion and suspended animation in the near future, humanity could be able to go there and back in a lifetime. And, of course, if they are populated, they may already be half way here!

Appendix B. When Will It Be? Some Disturbing Facts—Not Myths

¹ My statement in section 16:24 that it is more a matter of when rather than if Earth experiences a major cataclysm was not some idle prophecy of doom. In fact, it has already happened in the distant past. ² There are, for example, approximately 80,000 known Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)—that is, lumps of ‘space rock’ or asteroids—ranging from one metre to one kilometre in diameter that, like the Moon, share their solar orbits with that of Earth and are thus (cosmologically speaking) constantly in close proximity to us and, therefore, repeatedly in positions where they could collide with Earth.

IF MOUNT POPOCATÉPETL

HAD A MAJOR UNEXPECTED ERUPTION,

OVER TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE LIVING IN MEXICO’S FEDERAL DISTRICT COULD DIE IN AN INSTANT

³ NEOs do not include the roughly 31 million main-belt asteroids orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter—750,000 of which are over one kilometre in diameter—whose paths cross with Earth’s far less frequently. ⁴ Unlike the Moon, however, NEOs do not orbit the Earth but are more like in a

‘procession’ along with the Earth around the Sun except that many are ‘Earth Crossers’ who’s more eccentric orbits frequently intercept Earth’s path. Some 15,000 tonnes of these enter Earth’s gravitational field as meteors every year (that’s 41 tonnes a day!). Most are relatively small and completely burn up due to friction with Earth’s atmosphere before reaching the ground as meteorites. ⁵ Nevertheless, every day, at least one of 400 mm in diameter or larger makes it all the way through the atmosphere to Earth’s surface and, along with all the smaller bits of dust and space debris, actually increase the weight of the Earth by about 100 tonnes. Yes, you read that right—100 tonnes of space rubble get dumped on the Earth every single day of every year—and not by man! Very early in Earth’s life—about 4 billion years ago—that figure was much, much higher and it was actually all that debris that built the Earth from a relatively small ‘space rock’ to what it is today. Of course, as more and more fell to Earth, that meant there was less and less left to fall—which is why it is much lower (and safer for us) now. ⁷ Even from the present numbers though, it doesn’t take a genius to realise that larger collisions are not only still possible but, sooner or later, inevitable. One only has to look at the Moon where there is no atmosphere to burn up invaders and no wind or rain to erode the signs of impacts (craters) to see the evidence to back up this statement and every time you see a ‘shooting star’ in the night sky, that is just another space rock burning through our atmosphere. ⁸ Statistically, one NEO with a diameter of 4 metres or greater—about the size of a small van—collides with the Earth about once every year and objects with the same destructive energy as “Little Boy,” the atomic bomb that was exploded over Hiroshima in 1945 strike about once every five years. Typically, such objects explode when they strike the upper atmosphere and the resulting debris burns up as meteors before reaching the ground. However, metallic and larger stony objects, rather than exploding, tend to burn whole as they through the atmosphere. One notable example of an NEO is the Aten asteroid, Apophis (astronomical designation 2004 MN4 signifying its discovery as recently as June 2004) which, to the best calculations so far achieved, could impact Earth in April, 2036. Apophis is between 300 and 350 metres in diameter and about 400 million tonnes in weight and, until this size and weight can be more closely determined,

