The rightful place of God(s) in Australian society

Josh says:

06:04am | 03/08/09

There’s a difference between doing the good thing, whether influenced by your religion or not, and doing something because the angry man in the sky ‘tells’ you to.

For the two you named you have done great, there are many who have used the power their particular churches have given them for not all so nice purposes. Often involving children.

And the church is still responsible for same-sex marriage’s continued ban in Australia. How is discrimination because of religious faith a good thing for government?

iansand says:

10:18am | 03/08/09

It’s pretty simple.  You can do whatever you think your imaginary friend requires you to do.  Just don’t push for laws that require me to do those things for no other reason than it is what you think your friend requires.  Regulate matters of faith from the pulpit, not from Parliament.

If you blokes follow those simple rules we will get along famously.

RT says:

10:18am | 03/08/09

I think it is debatable whether there is a state religion in Australia, Scott. Am I right in believeing that only Christian prayers are said in Parliament, and only The Bible is used for the swearing of oaths for Ministers? And while there might be no state religion, the state supports all religions through their tax-exempt status. Why is this so?

I also don’t accept that there is ‘no Christian block vote out there’. This might be true in an overt sense, but more subtly, some politicians seek to court a Christian vote by publicly mentioning their own faith, courting favour with major church leaders, holding meetings with religious leaders etc.  The message is clearly ‘look at me, I’m a Christian, it’s safe to vote for me if your are, too’.  We don’t even know what deals are done behind close doors to appease churches and maybe garner their support.

Then there is Family First and Fred Nile’s parties, overtly Christian political parties that I hope will soon not be represented in any Australian Parliament any longer.  Then there is that secretive, shadow Exclusive Brethren organisation that meets political leaders and evidently extracts concessions in exchange for campaign support.

I agree however that there are no objective grounds for objections to the hijab. None of those objecting to it would appear to have the same objection to old-fashioned veils worn by nuns of the Catholic orders.

Jack Bentley says:

10:33am | 03/08/09

My great problem with religions is their tax free status. If they would pay their way like any other organisation, then I would not have a problem with whatever gods they wish to promote. However, while religions continue to bludge on the taxpayer then I will continue to complain about my taxes going to support them.
Religous organisations may say that they do not receive any government assistance, but that is obviously untrue. Do they not drive on our roads, enjoy the protection of our police forces, have access to our courts? These, and many other services are provided by the Australian taxpayer, and used by organisations who have made no contribution to our society or our coffers. It is time that this was changed, and the tax bludgers made to pay.

David Elliott says:

10:55am | 03/08/09

Well said Scott - people need to recognise the difference between men like Wilberforce, who use the faith as the cornerstone of their political ideology, and others who use faith as the cornerstone of their political campaign. Not all religions bludge on the taxpayer, infact one could say St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare and the Salvation Army actually SAVE the taxpayer!

Peter says:

11:02am | 03/08/09

It does seem especially amongst the non-religious in Australia that freedom of speech is welcomed so long as it cometh not from thy religious mouth! 
We can continue to focus on negative aspects of human behaviour within the church whilst glossing over the same human failings through out society. Should we continually blame organised religion, whilst at the same time negating the legitimacy of discussing religion, then the same undisclosed happenings will continue (as it will in society when suppressed).  By increasing religious dialogue within society, political and educational systems we will have not only more transparent religious establishments but greater understanding between the religious and non religious.

Grant says:

11:38am | 03/08/09

Scott,

What’s the agenda here, are you affiliated with the public centre for Christianity?

As a Federal shadow minister I would think that you would have a better grasp of why the separation exists and it is inappropriate for you to be writing in support like this. 

It is clear to me that you do not understand this issue, much like Greg Clarke didn’t, so I will explain this simply for you, so you can understand.

The separation of church and state is essential to a functioning democracy.
The Federal constitution states that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.  It is very important that it stays this way. 

I will say this, as much as I dislike MP Jenny Macklin and her handling of the Queensland floods, I would much rather her than you.

Martin says:

11:59am | 03/08/09

Anyone that pushes a political agenda based on the beliefs of a 2000 year old desert tribe should be laughed out of the room.

phil kyson says:

12:03pm | 03/08/09

Let’s hope the fundamentalist’s don’t find this one KJB JEREMIAH, Ch 10.
It might be the end of Christmas trees as we know them. Might it be that if the fundy’s studied their holy books properly they would just get confused and turn to tolerence, science and fact, there’s alway hope, God bless’em.

bmad says:

12:08pm | 03/08/09

Oh yes, and what will your response be when some bigot storms into federal parliament declaring that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible, and therefore we must enact legislation to recriminalize it?

You don’t get it, do you. We secularists object to the idea that the religious faith of a politician is a legitimate basis for whatever policy they happen to be advocating at the time, because in a pluralistic country like Australia, that religious faith will never be universal. Contra Sen. Liebermann, freedom from religion and freedom of religion in fact go hand in hand.

When you and any other politician argue for a given piece of legislation or policy, it is your responsibility to make a case for it based on entirely secular precepts of reason and rationality.

PL says:

12:19pm | 03/08/09

Nice article Scott,

it seems a lot of bloggers have missed the point here - Scott is arguing here against the government acting to legislate restrictions to the expression of faith, rather than suggesting that the government should legislate to accomodate people of faith over those of no faith.
For me both arguments are solved by thinking of legislation as a non discriminating power. It should be unconscionable therefore for one faith to legislate over all people, as it should be for one person to legislate over all faiths, as it is discriminatory in both cases. It should be up to the individual to uphold the tenets of their faith, not the government. Conversely, if the government has basic requirements in the realm of human rights in this country, it is up to the respective tenets of faith to abide by them. As a result, every issue mentioned here should be made clear - it is perfectly fine for christian schools to have prayers or other chistian activities in their schools, and no one should restrict that. However discriminating in the process of hiring is unconscionable.
And in this case, I would like to mention, Atheism is also a Faith. The same rules that apply to christians and muslims and others apply to Atheists. So an expession of faith such as a christmas tree should be tolerated even if it is an expression of something you believe does not exist.

