From here:
The BBC’s new face of religion is an atheist who claims that God had a wife and Eve was “unfairly maligned” by sexist scholars.
Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou has been given a primetime BBC Two series, The Bible’s Buried Secrets, in which she makes a number of startling suggestions.
She argues in the programme that Eve was not responsible for the Fall of Man and was not even the first woman, as the story of the Garden of Eden did not belong in the first book of the Old Testament.
“Eve, particularly in the Christian tradition, has been very unfairly maligned as the troublesome wife who brought about the Fall,” Dr Stavrakopoulou said. “Don’t forget that the biblical writers are male and it’s a very male-dominated world. Women were second-class citizens, seen as property.”
The idea that God had a wife is based on Biblical texts that refer to “asherah”. According to Dr Stavrakopoulou, Asherah was the name of a fertility goddess in lands now covered by modern-day Syria, and was half of a “divine pair” with God.
Dr Stavrakopoulou is a senior lecturer in the Hebrew Bible at the University of Exeter, and gained a doctorate in theology from Oxford. Born in London to an English mother and Greek father, Dr Stavrakopoulou was raised “in no particular religion” and does not believe in God.
Atheism is itself a religion, one which is gradually gaining ground in the West. Stavrakopoulou, like most atheists, exhibits tedious political correctness – even worse, though, is the BBC’s use of a member of one religion to ridicule the beliefs of another. If the BBC wanted to be fair – an unlikely turn of events – it would air a second program, hosted by a Christian, poking holes in atheism; too easy, perhaps.
“If the BBC wanted to be fair – an unlikely turn of events…” – if only people, around the world, would see the BBC as it really is, as you do. Remember we (British tv users) have to pay to fund the wretched thing, and have no say over its content, policies, appointments, etc. Taxation without representation. When oh when will the revolution start!
As a British TV user this is exactly the sort of program that I am glad to pay a license fee for. Archaeology fascinates me and scholarship is always worth listening to. Perhaps some feel that this is not what they want to watch but they can do what I do when Eastenders comes on. Just switch off!
That is all well and good, but why is it that every documentary made about the bible always has some negative undertones. Why not present the other side? There are many archaeologists that disagree with Dr whatever her name, but we only get to see a snippet, and then she comes along with her negative views! Not fair not fair at all.
My thoughts exactly, we are paying for them ridicule our beliefs. Every documentary made by the BBC always shows the Bible/ Christianity in a very negative light, furthermore which archaeologist can date anything within 100 yrs and guarantee 100% accuracy. Of course the BBC would choose an atheist to make that program and try to make us believe it was unbiased! I made a complaint and I hope any Christian that watched that awful program will too.
The last series I watched on biblical archaeology was fronted by a man who seemed determined to find evidence to support the OT, at any stretch. As someone with a deep interest in archaeology it was disappointing to see how it distorted the programme into a religious polemic on some very weak evidence. I am not expert in this area but can analyse what I am viewing and spot the distortions. If your personal faith requires a distortion of the evidence then you should ask youself if your understanding of God is not also distorted.
Asherah was Ba’al’s consort, not God’s! Good grief.
Actually, there are archeological finds that point to Yahweh and Asherah as a pair, e.g.
The difficulty for believers is that the bible is just one version of a past. But even the bible – one sided as it is – has plenty of references to
Human history, not divine.
I would just like to point out that, by definition, atheism cannot be a religion. It is true that atheism, in its very many complex forms, is a term that increasing numbers of people label themselves with. And again, by definition, religion cannot poke holes in atheism, as atheism simply rejects the notion of religious belief.
Instead it is for religion to prove its own worth, in both a practical and philosophical sense, in the face of an ever increasing empirical world. If it cannot then the world will eventually reject it. Might I just add, though, that neither religion nor indeed atheism need reject the idea of spirituality and that is something it is worth us all remembering.
Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou at no point ‘ridiculed’ Judaism, quite the contrary, as an rationalist she clearly showed great respect and enthusiasm for her subject and the many Jewish scholars and archaeologists who both accept and reject her findings.
Like a good man said “Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
It depends what kind of atheism we are talking about. A hard atheist who claims the proposition “God does not exist” to be true is making a statement of faith – a religious statement – since the proposition is unprovable.
