Monthly Archive for October, 2007Page 2 of 5

Santorum Outs Christianity

Published
by
Vince
on October 26, 2007
.

Former senator Rick Santorum, the intelligent design proponent, gay basher, and all around neocon-wingnut, appeared at Penn State University yesterday to speak at the "Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week" festivities.

In what can only be described as an enlightening quote, Santorum said:
"While Christianity presents a humble, meek message emphasizing love, Islam stemmed from the strong rule of the prophet Mohammed.
Every aspect of life was ruled. Islam, unlike Christianity, is an all-encompassing ideology, It is not just something you do on Sunday…. We [as Americans] don’t get that."
So, like collecting stamps or building model trains, Christianity is merely a stupid hobby only to engaged in on Sundays. Cool. Thanks Rick.

What a freaking SHOCKER!!

Published
by
Robert
on October 26, 2007
.
Like we didn't see this shit coming--- Democrats worry Bush setting up war with Iran... Except now instead of claiming that they have WMD's we are going to claim that because they have the potential to have WMD's we should attack them? I posted a few months back on what I think about this shit, and it's again starting to piss me off that our war mongering President George W Bush has yet to quench his thirst for blood. I've never hated anyone in my life, but mr President you are at the top of my most disappointing people's list! Your ignorance and idiocy has put our country smack in the middle of problems that could have been avoided. In my opinion if you continue down this road this WILL start another global war. I am deeply ashamed of this country and what it appears to be turning into. The leaders of our country are acting no different than other totalitarian countries, claiming to bring freedom and democracy while destroying people's lives in the process. It's time we grow up and begin to use our heads instead of trying to prove our might. It's so damn hypocritical of us to think we and our allies are the only ones allowed to have nuclear power. This world needs to stop with the bullshit and treat everyone as allies. Course thats difficult to do when the rest of the world sees our embarrassment of a president, and the appearance that our country is a god fearing nation of christians. Why don't we just paint a big freaking bulls eye over our country? It really does not matter how much of a super power we are, if we start heading in this direction we will all loose eventually. I'm done ranting now.... Yea, this post may be one sided but just the thought that our government would entertain the idea of "bombarding" Iran pisses me off.

Religion and Home Schooling

Published
by
cragar
on October 25, 2007
.

 

My wife was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness in the 1980′s and ’90′s.  Her mother was very strict about it.  She would pull my wife and her siblings out of school during ANY days that celebrated any pagan or “worldly” holidays, including Halloween, Christmas, Easter, and Valentine’s day.  No costume parties, birthday parties, Christmas presents, holiday cookies, valentine’s day cards, etc., etc.  As could be expected in a school environment, she eventually got labeled as an outsider, being different or weird.  She never had any true friends outside of her family.

Because my wife didn’t want our children to go what she went through, when our children were old enough to begin school, she decided she wanted to home school our kids.  I hated the idea from the beginning, but she was passionate about it and I eventually relented.  So my eldest son and daughter were homeschooled for a couple of years, my son up until 2nd grade and my daughter up until the 1st grade.  She finally decided to let them go because the kids wanted to go.  Plus, and props to you that stumble across this and homeschool your kids, it is a lot of work.

The main thing I want to discuss is why would one want to home school?  When you do some searches there are really three main reasons I can find: Religion, Violence/drugs, and the parents belief they can teach better than the teachers.

I can teach my kids better than teachers in the public schools

In some schools and situations this may be true.  I live in one of the poorest cities in the US, which means low property values, not as much property taxes collected (although we do have one of the highest property taxes percentage wise, because of the low property values), thus good teachers are often going to go elsewhere for more money.  I live in a border city next to Mexico, so a large percentage of the incoming kindergarten students do not even speak English, which increases the teaching burden even more.  Yet so far, all of the teachers my two kids have had the past three years have been very good at both teaching and communicating what my wife and I must do to help our children progress.  In three years, my son had one C on his first report card upon making the transition from home-school to public school, and after that has had nothing but A’s and B’s.  My daughter has never had lower than a B at this point.  My wife, an ardent home school proponent 5 years ago, now thinks it was a big mistake to hold our kids back the first three years at home.

