In this post, I present a thought exercise for Christians and any other individuals who believe in a deity who passes judgment following corporeal death. I realize, according to Christian doctrine, only god is allowed to judge and any assessment made by a mere human would be guesswork. However, I believe the answers—tentative and uncertain though they inevitably shall be—might be instructive for my readers. With that housekeeping note out of the way, the remainder of this entry shall be a summary of the life of Henry Toole, a character whom I invented for this exercise. I shall be as detailed as necessary, so the case can be properly adjudicated.

Henry Toole was born to a family of Southern Baptists living in Arkansas. His maternal grandfather was a preacher and, thus, even though his parents were not especially devout, Henry was taken to church at least once a week throughout his childhood years. Aside from occasional bouts of fidgetiness, which are so typical among children, young Henry was enthralled by the stories of Jesus and his miraculous doings. For a few years, he even entertained notions of dedicating his adult life to the church. [The life of a preacher was in close contention with game show host, scientist and garbage collector.] As he became older, though, his rapt interest began to decline; when his parents brought him to church on Sundays, he found his mind wandering to other things, ranging from principles learned in science class to that night’s dinner plans. He still believed each of Christianity’s truth-claims; he simply felt as though he had heard it all before, and everything had the faint odor of sameness.

Over the next few years, doubt began to enter Henry’s mind. The tales of Adam and Eve, a global cataclysm flooding the planet and corpses rising from the tomb no longer seemed as convincing to Henry as they had when he was ten. He married a girl from his town, Patricia, who was moderately religious. By the age of 28, Henry had lost all faith and adopted the label of atheist. His abandonment of his religious convictions was not the result of a personal tragedy or being influenced by skeptics around him. Rather, he simply came to the firm realization that he no longer believed any of the dogma with which he had been raised. He ceased all churchgoing activities; Patricia, under no pressure from Henry, adopted an agnostic stance three years later.

Henry and his wife had three sons, none of whom was raised Christian. Henry never addressed the subject of religion with his sons. In fact, he never discussed religion at all; he was not the type to badmouth the church or blaspheme the deity in which he no longer believed. When they started their family, both Henry and Patricia agreed they would not push their children in any direction with respect to religion, choosing instead to let each find his own way. And, in fact, all three sons eventually became Southern Baptists. Henry and his wife never expressed any objections, and joyfully attended each son’s religious wedding.

Henry and Patricia had a happy marriage, which lasted 58 years. Although there were occasional temptations, neither one ever strayed from the other. Henry was a loving, generous, attentive and supportive husband, as well as a dedicated father who provided all he could to his family. In addition to his work schedule, for roughly half a dozen years, Henry found time to volunteer at a local children’s hospital. A fitness enthusiast, he also regularly participated in walkathons and marathons for charitable causes, ranging from treatment of chronic disease to elimination of poverty. Perhaps his most selfless moment was when one of his sons needed a kidney transplant. With little hesitation, Henry agreed to donate a kidney to his son.

Throughout his life, Henry never regained his religiosity, and neither did his agnostic wife. He died at age 83 and had a secular funeral ceremony, as he specified. His family, including many grandchildren, was devastated, overwhelmed with grief from the loss of “pop-pop,” as he was affectionately known.

Where shall Henry Toole be sent?

Greetings, Rhology! Thank you for your alacritous and engaging response, which demands rebuttal. I get the sense you still do not fully understand my position vis-à-vis morality because, when scrutinized, the “contradictions” you cite disappear quicker than ghosts do in the presence of skeptics. I hope, with this composition, I can provide definitive clarification. And despite my well-established tendencies toward unrestrained, self-indulgent verbosity, I shall be succinct.

“I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom.”

Rhology: But the relativistic view is a view in itself. You claim ignorance about the topic and then go ahead and take a position anyway. Why not just eschew any and all moral statements about everythg if you really believe that?