A soft atheist who says “I don’t believe in God” would more properly be termed an agnostic, since absence of belief is something that dissipates on the arrival of sufficiently convincing evidence – as in the statement “I don’t believe in Martians”. Bertrand Russell modified his position because of this and in, later years, declared that he was an agnostic.
It is actually rather easy to poke holes in atheism; people like William Lane Craig and Anthony Plantinga do it all the time.
Atheism merely states that there is no reason to believe in God given the absence of evidence. That is not a statement of faith. Where should any rational person stand in relation to the existence of the tooth fairy? Is it reasonable to be (a) fairyist, (b) afairyist, (c) agnostic?
By the way, Martians may not exist as an animal species, however evidence of life has been discovered in the form of fossilised bacteria on Mars. On that basis, there is more evidence to substantiate the existence of Martian life than there is to substantiate the existence of God.
Chris,
That is agnosticism, not atheism.
There is plenty of evidence that suggests God exists: see this comment.
Theism is defined as “belief in god or gods.” The prefix “a” simply means “without.” Therefore “a-theism” literally means, without belief in god or gods. It is not a belief, it is essentially the absence of theistic belief.
The term “agnostic” was first coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869. The early religious cult known as the “Gnostics” claimed to have knowledge of the supernatural without justification. Huxley used this term and placed the prefix “a” in front of to signify the absence of knowledge. Agnosticism refers more particularly to the impossibility of knowledge of something. In short, an agnostic is someone who claims that we cannot have knowledge of the existence of something whether or not it exists. It’s a very different proposition from that of the atheism which simply denotes the absence of belief in a god.
I do not believe in goblins, elves, fairies and the like. I’m not agnostic on the subject; I don’t believe these creatures exist. I don’t need to prove their non-existence. It’s impossible to prove a negative proposition anyway. The point is that people who insist that these things do exist (including god) need to prove it or rationalise it. Succeed in doing this and I will change my position. To that extent, as an atheist, I’m much fairer and more open minded than the agnostic.
I am already familiar with the various philosophical arguments which as you say, suggest that god exists; ontological argument, cosmological argument, etc. These are not particularly convincing arguments and they have already been dismantled by numerous scholars.
But, as you’ve admitted, there are reasons and there is evidence; the fact that you are unconvinced by them doesn’t mean they are not there. Perhaps the molecules in your brain are randomly reacting against the perfectly clear evidence without your consent. Sorry, I forgot for a moment: as an atheist you can’t assert that there is a “you” existing independently from the soup constrained by your cranium.
It goes a little deeper than that. Bertrand Russell put it this way:
And:
Or, as I said in another comment, an atheist has to assert the truth of the statement “God does not exist”, something which Russell admitted could not rationally be done.
The goblin, fairy, elves mantra which is always trotted out in these discussion is really a red herring since almost no-one cares whether they exist or not; but if you wanted to be pedantic, you also could not prove the truth of the statement “Fairies do not exist”.
If you are convinced God does not exist, you have made a decision based on a belief, not proof; if you say you don’t know whether God exists or not, you have not reached any useful conclusion, but you have not done something irrational.
Definitions from a philosophy dictionary:
Atheism is irrational.
My definition of atheism is that outlined by George H. Smith; “the absence of belief in god or gods.” I think you’ll find that is the definition common to most people who call themselves atheists.
There are reasons why people believe in god, albeit not very good reasons in my opinion. There certainly hasn’t been any evidence of god’s existence. Feel free to produce this evidence if you wish. So far you haven’t done so.
Can I prove god does not exist? No, as I’ve already said, it is impossible to prove a negative proposition. No one can ever prove the non-existence of something. This applies to god just as much as it applies to pixies or goblins. The fact that people may not care whether these creatures exist is not the issue. Atheists don’t believe in gods, pixies or goblins because there isn’t any good reason to do so. It’s as simple as that. Yes, one could take the agnostic position and say we must reserve judgement because we can’t prove the non-existence of these things. But as I’ve already explained, one can never prove the non-existence of anything so this doesn’t really advance the debate about existence.
You haven’t nailed your colours to the mast in terms of declaring what kind of god it is that you believe in. At a guess, I’d say you probably believe in the god of one of the monotheistic religions; namely, Judaism, Christianity or Islam. In this case, I would imagine that you do not believe in the ancient Egyptian sun god, Ra nor the ancient Nordic god of thunder, Thor. In other words, you are an atheist in respect of those gods. Am I right? Or perhaps you are agnostic on this point because you can’t prove their non-existence. Okay, well most people now days are atheists in respect of most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. It’s just that some of us add one more god to the list. I’m sorry if you think that’s irrational. I think your reasoning here is the product of your misunderstanding.