the effect of Earth’s gravity on its trajectory (and thus the possibility of collision) is not precisely known. Initially, Apophis set a record by reaching level 4 on the Torino Scale which measures the likelihood and severity of impact although this has since been downgraded to 2. ¹ Whilst an impact by an object the size of Apophis would not totally wipe out the whole Earth, depending on where it occurred (and , there is statistically a 73% chance that an impact would be oceanic), it would certainly cause either a world-devastating tsunami or, if it struck a land mass, a worldenveloping ash and dust cloud that would block out sunlight for many months causing a total halt to photosynthesis and thus dramatically change our ecology for ever. ¹¹ Impacts have happened many times throughout Earth’s history in such events as what is known as the Cretaceous-Palaeogene Extinction Event some sixty-five million years ago near what is now the town of Chicxulub (pronounced chichoo-loob) on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico which is generally accepted by the scientific community to have wiped out the terrestrial dinosaurs and possibly have altered the Earth’s tilt axis and thus the seasonal changes influencing, amongst other things, the ice ages. (If this interests you, I strongly recommend getting a DVD of Sir David Attenborough’s excellent video, “Living with Dinosaurs.”) ¹² A more recent and much-publicised impact was the 1908 Tunguska event in Siberia which destroyed 2150 square kilometres of forest in an explosion about 1000 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb. Had it occurred over a populated area, the devastation would have been catastrophic. ¹³ Even more recently, on February 13th 2013, a meteor about 20 metres in diameter and weighing approximately 11,000 tonnes exploded 25 kilometres above Chelyabinsk, Russia; the shockwave causing thousands of broken windows and over 1500 injuries. It was filmed by many amateurs and security cameras. Had it not exploded when it did, the result would have been disastrous —and NO ONE knew it was coming! ¹⁴ It is highly probable that the event described in the Bible (Genesis 19) that took place at the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah about 4000 years ago was another very large meteor strike that the history writers of the time did not know how to explain and, in their primitive thinking, quite understandably attributed to

God. ¹⁵ One of our nearest major misses occurred on March 6th 2014 when asteroid 2014 DX110 the size of a football field ed within 350,000 kilometres of the Earth! Astronomically speaking that is like a missile missing a Boeing 737 by less than a kilometre! Had it struck, it would have caused the biggest explosion ever recorded and you probably wouldn’t be reading this now. The very first asteroid observed in 2014, 2014AA actually hit the Earth in a remote part of the Atlantic Ocean. Fortunately, it was only about 4 metres in diameter and didn’t cause a disastrous tsunami. ¹ For anyone who is particularly interested in this topic, the following websites are worth visiting: the 2000 EM26 , the skywatch programme, SETI, Slooh, or B612 Foundation and follow the links. ¹⁷ Before anyone starts panicking though, there is one defensive aspect that has only relatively recently been possible—that being the ability to either divert or destroy a large approaching space-object by firing nuclear explosives at it whilst it is still far enough away. However, that could leave the earth vulnerable to the remaining radio-active debris falling all over it. ¹⁸ Needless to say, though, sufficient notice would be required in order prepare for such an action and, more often than not, that isn’t available. As astrophysicist, Dr Ed Lu said on a November 2013 Slooh broadcast, “If there is something out there, there is a very high likelihood that we just don’t know about it.” ¹ As an illustration of this, on March 31st 2004, the asteroid 2004 FU162 missed Earth by a mere 6500 kilometres (that’s more than four times closer than telecommunications satellites in geosynchronous orbit or the missile missing the Boeing 737 by just seventeen-and-a-half metres!) 2004 FU162 was only discovered by astronomers a few hours earlier. Had it been on a collision course, nothing could have been done to escape it.

A METEOR WITH THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE POWER AS THE HIROSHIMA BOMB ENTERS EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE

EVERY FIVE YEARS

² The most accurate prediction of a major cosmic collision with Earth is that of Asteroid 1950 DA which, in its two Earth-es since discovery in 1950, has been observed sufficiently for future trajectories to be plotted. These will be further refined in the next in 2032 but, on present projections, there is a one-in-four likelihood that 1950 DA will impact Earth in 2880. As it is over one kilometre in diameter, this will, indeed be the end of all life on Earth as we know it. But who knows where man will be by then. ²¹ All of the foregoing concerns asteroids and meteors but another very real threat about which astronomers know much less is comets. Because comets travel in highly eccentric orbits—sometimes taking thousands of years to make just one—they cannot be predicted or tracked so easily and so an unknown one could strike the earth totally unexpectedly with just a few days’ notice at best. ²² Another—perhaps more insidious—cosmic event that could pose a significant danger to Earth is what is popularly referred to as ‘solar weather.’ Encoming several solar events in which huge amounts of magnetic radiation periodically emitted by the Sun interact with Earth’s magnetosphere. This has been happening since the beginning of time but only recently become a major hazard —largely due to humanity’s ever-increasing reliance on modern technology. ²³ As we have developed (and taken for granted) electricity supplies and satellite communications such as aircraft auto-pilots and satellite navigation systems, we have become more susceptible to mass disruptions of those facilities which, whilst that would not, in itself, destroy the Earth, the flow-on effects would be extremely devastating. With no power, electric heating and air-conditioning would no longer work causing major health risks in places like Canada and Siberia and tropical areas that depend on them. ²⁴ Many state-of-the-art motor vehicles, aircraft and other transportation infrastructures controlled by electronics would simply shut down and stop right where they were. Household appliances would become useless and TV and radio signals would no longer function. ²⁵ And because there would be no communication, ambulances and fire services

