The most recent issue of the University of Cape Town student publication, Sax Appeal, has caused quite some consternation among god-botherers. I’ve sent off a letter to the Cape Times, reprinted below in case of edits or non-publication
The most recent edition of Sax Appeal was certainly an embarrassment, in that it was both poorly written and edited, and also not very funny. What has caused most concern, however, is the alleged blasphemy the magazine contained.
As an atheist member of the UCT community, the material that has offended believers offends me too – simply because it was purely abusive rather than critical, and in being abusive has served only to further entrench dogmatism and intolerance on the part of religious folk, and hence to impede the progress of those who seek to promote a naturalistic worldview, free of superstition, at UCT and beyond.
A further consequence of this episode is that it has led senior members of the University’s administration to feel the need to offer grovelling apologies, where none should be necessary. Sax Appeal does not speak for the University, and the University’s administration should not be considered responsible for the actions or speech-acts of those who produced Sax Appeal.
Being offended is something we have to at some stage learn to simply live with, except (arguably) in the case of hate-speech, which this did not amount to. Instead of running to the Human Rights Commission, may I suggest that the offended parties first try to learn some lessons in tolerance from those of us who constantly have to drown out the metaphysical noise generated by the faithful?
You can read more about the controversy at Taariq’s blog, which also has links to the Cape Times articles, as well as some hyperventilating from Galilee International Ministries.
HI Jacques
I came across your article as I am presently doing research before writing an article to a few of the relevant papers and individuals.
Agree with a large part of your article, however I am slightly confused as to whether you think that article should have been banned because of its alleged “abusiveness” ? (as in do you think it would have been “ok” if it was just critical but not “abusive” ?)
Granted I did not think the magazine was funny when I first glanced at it but is not that the point of satire? To ridicule and insult? Where would we be if we pulled off Monty Python’s Life of Brian, Rowan Atkinson’s various Jesus & preacher performances & sketches – merely because a certain group considered them “abusive”?
I am an atheist as well former UCT student and have been appalled at the attack on free speech that is being levelled regarding this issue. Having read SAX appeal in varsity – there have been various unfunny jokes in its history including those of Robert Mugabe, George Bush, Bill Clinton and Americans in general (as well as certain Irish / Scottish and other groups) – its seems grossly hypocritical to call for protection of certain individuals (Christ) or Christians when others are given the same treatment in the game of satire and (unfunny) comedy.
Defamation is not just about being abusive – the alleged defamatory statement needs to be false as well; according to the legal definition.
While I cant say I understand the intent of the writer who coined the whole “Christians who Understand no Theorem” thing – I do think it is gross sensationalism and a gross generalisation, however, lets not forget that christianity is founded upon the idea that a man died and rose a few days later. As well as certain ideas of virgin birth. Physiology and Physics have certain “theorems” regarding this and many of the other statements in the bible – Jonah and the giant fish/whale for another – seem to require ignorance or “turning the other cheek” to certain aspects of science.
Lets not also forget the whole crusade by certain christian groups (especially evangelicals) against the well documented and observed “Theory” of evolution by natural selection.Needless to say, not all christians are against evolution, Anglicans & Catholics for 2, however, the christian doctrine alone would appear to lend some credulity to the “not understanding theorems” charge. “Faith” & “miracles” as a reply to this will underpin my point precisely.
As for the alleged character attack on Jesus alluded to by Errol Naidoo, lets not forget:
Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
as well as other purported statements by him in the bible indicating eternal suffering for those who choose to exercise skepticism in accepting his claims amongst the vast number of religions. Being good, it seems, is not good enough, you have to “believe” in him – As I was gently reminded on Friday afternoon by a christian evangelist screaming in St George’s mall in Cape Town.
Hi Nick,
No, I certainly don’t think it should have been banned for being abusive. I was instead making the point that it’s another own-goal on the part of atheism (assuming that the writers are atheists), in that it’s likely to further entrench divisions without achieving anything positive in terms of offering coherent criticism. Simply poking fun assumes that the war as been won, in a sense, whereas it certainly hasn’t been, and we’re still at the point where believers feel no shame at expressing their lunacy loudly and proudly. In that context, I don’t want people to have any excuse to simply dismiss criticism of religion as offensive and insensitive.
As for satire, it often – and ideally – expresses a point of view rather than simply ridiculing. It could be said (and I’ve said it, in a letter to the Vice-Chancellor yesterday) that Sax Appeal was expressing a point of view, albeit crudely, so there are certainly no good reasons for banning it. Read the most recent post on this issue for more on this.