If someone lives in an area where the student to teacher ratio is low, the school district they are in is not up to par, and they have a stay at home parent that has the ability and desire to teach their kids, I can see some benefit.  But I have a feeling those scenarios are a low percentage of the actual home schoolers.

Too Much Violence and Drugs in Schools

Once again, there are probably schools in some areas of the country where this is factual.  Overall the vast majority of schools are safe.  Are there issues with peer pressure, drugs and violence?  Yes.  They were there 25 years ago when I was in school.  In my opinion you can coddle a child too much, and when they get older they are going to be naive to the real world.  Because guess what, there are drugs and violence out there too.  If they are not prepared to say “No” to peer pressure and the like at 12-17 years of age, what do you think is going to happen when they go to college or get a job after high school?

Religion

My wife’s reasons were the feared prejudice our kids may receive as part of their religion, as JW’s beliefs are not even the normal Christian beliefs, so they would not fit in.  There is some validity there, but whether our kids went to a public school or not they are/were eventually going to get treated differently anyway if they go this route spiritually.  Is it better or worse to receive these discrimination when younger so you get used to them or when you are older and ill-prepared to go into the real world?  I do not have the answer, but I can say my wife made what I think is a great decision and was not nearly as demanding on our kids as her mother was to her.  She does not pull out the kids on Christmas parties or Valentine’s day.  She uses me as the scapegoat but I know that she actually feels she was left out of a lot because of the way she was raised.

The other religious based reason is probably the most common reason many families home school.  They want their kids exposed to the biblical teachings rather than what US schools teach.  Don’t want those teachers bringing up the fact we evolved from apes and the earth is billions of years old now do we?  But more important than that is kids interacting with other kids from different backgrounds and religions and realizing that what their parents have taught them may not be 100% true.  An ambitious child may just start reading a little and learning some things on their own.

If the top two reasons were the REAL reasons some parents home schooled then I would understand more.  These are the top three reasons people say they home school, yet 91% of the people home schooled are religious, and more than twice as many home schooler classify themselves as evangelical Christians compared to the general population.  72% of home schoolers polled cited “to provide religious or moral instruction” as an important reason for it as well.  This tells me that the main reason is really religion.

Many of the JW’s my wife knows home school and the congregation encourages it.  I cannot speak for other religions, but going to sites like this one you can tell they like the idea of home schooling also.  The answer to why the encouraged home schooling is obvious.  JW’s, for example, are forbidden to even read apostate material and many of their articles hint that continuing education is overrated.  People who get educated tend to start to question things, dont you know? 

Since home schooling has only recently started this big boom, it is difficult to find any long term repercussions at this point.  As far as the education part of it goes, they are probably getting just as good an education.  The websites promoting home schooling will of course point out that kids that are home schooled get higher scores on the national tests.  This is true but you have to account for the fact that all of the kids home schooled both want to be educated and have parents that want them to be educated.  A lot of scores on national tests are from kids that could not be home schooled even if they wanted to as they are in single parent homes or double working parents, who basically use school as a baby sitter.  If you compared home schooled kids to kids that have parents actively involved in their public education I bet the public school kids are equal if not better than the home schooled ones.  Not to mention I believe they will be better prepared for the real world once they have to go into it.


Miracles, Science, and Fundamentalism

Published
by
Devout Atheist
on October 25, 2007
.

As an atheist, I am of course very uncomfortable with any religion that believes in a supernatural being. And as a scientist, a belief in miracles really drives me up the wall. A central tenet of science is that a fundamental, probably unchanging, set of physical laws has governed the entire Universe since just after the Big Bang. And no exceptions whatsoever are permitted! So you can’t get around inconvenient physics that regulates important events like death and the future just by calling in a favor from your favorite diety. And yet miracles are part of the fundamental (pun intended) fabric of at least three of the current major world religions- Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism.

Although organized religion leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I find that I can in some sense respect the conservative fundamentalists of any religion. These conservatives by God hold unequivocally to their ancient beliefs, be it Christianity’s virgin birth and transubstantiation (tantamount to cannibalism!), the parting of the water by Moses, etc. On the other hand, I hold little respect for the modern religious revisionists who say something like “We modern (name-your-religion)ists don’t really believe any longer that stories of miracles in the Bible (old or new), Koran, etc. should be taken literally- we now think these stories should be viewed as parables.” But if you take away the miracles in Christianity, I think you’re left with a pretty vacuous religion. Just think of The Book of Matthew, loaded with situations where Jesus had to pull off magic “miracles” to prove he really was the expected saviour.

