Faith or Gullibility?

By David Rex Holt

"Faith or Gullibility?" was originally written in answer to the author's many friends who asked why he was no longer attending church but, as time passed and his studies revealed more and more anomalies in religious beliefs around the world, it became very obvious that religious deception was rampant in all doctrines.
This was nowhere more obvious that in the political environments in which those doctrines were originally conceived where necessity demanded some sort of unified stance by different groups of people. Much more than today, where technology can provide answers, in past centuries, naturally gifted leaders needed convincing stories to persuade the masses to act in harmony to achieve the best outcomes and so those people were, in that environment, lauded as "prophets" and even credited with what became known as "divine inspiration" although, in actual fact, their leading was nothing more than intelligent use of their own intellects.
Nowhere was this more evident than in cases where their prophesies directly contradicted the laws of physics under the name of "miracles."
A principal problem with this was that, when those so-called prophets expounded their ideas, scientific knowledge was almost non-existent so that rank-and-file people readily accepted them and passed them down from generation to generation - often by word-of-mouth because illiteracy was far more prevalent that it is in modern developed countries.
However, with increased knowledge, human wisdom (the sagacious application of knowledge) has increased exponentially beyond all reckoning amongst open-minded people of all religions to the point where it is no longer possible to justify those outdated beliefs when they are rationalised against the immutable laws of physics. This is particularly so when one considers that the entire universe (and, in fact, many universes) were all "made" without a single physical law being broken.
As studies become more and more logical, it become more and more apparent that the main reason for religious beliefs (whatever they may be) is insecurity where human nature cannot accept that life is a finite thing. People cling tenaciously to any doctrine that promises any sort of immortality whether it makes any sense or not and so the purpose of this book increasingly became changed from a mere answer to personal questions to an in-depth study of religious mythology and deception.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Jun 7, 2016
• ISBN: 9781514496206

David Rex Holt

David Rex Holt was born into a nominally Christian home in England in 1942 and attended grammar school where he attained O level school certificate. In the standard Mensa test he was rated at IQ 161. In 1968 he was transferred by his employer, Shand Kydd Wallpapers, to New Zealand where he eventually opened a photographic studio specialising in wedding and portrait photography and attained an associateship of the Photographic Society Of NZ and a fellowship of the Hawkes Bay Professional Photographers Institute. With the advent of digital photography in the 1990s, David realised that re-equipping his studio at his age was inadvisable and so he moved to Queensland where he attended Griffith University as a mature-age student, attaining bachelors degrees in Screen Production and Spanish. David's spiritual research at this time led him to the Seventh day Adventist Church because that was the truest to biblical teaching. However, his ongoing studies of world belief systems brought him to a realisation that the only bases for the numerous doctrines were ancient legends, traditions and folk-stories (of which the Bible was just one) through which each religion claimed that it presented truth and all others were, therefore, lying. This led to a very in-depth study of leading world religions and denominations a result of which was the further realisation that, in actual fact none of them were right especially when related to the immutable laws of physics. However, rather than adopt an atheist stance, David rationalised in his own mind that the universe as we know it had to have some sort of conception as opposed to simple random occurrance. Technically, this makes David a Deist in principle - although he doesn't wear that definition as a badge and readily admits that, whilst he believes in a superior creative entity, he has no idea who or what that entity might be or have been.

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 by David Rex Holt.

ISBN:      Softcover      978-1-5144-9619-0

      eBook         978-1-5144-9620-6

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

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

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

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

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 06/07/2016

Xlibris

1-800-455-039

www.Xlibris.com.au

742740

Contents

1. An Awakening and a Paradigm Change

2. Some Personal Background

3. Why A Creator?

4. The Harmony of Nature

5. The Alternative: Atheism

6. Did the Creator Know?

7. What Does The Dictionary Say?

8. So What Is Proof and What Isn’t?

9. Some Plausible Secular Suggestions

10. Prophets

11. Spurious Evidence

12. Myths and Folk Stories

13. Myths in Religion

14. Natural Selection, Atdaptation, Mutation or Evolution?

15. The Time Factor

16. Indoctrination

17. Love and the Original Plan

18. Ulterior Motives

19. The Power of Money

20. The Lust for Immortality

21. Robots and Cyborgs

22. Good Works

23. Heaven, Hell and Judgement

24. Deism

25. The Curse of Mankind

26. Tolerance and Intolerance

27. Psychology and Philosophy

28. Religion and Politics

29. Religion and Sex

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

31. Ritual

32. You Can’t Hedge Your Bets

33. A Much Bigger Picture

34. Just a Dream

35. Why Worry?

36. Suppressed Evidence

37. So What IS The Answer?

38. JUST IMAGINE!Open your mind

Appendix A.Extra-terrestrial life

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

Appendix C.What do you REALLY think?