Nihilist: Although it is true that moral relativism constitutes a view, it contains no inherent contradiction, at least in the formulation to which I adhere. Interestingly, you articulate precisely the same argument as was made by Sam Harris in “The End of Faith.” Harris argues that moral relativism is self-defeating because, if one declares tolerance “better than” authoritarianism, one is advancing an objective moral principle, which would be inconsistent with relativistic thinking. However, I am doing no such thing. Rather, I have patiently argued that neither tolerance nor authoritarianism could be judged moral or immoral in any objective sense. Because there is no known way to prove a moral statement or code, our ignorance on the moral front is manifest and inarguable. Recognizing this ignorance, there is coherent behavior and incoherent behavior. A relativistic stance is coherent, whereas an authoritarian stance is not. Why? Because it makes no sense for one to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant.

Let me be unequivocal: I am meticulous in my avoidance of making moral statements, assuming that, when one says “moral statements,” one references claims of moral fact. I make myriad moral judgments, but each is merely my opinion.

“inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.”

Rhology: There's inflicting and there's inflicting. Surely you won't be so blind as to compare sharia law with laws banning the sale of sex toys!

Yet that's what you seem to be doing. That's one of the things that amazes me about these comparisons to Islam. You miss the forest for the trees. You can apparently hardly bear to NOT take a swipe at Christianity and so you miss the presence of the huge threat of people who want to blow you up.

Nihilist: I already have explained that, contrary to your assertion, I never compared suicide-bomb attacks (or imposition of Sharia law) with Alabama’s infantile ban on sex-toy sales. My comparison is of the morally authoritarian mindsets of Christofascists and Islamofascists. “Morally authoritarian” references the pathology that some pastor or ayatollah’s arbitrary opinions should affect other people’s rights and liberties. When American pastors and Iranian ayatollahs are satisfied with charting their own moral courses—whilst leaving everybody else to chart their own—I shall withdraw my objection. And, to be clear, such religious figures are not behaving immorally in any provable objective sense, but rather incoherently in the face of their moral ignorance.

“However, if that truly is your stance (and I hope it is), then you must join me in condemning the Alabama law to which I am opposed....If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and non-Christians alike, religious freedom is retarded.”

Rhology: B/c I believe in religious freedom? That doesn't follow. There is also public morality to think of. I won't support the free exercise of a religion that includes committing 4 murders a year as part of its pietistic exercise, for example.

I'm not saying I do support the law, but it's not for that reason.

Laws limit freedom, you know. You're not permitted to murder someone just for the heck of it, and that can retard religious freedom. We must ask "Which freedoms can be justifiably restricted?" rather than "Should religious freedom be restricted?"

Nihilist: My claim is not that pietistic exercise must be unrestricted. Rather, I contend that, in a country with constitutionally enshrined freedom of religion (and its negative, freedom from religion), it makes no sense for laws to be religiously derived. Only in theocracies are laws traceable to, or inspired by, religious doctrine.

In the face of our manifest moral ignorance, governmental attempts to legislate morality—at the federal, state or local level—also make no sense. Many people seem to forget that laws need not appeal to moral considerations; in other words, illegal acts need not be deemed intrinsically immoral. Although people have multifarious ideas about the purpose of government in contemporary society, most of us agree that it is tasked with promoting individual liberty and preserving societal stability. That is pretty basic stuff. Government can enact laws that enable it to fulfill its tasks, without any appeal to morality. An act—such as murder, rape or kidnapping—can be deemed illegal because it deprives people of their liberty or has the potential to create chaotic instability. One can make those conclusions without reading tea leaves about what acts are righteous and which are wicked.

Wallowing in the swamp of what is “moral” or “immoral” is a waste of the government’s time—not to mention incoherent. Wearing a suit and working in Washington does not cure one’s moral ignorance.

“unconventional sex is sinful”

Rhology: Rather, sex that is harmful or outside of marriage is that which is sinful. Nothing in the Bible really refers to sex toys.