So as religions go, I prefer one that sticks to its guns about its supernatural beliefs, and essentially says to the world (including all other religions): “One of us is going to hell, and it sure as hell ain’t us.” This type of religion steadfastly maintains its unadulterated beliefs, and doesn’t “cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions” (Lillian Hellman, letter to House Un-American Activities Committee, 1952). Such a fundamentalist religion, although sorely misguided about God (and often also about Science), at least represents a worthy adversary of atheism.

Open Thread: Do Militant Atheists Want to Wipe Out Religion?

Published
by
tobe38
on October 25, 2007
.

On my recent article Tugging at Loose Threads, Evanescent and Storbakken resumed a debate they had suspended on another blog. It was completely off topic, so I’m starting an open thread for them, and anyone else, to continue it.

Evanescent’s last comment was:

Storbakken said:

It is not my intent to go round and round again. But I will briefly respond to your comment. The point is not that Hitler was an an atheist or a theist, rather that his ideology was based on the notoriously atheistic philosopher Fred Nietzche much more than it was based on the teachings of Christ. Hitler clearly infused religious rhetoric to win the masses and most definitely believed his own rhetoric.

You’re right, the point is not that Hitler was an atheist or a theist. I don’t hold up Hitler as an example of theistic horror, even though he was an affirmed Catholic and his many speeches and sayings reflected one who believed in the Christian god. I don’t care if he did or not believe in god as it was irrelevant to his actions, which is exactly my point.

I never said that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, et al committed their evil actions IN THE NAME of atheism. I did say that atheism produced these characters.

So their entire personality and character was a result of them being atheists? No, I don’t think so.

As evil as their characters were, it was not atheism that PRODUCED this evil. It is vital and yet obvious to point this out.

It is interesting that the anti-theistic communist government of Russia actually sent Christian communists to the gulag. It is also interesting that Enver Hoxha did brutally persecute the adherents to the religions of Albania for two decades and proclaimed his nation to be completely atheistic in 1967 when he passed the Decree on the Atheist State. You can argue whether or not these fascist atheistic dictators persecuted believers IN THE NAME of atheism or not, but the facts of history speak for them self.

Yes they do, and even if I grant that atheism was the motive for these actions, (which I do not grant), the scales are irreversibly tilted with blood in religion’s direction. Even if was 50/50, that would still be damning against religion, after all that would just show that believers and non believers tend to act with equal altruism and equal wickedness, a fact that throws religion into severe doubt anyway. But when we consider that religion has ALWAYS been a constant source of repression and cruelty, and far outweighs the crimes of non-believers, you are left with an absurd inexcusable mystery. The problem is yours, not mine.

The militant atheism movement today in America is almost frightening in its fervent zeal to eradicate theistic religions. This anti-theistic movement desires to wipe out every person’s faith in the grand name of reason. Why?

First of all, I could say that if your religion was grounded on REASON to begin with, you have nothing to fear. But since you are afraid of reason, I wonder what that implies?

All the same, the charge of ‘militant’ is unjustified. Atheists do not wish to wipe out peoples’ faith. You are happy to believe whatever you want! All we ask is that you don’t interfere with anyone else’s life. NOW, if religion did that, I AM CONVINCED that atheists everywhere would shut up about religion.

Unfortunately, religion has never kept itself to itself. It causes too much misery, repression, suffering, and interference in the world. It has become a menace to civilisation, and if religion is eradicated as a matter of slow evolving history, so much the better. However, I will say again, we all have a right to free speech and belief, so as long as no one is hurt, I would not force anyone to do anything, and I think I speak for most atheists when I say that.

Storbakken’s reply was:

Evanescent said: “All the same, the charge of ‘militant’ is unjustified. Atheists do not wish to wipe out peoples’ faith… All we ask is that you don’t interfere with anyone else’s life.”

The charge of militant atheism is not unjustified when I am specifically addressing militant atheism. I agree that not all atheists wish to wipe out people’s faith, but militant atheists clearly do. Militant atheists fail to employ reason with the same disregard for truth as Fundamentalist Christians. And yet, ironically, militant atheists say they do it in the name of reason.