As for the rest of your comment, I certainly agree that Sax Appeal has been very offensive in the past, and will (hopefully) be so in the future also. That’s not guaranteed, because even though the idea of censorship is rejected by the VC, I fail to see how the editorial board are not going to feel constrained in future. This was an important moment for free speech at UCT, and regretfully, they fumbled it.
[...] Synapses Skip to content ArchivesContact « UCT: Sax Appeal and blasphemy [...]
I wonder what the reaction would have been if they had attacked Islam instead? Islam is also a Theistic religion. Of course we attack Christians because they generally don’t react – we’re more tolerant than you give us credit for. We could be ranting, raving and burning down Jammie Hall.
Not 300 years ago you may have been burnt at the stake for being an athiest, and yet you’re walking, talking, breathing and blogging. Perhaps Christianity has come a long way? Perhaps we’re a little more tolerant than you think? Perhaps our understand of Jesus’ teachings is a little clearer. (From my own point of view I do not for a minute think Jesus would have condoned the actions of the Christian Church in the last 2000 years).
My point is this: Christians were singled out as a target in Sax Appeal. We were painted in a light to look stupid and irrational. As if having faith in God is incongruent with Science.
Yes, we do have presuppositions which define our view of the world, but so does everyone else.
Hi Tony. The reaction would most likely have been more severe if Islam was attacked, and the apologies would have been more grovelling. This, however, has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the Christian outrage. It’s hardly a defence to say: “We could have beheaded or bombed you, but look at how nice we are – we’re just saying that you’re nasty people who persecute us, drink and fornicate too much, etc.”
The reactions are part of the same spectrum, albeit at different positions on that spectrum. Christians were singled out, and it that continues, there are issues of fairness – all religions should be criticised where appropriate. And it’s unfortunate that Islam so often isn’t, because of the fear that fundamentalists on that side have managed to create. But in general, I’m happy to assert that Christians – and all believers – are indeed irrational on this issue, and some of them are pig-headedly so, and therefore a label like “stupid” may not be entirely inappropriate.
As for presumptions, mine are testable, and I change my mind when appropriate evidence is presented. It’s not okay to have presuppositions that are fixed, no matter what the evidence says. And it’s no good to rely simply on the evidence asserted by the faith itself, for obvious reasons of circularity.
Christianity has come a long way. It will hopefully go a long way still – such a long way that it’s a mere speck in the horizon, along with all other metaphysical nonsense.
Certainly a more than fair assessment. I must wonder if you weren’t my Philosophy Tutor
The question that begs asking, though, is this: Is your presupposition that there is no God as testable than the rest? To presuppose there is not God must also presuppose that you know absolutely everything there is to know to make such a claim.
Simply to say “I see no evidence of God” is not enough to claim there is no God. I have not seen Tokyo, but this does not mean that Tokyo does not exist. I know people who have seen Tokyo to attest to the fact that there is a Tokyo.
The fact that I know others have seen the evidence of God may not necessarily prove that there is one, but certainly makes it harder for me to claim there is none. To assert that they are delusional because they have seen the evidence of God is the same to claim that those who have seen Tokyo are delusional, because I myself have not seen it.
But enough of the rabbit trail.
In response to the thread, I think it’s time that Christians do start standing up for their beliefs. It gets trampled on way too quickly. Only 4% of the South African population is Muslim, and yet we’re too scared to attack the minority. But when an overwhelming majority is attacked we tell them they’re over-reacting.
I would like to see more unity within the Christian Community. If 80% of our society claims to be Christian, then why are our beliefs, morals and ethics sidelines in schools and politics? Why is society ignoring the majority?
I could go on and on for hours … point is that neither of us will back down from our presuppositions, so what’s the point of arguing. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I suppose we should learn to respect one another.
Nice try re. the “respect one another” – I can respect you, but I’m afraid I can’t respect your beliefs. On the rabbit-trail: would you insist on equal agnosticism regarding unicorns? The point is that we all operate very comfortably on the principle that the more implausible the hypothesis, the greater the evidence for it required. In other words, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
My belief that there is no god has the upper hand in this game, because god explains nothing that can’t be explained (either potentially or actually) by science. It was a useful fable for societal control, and reassurance in the face of mysteries and the fear of death, before we had access to books, educations, and the tools of reason. Now it’s simply an anachronism.