Smith’s definition of atheism is a more testament to his unwillingness to be placed in the uncomfortable position of having to admit his viewpoint depends more on faith than it does on logic.
Look at it this way:
A person who disbelieves in God because he has not seen enough evidence to believe in him, if he is honest, will have to admit that evidence sufficient to convince him could exist even though he has not yet seen it. He is an agnostic.
A person who disbelieves in God because he has not seen enough evidence to believe in him, but goes on to say that evidence sufficient to convince him does not or cannot exist has made a statement of faith. This seems to be your position.
I am a Christian. I believe there is good evidence for being a Christian, but ultimately my being a Christian rests on faith. I admit that my beliefs rest on faith; yours do, too, but you don’t admit it.
I would say that atheism is not religious as atheism itself does not profess any sort of philosophy. Atheism does not tell you how to live your life and never will. I would describe Humanism, a view to which many atheists ascribe to, as far more religious as I think it makes claims on the integrity of humanity that I see as unjustified and from these claims creates a philosophy within which one can engage with the world. The question is do you have a hope, faith and therefore love in humanity? How can you justify this? The question for Christians is do you have a hope, faith and therefore love in god? How can you justify this?
So what does one expect these days from the BBC? one would expect them to select an atheist to present a programme about the bible! thats what it is to be prejudiced. Thankfully those who are very familiar with the bibles message, the importance of David in history as King of the Jews, and the promise that Christ will sit on Davids throne in Jerusalem, and bring the world into subjection by his righteous rule. Luke chap 1 “The government will be upon his shoulders” predicted by the Jewish prophet Isaiah … the importance of King David is seen in the very first verse of the New Testament! Oh for more time and space to enlarge!
I assume you were to add the slaughter that David, Moses and Joshua ordered or committed to innocent women and children. Today they would be hung for genocide.
A hard atheist who claims the proposition “God does not exist” to be true is making a statement of faith.
Yes, in the way that saying “sky pixies don’t exist” or “my cat is telepathic” is a statement of faith.
Hkrinkle,
Since neither statement can be proved, strictly speaking, both are statements of faith.
However, your point, presumably, is that the faith they exhibit is equivalent to that expressed in the statement “God does not exist”.
You would be correct if there were the kind of evidence and arguments that had convinced mankind – including many of its brightest specimens – to believe in pixies and cat telepathy for the last six millennia or so.
As it is, it takes very little faith to assert that pixies and cat telepathy don’t exist and a great deal of faith to assert that God doesn’t exist.
As I mentioned above, Bertrand Russell retreated from being an atheist because he knew that atheism could not be rationally deduced from any assumptions he was prepared to make. Unfortunately, today’s, so-called, new atheists have neither Russell’s intellectual agility, nor his integrity.
But, David, I was talking quite literally. Since religion, by dictionary definition, is belief in a ‘supernatural’ power or being, and since atheism rejects such a notion, atheism cannot strictly be termed a religion. So too, then, atheism has no need to prove ‘faith’ in anything at all, since it contains no such notion. Rather, as a belief system with evangelical ambitions, it remains for christianity to ‘convert’ those without faith. Because atheists take the point of view that they only accept that which is proven, it is necessary to either provide them with proof or to convince them of the merits of ‘faith’ as a concept.
I would also have to disagree with your statement in the last comment about it taking a great deal of faith to deny the existence of god. On the contrary i would say. Drawing upon personal experience, although having faith in god required a great deal of suspension of disbelief or a ‘leap of faith’ as it was called, the rejection of god required no more than confidence and clarity. Indeed it took no more than a look at the extraordinary reality of life as it is to see no need for a notion of a supernatural power. What was difficult was leaving behind the familiarity and community that the church and a parish provide.
I assume god is a hard atheist. Like Dawkins he doesn’t believe he was created by a higher power either.
Richard,
That isn’t so. There are numerous religions that don’t depend on the supernatural: pantheism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Gaia worship, Mayan sun worship, ancient Greek religions, pantheism, some Hinduism – to name but a few.
That isn’t so either. The statement “God does not exist” is one atheists believe to be true without any proof that it is true.