Militant atheists make grand statements such as: “religion has ALWAYS been a constant source of repression and cruelty.” There have been times in history when adherents to religion (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism) are crushed under totalitarian and, dare I say, atheistic regimes (Communist China). I’m not saying that atheism is the reason China oppressed, systematically killed and exiled many Tibetans, but I am saying that religion is not, as you say, “ALWAYS a constant source of repression.”

Militant atheists declare that they don’t want theists to “interfere with anyone else’s life.” Does this mean that it is better for theists not to assemble, not to visit shut-ins, not to serve meals to the poor and indigent? Or should they simply not allow their beliefs to shape their views regarding foreign/domestic policy? Just like atheists, there are theistic pacifists, war-mongers, Democrats and Socialists. It is unjust to repress another group simply because they have faith in something greater than themselves.

I’m not going to pretend to be impartial, I am completely on the side of Evanescent, but rather than dropping my two cents in here I’ll join in the discussion as and when I can. Enjoy!


More Thoughts…

Published
by
Robert
on October 25, 2007
.
This will probably be a regurgitation of what others might have said, but it was something that hit me last night as I was pondering stuff while sitting in front of a nice little bond fire in the back yard last night and wanted to write it down.

I watched this debate between D'Souza and Hitchens and one of D'Souza's claims is that our morals came from christianity and that many of the great minds that founded science were also founded on christianity as well. Between this argument and a documentary that I watched on the History Channel called "A The History of God" got me thinking....

In the documentary they were showing how god evolved throughout the bible. The "Evolution" of god so to speak or if you prefer how our understanding of god changed through time. How the biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc..) began the transition to a monotheistic religion and how god changed from knowable to unreachable or incomprehensible. They explained how the god started as El during the time of Abraham, then transitioned to a no name god when Jacob wrestled with him and won, then turned to a deliberate vague god with Moses by answering Moses's question as to what god's name is with Eyeh Asher Eyeh: "I am what I am"; A mysterious phrase, A Hebrew idiom of deliberate vagueness. Again this happen because in those days knowing a gods name gave you power over that god. I'm not going to do a full review of this show, but my point is there is clear evidence of how god changed over time to become what we know and don't know about god. This boils down to the simple concept that no one can grasp a new idea without growing it from the old ones. Something that we see when we look at the history of god. He started as El a knowable god and ended up unknowable as well as personal.

So, as I thought about this evolving of god I thought hey wait a minute. If the concept of god can evolve over time. Why can't the same be said of morals, and values? Not only that, but if new ideas and concepts must be grown out of old ones within the same confines of the current environment or belief systems, then surly the same is true with morals and values. Realizing that god is not going to provide all the answers, and is not THE answer to all unanswerable questions forces one to no longer rely on a god, but to rely on other people. The transition to this line of thought would then force people to admit they do not know everything and through communication with other people they would learn that other people can also have value. Not to mention the morals and values that developed around the same time in other religions.

And this leads me to contemplate other issues as well. If we ideas are grown from old ones, witch is very clear throughout history. In every field of science, math, philosophy, astronomy, even theology we can see how ideas and concepts were born then evolved to what we have today from within the confines of the idea's in their own times. So, when someone tells me Einstein was a believer it really does not shock me. I would not be surprised if Einstein used wording that was vague as to his beliefs. Look at the time in witch they lived. They were trying to breed new thought from existing idea's in order for those thoughts to be taken seriously they had to find common ground with the majority. In my opinion, if any of these excellent thinkers of their times were here today it would be very unlikely they would be theists at all.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage that great minds think alike. I disagree with that statement, I think great minds simply think.

I WAS PREORDAINED TO WRITE THIS

Published
by
Jared
on October 24, 2007
.
SO DON'T BLAME ME!RE: CalvinismFirst of all, I found your write-up very intriguing, Stef. I have a very limited knowledge of Calvinism and it sparked quite a bit of thought and reading. Rather than just comment I thought I would post a response. Why? – like my son says --- because I caaayun!Actually, I didn’t have any other comments other than the fact that I enjoyed the post --- Rather, I just

Deflowering the Tree of Knowledge

Published
by
pseudonymouse
on October 24, 2007
.
Arthur Vandelay at Five Opinions points us to a lengthy article on NoBeliefs.com outlining The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine(And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages). Did I say 'lengthy article'? I should have said lengthy title.

