A plea to theists: well I guess it is too late for you

One of the greatest ironies in life is watching theists try to reason about moral philosophy. The mess of contradictions produced makes for some laugh-out-loud reading and can be terrific fun to unpack. Working through this kind of fractal wrongness can also help us to clarify our own moral reasoning and shows us why secular morality is superior to that of the religious.Exhibit A is Rabbi Moshe Averick’s A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late. I’ve picked out a few of the major problems and given my response to them.

Subjectivity
Averick’s main beef with atheistic morality is that is subjective:

“For the atheist, morality is simply a word that is used to describe the type of system that an individual or society subjectively prefers. Each society establishes, maintains, and modifies its values to suit its own needs.”

While some atheists do see morality as subjective there are also moral philosophies based on facts and a shared understanding of reality (i.e., objective). Rabbi Averick also thinks it is a problem that moral philosophy can update itself as new arguments are made and accepted. As someone who works in the sciences I am comfortable with knowledge improving as new facts are discovered and new ideas developed. There will be setbacks, aberrant paths that are found to be wrong, but on the long view a gradual improvement is continuously made. In modern social democracies can we really doubt that we are better off today than in the past? We have more freedoms and more rights than ever before. This is not the result of mere subjective whims that happened to go the right way, but a recognition that some actions of the past (e.g., slavery) were wrong and should no longer be permitted in our society. Dogmas, on the other hand, do not update and are stuck in our less enlightened past.

Peter Singer
Averick spends a significant chunk of the article attacking Peter Singer for his views on consequentialist utilitarianism. Which is an objective moral system. The Rabbi doesn’t seem to recognise that his criticism of moral subjectivism doesn’t apply to Singer but he continues regardless:

“Singer went on to explain that he is a “consequentialist.” For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain “consequentialism” in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it’s ethical, if you don’t like the consequences it’s unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it’s ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it’s unethical.”

What Singer’s philosophy actually entails is the evaluation of harm that results from an action. Utilitarianism considers happiness to be desirable and harm to be deleterious. This means that when assessing an action for its morality you should look at the consequences in terms of the people harmed and the people helped. So if enjoying child pornography and having sex with children harms someone then it is unethical. Since paedophilia often has traumatic effects on the child involved, their parents, and the wider community Singer would most likely find most cases of paedophilia morally wrong. So much for the slippery slope argument.

S.P.A.G.
Averick claims that since we resulted from slime (or from dust if you are Jewish, I guess that’s better?) that means we are morally bereft. The fact that we evolved from primates does not degrade humanity. It is thrilling to think that all species on this planet are interrelated though the process of evolution. What makes humans different, more significant than our jungle dwelling relatives, is our ability to reason. When we exercise our unique intelligence we get to make our own decisions about meaning, value, and morality. Atheists aren’t handed their morality from on high, we have to think about it, and thanks to evolution we have that ability. After spending most of the article decrying the ability of secular philosophers to reason about ethics, Averick engages in the most dishonest part of the article. He simply throws out a bunch of ethical rules without giving any justification for his claims.

• All men are created in the image of God and are therefore inherently and intrinsically precious.
• All men have been endowed by God with unalienable rights and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• Thou shalt not murder.
• Thou shalt not steal.
• Thou shalt not bear false witness.
• Thou shalt not commit adultery, incest, or bestiality.
• Thou shalt not have sex with children, and if you do you will be looked upon as a disgusting and contemptible criminal and will be treated as such.
• Thou shall teach these laws to your children.

Fortunately, we can recognise the source for some of these claims, and they don't come from a god. The ones about unalienable rights are from the American Declaration of Independence and the rules about murder, stealing, perjury, and adultery are from the Torah. These moral rules aren’t from God but from the men who wrote the documents. But where do the other bits and pieces come from? Since Averick hasn't demonstrated God is the moral author, we have to conclude they come from Averick himself. The Rabbi simply prefers it to be the case that paedophilia is immoral and so claims that it is a divine command. This is merely Self-Projection As God. After spending an entire article railing against subjective morality we find that the only justification Averick has is that he just feels paedophilia is wrong (and God agrees with me!) Unfortunately for Averick the main point of his article is that atheism leads to paedophilia. It is rather easily countered by the mention to two religions: Catholicism and Islam. Both of these theistic beliefs have managed to rationalise and accept (respectively) the sexual molestation of children. If theistic societies are also capable of accepting paedophilia then Averick’s point is moot and it seems that God does not totally agree with our hapless Rabbi on the immorality of pedophilia.