Billy says:

12:41pm | 03/08/09

The church must be involved in politics, ‘separation of church and state’ was designed to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

We see secular attacks on religion on a daily basis with things like the gay marriage debate as well as threats to sue pastors for denouncing homosexuality.

Bob says:

12:51pm | 03/08/09

Atheism is not a faith. It’s not faith the say something doesn’t exist because there is no evidence what so ever to support that it does. Not believing in Unicorns is not a faith.

SimonP says:

12:53pm | 03/08/09

I fully support the right of political organisation to have a voice in Australia’s political process – in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as other common-interest groups, such as trade unions, non-governmental organisations (e.g. Greenpeace, Amnesty International), charities, etc. It is fair and democratic that all sections of the Australian populace can state their cases ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.

It is the preferential treatment accorded to religious groups which offends me. For example, there is only one category of organisation in Australia which is allowed to discriminate: religions (whether in their organisations or in their schools). Why? Why is that group of people permitted to discriminate against others when no one else in Australia’s modern, pluralistic society is allowed to? That being said, I’m not entirely against the idea of Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) schools only hiring Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) teachers… that is the point of a religious school, after all – to ensure that the children are exposed to as narrow a world-view as possible. But, why are they allowed to discriminate on any other basis than this, like gender or sexuality?

Furthermore, a politician’s reliance on faith as a determinant of policy should only matter insofar as it is part of their background. We’ve all had various influences in our lives which make us the people we are. However, we should not dictate to others based on our own personal philosophy – or one handed down to us from “on high”. This is a secular democracy in which “Because God/Allah/Jehovah/Buddha/Krishna/etc says so” isn’t a good enough justification for anything.

Bob says:

12:56pm | 03/08/09

Billy
I’m sure you have the same objections to attacks on Scientology, Raelism, etc.
I mean, you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite.

PL says:

01:29pm | 03/08/09

Bob,

To make the assumption that because there is no evidence that something exists, then it does not exist,  is just an appropriation of Occham’s Razor. This is a empirical rule of thumb, not a statement of truth.
Therefore in coming to Atheism you must make the assumption that Occham’s Razor is a true perspective of the universe. It takes faith to believe that.
In fact, to make a concrete conclusion about anything which occurs outside of human experience takes faith. That also goes for unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster. In the case of these two things however, few people care enough to form an opinion either way.

realto says:

01:53pm | 03/08/09

Bob - who said atheism is a faith? It’s the belief that a god does not exist. In its extended form, atheism may accomodate the possibility that a god does indeed exist (despite the clear lack of evidence), but if so, the gods of the greeks, vikings and hindus are all at least as possible as the christian god.  Billy - you are wrong - freedom of religion, or to have no religion, is a cornerstone of democracy, hence the need to separate church and state, so as not to disadvantage the non-believers.

SimonP says:

02:08pm | 03/08/09

Billy, you say “the church must be involved in politics” – which church? The Catholic Church? The Protestants? The Anglicans? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? The Mormons? The Unitarians?

Also, why do you believe that only Christian religions should be involved in politics? Why not other faiths, such as Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism? If you want the government to pass laws supporting Christian beliefs, would you also accept a law banning the eating of pork or beef, or a law that women must be covered from head to foot, or a law that noone can use any machine or technology from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday?

P.S. My first post should have started: “I fully support the right of religious organisations”, not “political organisations”. Oops!

timothy says:

02:20pm | 03/08/09

PL,
Nice straw man you made there, I think it’s cute.

Samuel says:

02:35pm | 03/08/09

Jack Bentley says that religions should stop bludging off the tax payers.  He says “These [roads, etc.], and many other services are provided by the Australian taxpayer, and used by organisations who have made no contribution to our society or our coffers”

There are several problems with his assertions.  The first is the idea that an organisation can use a road.  An individual uses a road, perhaps on the instruction or in the service of an organisation, but it is in an individual nonetheless.  And individuals, religious or otherwise, do pay taxes.  So when Father Jones drives his car, he paid tax for the road, he paid tax on the car, he paid tax on the petrol.

Secondly, I can only speak about the Catholic Church here, but whatever wealth passes through the Church goes straight back into the community. You tax the Catholic Church and you lose a huge number of hospitals, schools and other services to the sick, elderly and disabled not to mention a whole host of teachers, nurses, doctors, counsellors, psychologists, carers an so on who work for the Church.  The profits of McDonalds go to the shareholders and the CEOs, the profits (profits that are hugely over-estimated) that the Church receives goes not to the people at the top but back into the community.

Steve B says:

03:28pm | 03/08/09

I am one of those tragics who regularly listens to the live broadcast from Parliament Mr Morrison, I have heard on many occasions heard the parliamentary session start with “The Lord’s Prayer”, I have never heard any other form of worship allowed in parliament (with the possible exception of traditional owner ceremonies). When I open up the Bible where that Prayer comes from, quite close to the front I find rule number 1 is. “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other God before me.” (or whatever your particular translation makes it).

Could you please explain how this is not supposed to alienate a person of another Religion, when the first action by parliament every session is to reaffirm that Christianity is right and every other religion is wrong? How could this possibly not be the state putting religion above all others?

The real reason behind the separation of church and state was not to remove religion from political debate, the inclusion of the right to free speech protected the right to bring religious views into politic debate, but rather to protect those members of minority religions from the religious doctrine of the majority.