could not be alerted to a point where the consequent flow-on effects would be disastrous although probably not terminal. The unpredictable factor in such scenarios would be the human reactions to them. People on life- systems would, of course, die and, as so often happens in such situations, mass panic and looting would result in absolute chaos. ² It is curious how many people don’t seem to care about known impending danger much closer to home and much more certain than things like asteroid strikes or solar storms. For example, over four million people live in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius, one of the world’s 16 most threatening volcanoes—the “Decade Volcanoes“—which, when (not if) it erupts—and geologists say it is overdue—will very likely annihilate the burgeoning city of Naples in devoutly Catholic Italy and do a Pompeii ’79 all over again. ²⁷ That, however, pales into insignificance when compared with the impact a major eruption of Campi Flegrei on the bed of the Bay of Naples and is actually part of the same volcanic ‘hot spot’ as Vesuvius except that, if Campi Flegrei should erupt, most of Europe and half of Asia and Africa would be annihilated in a few hours! ²⁸ Other potential sources of mass-destruction are Popocatépetl where a major eruption could destroy the Mexico Federal District with a population (again, 82% Roman Catholic) seven times that of Naples and the Yellowstone supervolcano in the north-western USA (also deemed to be overdue for a major event) where an eruption could be 1000 times greater than that of Mt St Helens in 1980 and would virtually wipe out America! ² Similarly, millions of educated people live in cities like Miami where devastating hurricanes occur with regular monotony or in “Tornado Alley “in the mid-west USA whilst others (maybe less-educated) happily go about their daily lives in the Ganges floodplains of Bangladesh and as though they are indestructible. Yet, all too often, they discover they are not! ³ Another disturbing scenario is the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field which is seen a possible precursor of a reversal of our planet’s magnetic poles. ³¹ Whilst a shift from North to South of the magnetic pole wouldn’t, in itself, be a major problem, the processes involved with the shifting could mean that, whilst it is happening—typically over a period of a few hundred years—Earth

would, for a relatively short time be without any magnetic field which protects it from potentially damaging solar radiation caused by solar flares and mass coronal ejections thus rendering humanity (and all life) prone to such effects as skin cancers and ultimate mass extinctions. ³² Interestingly, people of several religious persuasions preach that death didn’t exist until humans disobeyed divine instructions and one has to wonder what would have happened to them when their homes were destroyed by volcanic ejecta or landslides or any other natural disasters. ³³ Already huge areas around nuclear accident sites Chernobyl and Fukushima are uninhabitable and will be so for hundreds of years. How many more such accidents will happen in the future no one knows. As at the end of 2013, there are 169 nuclear power stations of at least 1000MW—plus many more smaller ones—commissioned or under construction in 26 countries around the world. ³⁴ All this is factual, empirical evidence and not based on ancient mythology or folk-legends. What we don’t know, however, is exactly how advancing technology will deal with it. ³⁵ As I have said, for all we know, the Great Creator may already have set a ‘useby’ date set for Planet Earth. ³ So should we be living in constant fear of some existential risk that will ultimately destroy us? Personally, I think not. There has never been an event in the history of the Earth that has totally wiped out all life so we don’t have any previous examples to study. ³⁷ Scientists and anthropologists lean more toward an athropogenic (man-made) extinction of life on Earth than a natural event citing such things as global warming, pandemic disease, nuclear war and bioterrorism on a global magnitude —although that is less likely as I will explain shortly although it wouldn’t, of course, rule out an accidental over-release of toxins. ³⁸ On the subject of global warming—an ever present news topic of the 21st century—it is my personal belief that, even if mankind did nothing to counteract it, the harmony of nature as discussed in section 7 would be “self-regulating” whereby, whilst billions of human lives might be lost, total extinction would not happen.