Nihilist: Thanks for the clarification, although I am sure some Christians would beg to differ vis-à-vis sex toys. I would inquire as to the sinfulness (or moral acceptability) of marital felching, but I cannot, considering this is a family blog.

“If I lived in that state, I would be an atheist in name and belief, but would have to be a de facto Christian if I wanted to avoid legal harassment.”

Rhology: Do what you want, but Alabama is not Saudi Arabia. Seriously, stop acting like it is! You're making yourself look foolish and missing the bigger threat.

Nihilist: I never equated Alabama with Saudi Arabia; I equated two authoritarian mindsets. Neither Christians nor Muslims are willing to keep their arbitrary moral opinions to themselves, and that is the basis for the comparison. [Religionists need not hold their opinions silently. Behavioral incoherence only arises when pathological, wrongheaded attempts are made to inflict one’s factually bankrupt moral opinions on others. Analogously, you may say green is the best color and I may say the same of red; if, however, you attempt to impose your color choice on me, incoherency has arisen.]

“Is the latter cell ‘less evil’ than the former?”

Rhology: On your worldview, neither is evil at all.

Nihilist: In my opinion, both cells would be quite spectacularly evil. However, I could not prove it. Recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.

“Just ghastly.”

Rhology: On your worldview, it's not ghastly. It's just painful. Pain is, pleasure is, neither is moral nor immoral. I'm going to hold you to your professed worldview even if you won't.

Nihilist: It is ghastly in my opinion. Its ghastliness cannot be proved as a matter of objective fact because there is no known way to prove a moral statement or code. But again, recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.

“you subscribe to a religion in which wives are supposed to submit to their husbands’ headship.”

Rhology: And, I shouldn't be surprised, you neglected (again) to mention anythg about the husbands' obligations and responsibilities. Pretty typical, though I have come to expect a little more than that from you.

Nihilist: My concern is not related to the specifics of the inequality but rather to the inequality itself. You condemn Islam’s “mistreatment” of women but, when one looks at Christianity, it is quite clear that women and men are not treated as absolute equals. True, your religion might preach equality in god’s eyes, but, on Earth, one gender clearly seems meant to dominate. One need only remember the commandment addressing covetousness, which lumps thy neighbor’s wife in with that same neighbor’s ox and ass. For the writer, it is quite clear that women are a kind of property, not entirely unlike slaves and livestock.

“It seems to me that, in your mind, your beliefs need not conform to popular wisdom, modern mores or even common sense.”

Rhology: Since popular wisdom is so often wrong, yes. Common sense is far from infallible as well.

As an example, just look at how long your moral relativism has lasted throughout your own post! You didn't make it 3 paragraphs before contradicting yourself.

Nihilist: I see no contradictions. I articulated numerous moral opinions, but made no claims of moral fact.

Consider the following quotes from my post (italics added for emphasis):

• “…looking at the period when both institutions were behaving badly (according to my confected standards, that is), I think it is rather a waste of time to talk about which was more horrible.”
• “In my opinion, murder is horribly evil.”
• “In my view, torture is anathema to civilized existence.”
• “In my judgment, donating $1 million to underprivileged children is morally righteous.”

Which of those is a claim of moral fact? The answer: None is. I simply have articulated my moral opinions, baseless though they might be.

“Bearing that in mind, what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men?”

Rhology: I'd submit and conform to it.

Of course, that's not what He preached.

Again you spend time sniping at Christianity when you should be focusing on Islam. No hypotheticals needed there - they DO teach this stuff!

Nihilist: I am not sniping at Christianity, but rather illustrating the hollowness of your critique of Islam. You rail against Muslims for their treatment of women, but, if your 2000-year-old text had instructed you differently, you admit you would treat women in precisely the same manner you now condemn. This is not a “clean break” from the Islamic misogyny you excoriate. Your own views on women’s rights could have been entirely opposite, had different people written Jesus’ lines.