PL says:

03:30pm | 03/08/09

Hi Timothy,
I assume the “straw man” you are referring to is my total disregard for Bob’s rock solid “unicorn theorem”? I did concentrate on Bob’s previous statement, I apologise for that.
I will try to answer it more directly in a logical way
State the difference between these three preferences:
1. A person believes in God
2. A person believes in the non existence of God
3. A person believes in Unicorns.

Question: Which of these statements is more rational than the other?
Can we make the assumption that the statement that is supported by the most empirical data is the most rational premise, or am I going out on a limb?
Results:
1. No data
2. No data
3. No data

Conclusion: Neither statement is more rational than the other.

I am a Christian, but I am under no “delusion”, to use a Dawkins term, that I hold some rational high ground with regards to evidence of a creator. However, it seems a large amount of committed atheists believe that they do. As I have previously said I have no problem with a secular approach to legislation, and this must apply to the atheist’s position as well. Getting back on the original blog entry, therefore it is just as much an affront to secularism to restrict expressions of god based faith as it is to impose god based moral codes on atheists.

SimonP says:

03:32pm | 03/08/09

Samuel, in your post where you that “there are several problems with his [Jack Bentley’s] assertions”, I would like to point out that there are several problems with YOUR assertions.

You’ve selected his example of public roads to demonstrate that organisations don’t use roads, only individuals do – and the individuals paid taxes for that road. As just one example of how an organisation DOES use a road, let’s talk about Father Jones in his job as a teacher at a Catholic school, driving a schoolbus purchased using Catholic funds, which is powered by fuel paid for with Catholic funds, during school hours while he’s being paid his salary from Catholic funds. He’s driving a Catholic-funded bus, while being paid a Catholic-funded salary. How are his personal taxes relevant in this situation? I’d say this is an open-and-shut case of an organisation using a road. An organisation which paid no taxes for it.

Also, you very nicely glossed over his examples of the police and the courts. Have the Catholic Church or its associated schools NEVER benefited from the services of the police force? Has the Catholic Church NEVER used the courts?

Then there’s also your statement that “profits [...] that the Church receives goes [...] back into the community”. Every cent? Doesn’t the Church use any of its tax-free dollars to buy properties or shares or art works or baubles & trinkets for its churches?

RT says:

03:34pm | 03/08/09

Samuel - your argument contains flaws. As organisations and individuals are both subject to taxes, and all the taxes contribute to government services, those belonging to a tax-exempt organisation are getting a free ride in a sense. On the second point about church-provided charity, the problem I have with that is that the churchs’ charity might come attached with conditions that are in line with church beliefs, so by extension, does the taxpayer- supported largesse, but the taxpayer has no say over church policy. Charity or social services directly dispensed by the government is subject to government policy that is in turn accountable to voters.

R.E.L. says:

03:45pm | 03/08/09

What’s saddening is people rubbishing belief in G-d without even attempting to understand anything about G-d…
Try this for fun: imagine something that does NOT exist and then describe it to your mate. You will find that whatever you think you have created is only made up of already existing components. For example, if you thought of a purple dragon with the head of a lion, body of a frog and tail of a cat you would not have created anything new; rather, you would have taken parts of our existing world and rearranged them in your mind to “create” a dragon.
In other words, the human mind is incapable of creating ex nihilo - something from nothing. Only G-d is capable of that.
Makes you think….

iansand says:

04:13pm | 03/08/09

Tax the churches but allow them deductions for the cost of their charitable work, like every other taxpayer.  If church rhetoric about their contributions to the community is correct the change will be a zero sum change.

Jake says:

04:18pm | 03/08/09

Good journalists when writing publicly regarding a religious or philosophical issue do so from a standpoint of rationality, unfortunately this article such a standpoint.

Do you expect any rationalist to believe that it was William Wilberforces overbearing ‘love of god’ that rid the world of slavery, when on the contrary it was such ‘love of god’ that allowed it for centuries. ‘Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Bible. It was accepted as a natural part of life by almost all Christians until the 19th century’. There is absolutely no evidence that ‘faith’ is a prerequisite to moral thought or action.

Scott in usual evangelist ignorance generalises all secularists as fundamentalists showing complete disregard for the truth and humanity’s capacity for critical thought.

It is certainly not the case that women and men of faith have no right to participate politically, but it can be argued that political decisions should be made based on evidence rather than that of ‘faith’.
Slavery is bad because it denies human beings the right to freedom; slavery is not bad because God said it was.

‘Yet, armed with a flawed understanding of the separation of church and state’, I think this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

If I am not mistaken this articles premise was ‘The rightful place of God(s) in Australian society’, however during this ramble you have managed to entirely avoid making a single valid or even related argument.

Bob says:

04:21pm | 03/08/09

PL
Occam’s Razor actually does apply to everything, always. Once all the evidence is gathered, then the answer based on that evidence is always the simplest. Actually doesn’t require any faith, just logic.
Now you cant prove the negative, so ridiculous assertions like your ‘No Data” argument hold some sway over people. But you don’t actually have to, as the burden on proof isn’t on the side of the negative, but the positive.
There is one thing which is provable about the Judeo-Christian Deity however.
If it does indeed exist, it is callous, sadistic, racist, jealous, lazy, stupid, deceptive and not something we want to base our laws on. Want the proof, just read your Bible.(and beleive me I have).
Thats why we have the seperation of church and state.

Jonathan says:

04:24pm | 03/08/09

Q. The rightful place of god in Australian society?
A. Out of it

Jonathan says:

04:33pm | 03/08/09

For anyone interested in reading what well-functioning societies without god look like, try Phil Zuckerman’s elegent Society Without God.

This is an elegant, scholarly account of life in Scandinavia and how the region manages to attain the highest regarded standards of living despite posessing the most irreligious population.

I will leave you to decide whether you think this is more than a coincidence.

