The Atheist Altar

Benevolent Tyranny

2011-01-15T02:46:00.003-05:00

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Hell is a bothersome concept. It is not only disagreeable merely because yours truly does not wish to spend an eternity there. Well, it is, but then it isn't. The most disturbing thing about the proposed place that is Hell is the effect that it has on other people. A gentle person who threatens no one and has the well-being of his fellow clan of humans in mind wishes that harm to them be minimized. Yet this ghastly, sociopathic, and disgusting concept somehow can be accepted by otherwise gentle people.

When you are told as a child not to bully others, you may listen or you may disregard the parental advice. Eventually, as kids mature, bullying tends to wane. Sure it may take other forms of "abuse", although be it not necessarily in the form of physical abuse. At any rate, the physical violence is eventually minimized as the maturity of an individual increases. You learn that violence rarely achieves your objectives and is rarely worth the bother other than when your well-being or the well-being of loved ones is pushed to the brink. It is generally deemed, by most human societies, that the only time violence is called for is if it is reactionary towards coercion.

It appears however that a double-standard is in play. What sense does it make to a thoughtful human being that you can have a benevolent father figure in the sky while at the same time he punishes most of humanity? Is this not violence in its ugliest form? Make no mistake--Hell is violence manifest. The CS Lewis quote in this context is relevant considering the idea that theists believe that having this celestial authority is for humanity's own good. In the height of irony, Lewis is arguing against a form of political authoritarianism, yet is perfectly at home with his version of religious authoritarianism because he assumes it is all-moral. Ask any totalitarian despot and they may share Lewis' opinion, only in regards to themselves. Lewis is claiming that utterly destroying one's soul in a lake of Hellfire is appropriate for not accepting Jesus because one either committed "murder" in their heart (disregarding healthy avenues to express anger), masturbated, or killed another man in a bout of rage (for which even eternal burning is an insane attempt at justice).

Not only does this glorify violence in its nastiest way possible, it legitimizes the concept of human ownership. It may sound as if it is a cliche of the New Atheist movement, but it is no hyperbole when the majority of theists assume that God, as the author of human life, has the right to take it away at his whim. We are at his mercy at all times. We're not dealing with normal "property" here; we are dealing with conscious creatures that experience worth, love, and most of all, freedom.

The fundamental question that a human being has to face is: Are we beings to be owned or are we autonomous?

Distrusting Instinct?

2011-01-11T10:52:00.006-05:00

The contempt that the religions of the afterworld hold for the mundane is certainly no secret. Adherents of such systems of belief are instructed to decry their own natural inclinations and desires in favor of prostration before a holy book and the being supposedly behind it. Human beings, it is said, are naturally evil and motivated toward selfishness and weakness of will. Of course I will not argue against the first accusation, although selfishness is unavoidable and in many cases unworthy of denigration. As for weakness, the term is entirely subjective when used int his context. While a religious person might name their fellows weak for fulfilling desires, it could be said that the religious person is simply too weak to follow suit, and uses his faith as a shroud for his frailty. In any case, it is said by the religious cults, particularly Christianity, that humans, because of the Fall, cannot trust their natural instinct since it leads only to sin and not to goodness.

The trouble with such a claim is that there is no escape from such ingrained love of sin and evil that human beings supposedly possess.This poses a very serious question for Christianity: is the desire of a Christian to follow God not the fervent yearning of a sinful creature who cannot know good? Is even the desire to follow God a misstep? How could it not be, given that every impulse of the human mind is purportedly tainted with evil? Surely even the most devout of believers are doing nothing more than sublimating their sinful and worldly lusts.

The response from Christians will surely be that there is a loophole in the system, and the loophole is easy enough to guess. They will say that the decision of the faithful to follow God is informed not by instinct, but by the divine grace and will of God himself. This only raises further questions though. If one is a Calvinist or likeminded to one, then the obvious problems of predestination, freewill, and grace that are raised by the claim that God elevates some and not others are not entirely off-putting. For anyone else the logical implications of these ideas are horrific, God simply chooses to rescue some for no reason other than his incomprehensible will?