As for morality, your beliefs, morals and ethics have a very firm hold on society, though obviously not as firm as you’d prefer. People like me would obviously prefer to teach people to be good in ways that don’t depend on a bunch of fictional corrolaries, as then people may be more motivated to actually stick with those principles. So I’d invert things, and argue that there is moral chaos mostly because there is too much, rather than too little, religion in society.
We could both go on for hours, indeed. But thanks for at least being polite about the disagreement, which is an approach that some of your peers would do well to adopt.
Polite debate could probably be seen as a little boring, although I must admit I grow weary of the “believers” who feel they need to drown out the opposition by shouting more loudly and then when they lose an argument resort to Hell, Fire and Brimstone. It makes Christians look like idiots.
Personally I know quite a few people who would like unicorns to exist … and who am I to say there weren’t any before? To make this claim I must know everything about everything to know.
Personally I don’t think we need God to explain anything doesn’t give us a reason why He shouldn’t exist. God predates the Universe and Time. He Pre-existed everything. It is, however, interesting when you study Quantum Physics to understand that there are a few anomalies that can’t be explained away.
I am not a student of QP, but I know of two or three scientists who admitted that they cannot presuppose there is not God when looking at the transition between matter and energy. “Something” that can’t be explained.
I do not deny that science may come up with a plausible explanation in the future that may or may not substantiate the existence of God. I do however think it may be a bit arrogant on our part to expect God to substantiate His own existence.
The question I would like to pose: If, by chance, science found some formidable proof FOR the existence of God, how open would athiests be to accept this proof? And what would the consequences of such a belief be?
Good question at the end. Atheists are, at the end of the day, H. Sapiens like any other, and are therefore reasonably dumb. I fear that many of them would become as closed-minded as the people they have been criticising all the years. Not me, of course.
But remember – even if we found irrefutable proof for the existence of god, there’s still a huge leap from there to knowing what god’s properties are, and therefore why we should worship her (and how we would do so, given that different god’s offer different instructions). You’re hoping for formidable proof of a particular god, which is a more difficult task – and one which is difficult to imagine being possible.
from Tony:
“The question I would like to pose: If, by chance, science found some formidable proof FOR the existence of God, how open would athiests be to accept this proof? And what would the consequences of such a belief be?”
If there were any evidence I would certainly accept it.
But even if evidence for a deity were somehow found (say there was some evidence for a type of intelligent agent for the big bang) There would still be quite a lot of work and a long way off for people saying oh yes, this initial cause was my god, the god of the bible – the one born in a manger with 3 wisemen following his star or the god of the quran / gita etc etc.
‘ On the rabbit-trail: would you insist on equal agnosticism regarding unicorns? ‘
Perhaps not. But would I have insisted on agnosticism regarding the existence of atoms pre any evidence for it? Should would be agnostic regarding the existence of other potential universes that do not react withs ours in any way and hence are unobservable and untestable by science (parallel universes). Should we belief that anything that falls outside our system (of observable phenomena) does not exist? I’m not sure when a lack of any evidence for a claim should cause me to have merely a lack of a belief in the claim rather than a belief that the claim is false. Perhaps you could clear that up for me…
Hobo, I get your general point, but my response is quite simple: there’s no need to remain agnostic about things that serve no explanatory purpose, and where the things they used to be able to explain have since been better explained through other means. Lacks of evidence can – sometimes should – lead to agnosticism/uncertainty in cases where we’re discussing something that we have reason to believe exists. In this case, we have none. Except for reasons to do with our fear of death, desire for immortality, and the laziness that keeps this species looking for easy answers that take responsibility away.
From Tony’s comment:
“God predates the Universe and Time. He Pre-existed everything.”
I am truly fascinated at this – how do you KNOW this?
I have often heard this theological assertion and am fascinated this can be asserted over and over again as if there is any evidence for this. Do you perhaps have any evidence for this?
Since we are part of nature/ the universe, how could we ever get outside of it to see that there is anything on the other side? It is common for religious apologists to talk about things “outside nature” or “the supernatural,” but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything “supernatural” exists. By inventing a category called “supernatural” and relegating hypothetical things to it, they apparently hope to protect those things from the requirement of evidence.
Mind you, scientists sometimes on the face of it, do something similar thing in the pursuit of investigation (for eg. calling something “dark matter” / “higgs particle” but you will notice using these labels in science is 1 of the 1st steps in the scientific process (not to mention the fact that these scientific labels can be falsified by observation & evidence like the LHC will or will not do for the Higgs particle) – However, for religion these labels are the end . Ie God is supernatural and he is outside the universe and time and thats that.