Ben says:

04:33pm | 03/08/09

Church based community services have absolutely no faith provisions for people wishing to access them….many of you will be delighted that social workers employed in such organisations are just as convinced of the superiority of secularism as a government or for profit provider.

What drives the outrage at Christianity and the Church that seems to inhabit so many people?? Partly I think it is just ignorance. Put aside for a moment the sensationalism which dominates the media and actually rationally consider things.
Time after time in both recent and more distant history it has been Christians and others from major faiths who have not only exercised tolerance, and compassion but actually acted accordingly. The major Churches in Australia are the last people who would seek to cause harm to gay people or anyone else.
All they say is that marriage in their faith is not people of the same sex. Most would be comfortable with civil gay unions - a minority wouldn’t but show me any major movement or organisation without minority views.

Would the self righteous nice brigade expect a gay dating agency to employ a devout Christian who believed that marriage should only constitute the union of a man and a woman? Would they champion this person’s rights should they unsuccessful?? We all know the answer to this question but of course its uncomfortable to admit.
It is much easier to take a faith which has no meaning for most people and is derided by academics with simplistic arguements much more digestible both those with a vocational educations and insist these people’s beliefs are irrelevant and can be cast aside.
Given the evident strength of people’s dislike for things Christian its not impossible to imagine a time when Christians will be the those needing the fretful blogging of all the worthies saddling up on behalf of gay couples!

PL says:

04:53pm | 03/08/09

Bob,
“Occam’s Razor does apply to everything, always”
So the truth is always the simplest version of a problem? I’d like to see you prove that one, mate. Indeed, what is the simplest version of this problem? Is there one? Do you determine whether having a god or not is simplest?
As stated before, Occam’s razor is a rule of thumb, not a statement of truth. Look it up if you don’t believe me. There is nothing logical about basing your worldview on a rule of thumb. If you feel the need to take a rational position on this subject, it is to not take a position at all i.e. agnosticism.
“the burden of proof isn’t on the side of the negative, but the positive” I assume you are referring to the null hypothesis? The null hypothesis is in place in science to ensure that scientists don’t base their results around pre constructed conclusions. Those pre constructed conclusions may include “there is a god” or “there isn’t a god” either can be the positive or negative in your inquiry depending on what you are want to conclude. WhereI will say “its inconclusive, If I go any further it will have to be based on faith”, Atheists like yourself tend to go “its inconclusive, therefore my assertion that there isn’t a god is correct.” YOUR null hypothesis should be that there is a god! Don’t waste yourself, your argument has no basis in science or in logic.
Hence my principal argument - deity based religion AND atheism come from an assumption based on faith. Neither assumption has a greater grounding in rationalism or empirical inquiry. And I agree with the separation of church and state, as long as ALL faiths are separated from the state, including atheism.

R.E.L. says:

04:55pm | 03/08/09

Jonathan, you and the Norse Vikings are confusing G-d with religion.

SimonP says:

04:59pm | 03/08/09

R.E.L. says that “the human mind is incapable of creating ex nihilo”.  Language?  Agriculture?  Archimedes’ screw?  Philosophy?  The Great Pyramids?  Art?  Mathematics?  Literature?  Computers?  Where did these things come from, if they weren’t created by the human mind?

But, I do like his analogy that to explain God is to “imagine something that does NOT exist and then describe it to your mate”, and then to realise that “whatever you think you have created is only made up of already existing components”.

Then, Ben asks “What drives the outrage at Christianity and the Church that seems to inhabit so many people??”  and then goes on to say that “Time after time [...] it has been Christians and others from major faiths who have not only exercised tolerance, and compassion but actually acted accordingly”  hmm… The Crusades, anyone? The Inquisition?  Witch-burning?  Galileo?

He then goes on to explain that “marriage in their faith is not people of the same sex”. Which is fine – but totally ignores the fact that the government would only be changing the LEGAL definition of marriage, not the RELIGIOUS one. So, “the Church” (which one???) would still be able to refuse to marry anyone it disapproves of: homosexuals, divorcees, people of other faiths.

Scott Morrison says:

06:18pm | 03/08/09

Thanks for your comments. In response I’d just make a few points to join the conversation.

1. My argument is for freedom of religion as provided for in our Constitution, not just the Christian faith. I’m happy for God to make his own argument, without the sanction or restriction of the state . I no more support a theocracy in Australia than I do in Iran. I support separation of church and state for all religions, not just the minorities - as did Jefferson.

2. As a politician my faith informs my values, my world view and the issues I feel strongly about - as it did Wilberforce, Tutu etc.  I choose not to hide this influence in the interest of transparency. I’m not asking people to vote for me because i hold a christian faith. They do, however, have a right to know.

3.  I am puzzled that it is seen as appropriate for politicians to talk to environmentalists, trade unionists, wood turners, rotaries, disability support groups and any number of different community or interest based groups, but if we talk to a church community we have crossed some line. Are their views and opinions any less relevant?  I no more consider our society should be protected from the influence or views of these other groups than I do the voices of religion - so no I disagree freedom of religion should NOT mean freedom from religion.

4. I agree that policy is a matter for reasoned debate and argued on the same basis as everyone else. I no more think God votes liberal than I think he votes Labor.  I support marriage because it provides a more durable basis for sustainable relationships that can support the raising of children in a positive way. I do not support gay marriage or adoption because I believe every child has a natural right to a mother and father who each have specific roles to play in the development of a child. I see the issue of marriage and children as inextricably linked. See, not a single bible quotation in sight.

4. Churches, mosques, temples and synagogue communities all hold tax exempt status for their religious and charitable activities. The status is based on the presumption that their activities in our economy are social/spiritual, not commercial. They pay tax on their commercial activities like every other not for profit organisation in the country.