If your evidence for God’s non-existence rests entirely on a feeling that the supernatural is not necessary to explain the existence of the universe, then it seems to me that it is you who has taken a leap of faith.
And so too Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism feature atheism in their religious and belief systems. I would argue that the act of worship and veneration is itself an indicator that there is belief in something transcendental, while the Greeks had doctrines, religious texts, an afterlife, ceremonies, altars, sacrifice etc etc. If that’s not an indication of belief in supernatural forces I don’t know what is.
And no, atheists don’t believe something isn’t true because it isn’t proved that it’s true, it’s just that they only accept things that are proven by rational evidence. It is generally accepted that theories require proof of existence first rather than the other way around. For instance I can’t prove there aren’t any monsters in the room I’m in, I can’t see them but that doesn’t mean they are not there and it doesn’t mean I must prove they’re not there. However I have no rational evidence to suggest they are, therefore, until proven otheriwse, the monsters are simple imaginings. I say again that since it is christianity that asserts that god does exist it is for christians to prove that fact rather than atheists to disprove it. And no I don’t think the supernatural had a part to play in the existence of the universe – physics can tell me that, but that doesn’t decry from the marvellous beauty of it all.
Since you appear to be saying that you see insufficient evidence for God’s existence, you are really making the case for agnosticism rather than atheism.
Insufficient? I am saying there is none, but perhaps you are right, after all there are many facets to both agnosticism and atheism that we don’t have time to go into here. It is possible to identify as both, but since the differences in probability are almost indistinguishable I would say I am an atheist.
Anyway I still think it reasonable for a member of the academic community, without christian faith, to investigate biblical accuracy using historical and scientific means. After all they let a nun present her ideas on art and culture…
Richard, the reason I was pressing the difference between atheism and agnosticism was because atheism does make a statement that demands proof – proof that is largely absent – whereas agnosticism doesn’t.
As for there being no evidence for God’s existence, that is simply not true; the fact that you seem to think there isn’t any, suggests that you haven’t looked at it.
It is contained in the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and the argument from experience.
You may remain unconvinced, but you owe it to yourself at least to read and understand the arguments.
I assume you will include and recommend the ‘God Delusion’ by Dawkins among these papers to read !.
Considering Dawkins is a
philosopher,theologian, just a biologist, I think not.Oh dear. None of those constitutes evidence – they’re philosophical arguments. And if you haven’t found obvious refutations of every single one of those, then it suggests that you haven’t looked at it.
Addressed here.
Thanks for the information but not for being condescending. I was once deeply faithful and I carried with me my own arguments and evidence for the existence of god. I have spent many long hours studying and indeed searching within my own heart. After all it is not easy to turn one’s back upon centuries of tradition, one my ancestors fought very hard to preserve. I do indeed remain unconvinced, having read Anselm to Hume and back again. But no, now I give my wonder wholly to the magnificence of the natural world in all its naked molecular glory…
I didn’t intend to be condescending – although looking at my comment I can see it may appear that way.
I trust that, as a materialist, you do see the irony in one group of molecules – your brain – apprehending another group and ascribing “magnificence” to it.
Maybe when I’m having a philosophical discussion over a glass of red. I see the beauty in my wife too, but I don’t always see her through ironic lenses.
Dave, am I to take it you’ve actually read Smith? I doubt it from your comments.
You state; “A person who disbelieves in God because he has not seen enough evidence to believe in him, if he is honest, will have to admit that evidence sufficient to convince him could exist even though he has not yet seen it. He is an agnostic.”
No he is not an agnostic. The agnostic is a person who believes that something is unknowable by the human mind. Clearly you are confused by these concepts. I suggest you do some further reading.
Chris,
Although it is a sore temptation, I am not going to get into a “who has read more” competition. Particularity since it’s Lent.
I’ve enjoyed the exchange so far, but you seem to have lost the will to actually address the arguments.
I wonder will the BBC now put on programmes which will ‘investigate’ the claims of the Koran for example. I can guarantee that this will not happen. There would be too much fear of a backlash. As a licence paying citizen I think fairness is called for so I challange the bbc to ask an ‘atheist Koranic scholar’ to do so.
My personal #1 reason that I don’t like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
If religion “suppresses the entire drive to understand”, how do you account for Christian scientists and mathematicians like Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Max Planck, Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne, to name but a few?