It is standard Christian apologetic fare to counter accusations of vicious antiscience repression (Giordano Bruno, Galileo etc) by claiming that the medieval church kept learning alive during the Dark Ages.

In fact, until the Renaissance, church authorities enforced the same sort of fundamentalist, regressive, power-mongering tactics exhibited by 'modern' Islam, which has desecrated the reputation deserved by its 'flowering'. If it had not been for Islamic scholars, much more of ancient learning would have been lost to Christianity's deflowering the tree of knowledge. Currently, Islamic science is an oxymoron.



apologetics, Christianity, Dark Ages, Islam, learning,medicine, philosophy, religion, Renaissance, science, theology,

Found religion? Get a second opinion.

Published
by
ShawnMilo
on October 24, 2007
.
Christianity and Islam are founded on the idea that you have a serious problem. Namely, you’re going to hell for eternity, and only they can help you. Of course, you have to live your life according to their arbitrary rules, disagree with established fact, and it would be really nice if you would give them [...]

– God

Published
by
SPace
on October 23, 2007
.
We saw this billboard in the backwoods of Louisiana this weekend. It was new to me, so I thought I'd check it out. (No, the concept isn't new. How can you miss God all over the roadways? I'd just never seen this particular billboard before.)Turns out, GodSpeaks.com has a new "campaign" running. This is their second go at it. My personal favorite is the "All I know...is everying. --God" one.

Think Different

Published
by
SPace
on October 23, 2007
.
I remember these ads, and probably because they were narrated by Richard Dreyfuss (I loved Jaws and could never forget that voice). The older ones (circa 1990) had MLK, Alfred Hitchcock, Gandhi, John Lennon, and the like.Someone (not sure if it's Apple) has made an updated visual version, so for your viewing pleasure, Think Different.

The Empty Vase

Published
by
tobe38
on October 22, 2007
.

Religion has nothing worthwhile to say on anything.

Evanescent

Theology is the art of knowing the unknowable. It is an immensely vast and complicated area of study requiring much careful research and dedicated learning to master. Many great minds devote their lives to the subject, gaining qualifications and passing on their wisdom to new students. It is, however, comparable to a large, antique vase: huge and striking, intricate and ornate, ancient and mysterious, but ultimately empty, and created entirely by human beings. I would like to use two modern cultural examples of proxy-theologies to demonstrate this point.

The first of these examples is the Klingon race, a fictional creation within the Star Trek science fiction stories. (I would just like to state for the record that I myself am not a Trekkie, although I do fully acknowledge the right of Trekkies to be Trekkies, as long as they are Trekkies behind closed doors and keep their Trekkieness to themselves.) A quick browse down the Wikipedia article reveals that, far from being represented by a few quickly assembled individual characters on a TV show, the Klingons come complete with biological details, culture, government, legal system, thousands of years of history and, perhaps most astonishingly of all, a complete artificially constructed language. There are many Star Trek fans who have learned to speak this language fluently, and regularly attend conventions speaking no other language for the duration. Many of these same Star Trek fans are experts on the Klingon race, and can relate their knowledge with all the scholarly grace of a learned professor.

The second example I’d like to use, is the land of Narnia, C. S. Lewis’s fictional creation. (For the purposes of this exercise, I am going to ignore the fact that Lewis was a Christian apologist, and that his Chronicles of Narnia were a Christian allegory. It has no relevance to the point I am trying to make.) Once again, we have a vast subject. Again, we have fans who truly dedicate themselves to the details of the subject, including Narnia’s geography, cosmology, history and mythological creatures and other inhabitants. Again, these enthusiasts attend conventions across the world to interact with one another. The study is taken extremely seriously and these people talk about their subject with great conviction, passion and command.