5. Christianity is part of Australia’s cultural heritage - it’s in our Constitution. I would be happy to argue the no case if someone wants to put up an amendment.  We should not confuse this with a state sanctioned religion and more than we should consider ourselves British because the queen is our head of state. Like the republic, this is a debate about the relevance and role of our heritage in forming our institutions, not religion.

6. I do not know the angry God that others talk about. I only know a God who has shown his love and mercy in my life. It’s not a debating point, it’s just my experience.  If you have a problem with God, talk to him about it.

7. I have always quite liked unicorns as so does my two year old daughter.

Until next time. Cheers, Scott

Bob says:

06:19pm | 03/08/09

PL
Yes the truth is always the simplest answer. Thats why we know it’s the truth, as it fits the best based on the evidence. ‘God did it’ used to be the simplest answer, until evidence came up with simpler ones. Things may seem to be the simplest at first, until evidence shows that they are not. And no, I’m not basing it on the null hypothesis, I’m basing it on that if you want to tell me something you better to be able to give me a good reason to beleive you. Thats not science, that is thinking for yourself. If you want to beleive in God, fine. But don’t act like you have a rational basis for it. Faith is 100% belief in something, without logic or reason. I have never said that God 100% does not exist, and that is not what atheism is about. Atheism is saying that there is no reason to beleive it does, and therefore I choose not to, based on logic and reason. In fact, Atheism doesn’t even exist. There is no word for someone who simply refuses to beleive something with no proof. Religous people are the ones who deal in absolutes.

John L says:

06:34pm | 03/08/09

You’d think anyone that walked the Kokoda TRACK could get the name right.
And with science showing us amazing complexity in life and physics, this just happened by chance?  Maybe God doesn’t care about hijabs, bibles,  religions or squabbles.

R.E.L. says:

06:38pm | 03/08/09

SimonP, we could go into a philosophical debate about whether maths was invented or discovered…
Everything else you listed was not created ex nihilo, it was all “created” using existing component parts. The pyramids? straw and mud—> bricks
computers? complex mathematical equations + raw materials found in the earth
That the human mind was able to imagine all these things and then work out where to find their component parts in the earth and how to put them together is nothing short of an unbelievable phenomenon.
But can you create a computer by “snapping your fingers”, i.e. literally ex nihilo - out of nothing?

SimonP says:

07:41pm | 03/08/09

R.E.L., you started by suggesting that we should “imagine something that does NOT exist and then describe it to your mate”. You then said we’d find that whatever we had thought of would not be new: “rather, you would have taken parts of our existing world and rearranged them in your mind”. You then said that, “in other words, the human mind is incapable of creating ex nihilo”. At no point did you suggest that any physical creation was required – you did NOT say: “And, once you’ve imagined your dragon with the head of a lion, body of a frog and tail of a cat, you won’t be able to create it in the physical world.”  The example you supplied was of an IDEA; you implied that humans could not created IDEAS ex nihilo.

I then listed a series of IDEAS which were created by human minds ex nihilo – from nothing, with no precursors. Where did language, philosophy, art, literature, technological inventions come from? There are no “raw materials” for language – you can’t just go out and dig up some nouns & verbs, then assemble them into literature. Philosophy doesn’t grow on trees, waiting to be plucked by some wandering deep-thinker. Even with a knowledge of maths, and ready access to raw materials, there still needs to be some creative spark to come up with the idea of putting them together to form a calculating machine.

So, I apologise – I didn’t realise you were talking about magic.

Krammer says:

10:38pm | 03/08/09

Scott Morrison, perfectly and kindly put. Firm but gentle. You’re a voice crying out in the wilderness. I can’t believe where we are at as a society at the moment. It seems that everything has been given a voice but that which is Christ-based, saviour of the world. No doubt, there will surely be a high price paid for current proposed policies floating around attempting to legalise same sex relationships and not allowing a Christian school to enforce its own beliefs under its own roof. What is the world coming to?

Jonathan says:

10:39am | 04/08/09

Krammer - What is the world coming to? Hopefully the world is coming to a point whereby decisions are made using rational thought, decisions made using the best available evidence, decisions made free from the archaic laws and discriminatory vengeful nonsense of a 2000 year old myth.

Scott - You write soberly and openly about a challenging topic and I respect your ability to engage. However, there is a consistent failing in your thesis and supporters of your thesis that you state yourself in point 3 of your response… “but if we talk to a church community we have crossed some line. Are their views and opinions any less relevant?...” Yes. Religious views, like any unsubstantiated claims should be less relevant. These ‘views and opinions’ are founded on myths generated at a time so unlike contemporary Australia they should have no bearing on decisions of policy. Progress has been earned in opposition to, not with he support of, religious orthodoxy and the sooner we begin to trust our own rational judgements rather than those handed down by patriarchal interest groups the better.

R.E.L. - Read the book. You might learn something. It is written using very simple language and only attempts to examine one specific thing - what does a society look like without god? His conclusion, and that of most Scandinavians (who happen to be regarded by the UN and most recognised standards of living as the most successfully developed nations on earth) is that a society without god looks pretty good and functions pretty well. No fire. No Brimstone. No lawlessness. No fear of death. No terminal guilt. No unnecessary circumcision. etc etc etc

Raj says:

11:27am | 04/08/09

“Yes. Religious views, like any unsubstantiated claims should be less relevant.”

Wait…what? What happened to tolerance? If there were 4 million unicorn believers in Australia, do they have less of a say then the rest of the population because I believe unicorns don’t exist?

“Progress has been earned in opposition to, not with he support of, religious orthodoxy” Tutu? Wilberforce?  I love sweeping statements

Faye says:

12:06pm | 04/08/09

“There is no word for someone who simply refuses to beleive something with no proof. Religous people are the ones who deal in absolutes.”

