The Horrors of Shakahola: A Reply to Onyango Makagutu

On 6th May 2023, The Elephant published my article, “The Horrors of Shakahola: Which Way Forward?” Onyango Makagutu was kind enough not only to read my article, but also to prepare a written response to it titled “where do we go from here”. Below I reply to his response. To my assertion that part of why people are religious is that they have a hunger for the spiritual, Makagutu says there are many human beings who have no hunger for the spiritual – who do not have “the God-shaped vacuum”. It is not possible to resolve this matter conclusively here. All I can say is that I have met many who claimed to be avid atheists, only for them to begin talking about God in their sunset years, suggesting that their atheistic assertions might really have been acts of trying to silence the vacuum - forgive the rather dissonant figure of speech here. While Makagutu states that I made an argument about “the God-shaped vacuum”, I only made a statement about it, and there is a vast difference between a statement and an argument. A statement is a single assertion, while an argument is an assertion based on other assertions. Besides, while he claims that my argument is false, arguments are never true or false, only valid or invalid, inductively weak or inductively strong. Makagutu then takes issue with my assertion that those who fall into the Shakahola-type deception have not studied their Bibles well. He claims that there is no objective standard for distinguishing true from false prophets. He even refers me to Ezekiel 13:1-7, where Yahweh condemns false prophets, to which I say, “Well done!” If we begin from the presumption that the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, then it does give very specific criteria for distinguishing true from false prophets; but if we deny the veracity of the Holy Bible, then we arrive at Makagutu’s inference that there is no reliable criterion for distinguishing true from false prophets. In my case, I believe that “All Scripture [the Holy Bible] is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB). Makagutu’s response to my answer to my second question, namely, whether there is any difference between political and religious fanaticism, is unclear, so I hope he will make it clear in due course. On the third question of what is to be done, Makagutu is emphatic that I provide no answer - that the self-regulation I propose is no answer. I disagree: self-regulation based on clear guidelines is an answer which protects the public both from state tyranny and religious fanaticism. Makagutu claims that as an academic I should have proposed education that encourages critical thinking, as well as ridicule of some religious beliefs as a way forward. Pointing to my position as an academic is engaging in ad hominem - attacking the person rather than his/her ideas. What is more, Makagutu’s proposing of recommendations that he thinks I should have made is to suggest that I ought to think as he does, and this looks to me like an element of intolerance. All in all, while I disagree with most of Makagutu’s responses, I am delighted that he has contributed to this important public debate, and I thank him once again most sincerely for this.