³ I base this statement on simple reasoning rather than any sort of scientific fact and, in so doing, I accept that it is nothing more than my own thinking. Nevertheless, please allow me to explain my rationale. ⁴ If humanity continues to deforest this planet and pump ‘greenhouse gases’ into its atmosphere, there is no question that world-wide temperatures will continue to rise to a point where human life, first of all, in tropical regions would become impossible and there would be mass exoduses of people toward the poles (which would, in turn, become a lot more habitable). As polar ice melted, oceans would rise and coastal habitations become uninhabitable. So there would be two distinct mass movements of population to higher elevations and higher latitudes. ⁴¹ The increased temperatures in tropical zones would, coupled with deforestation, result in greater desertification so that the world would be less able to feed its population. This would, however, be partially compensated for by vast areas of northern hemisphere tundra in Russia and Canada becoming more productive. ⁴² Nevertheless, the sheer logistics of moving billions of people to new, more habitable locations would result in many—especially those in poorer areas— being left behind to die from sun stroke, skin cancers and other complaints resulting from over-exposure to solar radiations hitherto unknown. Of course, this mass exodus from tropical zones wouldn’t happen overnight, so to speak. It would start with the wealthier deciding to move to more pleasant climes and slowly increase as life in the tropics became less and less tolerable. ⁴³ Cities near the equator like Singapore and Djakarta (the most populous city in the southern hemisphere) would suffer first and greatest as rising sea levels and temperatures rendered them uninhabitable whilst mountain ski resorts would become centres of population (albeit no longer with snow). All the new building needed to house the immigrants would possibly (if mankind hadn’t realised his errors even at such a “final hour’) mean that even more trees would be cut down thus further exacerbating the situation. ⁴⁴ Ultimately though, the Earth’s population would diminish to a point where maybe just a few million people would be living in what were once arctic regions but would, by then, be temperate and those fewer people would be burning less fossil fuels and, rather than cutting trees down, planting forests in vast areas where once, they wouldn’t grow.

⁴⁵ Furthermore, because it would be the richer people who were more readily able to move, the Earth would have less artisans and labourers to do the manual work of rehabilitation so that those with the required skills would tend to become the new elite in a world where abilities were eventually worth more than money. ⁴ But, perhaps, most of all, nature would be self-healing whereby, with human influence on it being dramatically reduced, it would restore itself to natural balance with atmospheric ozone layers returning to what they were before as less people released less hydrocarbons and solar radiation thus slowly returned to more viable levels. ⁴⁷ One only has to see how trees grow in the most precarious places (clinging to cliffs and above underground aquifers in apparently desert places) to appreciate their tenacity. The fight for life is inherent in all living things. An example of this is Easter Island (Rapanui) where all trees on the island were cut down for building, tools and fuel by early settlers who knew no better but, in recent years, since the Rapa Nui National Park has been declared a UNESCO World Heritage site, trees have begun to return. Also, in the 2012 census, there were about 3000 native Rapanui people where, in 1877, there were only 111 and, of those, only 36 produced descendants! ⁴⁸ So, whilst life on this planet may very likely be dramatically reduced in the near future (and I’m speaking relative to the time that has already ed since the creation of it), I don’t see it being totally annihilated by unintentional human activity. The scenario I have just outlined could take many hundreds of years to run full-cycle and certainly wouldn’t happen in anyone’s lifetime or even over several generations but I do believe it would happen. ⁴ As for intentional human activity, that is much more difficult to predict although, as has been seen with pandemic diseases in the past, there are always a few people who seem to possess a natural immunity so that, even if some terrorist organisation released a deadly virus on mankind, surely they would first immunise themselves and some of their targets would possess natural immunity. So mankind wouldn’t completely die out—although the survivors may hold some very radical views. ⁵ If, on the other hand, some fundamentalist terror group holding ridiculous beliefs that they would have a wonderful afterlife (see section 16) if they