Irony, it’s everywhere.

Science vs religion: the effect of education

A new sociological study of UCLA undergraduate students has been getting some play in the sceptical blogosphere. Since it relates to some previous blog posts I have written on the LoR I thought I would go through it. Basically, a UCLA organisation called the Spirituality in Higher Education Project (SHEP)1 surveyed the religious opinions of the first-year population on campus. They then followed up with another survey of juniors to identify opinions influenced by several years of higher eduction. The study in question (Scheitle, 2011) focuses on the students’ perception of the relationship between religion and science.

Students could choose between four options to describe their view on this relationship.

Conflict – I consider myself on the side of religion
Conflict – I consider myself on the side of science
Independence – they refer to different aspects of reality
Collaboration – each can be used to help support the other

Categories three and four were lumped together into a ‘non-conflict’ answer.

Of this sample 83% of the students were religious. Unsurprisingly then, this means that 86% of the respondents went with non-conflict (69%) or sided with religion (17%). That leaves 17% non-religious students, 14% of whom sided exclusively with science. Given the large proportion of Christians in the US and that most are not of the fundamental variety, meaning they will have their science and eat it too, this seems a fairly straight-forward result.

Interestingly by their junior year, 73% of those who had originally sided with religion had come to adopt a non-conflict or pro-science position. This shift perhaps reflects the secularising effect of education. However, 47% of those who had originally picked science had also shifted their position. Not as large of a percentage of those who changed from a pro-religion stand-point but a substantial proportion of students. Even when the researcher looked into the data for only science students, the moderating effect of education was still present. Apparently, learning more about science decreased the view that science and religion were in conflict.

What I would have liked to be able to look at is the detailed data for both the independence and collaboration viewpoints instead of having them lumped together in a single category. If it’s correct that more education promotes a more secular viewpoint I would expect to see the ‘independence’ category increase. Whereas if education was actually supporting religion, I would expect to see a growth in the number of students picking ‘collaboration’. With the data in their current form, it’s impossible to make such judgements.



SHEP is funded by the Templeton foundation; any true sceptics will now hum the Jaws theme.

Scheitle, C. P. (2011) U.S. College Students’ Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 175-186.

Pope in fallacy

A recent speech by the current Pope, in Britain, where he links atheism and Nazism has caused some controversy in the blogosphere and in our own forums. The Pope spoke of “a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society” and went on to express concerns over “aggressive forms of secularism”. This is such a common trope in debates that I wanted to take an entire blog post to explain what I see as the gaping flaw in this form of argument. What I want to discuss is the way atheism and theism should be properly related to religion and ideology and why it is incorrect to set up atheism as the counter-position to religion.

Atheism, at its most inclusive, describes anyone who has no belief in gods. From even this basic understanding, it is remarkably difficult to see how atheism could be expected to produce any action from an individual atheist. There is no causal line from the absence of a single belief to any other belief or action, be it good or bad. Even explicit atheism (the denial of gods) does not imply any further belief or action. If we say this for atheism, in order to be consistent, we must also say this for theism. Theism (the belief in gods), as a single belief, does not entail any other beliefs or actions by the individual theist. A theist may believe in the philosopher’s god, a non-interventionist god, Allah, the trinity, or a whole pantheon of pagan gods. But even these basic beliefs about the nature of gods are additional to the initial claim of theism, not derived from it. Taking the example of the Thirty Years war, the Pope would have us blame theism for the conflict. However, given both sides of the conflict were theists this conclusion makes little sense. The true dividing factor was the different religions, Catholicism and Protestantism, which each side maintained. My contention is that while atheism and theism are blameless in the great atrocities of history, ideology and religion should be held to account.

Ideologies and religions are not single beliefs but whole belief systems and as such can serve as powerful motivators for individuals. While each belief in the system may not be cause for action, the combination of various beliefs produces stimulus for the individual. A single belief in the existence of Hell does little to motivate a person unless further beliefs such as the nature of sin, the possibility of salvation, and a divine overseer are part of the overall belief system. Nazi Ideology, to take the Pope’s example, is a powerfully motivating belief system. What gave the Nazi party its appeal in post WWI Germany was its staunch conservatism and a resistance to the liberal direction of the Wiemar republic. The Nazi’s were anti-communistic, anti-atheist, anti-homosexual, anti-immigrant, and anti-semetic. While not necessary a Christian movement, the Nazi party endorsed Christianity and, in turn, received support from the more conservative Catholic and Lutheran churches. The Catholic church even assisted in tracking down those of Jewish descent by opening its records on marriages and births to the Nazi party. While there were Christians who opposed Nazism the record of Christianity in Germany is one of acquiescence and support rather opposition or resistance.