A Message to My Wonderful Creator

Postscript

1. An Awakening and a

Paradigm Change

It is the province of knowledge to speak

And the privilege of wisdom to listen

Oliver Wendell Holmes

¹ THE WORLD IS RIFE with religious deception: It’s everywhere and it’s nothing new.

² Most bizarrely, the people who adamantly agree with this statement are deeply religious people—they just say it about every other religion but their own!

³ In fact, it has been thus for thousands of years and for over seventy of them I was as much a victim as of it everyone else. Whilst that naturally saddens me, I am not angry because I’m absolutely sure that no one deliberately intended to deceive me. They were—and most still are—all equally deceived themselves—the huge problem is that they don’t even realise it. Besides, it was my own stupidity that allowed it anyway! I thank my Creator (and I use a capital C in deference to one I personally consider vastly superior to us humans) that is no longer the case.

⁴ Please understand though, that whilst this is primarily an explanation of MY present stance, if it influences anyone else’s, that would please me because it distresses me that most of humanity—and especially many of my own dearly-loved family and friends—dwell in a twenty-first century world that is still very much governed by policies and laws the foundations of which have their roots based more on medieval superstition, mythology, pseudohistory and folk lore than on common sense, logic, rational thinking and proven scientific facts governed by the immutable laws of physics and nature.

⁵ When (and if) you think about it, this is, in itself, nothing short of ridiculous. Unfortunately though, most people never think about it at all! They just blithely go along with cultural traditions that they have never actually methodically researched or studied to establish their veracity.

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

⁶ However, with increased scientific enlightenment and understanding, this is inexorably changing. In scientific terms it has been changing since men like Aristarchus, Magellan, Columbus, Copernicus and Galileo postulated and ultimately proved—often to the ire of despotic religious leaders of their time—that the Earth is neither flat nor the centre of the universe.

⁷ Long before then though, popular fashion played a major part in dictating belief systems as explorers and travellers imported ‘new’ folk lore and traditions which, because they suited the agendas of powerful men like Constantine I of Rome (later canonised by the Roman Catholic Church) better than the status quo, displaced established cultures around the world—often by dictatorial or military force.

⁸ Sometimes those changes have happened and faded as fast as modern pop culture and sometimes they have been pitifully slow because human nature is such that when people sincerely and religiously believe something—no matter how spurious, unreasonable or outlandish—they not only tenaciously cling to it but because nothing more plausible comes along, they find themselves under some sort of compulsion to defend it with ridiculous illogical arguments and even try to inflict it on everyone they meet (even though most of them have never actually examined any alternatives) rather than lose face by admitting they were wrong or, at least, misguided.

⁹ Such slow changes have been largely generational and educational whereby successive generations, upon receiving knowledge that was unavailable to their parents, realise that what their forebears happily accepted as fact no longer stands up to intelligent scrutiny, logic or, especially, physical law.

¹⁰ That is the principle of fallibilism—the recognition that any claim justified today may need to be revised or withdrawn in the light of new evidence, new arguments and new experiences. Classic examples of this are the enlightenment mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 (above) and we will look at these and others in more detail later.

¹¹ However, one must accept and carefully understand how it is perfectly natural for people to want to share something they sincerely believe to be ‘Good News’ and beneficial with those near and dear to them. That’s what good people do! In fact, not to do so might justifiably be considered selfish. The problem is that most never actually methodically and rationally determine whether what they preach really IS good news or just good legends and folk stories.

¹² Nevertheless, traditional religious beliefs are very personal so that, whilst one person ardently believes his or her doctrine to be true, others hold totally different beliefs and, since practically none of them have any empirical evidence to support their thinking (even though they may say they do), none has any right to inflict—less still, enforce their doctrines on others. Unfortunately though, many do with the result that proselytism is rife in the world.

¹³ Whilst I do not intend to follow such a dogmatic course, I am, in the interests of education, the establishment of sound common sense and logical thinking and the erasure of ignorance, happy to share my reasoning which I hope makes sense and goes some way towards those aims for no other reason than because I don’t want to live in a false dream-world dictated to by irrational superstition, pseudohistory and mythology! Whatever conclusions you draw are entirely up to you. If you choose to live that way, that’s your prerogative! All I ask is that, for God’s—or whatever you happen to call your Creator’s sake, open your mind and, at least, read what I have written objectively. You owe it to him and to yourself. And never forget: A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it is not open! [Frank Zappa, 1966]

¹⁴ This study is quite long and detailed but, when it is considered that it deals with how millions of people run their lives, I believe that to simply skim the surface would be, to say the least, as irresponsible as the actions of those who proselytise irrational doctrines. I have spent hundreds of hours researching it so, for your own sake, I hope you can spare the few it will take to read it and even expand the study.