But the thing about the Klingon speaking Trekkies and the Narnia enthusiasts, is that they know it’s not real! It is just a hobby, albeit one that they take very seriously, and they are under no illusions that either the Klingon people or the World of Narnia actually exist in the real world. It is, to coin a phrase, just a bit of fun.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for theists. They are well and truly under the illusion that the characters of their study are, or at least were, real. Some of them believe it so strongly, that they are prepared to die in the name of that belief, and to take the lives of others who do not share it. Just like the Klingons, they have an intricate web of detail, names, dates, places, events and even mythological creatures, all of which they attempt to use as an elaborate distraction from the fact that they are without any actual evidence for the truth of their claims. It would be bad enough if they simply wanted us to believe that their fairytale were true, but it doesn’t stop there. On the basis of this elaborate fictional story, they want to tell us how to live our lives, what we can and can’t do, and that what we have learned about the universe through hard, scientific work is wrong. To the theologian I say: thank you but no thank you.

If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

Richard Dawkins


Come on! New species!

Published
by
Zennalathas
on October 22, 2007
.
So, I've heard a bit about there actually being a gene that gives a person a disposition to faith based thinking. Atheists, therefore, are simply persons without that gene, or with a different one.

Does that mean that if we made big enough of a fuss, atheists could be a separate species?! We're like the X-Men of reason! I dibs being Wolverine: I recover from all bad ideas, and then slice their heads off!

In all seriousness, it would be kick-ass if atheists were their own species.

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

HMOH #2: Destination?

Published
by
SPace
on October 22, 2007
.
Over the weekend, in talking with someone I met for the first time, I was asked a question that wasn't mine to answer. (If it is relevant, this person grew up in a home with a Jewish parent and a Christian parent). We were talking about church and that I am okay with my kids going to the Methodist church with their dad. Methodists don't tend to preach fire and brimstone and that all

Agnostics are Atheists

Published
by
ShawnMilo
on October 22, 2007
.
When I wrote about agnostics last week, I received some feedback disagreeing with the idea that agnostics are atheists by default. Agnostics are atheists, and I tried to explain it as clearly as I could. However, as is often the case, someone else put it much more simply than I could. I heard this simple [...]

Organised Atheism

Published
by
Richard
on October 21, 2007
.

There is no God: Spice Girls are Back Together Again @ DiggI’ve been holding off talking about Richard Dawkins’ “Out Campaign” for a while (yes, it’s probably all died down by now – you’ve either got a scarlet “A” on your t-shirt, website, car and baby, or you don’t) because I still haven’t figured out what I really think about it. On one hand, I applaud the effort to bring atheists together and to “out” themselves, but on the other, I still see the label “Atheist” as useful as “non-chocolate lover” or non-spice girls fan1.

Of course, the use of the word “atheist” (and therefore the need to “out” oneself) has been stirred up recently by Sam Harris at an Atheist Alliance conference in Washington2 – there are no “non-racists”, so “why are we defining ourselves by something that should simply be the case”3?

Every political or social group have certain beliefs and/or interests in common. A football team shares a love of sports, and possibly a belief that football is a worthwhile pursuit. A political group might share certain values and beliefs about how a society should function. A religion, well, they often share beliefs about a great many things: politics, sexuality, family values, etc. But more importantly – they share a belief in a supernatural being (or spirit, or afterlife, etc.).

What do atheists share? Nothing. Many of us can’t even agree on a definition of Atheism! I don’t mean to say that there’s nothing that we share, but what we do share is, quite literally, “nothing” – we share a nonexistent thing4: a lack of a belief in God. While this probably gives us a more common understanding of God than most religious people (even within the same religion or denomination, it seems every person has their own understanding of exactly what or who God is), this doesn’t seem to be a great foundation for an alliance.

Am I going to “come out”, well – yes, and no. I am without religion. I am, therefore, an atheist. I am also without racism, and am therefore non-racist. I have never killed anyone, and am therefore a non-murderer. I further have no love for chocolate5, no love of ABBA or the Spice Girls and most certainly no belief in fairies or celestial teapots. If you wish to define me by any of these “labels”, feel free – but I certainly don’t.

  1. Harris explains it much better than I could on his website
  2. Partial transcript available at Washington Post
  3. Hemant Mehta (Oct 1, 2007) Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007 (Recap)
  4. Nothing (n) A nonexistent thing
  5. I wonder if coming out as an atheist, or an non-chocoholic would create more of a stir?

Euthyphro who?