Taking the historical record of Christianity in Hitler’s Germany and applying the Pope’s recent “reasoning” we should conclude that theism is to blame for Nazism. Note that this would not only include the denominations of Christianity that supported Hitler but also those who objected to Nazism. It would also include Muslim and Hindu theists who had nothing to do with the atrocities. The Pope’s “logic” would also have us blaming the Jewish theists who were aggressively persecuted by the Nazi regime! This conclusion is rightly considered ludicrous as it lacks all subtlety by failing to distinguish between those guilty of the crime and those victimised by it. This is the gaping flaw I wanted to identify. It is not theism or atheism that is to blame for Nazi Germany but primarily the ideology of Nazism and secondarily the religions of Catholicism and Lutheranism.

What we all should realise is it religions and ideologies that are to blame in these historical atrocities not individual beliefs. In the case of the Soviet Union it was a type of Marxism, not atheism, which was the problem. During the Thirty Years war it was types of Christianity which were the problem, not theism. In Hitler’s Germany it was a type of political movement and on 9/11 it was a type of Islam. In no way is either atheism or theism to blame for these devastating events. One final point, I think we atheists contribute to this misperception by setting up atheism in opposition to religion – this is a mistake. Theism is the opposite of atheism and we should make this point clear in all our communication on the subject. We should also reserve our criticism of the historical record for the ideologies and religions that are at fault, and not try to extend this critique to cover all types of theism.

Buried chest high

A very powerful poem written by an ex-Muslim YouTube user. Some of the images may be disturbing.

Science vs. religion: are they incompatible?

One question that frequently confronts the New Atheists (especially those with a scientific background) is whether a religion and science are incompatible. The stock answer is that many religious leaders accept science as a good way to understand the natural world and conversely, many scientists have a religious faith (Ken Miller and Francis Collins come to mind). In a previous blog post I talked about how sociological research had revealed that about half of American scientists are able to both perform cutting-edge science and maintain a religious identity. An even larger proportion is still interested in matters of spirituality despite daily engaging in rational, empirical inquiry.

These facts show there is, at least, a kind of ‘brute compatibility’ between science and religion; a single person can hold both ideas simultaneously. However, the obvious counter to ‘brute compatibility’ is to point out that in certain cases the findings of science to conflict with specific claims about how the nature of the world. For example, if you claim that the world is 6,000 years old, science says you are wrong. According to empirical data, the world is more like 4.5 billion years old and anyone who says the scientific evidence shows otherwise is simply mistaken. Because science can only conflict with specifically defined religious claims, I call this ‘specific incompatibility’. Although this type of incompatibility is important, and probably accounts for a large proportion of science’s moderating impact on religion, it does not completely contradict all types of religious claims. Again, this answer is too superficial; the original question is asking something more fundamental - are religion and science incompatible at the deeper, philosophical level?

Here we must start with a rigorous understanding of the exact nature of science, its epistemological limits, and the assumptions it makes. First science assumes that the universe exists and is, broadly speaking, observer independent. This assumption avoids the problem of solipsism, where I could construct an argument based on the idea that the universe is simply a figment of my (hyperactive) imagination. The second assumption brings in causality, scientists must assume that causes and effects are empirical (observable and measurable) and, more importantly, natural. That these causes must be empirical is fairly self-explanatory. If we cannot observe and measure we cannot draw any inferences, offer any explanations, or say anything at all about them! Basically, we would not be able to do science. Less clear might be why science can only approach natural causes rather than supernatural ones.

Let’s use an example to help highlight the problem of supernatural causes. A nice set of evidence for evolution is that of the fossil record. Without going into too much detail, the arrangement and transitions of different fossil types is empirical evidence for evolution occurring in the real world (the universe out there). However, along comes a supernaturalist, and he to us “yes, I agree with your observations and measurements of the fossil evidence, however God (or other supernatural cause) made it so the fossil record appeared to support evolution but in reality the theory is wrong.” This is a serious and unsolvable problem for science and it can be applied to any other explanation or conclusion derived from methods based on the two assumptions above. If supernatural causes are allowed the best of real, verifiable, and empirical science will frequently give the wrong answer. If God (et al) always makes the observed and measured evidence look like it is supporting the wrong conclusion no appeal to empiricism can save a scientific theory – by definition. This is why science must reject supernatural causation and become methodologically naturalist at the outset. Without this assumption we would not be able to do science.