destroyed those who didn’t share their beliefs in suicide missions even to the point of making or stealing nuclear weapons, then I guess they could feasibly annihilate all life on Earth. ⁵¹ In 2006, Stephen Hawking asked the question on the Internet: “In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?” A month later he confessed: “I don’t know the answer. That is why I asked the question, to get people to think about it, and to be aware of the dangers we now face.” I think that Dr Hawking’s objective is every bit as pertinent nine years later. ⁵² As it is, I still believe that, apart from itself, the most realistic threat to life on Earth is extra-terrestrial in the form of a major asteroid strike. However, it hasn’t happened in sixty-five million years so I’m not about to lose any sleep thinking about it—so maybe Hawking really does have a more pressing agenda! ⁵³ One thing that you can be sure of is that major governments around the world have top secret agendas whereby extremely strong bunkers have already been built to accommodate senior personnel who have either political power or essential scientific knowledge. These bunkers will be equipped with state-of-theart air and water purification systems and stocked with every requirement to sustain life for several years so that, even in the event of a global catastrophe, there will be survivors and those survivors will be highly educated and intelligent so that the population of the post-cataclysmic world will be intellectually elite. ⁵⁴ I wonder if any religious leaders are on the secret lists of people to be saved. In a way, I hope not because, if they are, the perpetuation of sectarian disagreement is almost guaranteed!

Appendix C. What do you REALLY think?

To put all this into perspective, imagine you are giving evidence in a court of law. Answer the following questions and be prepared to provide evidence—empirical evidence – not anecdotal—to your answers. In some cases I have provided my answers in blue. They are by no means the only answers—just the ones I would give—but I suggest that they would stand up in the court. No one else needs to know your answers. They are only for YOU and whatever conclusions you come to are yours alone. And never forget, you may be able to fool yourself, but you can’t fool God so why try?

Q1. A. Q2. A. Q3. A. Q4. A. Q5. A Q6. A. Q7.

How old is the universe? Scientific evidence indicates an age of between 13 and 15 billion years with the latest acc And how old is Planet Earth in its present basic form? Again, scientific evidence indicates an age of around 4.5 billion years. Did the universe just happen spontaneously or was it planned and created by some intelli No one knows—although some people’s logic, including mine, says it was planned and c If you believe it was created, who did it? No one knows—although, whilst different people have many different ideas as to who it Assuming that there was a physical creator, is ‘he’ or any of his family alive and active to Whilst I personally hope he is, no one actually knows although many people cite anecdot If he is alive today, is he a solitary being or is he one of a whole race of beings like himse No one knows, although my own logic suggests that he is not alone or dependant on lesse Continuing along with the presumed existence of a Creator, where does he live and does

A.

No one knows where he lives. The closest eye-witness s—albeit with very scanty Q8. Given that deep-space exploration has yet to identify any inhabited cosmic bodies within A. Yet again, no one knows. However, recent studies in quantum physics suggest that this m Q9. So if we assume for a moment that there was a Creator and that he is still alive and that h A. None whatsoever. Whilst some people attribute unusual and beneficial events to what the Q10. Given all this, why do so many people believe in so many different creative entities? A. Because they choose to. Such beliefs are born of insecurity and an inherent human psych Q11. On the subject of responsibility, was or is there another entity—an enemy of the Creator— A. Whilst no one knows of an actual being as such, many have been dreamed up by people a Q12. Why then, are there so many different concepts of who or what the Creator may be and w A. Another natural human characteristic is that no one likes to be wrong and, once indoctrin Q13. That being the case, what hard evidence (as opposed to anecdotal evidence) does any par A. Absolutely none. Q14. Do you think it is possible that life-forms are able to adapt (evolve) to suit their environm A. Yes, otherwise they would perish and, where they haven’t adapted or been able to adapt, Q15. If you answered “No” to question 14, why not? Q16. Do you believe that animals were provided as food for mankind and other animals? A. I personally do although many people don’t. Some believe that certain species are OK fo Q17 If you answered “No” to question 16, why do you believe animals (including humans) ha A. Note: If you answered “No” to question 14, you cannot say that canine teeth were an ada Q18. Given that there are immutable laws of physics and nature, do you believe that the Creato A. I have no idea whether the Creator made physical laws or not and the question has no rele Q19. However you answered question 18, do you believe that the Creator can break the laws o A. Absolutely not! If he could, then there would be no point in having laws in the first place Q20. If you answered “Yes” to question 19, how do you justify the Creator being a lawbreaker Q21. Do you believe in the existence of ‘ghosts’—that is, living spirits of dead people? A. Personally, no. However, some people claim to have seen and/or had with deceas Q22. If that is the case, what evidence is there of an ‘afterlife’ whereby people can become imm A. None. There are, however, numerous folk-stories pertaining to the topic and many people Q23. Do you believe that you have any right to persuade or demand that other people should sh A. Absolutely not! But I do believe that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want