Funny that.
An atheist that refuses to believe in something with ‘no proof’.
That utter, blatant refusal to believe without even bothering to objectively and earnestly - at the very least - seek proof or truth, doesn’t come to play.
Are you waiting for someone to drop a scientific bomb on your head? Waiting for the scientists to declare “HOLY SMOKES THERE IS A GOD!!” in their scientific journals? Waiting for the world’s paper’s to suddenly publish the horrifying/wonderful news of the existence of an omni-potent, universal being or a god/God citing a giant black cloud shaped like a hand which flattened a protest of atheists in front of a church/mosque/temple?
Waiting for some sort of epiphany to strike you?

Are you waiting for someone to do the thinking for you? The research? The finding? Did you read a few meagre ‘scientific’ books written by a bunch of people and decided - hm, there IS no God!

The fact that an atheist himself deals in ABSOLUTES doesn’t make him any better than the fervent believer that deals in the exact same absolutes on his views of the existence of God.

To an atheist there is ‘no proof’ - absolutely zilch, nil, nada and no intention to find out because THERE JUST ISN’T ANY and that lack of any substance to argue on and relies on absolutes (his faith) is exact to…
The believer that has ‘no proof’ either, with no intention to further delve into the mechanics and proofs of God’s existence instead relying on absolutes (his faith) to see him through his beliefs.

Both in the same boat in the wide ocean arguing which direction to go.

If you argue there is absolutely no proof there is a God hence there is no God you simply cannot argue to me how this God doesn’t exist because you do not know for certain if he does, nor use any ‘proof’ other than man proven God’s lack of presence to argue those facts.

Many of you people forget that much of these customs (bread and wine) and traditions (circumcision) had nothing to do with the religions themselves but were developed before and after the religions - NOT dictated by the religions themselves.
Without having basic knowledge of these religions you argue that God doesn’t exist.

If you have read all the Holy books of all the faiths (not crap written by people because I can write shit up too), read the ideologies of the faiths and actually did a smidgen of research of these faiths you so lambaste you might have an argument going on there.

I see a general laziness to even bother trying so why not just jump into the “I do not believe in God’ bandwagon so I don’t even have to bother trying to find out what the meaning of life is!
Gee! How enlightened is that?

Lets’ all just screw, enjoy life, pop out babies, be parents, get high, have casual, promiscuous sex, fall in love, grow old, grumble about the pension and supers, die, get buried, turn into worm food - ALL for naught.
What is the point of a life without a meaning - worst still - not bothering to find out the origin of human life (not necessarily a God, but still.) or the point of our human existence!
Let’s just chalk it up to one big fat big bang. Yup. Everything happens by accident. Our parents had us by accident, we fell in love by accident, we have sex by accident, we kill people by accident, we feel by accident.
As ridiculous as the unicorns.

a minority majority in my own country says:

12:35pm | 04/08/09

It rather questionable of anyone to promote any religion as being any more righteous than any other group or individual in Australia. The fact that christian lobby groups are well organized,  and well funded,  to determine Australia remains primarily a christian country is of concern. Were none believers /atheists as well organised and just as well funded it is fair to suggest Australian religions would truly be separate from the state. As it stands today the govt feeds many religious lobby groups with tax payer funds aimed at promoting the fraud of religion and its false morality upon all Australians. That situation is not only untenable but to me it seems most questionable ethically speaking.
I find it quite concerning religious groups think their voice is the only one that matters, that they can and do influence our govt because there is no real voice of objection. it is of even greater concern various religious groups seeking individuals for a career in Australian politics promoting such religions . Be afraid for if they have their way we will all be living as they would have us live rather than being a free country which we once were.

So many of our laws are religious based , which doesnt serve to show a free system, rather one that has been perverted by these lobby groups. Every Australian should have the same freedoms afforded to religious Australians however that is not the case so Australia can not be called a free country.

Jonathan says:

12:59pm | 04/08/09

Raj, this is not about tolerance.

Scott implied that counsel from individuals and groups with a heigtened state of superstition was a valid input to a politician’s decision making process. I would suggest that taking advice from a superstitious individual, whose judgement is guided by that superstition is unwise and should not be considered as relevant. This is indiscriminate of superstition -  be it an unprovable and highly improbable belief in yahweh, a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster.

I am sure that many of these superstitious spokespeople are men of sagacity with much to offer. However, why do they have to present themselves as superstitious first and knowledgable second? As many other posters have suggested, Wilberforce did not embark on the process to limit slavery as a religious crusade - he just happened to be superstitious - as many people used to be when there were fewer explanations to life’s questions. And as for Tutu, would it be sensible to compare 2009 Australia to apartheid South Africa?

Bob says:

01:04pm | 04/08/09

Nice Ramble Faye.
I’ll just point out that I don’t believe in your God because I went to Catholic School and was a member of a church for 12 years. And I am yet to hear on decent theological argument, let alone scientific, that any God makes any sense at all.
Tell me, lets say there is a God and we have eternal life. Tell me the point of that existence.
So your argument is that life happening by accident is pointless and unpleasent, therefore it cannot be true.
To claim people who don’t believe in your God have no wish to find out how life began is also ridiculous. Look up evolutionary biologists, or astro physicists, quantum physicists and I’m sure you’ll find a few examples of non-believers trying to answer those questions.
I agree separation of Church and State was originally intended to protect the people from the government.
However lately, with so much wonderful technologies and laws which are improving the standard of living for so many people being attacked by people of religous belief , its main role now is to protect our government, or even more appropriately our governmental system from people who wish to push there own personal beliefs on others.

Jonathan says:

01:13pm | 04/08/09

Faye - 2 questions:

1) Why does there have to be a purpose to everything -  what is wrong with chance?