Methodological naturalism, therefore, means that science cannot ever make a judgement on supernatural claims. Science assumes that supernatural causes don’t exist and gets on with its job of figuring out the observable universe. As religion, for the large part, is based on such supernatural claims (God caused the universe, Karma causes ill luck, Boobs cause earthquakes) science has very little to do with the majority of religious assertions. I call this ‘philosophical compatibility’, as an understanding of the philosophy of science shows that science and religion are not in conflict. I accept that in specific cases religious claims may contradict with the findings of science and in those cases religion is wrong, but we can always take the step back to the philosophical level and show that such ‘contradictions’ may not be problematic if we allow for supernatural causes.

There’s one last level I want to discuss and that is ‘metaphysical incompatibility’. Working from science and its assumption of methodological naturalism one might take the eminently reasonable position of philosophical naturalism – supernatural forces positively do not exist in the real world. Note that this is not a scientific position but a metaphysical one, albeit one informed by scientific understanding. Science is insufficient to get us to philosophical naturalism, the move also requires reason and logical arguments (examples would include the argument from suffering of which I am fond). Philosophical naturalism is in clear contradiction with a metaphysic infused with religious supernaturalism. There is also a secondary incompatibility at this level but Feynman said it best so I’m going to turn the last word over to him:

“As a matter of fact, the conflict is doubly difficult in this metaphysical region. Firstly, the facts may be in conflict, but even if the facts were not in conflict, the attitude is different. The spirit of uncertainty in science is an attitude toward the metaphysical questions that is quite different from the certainty and faith that is demanded in religion. There is definitely a conflict, I believe – both in fact and in spirit – over the metaphysical aspects of religion.”

And that is the heart of the science/religion incompatibility in a nutshell.

Draw Mohammed Day

 

What's my sect? None of your business!

Quick one today on the growing calls for Secularism in Lebanon. Lebanon has an interesting constitution which stipulates that 50 of it's parliament have to be Christians and the other half have to be Muslims. Furthermore, the president is to be a Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni, and the speaker a Shi'a. The youth of Lebanon are unhappy with so much empasis on the various sects and want to move to proportion voting and a secular state. What's their sect? It's none of your business!

Mohammed cartoonist attacked

Lars Vilks, the cartoonist who drew Mohammed head on the body of a dog, was attacked while lecturing in Switzerland on free speech. He wasn't seriously harmed but the attacker managed to break his glasses. The security guards quickly gained control of the situation.



Several students can be heard chanting "Allah is great" (in Arabic) in the background. Violence is a totally unacceptable way to respond to satirical treatment of religious figures. Complaints and peaceful protests are the way to promote your dissatisfaction at the situation. The more certain groups of Muslims use violence to attack free speech, the more critical it becomes to continue producing depictions of Mohammed to preserve that freedom. This is going to be a hard lesson to learn about Western values, but they are going to have to learn it.

Draw Mohammed day on the 20th will be a good start.

Countering the Narrative

A recurring phenomenon in the spate of Islamic terror attacks has been that the perpetrators are often citizens who turn on their own countries. Mjr. Hasan's attack on Ft. Hood in America being a prime example. A recent 60 minutes documentary purports to explain how peaceful Muslims can be turned into fanatical extremists willing to engage in suicide attacks on the very countries they live in.

Recruiters for these fundamentalist Islamic organisations rely on 'the narrative', a collection of stories, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies that claims the USA and the rest of Western civilisation is trying to eradicate Islam. This set of stories has been propagating wildly since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and appeals not to the poor and needy, but to prosperous and educated citizens who make foreign countries their home. Consider Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC attacks and educated at universities in Cairo and Hamburg. Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the London metro attacks, educated at Leeds University and prior to the attack was holding down a steady job. Or the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. He holds double degrees from American universities, had a good job, a wife, and a nice house in the suburbs. These are the faces of Islamic terrorism in the West.

Even though there are many instances of Western governments defending or supporting Muslims in Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Indonesia (disaster relief), Iraq and Afghanistan (overthrowing tyrannies) belief in the narrative remains strong. This set of beliefs is also being successfully exported to Western countries, with tragic results. Hatred of those who kill Muslims is encouraged yet, despite the fact that deliberate suicide bombings by Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims than drone attacks by American forces, adherants to the narrative still direct their hatred towards the West and their support towards terrorist organisations. The narrative includes the idea that the US government actually encouraged Al-Qaeda to carry out the attack on the WTC as a justification to invade Afghanistan - these fundamentalist Muslims are apparently 9/11 truthers.