¹⁵ Therefore, if anyone wants to contact me about this message they can do so at [e-mail]. To assist with referencing, the sections and paragraphs are numbered. Also, to assist readers with more in-depth study, appropriate hyperlinks (underlined), which I strongly encourage you to study or watch, are included. A word of warning: If you decide to follow this advice, you may find yourself on a long voyage of discovery and enlightenment but then, when it is considered that we are talking about your very existence, I guess the importance of enlightenment is up to you. Sadly, some people just don’t care but I hope you aren’t one of them!

¹⁶ As I have studied various scriptures over the years and, in particular, some of the incredible (a word meaning not provable by the way) stories they contain I have become increasingly vexed by one particular question.

¹⁷ What’s more, this has only been exacerbated (rather than alleviated) by religious literature that has been part of my ongoing studies.

¹⁹ That key question is,

What is the difference between faith and gullibility?

3270.png

2. Some Personal Background

¹ For those that don’t know me all that well, before going any further, perhaps a little of my background will help to endorse my credibility.

² I was born in 1942 to a Christian mother—although I should say that her Christianity was really only a result of the very diverse British culture she was born into and certainly not as a result of any personal research of world religions or rational choice. However, I do remember that when I was quite young she made a diligent search amongst a number of different Christian denominations for what she called truth whereby she—and thus I, as her child—ended up back where she started at the Anglican Church. She died, aged 55, in 1971. My father, a chemist, was, as far as I could tell, basically an atheist who followed Christianity to placate my Mum.

³ Thus, to greater and lesser extents, for most of my life, I considered myself a Christian (if, indeed, I actually thought about it at all)—although I was certainly not actively involved all that time. The more I contemplate why I ever went to churches in the first place (including several other denominations before ultimately attending the Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1996), the more I realize that all I was doing was following a tradition initially instilled into me as part of my upbringing in what is popularly referred to as Western Christian Society.

⁴ In clinical tests, my vocabulary has been found to be two-and-a-half-times average and my IQ has been rated by Mensa in the 99th percentile at 161. I also possess two university degrees (neither of which have anything to do with theology) so no one could accuse me of being an idiot (although I am well aware that the demarcation between genius and idiot is a very fine line!).

⁵ Thus, as a child I was schooled in a doctrine whereby, regardless of where they live and thus, which religion they follow, much of humanity has concluded that there must be some ‘power’ or ‘authority’—often referred to as a ‘deity’—higher than themselves that created them.

⁶ I still hold that view.

3267.png

3. Why A Creator?

¹ I should explain, however, that the reason I still hold that view is based more on logical reasoning than on any legends, myths or folk-lore because, with all his scientific advancement, mankind has not (yet) been able to produce anything remotely approaching the astounding power and ability of the human brain, an amazing micro-computer weighing only about 1.5 kgs that makes split-second decisions, based not merely on logic—that’s easy to replicate—but, much more significantly, on illogical emotion where two people in identical situations make different ones—and all contained in a small space the size of a human head and fuelled by oxygen!

² Furthermore, man has yet to create self-sustaining and self-replicating life from totally inorganic raw materials. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, to believe in some sort of chemical spontaneous appearance of such a sophisticated entity as humanity, requires more faith than to believe that there must have been some demiurge greater than humanity that conceived and made it.

DID GOD CREATE MAN?

OR

DID MAN CREATE GOD?

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

⁴ Let me stress though, that the reasoning I explain in this thesis is mine and mine alone and, as I say in my message at the end of it, I have neither the right or desire to inflict or enforce it on anyone who disagrees with the rationale provided. All I ask is that you read it with an open mind and don’t allow traditional indoctrination to hinder you.

⁵ Anti-creationists propound theories whereby, in the primordial Earth, stagnant ponds containing a soup of amino acids were struck by lightning and the massive electrical action on them produced primitive life forms which eventually evolved into the plethora of species we know today. If that were true, why isn’t it still happening? The amino acids are still here and somewhere around the world there are about fifty lightning strikes every second (that’s over six million a day!). Furthermore, why haven’t scientists been able to replicate the process in controlled laboratory environments?

⁶ All this brings to mind the age-old conundrum, Did God create man or did man create God?