2) Do you think that atheists are less concerned with the ‘meaning of life questions’ than the superstitious? (For definition here, I will call atheists individuals who have consciously objected to superstiton, not simply not engaged.) My experience is very much the opposite. That superstition is the lazy way out. Your post implies that you are scared that your life has no ‘meaning’ (whatever that means) and you have decided that your life derives meaning from the human inspired god that you believe created you. That to me seems a far lazier philosophy.

SimonP says:

02:05pm | 04/08/09

In response to something John wrote, I’ll reiterate my earlier point that I fully support the right of religious organisations and representatives to have a voice in Australia’s political process.  These interest groups have as much right to talk with their local member of parliament as do trade unions, or employer associations, or non-governmental organisations, or charities.

However, it is worth noting that, at the most recent census, nearly one in five Australians identified themselves as having “no religion”.  That’s almost 20% of the population who hold no loyalty to any belief system.  Whether they’re atheist or not is a different matter – I, for one, hate the negating word “atheist” (“not-god-ist”) and prefer to describe myself in a positive way as a small-h humanist (“believing in humans”).

Still, 20% is not to be ignored.  In fact, the only single group larger than the “no religionists” were the Catholics (not by much – only 26%, and falling).  There were just as many Anglicans as “no religionists”, and the next largest group was the Unitarians (at only 6%).  In fact, Christians of all types (And there are a LOT of different types! Do they all have the same opinions?) account for less than two-thirds of Australia’s total population – a majority, to be sure, but not an overwhelming one.

So, I’m fine with Mr Morrison consulting Christian leaders for their opinions on political matters – as long as he remembers that they are ONLY OPINIONS, and have been provided to him in the same spirit of self-interest as those provided by any other organisation he deals with.  Also, he should go out of his way to similarly consult with representatives of the nearly 20% of the population without religion.  There are Humanist organisations, atheist associations, etc, who would probably be willing to offer their opinions alongside their religious compatriots.

In fact, given that we are such a significant portion of the population, maybe it would be worth our while to organise ourselves in a similar way to Christians, to make our voices heard more clearly.

Faye says:

02:06pm | 04/08/09

Jonathan, interesting question.
For every cause there is an effect, right?
What is the reason with that cause, and why?

It is in our innate human being to know what is the cause of something, why and how.
Yes, it could very well be by chance. But it doesn’t seem to match up with the complexities we have established in our world today of everything having a reason. Why did the theory that we had many sexes, which died down due to evolution into two sexes, come into play?

Being random even then has a reason and the why.
It would be quite unfortunate to think that our complex human minds, our world, our universe, was a ‘chance event’ which happened just because.
Really makes a mockery of all our efforts.

Even then, have we discovered if this ‘chance’ theory is plausible?
Even scientists have said with every beginning there is a end. Think about it, if lets say our universe appeared by chance and before that there was just nothingness - it defeats the notion that something can happen if there was nothing.
You need something to make something happen. Eg. Flint and surface/other flint = spark. There had to be something. If not the ‘hand’ of an entity, then something else which existed in that nothingness that led to that.
Now, what are the series of events which led to that, and why?
In the end, you’re still looking at an origin here. I’m not pointing to a god, but I’m saying - you cannot deny the possibility of one.

To your second question.
I’m not saying we should choose a Holy book, adhere to it and believe that poof poof Adam and Eve appeared and poof poof 1001 commandments/sharia laws/etc etc.

I know that atheists do search too.
But denying that there is a God in the absolute (after all an atheist says THERE IS NO GOD) is denying the search you have claimed to have embarked upon about the meaning of life.
Same as a believer saying THERE IS A GOD but forgetting that possibility that God isn’t that merciful/wrathful creature but a mechanism within the universe or beyond the universe part of the whole ‘system’ - if that makes any sense.
Yes, believing in god may seem to be a lazy way. But you forget that believing in one doesn’t mean we have to pick up a book, hum a few sutras/chants and there your questions are answered.
It brings up a whole new host of questions and possibilities which add to the richness and dimension of your search which you are not denying by saying God doesn’t exist, because you would have effectively closed off a whole house of questions.
Life having meaning doesn’t mean “we are created to worship a god” but more like having an insight to our origins in the sincerest, most earnest and spiritual manner possible.

Jonathan says:

02:43pm | 04/08/09

Faye,

Thank you for answering my questions.

I still fail to comprehend the central point though, that ‘It would be quite unfortunate to think that our complex human minds, our world, our universe, was a ‘chance event’ which happened just because’. Why would it be unfortunate? And, taking it one step further, why is it necessary to salve that fear with a premise that is fundamentally irrational?

I admire your, and many other superstitious individuals, attempts to justify this superstition in pseudo-scientific or pseudo-philosophical terms. The opening statement regarding causes having reasons immediately places agency into what up to that point was a vacuum. Why does there have to be agency? Why are superstitous people so concerned with order?

As for your second answer, I am afriad you are simply wrong. And this is the difficulty with the terminology of Atheism as Bob (6.19pm) points out. Atheism is the term used to engage in the same vernacular as the superstitious. I, like most ‘atheists’ would rather not have to badge myself at all. I am sane, rational and base my decisions on evidence and probability. As such, the likelihood of me assuming an omnipotent force is the almighty creator of heaven and earth and author of a bitter contradictory anthology is slim. Equally, I do not justify myself as Aunicornistic or Aleprachaunist because the concept is equally as implausible.

Not believing in superstition does not ‘close off a whole house of questions’ because whatever those questions are, are by definition fatuous, pointless and good for no other reason that to justify ones own superstition.