Q24 Whatever your present beliefs are, did you conduct a thorough research into their veracity A. No, I did not – with the result that I spent many years following unsubstantiated and illog Q25 If you answered “No” to question 24, why was that and, more specifically, why do you b

A Message to My Wonderful Creator

¹ Father God, thank you for this day and for my life. Thank you for my family and friends and for my home. Thank you for our home—this beautiful blue dot in space, Planet Earth and the amazing harmony of all your wonderful creation. ² Thank you for the sun which provides unlimited energy for everything. It lifts pure water from the oceans and powers winds to carry the clouds all around the world. Thank you for the spectacular snow-capped mountains that cause the rain to fall and nourish the land and provide fresh drinking water. ³ Thank you for the forests that use carbon from our perfectly balanced atmosphere whilst leaving oxygen for us to breathe and for the meadows and grasslands with their myriads of grazing and browsing creatures that display your limitless imagination and creativity for all to see. Thank you for the fields of crops and groves and vineyards of fruit that provide delicious foods for our health and strength. ⁴ Thank you for the cures that you provided in nature for all the diseases that you knew could befall us—nothing left wanting for our nourishment, comfort, healing and enjoyment. Thank you for the flowers and blossoms in all their amazing variety, colours and perfumes and for the mental abilities that you gave to us to appreciate your awesome artistry. ⁵ Thank you for the tiny creatures that pollinate the flowers in exchange for a feed of nectar so that the cycle of life can be maintained and for the birds with their beautiful plumage and cheerful songs and all the other animals that eat the fruits and transport the seeds far and wide, depositing them back to the land, unharmed and packed in fertiliser, to keep the Earth green. And thank you Lord for the gifts of sight, smell, taste, touch, balance and all the other senses that you provided us with including hearing and speech that enable us to interact with and appreciate all of your wonderful creation. Thank you for bodies that mend themselves when they are damaged and give us pain to tell us when to care for them whilst they do.

⁷ Father God, I pray this day for my family, my friends and me that we will be safe from danger, disease and from the evil that mankind has created to spoil the perfection of your creation and for which I am SO sorry for my part. ⁸ I pray for all of humanity—every person on this planet home that you made for us—and especially for my family, my friends and me—that we will all use the amazing intelligence that you gave to us through your paramount creation—the human brain—much, much more wisely than we have in the past to learn and understand and appreciate the difference between myths, folk stories, superstitions, political agendas with vested interests and SOUND, LOGICAL COMMON SENSE that doesn’t require the breaking of the immutable laws of physics and nature—because, contrary to what many religions teach, you made whole universes without breaking one law—you’re not a lawbreaker Father and you never set such an example to us! I pray that, in doing so, we will learn truth—not the pseudo-truths, superstitious nonsense and downright lies that only contradict each other proliferated by different religions all around the world—but real truth—THE ONLY TRUTH THERE IS—and that this will enable all people on this Earth to live together in peace and harmony and, whilst everyone has your God-given freedom to believe whatever they like, no one has the right to inflict or enforce their beliefs on anyone else and so spurious doctrines will soon die natural deaths. ¹ And I ask your forgiveness Lord for our gullible stupidity and gross irresponsibility where, without any investigative study or research to determine the veracity of what preachers and teachers expound from ancient myths, folk stories and pseudohistories, we have readily accepted whatever they tell us as truth for no other reason than an avaricious desire for what they offer, no matter how outlandish or ridiculous it is. ¹¹ Equally, I ask your forgiveness for our genuine mistakes when we have done the same to others—albeit in absolute sincerity—and pray that we will see those mistakes for what they really are so that we can correct our errors and stop deceiving our friends and living in dream-worlds of self-delusion and fantasy and live in this real and beautiful world that you have blessed us with and care for it because it’s the only home we’ll ever have or know. ¹² And, when the life you have given to each one of us comes to its inevitable end, I hope we can die peacefully and painlessly in the knowledge that we did