Published
by
Juno Walker
on October 20, 2007
.

Does God choose what is morally good because it is good, or is "morally good" whatever God says it is?

I think many non-academic Christian apologists tend to underestimate the power of this simple question. Either that, or they don't understand it, or simply refuse to acknowledge its force. Granted, there are several permutations of the basic argument, but the central thrust remains the same: God is not required for morality.

Why? Because if God chooses what is morally good because it's good, then what is morally good is something separate from God; and if what is morally good is whatever God says it is, then morality is completely arbitrary. For instance, God could have chosen genocide as a moral good. In fact, a sample from the Christian Old Testament might well support the claim that God is in fact evil:

After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide:"Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life.

When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.

[Emphasis mine]

We can agree with Thomas Jefferson that the God of the Old Testament is indeed "a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - to say the least.

The church in which I grew up - in the tradition of the Plymouth Brethren - held what is called a dispensationalist view of the Bible. Basically, this is the view that says God is indeed immutable, but has chosen to deal with his people in different ways at different times. In other words, the God of the Old Testament needed to act in these barbaric ways - or to have his "chosen people" act in these barbaric ways - because it was necessary and fitting for such a people to be worthy of the land the Lord promised them. It's a fancy rationalization for saying that we cannot understand God's ways, so we better not question them.

But unless we are sociopaths, we rightly feel a nauseous abhorrence toward these acts of genocide. We felt that way about Adolf Hitler; we felt that way about Saddam Hussein. We see it today in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has either morphed from a religious conflict into a political one, or is a muddled mixture of religion and politics.

The impetus for this blog post came from a recent article in American Thinker, titled, "About Evil." The author attempts to defuse what is probably the most damning indictment of the Christian conception of God: the "problem of evil." I prefer to call it the "problem of suffering" because the word "evil" is, to me, a theological concept without any real meaning. The problem of suffering can be summed up thusly: if a personal God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then how can there be suffering in the world? Either God knows about it but is powerless to stop it, in which case he can't be omnipotent; or God doesn't know about it, in which case he is not omniscient; or God knows about it and could put a stop to it, but doesn't care to, in which case he is not omnibenevolent.

The article's author writes:

Then, when saying that we cannot believe in God because of the existence of evil, we accept a contradiction. If God doesn't exist, how can we label a position evil with credibility?

I think he's sidestepping the issue here. We don't need God to tell us that we suffer, that some things make us unhappy or cause us pain. These are facts of existence; it doesn't matter what we label them. And when the author writes that "for a standard to judge what is good and evil, it must be both outside and above them," this certainly applies to the concept of God as well. We judge God's actions as good or evil based on some standard other than God himself. We judge that it is wrong to kill "twelve thousand men and women" in a single day.

I think Christians would need to answer for the reprehensible moral behavior of their Old Testament God before they can claim that he is the standard for morality.

Instead of wasting time try to explain away the embarrassing bits of a 3,000 year-old compilation of dubious moral reasoning, I think we should get on with the very real task of figuring out how to live with each other in the here and now.








Technorati tags:

, ,





Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Atheism

Published
by
Devout Atheist
on October 19, 2007
.

When my son was about 16, he asked me if I was sure that God doesn’t exist. I replied that I was not absolutely certain about this; but that I was also not absolutely certain that no far-off planet is continuously orbited by purple pigs wearing pink tutus. With no evidence for either God or the purple pigs, both seemed to me equally unlikely.

Theists believe, based on faith, that God is everywhere, including our bodies and minds. Can we atheists ever believe in the presence within us of something(s) that we not only can’t detect, but is not even a constituent of our physical bodies? Dark matter and dark energy are good candidates for just such entities. The normal matter-energy in the universe (our bodies and everything else we can detect) is a tiny fraction (c. 4%) of the total matter-energy. The rest is about 23% dark (no interaction with light) matter and 73% dark energy (which pushes the universe to expand). Both dark matter and dark energy permeate our galaxy and hence us, but have no apparent physical effects on us. So if these entities don’t directly affect us, why should we believe in them? Because recent astrophysical observations of the universe have yielded strong evidence for the existence of both dark matter and dark energy. If equally good evidence for either God or the purple pigs were produced, then I would believe in either (or both) of them.