⁷ Actually, the answer is yes to both concepts. This is to say that, whilst, in my opinion, man (along with everything else that naturally exists) WAS definitely created as opposed to just randomly happened—that is, they are the products of some superior entity’s inventiveness and artistry—WHO that superior entity is or was is actually unknown and, therefore, to satisfy (some) people’s fanciful ‘need to know,’ many have been dreamed up (created) by different cultures around the world over the ages of recorded history and legend.

⁸ The brilliant physicist, Stephen Hawking entitled his TV series on the origins of the Universe, The Grand Design thus implying that even he, an out-and-out atheist, acknowledges that there was a design and therefore, by extension, a designer. Gotcha Steve!

⁹ Noted Mesoamerican archaeoastronomer Dr. Anthony Aveni summed it up most succinctly: "Unable to find spiritual answers to life’s big questions within ourselves, we turn outward to imagined entities that lie far off in space or time—entities that just might be in possession of superior knowledge." [‘The End of Time: The Maya Ministry of 2012.’ University Press, Colorado, 2009.]

¹⁰ Technically, Aveni’s description of creative entities as ‘imagined’ is correct although, as I have written, creation itself does constitute compelling evidence to support a concept of intelligent design, planning and execution. And, of course, one of the attributes the Great Creator gave to humanity was imagination!

¹¹ And in 1979, the late Dr Carl Sagan wrote, "I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws." [Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science. Ballantine Books, New York: p.330]

¹² As an ardent admirer of Dr Sagan I fully endorse his statement that it would, indeed, be absolute madness to deny the existence of physical laws and, therefore, any proposal that contradicts those laws MUST be regarded with suspicion and scepticism.

¹³ Another rather compelling mathematical suggestion that purposeful design was a factor in creation is what is known as The Golden Ratio (expressed by the Greek letter phi—φ) in which a ratio of 1.618 is found in numerous natural situations that should, on the face of it, be totally random.

¹⁴ Before mankind tried to imagine an anthropomorphic deity, the sun was a natural focus of worship because it didn’t take long for humans to realise that, without the bright, glorious sun, life was impossible and so it was perfectly natural for them to view it with reverence.

¹⁵ Nevertheless, as knowledge increased, the concept of a Creator eventually became more human in character as that was easier to relate to than a ball of glowing gas so that various entities emerged in different parts of the world.

¹⁶ In English, the popular generic term for those various creative entities is god and, in most cases, for purposes of specification and identification they were given names—Ahura Mazda, Allah, Amun, Baal, Baiame, Brahma, El, Hashem, Jehovah, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Shiva, Thor, Zeus, and, of course, God—with a capital G, to name but a few.

Unable to find spiritual answers to life’s big questions within ourselves, we turn outward to imagined entities that lie far off in space or time…

Aveni, 2009

¹⁷ Some have been unique (monotheistic) whilst others have been multiplicities (polytheistic) whereby different gods had specific responsibilities for different facets of nature or human activity (Mars, Prometheus, Ceres, Eros, etc.). Many cultures had an individual god for every conceivable aspect of daily life and nature. The ancient Greeks had well over 500 deities and other figures that ruled their lives and philosophy and the Roman Pantheonjust as many. As one Hindu guru wrote, "If you want to follow a religion where you get to worship any god you like, come to Hinduism and a basic Hindu maxim says, Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti" (There is only one truth, only men describe it in different ways).

¹⁸ Traditions from one culture have often been ‘imported’ into other cultures without even being noticed by the majority of followers. For example, in the English-speaking Christian culture, the word ‘Easter’—replacing the original name Pesach (Hebrew for ‘Passover’, the Jewish festival day on which Christians believe that Jesus was crucified)— is actually derived from the ancient Indo-European dawn goddess, Eastre and, interestingly, the Babylonian goddess of fertility, Ishtar, whose festival fell in the northern spring, is thought to have inspired all the rabbits and eggs popularly associated with the Christian festival.

¹⁹ Also, the days of the week are named in English after gods from Roman, Old English and Norse cultures.

²⁰ Often, objects have been appropriated to represent or symbolise gods (effigies, totems, animals and imaginary creatures; for example) and thus become focal points of worship. This is also true of most Christian denominations where they habitually bow down to crosses and statues of various Bible characters even though their very own Bible condemns it in the third commandment [Exodus 20:4, 5].

²¹ In the primitive world, natural phenomena such as thunder and lightning, eclipses, volcanoes and earthquakes have also been attributed to godly activity—in particular, expressions of godly wrath whilst rain, sunshine and fertility were expressions of godly providence.

²² In every case, however, gods have always been objects of reverence and/or fear whose devotees make obeisance to them. That obeisance varies from simple verbal worship to highly orchestrated rituals and sometimes the sacrifice of treasured possessions including even human lives (children, virgins, etc.).