the very best possible with it and that the only immortality we will ever achieve is what history re of us and, Lord, I hope that that will be good— although I know that is up to us and not you Lord. ¹³ I also hope that we will be forgiven our wrongdoings as we forgive those who do wrong to us—for, whether we accept it or not, we are all guilty—if only of proselytising spurious superstitions to gullible and insecure people—and, unless forgiveness is freely given and readily and contritely accepted, healing can’t even begin—and this world needs SO much healing Father. ¹⁴ Because it has been we who have blemished your perfect creation—in particular, with sectarian fighting over very spurious doctrinal differences about who you are—only we can heal it. You’re the Creator and King of the universe —not some handyman or janitor that we can call upon to repeatedly clean up the messes we make—we must do that ourselves and I apologise for ever treating you that way. Lord God, my most ardent hope is that, one day—sooner rather than later—before it’s too late—we WILL achieve that and, in so doing, ultimately restore your faith in us and please you. ¹⁵ No one really knows what the future here on Earth holds but whether it will be good or bad very much depends on the decisions WE make and how we treat one another and this planet. Father, I hope we don’t disappoint you. ¹ You are far beyond our limited imagination but I believe that your plans for humanity (and the rest of the universe) have always been good and pure. Why would it be otherwise? If it were, then life and everything else you made would be meaningless and that would make no sense! ¹⁷ Finally, Father God, I praise you. Creator and King of the Universe, only you are wholly holy and set apart from everything you made and I am in absolute awe of you. Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Allahu Akbar.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS STUDY

I LEAVE YOU WITH THE WORDS OF ONE OF THE GREATEST COMEDIANS OF ALL TIME

THE LATE, GREAT SELF-PROFESSED ‘PRACTISING ATHEIST’ IRISHMAN, DAVE ALLAN

“TAKE CARE AND MAY YOUR GOD GO WITH YOU”

Postscript

December 25th 2015. Following two major brain surgeries since first being diagnosed on June 4th 2013, my son, Clinton was having a Christmas lunch with his family and said he had a really bad headache. So he took himself off to the local hospital where they did an ultrasound and told him that he had swelling on his brain. So, immediately after the holiday period was over, Clint went back to the hospital where they did another MRI which showed that the tumour had returned and that, this time, it was too deep in his brain to risk further surgery and also that radiation would also be too dangerous and that my son should get all his affairs in order as his time was now counted in months. As I have explained in this study, I firmly believe that our Creator provided the cure for my son’s affliction when he created everything else—the only problem being that mankind has yet to discover it or, and perhaps most significantly, that legislators have yet to ‘approve’ that cure. Nevertheless, from that day onwards, in addition to the message I say to my Creator every day, I said:Lord, I have written that I do not believe that you intercede in everyday human affairs but I now plead with you to prove me wrong and heal my son, Clint. The doctors can’t do it and that only leaves you Father and, if you can do this, I will destroy my book [this book] and write a new one telling the world what you have done. I will dedicate the rest of my life to that. I will shout it from the rooftops and never stop. I will never have been happier to be proved wrong! January 22nd 2016, I spoke with Clint on Skype today and, whilst he was his usual cheerful, funny self, I could tell that he was very tired. During our conversation, Clint got up to do something for one of his children and, after a few minutes, he hadn’t returned and Alannah was ing the computer so I called out and asked her if Clint was

OK. She went away and came back to tell me that he was asleep on their bed! This gave me a much needed opportunity to speak with Alannah about how Clint really is and, fighting back tears, she told me “He’s already gone!” meaning that the man she married no longer exists. As Alannah said, “We’re just counting the time now?” So it looks like I’ll be off to New Zealand in the very near future to say “Goodbye” to my boy. Saturday, January 30. 2016. My son ed away peacefully this afternoon. Our Great Creator did not intercede and has, as far as I’m concerned, proved that what I have written IS true.

This book is now finished.