Funded by the oil revenues of the Arab states, political Islamism is attempting to spread itself across the globe by going to war with any opposition. Having seized control of many regimes in the Muslim world, Islamists are enlarging the area they control. Conflicts between Muslims and other local populations in Russia, Indonesia, India, North Africa, Europe, and the USA show they have been extremely successful in spreading their ideology and bringing the fight to us. According to Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation, countering the narrative is the most important aspect to preventing the spread of Islamism. I would add that moving away from an oil-based economy and ending the cosy relationship with Saudi leaders would also help by cutting off the economic backing of this dangerous, and deadly, movement.

Science vs. Religion

A sociological survey by Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University has asked a sample of 1,700 scientists from top tier American universities about their view on religion. Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion (50%) did claim a religious identity. The scientists in this survey were less religious than the general population, 52% said they had no religious affiliation compared with only 14% of the American population. A greater majority (65%) say they are interested in matters of spirituality. Ecklund has recently published a book discussing her research called, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.

Around 300 of these scientists (both religious and non-religious) were followed up in more in-depth interviews. Many scientists had the view that religion was not a topic for discussion amongst their colleagues and chose to keep their faith hidden. Others had unorthodox views of religion - not believing in God while still identifying as a catholic, for example. Only 2% identified their beliefs as 'fundamental' or 'evangelical'. The best news was that none of the interviewees though intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in classrooms.

Interestingly, the results of this survey indicate that learning about science does not seem to cause people to lose their religious beliefs. Most of these scientists had already come to their religious point of view before engaging into higher education. The biggest predictor of a scientist's religion (or lack thereof) was still the religion of their parents.

I think this survey has revealed some heartening information about the scientific community (at least in USA). Scientists that are also religious already understand the tensions between science and faith, and how to resolve them. These religious scientists are also more likely to be accepted into faith-based communities and have the best chance of imparting good scientific information. As long as they are not to scared to 'come out' to their colleagues, there is a great opportunity for some useful dialogue in the science vs. religion debate.



Ecklund, Elaine and Christopher Scheitle 2007. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ Social Problems 54: 289–307.

Did atheism cause the atrocities of the 20th century?

An argument that often comes up in the religion debate is whether atheism can be responsible for the crimes committed by atheists. In response to the claims that Christianity lead to the inquisition, witch-hunts, the crusades, and slavery Christians regularly respond that atheism does not have a perfect record. If these crimes can be blamed on Christianity then surely the crimes of atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot can be blamed on atheism.

There are multiple problems with this argument. The first is that it is fallacious, being both an argumentum ad consequentiam and a tu quoque response all in one. Although the atheist argument that Christianity leads to atrocities is also an argumentum ad consequentiam, I've only ever seen it brought up in response to the Christian claim that religion always results in positive outcomes. Even if the argument that atheism lead to the atrocities of the 20th century is true, we can still disregard it as an attempt to show atheism as a faulty position.

So, what is atheism and how could it motivate someone to commit a horrendous act? Atheism is the rejection of the claim that god exists. That's it. There is no dogma or ideology that logically flows from this position. Any other beliefs that an atheist has are separate from their atheism. An atheist could hold related ideas, such as secular humanism, but there is no direct line from atheism to any ideology. Indeed an atheist could be anti-clerical and hate everything about all religions, or they could be religious themselves as many Buddhist or Raelians are. But both positions are separate from their atheist. They is nothing implicit in atheism that could motivate anyone to action and so the argument on the evils of atheism fails here.

The next question to consider is whether religion is a motivating factor in behaviour. Perhaps the Crusades were not fought because of religion but because of some other ideology. This is clearly false. Many knights joined the Crusades specifically because the church offered them forgiveness from their sins and the Crusades themselves were fought to convert heathens to Christianity. Religion itself was the ideology and dogma that motivated people to action. Theism (the acceptance of god's existence) is the equivalent of atheism and cannot drive behaviour. However, add in a religious motivator like Christianity and the result can be great good or great evil.

What really motivated the communist and fascist dictators of the 20th century was an adherence to the ideology of their respective parties. The fascist dictators - Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler - were all closely intertwined with the Catholic church. Franco was a Catholic and made Catholicism the official religion of Spain. Both Mussolini and Hitler were probably atheists but used Catholicism to achieve their goals and motivate their followers. Both signed concordats with the Vatican and promoted their own piety in public. The fault here clearly lies with religion rather than atheism.