DoctorK says:

02:51pm | 04/08/09

There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and over 350 planets idenitified orbiting stars beyond our solar system. There are at least 100 billion other galaxies beyond ours…. do you really think that if there was a creator s(He) would give a second thought to you? Do you honestly think that we are the only planet with life? That any creator would send their “Son” as Christ to the middle east 2000 years ago? Beyond absurd. Be spiritual and love one another, but don’t say we need to believe in ‘god’ to make our lives worthwhile. Australia needs compassion and non-judgment, NOT GOD.

stick to the facts says:

08:18pm | 04/08/09

the simplest reason why we need complete state separation from religion can be seen in the attitudes of the believers whom constantly promote themselves as being smarter , more credible and the only right answer because they believe in a god. Its fine for christians to suppose what an atheist may believe or may not believe its fine for a christian to denounce us. How can our government expect us to live under the rules promoted by religions when they are so glaringly wrong?  It truly is reflective of how this system has being perverted by religious bigotry , yet oddly the silent majority of none believers just sit back and allow themselves to be bullied into repression by the church they do not even believe in.
where are the lobby groups for none believers? where is our governments committment to represent all Australians?

Mind you Scot Morrison whom said “3.  I am puzzled that it is seen as appropriate for politicians to talk to environmentalists, trade unionists, wood turners, rotaries, disability support groups and any number of different community or interest based groups, but if we talk to a church community we have crossed some line. Are their views and opinions any less relevant?  I no more consider our society should be protected from the influence or views of these other groups than I do the voices of religion - so no I disagree freedom of religion should NOT mean freedom from religion”

Sorry mate that is a gross misrepresentation of what really occurs. as a disabled worker , whose workcover rights have been denied him for the last 20 years, i am forced to live as a disabled pensioner. There is no support groups for disabled pensioners , there is no support system for none believers in this country.  every charity or support system i know of is church related , govt sponsored fraud. in 20 years i have never had one iota of assistance.
We get offended because you would have us believe the nyth you posted above,  yet in reality religions are perverting our entire system of government right down to recruiting future politicians, to swaying elections based on morailty and repression in this country, on promoting hatred and bigotry to any Australian that would dare to be gay,  shal i go on or do you get the drift?

Jason Geddes says:

08:22pm | 04/08/09

if you want to believe in god thats fine but don’t you dare expect me to live according to your low morals. Keep Your church out of my politics , and your lobby groups away from my politicians. Get your church to start paying taxes and maybe then i may reconsider the validity of your religion imposing their will on our country.

me my mo says:

02:26am | 05/08/09

lol. The original argument has gone over so many peoples heads, it’s funny.

Sean the Blogonaut says:

06:52am | 06/08/09

Is Mr Morrison aware that there are a significant number of Secularists who are religious? That Secularism does not necessarily equal Atheism.

Sean the Blogonaut says:

06:57am | 06/08/09

Oh and Mr Morrison Jefferson also said:

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

Maybe a closer reading of English and American history is in order.  No?

Peter says:

10:45am | 06/08/09

The general consensus here seems to be that the Christian who promotes themselves as smarter, more credible than others has less credibility than the atheist/agnostic who has the same attitude.  Whatever ones religion (or lack there of) an elitist attitude is not the correct way to debate/discuss issues whether in a political or non political environment.  Atheists and Christians alike should not suppose the other’s beliefs however both sides of the party should be allowed to express their point of view.  It seems here few want the Christian morals pressed upon them yet at the same time want atheistic/agnostic morals pressed upon the Christian community.  Double standard’s anyone? 
Our politicians are human, they have differing beliefs and ethical influences in their lives.  If any should be suppressed due to their religious beliefs then our government is not working!

Jake says:

11:25am | 06/08/09

As I was reading the retort posted by Scott I found myself thinking maybe this guy isn’t such a douche then I read.

‘I do not know the angry God that others talk about. I only know a God who has shown his love and mercy in my life. It’s not a debating point, it’s just my experience.  If you have a problem with God, talk to him about it. ‘

This really illustrates your ignorance.

Read a book. Apart from the bible. Your failure of a neutral perspective astounds me.

fred bob says:

05:40pm | 20/08/09

no offence, but most of you need to get over yourselves, boo whoo if you have to pay taxes and a priest doesnt… did you ever consider that they do not have a sufficient income of their own, and they do not have a 9-5 job, they are on 24/7 call to hospitals, funeral homes, schools, rehabilitation & centres…. so yeah rather than want to have a whinge about what they get, how about you go give up your life, chance marriage and family and free time to a god (just assumet there is one and stop being so ignorant and overanalysic) and be surrounded in a career around old dying people or sick and drug wasted young people… then lets see who is more useful to society you selfish, un-australian ... <not saying next word> (and i did say un australian, because its unaustralian to not show respect to these men who are literally heroes in their own right for what they achieve, not what they believe in)

Sphinx says:

08:32pm | 20/08/09

As usual this entire debate is a laughable waste of time because there has been no attempt to gain a consensus as to what ‘God’ means to all of the people contributing to this post.

Here is a suggested definition: God is a 3 letter word that has no physical or rational meaning. It is used as a last resort justification of ignorant opinions by lazy minded superstitious and argumentative people.

Now re-read the posts above for a clearer understanding of what all this discussion is all about.

Al says:

08:51pm | 20/08/09

Its such a pity and loss that Australia hasnt become a religion free country. That would have been mans greatest achievment in history and the first step towards a peaceful world. I simply cant respect people of religion, I’m sure there are some religious people who do good things, but for me that doesnt cut it when you do good things out of fear of reprisal. Most seem to use it as an excuse to get away with whatever the particular rules allow them to….and then many to get away with anything. I cant wait till the new laws of association are extended to the religious gangs. At least you know a bikie is an arsehole….nothing worse than an arsehole dressed as a priest…...oh sorry….i mean a wolf in sheeps clothing. Hang on….maybe a priest with a law degree could be worse.
Freedom from religion is true freedom. Australia should be a fee country

Mr Pastry says:

10:06pm | 20/08/09

I’m sticking with the Dream Time and the Rainbow Serpent, more believable than the Bible and no doctrines strapped on by evil church bureaucrats.