33:64 presents “George Michael.”
Earlier this week the English publication of ‘God: The Science, the Evidence’ happened. Written by two French blokes with contributions from more than 100 scientists, it makes the case for the existence of God by using science and rationale alone. Already a bestseller in France, where it has sold over 400,000 copies, it now arrives here, handily in time for Christmas. Oh, the serendipity!
The are so many problems with this book that it’s hard to know where to start. So I’ll begin with conceptual problem, namely which type of God are they referring to, and once we know that much, then what specific example of that type do they mean?
For example, if you’re just interested in the basic no frills God, the one that created everything – the universe, space, the Earth and humans, – that’s called a ‘creator’ God. But there are at least six of them. These include the big three – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – but also ones I’d never heard of. I knew there were other Gods but I didn’t’ realise quite how many there were until I found this wikipedia page which, if hadn’t been so disciplined, I might still be plunging ever deeper into a rabbit hole of endless absurdity.
It’s not entirely clear exactly which God it is that they’re trying to prove the existence of – and I haven’t been all that bothered to find out – so I’ll just go right ahead and assume it’s the one I’m most familiar with, the Christian one. And right there we have one of the main problems with the book, for in order for them to prove that God exists, they necessarily have to reject the very foundation upon which the devout Christians belief in their God is predicated. Namely, that a true believer in God doesn’t require evidence of Gods existence, because faith is enough. Indeed requiring evidence until one can believe that God exists is evidence of a lack of faith itself. Its a circular argument, quite brilliant in its way because its annoyingly irrefutability
I imagine then that a goodly amount of God botherers will be bothered by all this. Belief in God isn’t rational, it’s the very opposite of a rational belief, prides itself on the mystery, the unknown and utter preposterousness of it all. Creation of heaven and earth in seven days? Noah living 950? Virgin birth? Water into wine? Raising from the dead? How does any of that even begin to make any kind of sense? It doesn’t and that’s the point. The more the book uses science to prove the existence of God, the more it does the exact opposite.
Had they expounded upon the theory that God was invented by man many thousands of years ago, when humans gradually became more agrarian and started living in smaller, then larger groups. then I’d’ve conceded the point. That because of this change in human behaviour, towards an increasingly more hierarchical society, those that combined a good spiel with a plausible manner were able to avoid any from of work. By inventing reasons why the crops weren’t growing, why the cows weren’t producing enough milk or why some women couldn’t bear children, charlatans absolved themselves from manual work. And if those things still kept repeating themselves, then whatever it was that people were doing to mitigate against such calamities, then they clearly weren’t doing enough of. Reminds me of the whole faith and evidence bollocks.
Because that’s what it is. Utter bollocks. All religions, complete and utter bollocks, the lot of them. It baffles me that after 150 years since Darwin proved the theory of evolution as being one of incontrovertible fact, one that demonstrated the majestic simplicity of natural selection as the reason why life exists, that religion isn’t treated with scorn and derision. Or that believers in them aren’t roundly mocked for being credulous fools and denied the vote. What other bollocks might these cretins believe in? It’s all bollocks.
Apart from the Mbombo creation one. How alone, and in darkness, Mbombo felt an intense pain in his stomach, and then up vomited the sun, the moon, and stars.
***************************************************************
Several large hats off to the gang who broke into the Loove yesterday and got away with some valuable shiny things. For added style points – which you’d think that the French of all people would appreciate – the robbers did it in broad daylight, when it was open to the public and staff were about. They also, and this is why I hope they get away with it, neither harmed nor hurt anybody.
Is anyone in France poorer, I mean has anyone – real people that is , the ones who drive buses, work in shops and smoke too much – actually lost anything?
Or is it simply a theoretical loss, one that exists only as a headlines, in politicians minds and in loss adjusters nightmares? The theft of these baubles matters as much to the average French person as I imagine the theft of the Crown Jewels would mean to me. It was all stolen, only the methods varied through the ages.
the brilliantly leaping gazelle 