“There is no known way to prove a moral statement or moral code; as such, we are left only with opinion.”

Rhology: Very well. Serious question - why then make all these moral statements, as if someone else should hold them? Why not just hold all moral judgments to yourself?

Nihilist: It seems to me that, at base, you are asking why I bother articulating my opinions when those opinions are not factually proved. The answer to this question is simple: I am an opinionated individual who enjoys throwing my voice into the discussion. And I do not opine exclusively on matters of religion and morality; I enthusiastically express my opinions about all subjects in which I have interest. For example, I am a huge fan of the cinema and, every year, I compile a Top 10 list of films. My annual list does not touch on objective, absolute truth; there is no known way to prove that one film is better than another is. My list simply reflects my opinions. A man can strongly present his opinions without deluding himself into thinking those opinions are facts, and without forcing others to conform to his opinions.

“I would be willing to bet a large sum that, at the height of the witch-hunts, the aforequoted passage was recited more than once.”

Rhology: As if misuse of a passage of text means the text is to blame.

Obviously if I murdered 10 people and then appealed to this very blogpost in court, saying that I took your meaning to be that you were God and you commanded me to murder them, the judge would not and should not hold you responsible for that, right?

Nihilist: The standards for the Bible are a little bit different, in that Christians claim that tome was directly inspired by the omniscient creator of the universe. Presumably, when that verse was written, god knew quite well that some of his followers would misuse it in the context of hysterical hunts for witches (and assorted other heretics and blasphemers). Knowing that god is also omnibenevolent, it stretches credibility to think such a bizarre passage would make the cut; a judicious stroke with god’s ethereal red pen probably would have prevented a lot of the torture and butchery to which I previously referred. But, perhaps the whole omniscient-inspiration notion ought to be thrown out. After all, it is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia.

“by ‘witchcraft,’ you apparently are referencing adults who indulge in children’s folly.”

Rhology: Not all of that stuff is simple parlor tricks. But I'm not a naturalist, so I attribute at least a small amount of that stuff, including miracles in other religions, to demonic activity.

Nihilist: Ubiquitous demonic mischief notwithstanding, tarot cards and Ouija are trinkets, played with by children and those with under-developed minds. Have you an example that is not out-and-out piffle?

“(a) torture was used not to punish people for their 'crimes' but in order to secure extravagant confessions, and (b) the charges oftentimes were jaw dropping in their ludicrousness.”

Rhology: Well, of course I wouldn't support those gross abuses.

And again, not that treating suspected "witches" this way is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.

Nihilist: I never claimed that torturing “witches” was morally wrong in any objective sense. My condemnations are mere articulations of my opinion, which is not factually proved. Once more, recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion. Remember, I compile a Top 10 film list every year, despite the fact that the carefully crafted list is mere opinion.

“exemplifies nothing more than pathetic cravenness.”

Rhology: Again, not that pathetic cravenness or the threatening people with hell is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.

You just can't seem to live up to your own worldview! Since you fit yours so badly, it's the least I can do to offer you one that would allow you to justify making moral claims like you keep doing, namely Christianity.

Nihilist: I never said cravenness was morally wrong (either objectively or subjectively). I said it was pathetic—an assessment by which I stand. I also never said threatening people with hell was morally wicked (either subjectively or objectively). I said it was the weakest possible way to attempt to convert me and, to be frank, nonsensical. As I wrote, drawing from my knowledge of biology and the workings of the human body, I know pain is a function of the nervous system, tissue damage and other physical factors. I have seen no evidence that a wispy, incorporeal essence could be made to feel pain. Even “emotional pain”—the kind that keeps people awake at night—is traceable to brain activity. A wispy, incorporeal essence possesses no brain of which to speak. I equate attempts to torture a “soul” with trying to make the helium in a balloon wail with agony (to say nothing of weep and gnash its teeth). Can nitrogen suffer anguish?