Turning to communism the picture is slightly different. Communist regimes are officially atheist but that does not mean their atrocities were committed because of their atheism (that would be to confuse correlation with causation). In the case of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot what drove their crimes was an adherence to the communist ideology. By far the biggest killer in each of their regimes was starvation due to the collectivisation of agricultural land - a direct result of communism. The second leading cause of death was murder of the property owning class in order that their property revert to the communist state. Finally, any dissenters or intellectuals were also killed as any opposition to the communist doctrine was seen as evil. At no point does atheism take a staring role in these human tragedies. Rather, a reliance and blind acceptance of communist ideology was to blame.

Any attempt to blame atheism for crimes committed by atheists necessary falls at the first step. Atheism is not and ideology, dogma, or even an -ism. It cannot inspire anyone to do anything, good or bad. Something extra must always be added. The same can be said for theism. Before theism becomes a problem, the dogma of a religion must be added. In the case of Hitler, a religious mix of Catholicism and paganism was what drove him to commit the holocaust. In the case of Stalin adherence to the ideology of communism led him to murder and starve his people. Atheism is guiltless.

The end of religion

The most interesting idea to me was that, on a world-wide scale, the non-religious (myself included) make up a substantial portion of the population. At a local level a particular religion may be followed by the majority but that does not translate into a wider acceptance. In Spain the dominant religion is Catholicism, in Greece it is Greek Orthodox, in India it is Hindu, and in Turkey it is Sunni Islam. But in each of these countries there is a substantial minority of the non-religious and their lack of belief is shared by millions around the world. When we are brought together by the communication technology of the 21st century, we truly are legion. No matter which faith you pick, at most only a billion people think you are right, billions more think you are wrong. I hope the internet can help hammer that point home for those with delusions of grandeur.

The day God hit reset

In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, the seas and the skies, the animals and even mankind. Everything was good. Until man learned of his nakedness, he learned how to take pleasure in the company of woman and soon the new world was populated with those who sinned against God's desire.

God decided that the wicked could no longer be saved so he planned to flood his creation and drown the unrighteous who would not listen to his word. But God did not wish to destroy all of his creation and so sent for our hero to build an ark. And our hero did built a great ark. On this ark was loaded all the beasts and birds needed to repopulate the Earth after the flood. Our hero brought his family aboard and sealed the ark shut.

It rained for many days and many nights, long and deep enough to lift the ark from the ground and float it along in the flood waters. Eventually all wickedness had been drowned and God allowed the flood-waters to recede. Our hero and his ark came to rest on the side of a mountain, in a strange land where the remnants of the ark may still be today. But where exactly is the location that the ark's residents finally came ashore to repopulate the Earth?

It turns out the answer to that question depends on which sacred text you read and which god you believe in. If you believe that the hero of the story is a man named Noah and the world was flooded by the god Yahweh, you would expect to find the ark somewhere around Mt Ararat in Turkey. Alternatively, if your hero is called Nuh and your god Allah, the ark should be located on Mt Judi in Iraq. But if you happen to be one of the Iraqi Mandaeans the resting place of the ark is in Egypt.

In the Greek flood myth, Zeus puts an end to the Bronze age (1500 BCE) by flooding the world. However, the hero Deucalion builds an ark which saves him and his family (but he does not take any animals). The location of his ark has been suggested as Mt Parnassus or Mt Etna. Going back even further (to 2000 BCE), the Sumerian hero Atrahasis is told by the god Enki that another god, Enlil, plans to flood the world to prevent overpopulation. Atrahasis builds an ark to save himself, his family, and his animals from destruction. The landing site of this ark was Bahrain.

With all these arks supposedly floating around it seems surprising that we haven't yet uncovered some archeological trace of any of them. Or have we? Well this week ABC carries the story of a potential ark find on Mt Ararat.



Exciting stuff, unfortunately it turns out to be a fake. Randall Price who was the arkaeologist with the Chinese team has denounced the find saying "In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut ... are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area ... at the Mt. Ararat site. ... During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film." (Read his full account here.)

Ah well, the arkaeologists will have to keep searching and they've got a lot of ground to cover. According to ancient scriptures, almost every mountain range in, and around, the fertile crescent, the Mediterranean, and Bahrain could have the remains of one ark or another. Good luck!