²³ In many cases, the sacrifice of human life has not necessarily involved death but a total abstinence from the basic pleasures of daily living (ascetics, monks and nuns, celibate priests, etc.—a sort of ‘living death,’ if you will). In many instances, the latter might well be worse than the former were it not for the masochists and recluses amongst us!

²⁴ My point though, is that I readily admit that I have absolutely no idea who (or what) the higher creative power or authority is or was. Furthermore, and much more importantly, I accept in my own mind that I don’t really need to know who he, she or it is or was. That he IS is more than sufficient!

²⁵ As a rationalist, some may say, radical philosophical thinker, this makes me, by definition, what is often referred to as a Deist typified as one who believes in a creative deity based on compelling (if not empirical) evidence and, later, I will address this in more detail.

²⁶ Given my upbringing and education, my conclusions have not been reached frivolously. In fact, they are the fruits of much agonising soul-searching and study. As a result of this study, I am probably more familiar with The Bible than most people claiming to be Christians (in itself; a disturbing statistic but not the topic of this study). In practice, this doesn’t make for any sort of credential for Christianity even though it should.

²⁷ Simply knowing the periodic table, for example, doesn’t make a person a Nobel prize-winning chemist—all it means is that he knows the basics for subsequent theories and formulae! In the same way, knowing Scripture doesn’t automatically make a person a believer in its contents even though it may allow them to speak authoritatively about them.

²⁸ However, professing to be a Christian and NOT knowing—or blatantly altering or ignoring (ref: para. 20 above) what I have erroneously referred to in the past as The Human Being Manufacturer’s Handbook—The Bible—has to place that profession into serious question. Would a person needing heart surgery entrust it to someone who hasn’t thoroughly studied the subject? I doubt it! Yet, with their spiritual health, many people do it without question every day of the week!

²⁹ People who have a desire to become ministers of religion usually go off to the theological college affiliated with their particular denomination or sect where they spend several years being brainwashed by their previously brainwashed tutors to the point where they sincerely believe that what they’ve been taught is the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

³⁰ One only has to examine the doctrines of different Christian denominations and compare them with each other and more importantly, as just illustrated, with biblical teaching to see how erroneous they are and to realise that, in many cases, they are the products of fanciful and, unfortunately, political agendas.

³¹ A classic example of this can be found in no less a place than the Roman Catholic Church—the biggest and richest single denomination of (nominal) Christianity in the world—where the church’s teachings are so far removed from the teachings of the scripture it professes to follow that it is hard to understand how they can even call themselves ‘Christian’ at all and the almost pandemic paedophilia of its clergy is only a testimony to its absolute depravity.

³² Another is The Exclusive Brethren which, far from promoting a Christian doctrine of loving fellowship, it is an elitist cult that splits families and can only be described as one of the most absolutely evil organisations on Earth.

³³ The only reason I became aligned with the Seventh Day Adventist Church when I was a practising Christian was because, of all the denominations I encountered, that was by far the truest to biblical precepts. So, in my humble opinion, for what it’s worth, if you believe The Bible to be factual and not just an anthology of Hebrew folk lore, that’s where you should be! At least you’ll be honest!

3189.png

4. The Harmony of Nature

¹ Before moving on, please watch this short video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI. (Maximise to full screen and, if you want to, skip the ads and watch the follow-ups—I recommend it. You may be gone for quite a while but don’t worry, this will still be here when you get back.)

² If we contemplate the perfect harmony of the environment we live in, it is difficult to imagine how that could be possible without some sort of planning and execution so I will make my case for the affirmative and you, my reader, can be a juror.

³ Starting with the sun, a gigantic ball of continuous hydrogen gas nuclear fusion that emits radiation, including heat and light which, as with all radiation, under the inverse square law, diminishes as the distance from its source increases so that the Earth orbits it at precisely the ideal distance to provide an ecosphere suitable to support life as we know it. This is known as the Circumstellar Habitable Zone (CHZ) and every star has one.

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

⁴ However, in addition to heat and visible light (which, incidentally only represents about one trillionth of all radiation), the sun also emits numerous other types (gamma rays, ultra-violet light, x-rays and radio waves, etc.) that, if unfiltered, would preclude life and so the Earth is protected by an excellent and very precisely balanced atmosphere of different gases which filter out excesses of some solar radiation whilst allowing others through in just the right proportions to ensure a life-supporting environment. The ultra-fine-tuning of this has become increasingly evident as burgeoning human industry has emitted hydrocarbon ‘greenhouse gases’ that, even though produced in relatively minute quantities on a global scale, have altered the finely tuned balance to a point where surface temperatures are slowly increasing in what we know