By responding that a God, being “outside of the universe/nature” and therefore “outside of space and time,” could have designed and activated (say evolution) itself at the moment of his creation of the universe. it seems that you fail to consider all the consequences of inventing a realm or a being “outside of nature.” One important feature of nature is its orderliness. If God were “outside of nature,” wouldn’t he be “outside of orderliness”? If so, then this would preclude him from having all the wonderful behavioral tendencies, such as perfect goodness, which are often ascribed to him. What EXACTLY does God being “outside of space and time.” mean?
Does it make any sense to say that something exists outside space and time? When we apply the word “exists” to something, don’t we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time? Have we ever observed anything outside space and time? This argument always seems to be caught in the quicksand of contradiction.
Even if one entertains for a moment the odd notion that God could exist “outside time,” this seems to lead to a conclusion that he couldn’t do anything, including the particularly spectacular act attributed to him, i.e. creating the universe.
Time is the measure of change. If there is no time, there is no change. If there is no change, there is no action. If there is no action, there is no creation. If God were to exist outside of time, it could be argued that he/she would be impotent to do anything at all!
Although like always I am open to reason / evidence based persuasion.
[...] African communities – seem to be following the terrible precedent set by some of the responses to Sax Appeal, and will henceforth not allow religious discussion on their forums. The decision to do so is [...]
I see the ACDP has called for a UCT Rag Apology.
Although I understand the Biblical moral basis of understanding with which Kenneth Meshoe and Errol Naidoo approach the UCT ‘mockery’ of Christianity, they’re aiming at the wrong target! How are we as ‘Christians to expect unregenerate sinners to apologize for what they do best – SIN?! How can these people who have never known Christ, be expected to abide by His Holy Law? Again, we’re taking pot shots at the symptoms and trying to put plasters on gangrene wounds. If a ‘hate speech’ bill is ever passed, I feel sorry for Christians who dare to preach that Jesus Christ is the ONLY WAY to salvation. Good Luck.
Lance Marchetti
stand4truth@minister.com
Cell:073-8233388
Hi there
Two quick notes:
1. On the matter of God being outside the Universe and Time – it’s a christian presupposition, in the same way that most athiests presuppose there is no God. There is no evidence for or against but the foundation (or starting point) of theory.
2. I will be interviewing Errol Naidoo on my radio show on Monday morning. If you have any questions you’d like me to ask him, please drop me a message. We’ll be discussing the balance between freedom of speech/press and Religious Freedoms and Rights.
Tony
Hi Tony – which radio show (and what time)? I’d like to listen if possible. In terms of questions, there’s really just the fundamental one of why he seems to believe that merely being offended entitles his views to protection over and above those protections already afforded by hate-speech provisions.
HI there
Just in response to:
“1. On the matter of God being outside the Universe and Time – it’s a christian presupposition, in the same way that most athiests presuppose there is no God. There is no evidence for or against but the foundation (or starting point) of theory.”
My initial point still stands:
Does it make any sense to say that something exists (or is being) outside space and time? When we apply the word “exists” to something, don’t we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time? Have we ever observed anything outside space and time? This argument always seems to be caught in the quicksand of contradiction.
Also on your presuppositional comment, there are atheists who have a belief that there is no god. However, that is going beyond the definition & is what is considered “strong” atheism. See Wikipedia amongst others for more on atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
The definition of atheist/atheism is simply those without a belief in a god (not necessarily a belief that there definitely is no god/s).
I dont have a presupposition that the hindu god Ganesh doesnt exist – I just havent seen evidence for him/it. The same way I dont have a presupposition that aliens dont exist. I havent seen any evidence for them as yet.
That presuppositional claim about “most atheists” is just a theistic endeavour to not provide evidence for a being that theists positively claim to exist(apparently outside the universe yet whom still manages to sneek back in our universe & in our time whether in the form of the holy spirit to Mary or supposedly as his son Jesus or Krishna or Ram or Zeus etc etc).
Like if I said before I am still open to reason / evidence based persuasion.
It’s on Voice of the Cape. 10am – 11am.
You may not pick it up clearly at UCT. Normal Frequency is 100.4fm but it’s shared with another station. You can audiostream at http://www.vocfm.co.za
Tony
[...] the controversy caused by last year’s edition of Sax Appeal (see here and here, if you don’t know about this), the editor asked if I’d be willing to [...]