Still, the problem of predestination does not stand alone as a strange consequence of this claim that the desire to follow God is not derived from the minds of men. If we suppose that the claim is true, then there is a serious issue to be addressed. This issue is that the idea is simply nonsensical since human choice must be involved at some point in the process of salvation, otherwise the beliefs of mainstream Christianity at least are rendered impotent. If a person does not choose whether or not to follow Christ, then aside from problems of freewill, all the preachings and rantings of the churches are utterly pointless since the choice cannot be made by men no matter how many times they hear the ostensibly true word of the gospels.

If, on the other hand, human beings necessarily choose for themselves whether or not to heed the divine call of God, then a very human and very Fallen mind is involved in the process of salvation, again raising the question of whether the desire to follow God is any less sinful and vile than anything else chosen by men.

To be succinct, either the choice belongs to man or it does not. If it does not, then the abomination of reality is that humans are born unable to choose any path to salvation; Fate is arbitrarily doled out by the omnipotent. If the choice does belong to men, then what separates the desire to follow God from the desire to blaspheme against Him in terms of the sinful origins of each?

Collective Responsibility

2011-01-09T06:57:00.003-05:00

If we take, as a starting point, the position that human life has value, then it is not difficult or unwarranted to conclude that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The individual carries an immense measure of worth in his or her person. Therefore, a collective of individuals encapsulates the combined value of every being counted. If there is a choice then, whether to spare ten beings, an agent should end the life of one being, is the moral conclusion not obvious? For the sake of argument assume first that inaction will result in the death of the ten rather than the one who stands alone. Also assume that each of the ten is of equal intelligence and physical attribute to one another and to the one who is set to be sacrificed for their sake. There is no difference in terms of contribution to society or to longevity. If there are eleven such value-identical individuals, can there be any hesitation in destroying the lone man to save all the rest? The agent must necessarily act to preserve the most life as possible.

However, there would presumably be one voice of protest, that of the man slated to die for the rest. Is his protestesting mere vanity? Can it be ignored? He will not obviously not profit from the actions of the agent. He might convince himself that he dies for a noble cause, but it is glaringly apparent that he will not live to see the fulfillment of such a cause. He cries out as one against many and seems selfish to assume his needs and desires outweigh those of ten others. Yet would any of the ten take his place on the chopping block? Their selfishness is apparent too, though it is more easily cloaked in a feigned concern for their fellows. I must conclude that they are ill-equipped to demand the sacrifice unless they too are willing to die in turn for the masses. Indeed not merely willing, but also able since their willingness will show itself only in the act itself. Still, this alone does not change the judgement of the agent who must decide to carry out the execution. It seems that despite the personal feelings of any involved, the judgement involves cold numerical calculation.

Assume now, rather than an agent being called for an ill-defined reason to execute one for the good of many, the masses demanding that a few of their number stand up for certain values at the risk of their lives. Death for this upholding of value is not guaranteed, but there is a certain element of danger for those involved that is not shared by those making demands. Take the real world situation of people deriding cartoonists and animation studios for kow-towing to the demands of terrorists out of fear. A few are called to put themselves in danger to demonstrate the inviolability of First Amendment rights. If they bow to the threats of terrorism then the value of life for everyone who enjoys Freedom of Speech is diminsihed, but how can can a person, in good concscience, demand such a thing from another? Of course the loss would be unspeakable if the First Amendment would be lost, and the effect would be felt but an immense number of people. But the loss of an individual's life, to that individual, is obviously the most devastating effect possible.

There are those who willingly sacrifice for others, and their bravery is not in question. Still, it seems aggredious for any to call on their fellows, however few, to die for the majority or to insult them for failing to put their lives in harms way. It is far too easy for those who have not known threats against their lives to utter melodramatic statements regarding freedom and conflict, all the while understanding nothing.

On New Year's Resolutions

2011-01-01T02:56:00.002-05:00

"Lose weight" is usually the most often referred to resolution for every new year. On December 31st, the population of the developed world that happens to consume a few too many calories always looks at the waist line and figures that something needs a change. Obviously if people actually took control and lost weight, we would see a decline in the amount of resolutions resembling the decree that one will (finally) fit in smaller-sized clothing.

One of the reasons I believe this never happens is because of the very nature of the New Year. With a new slate, people may seem to think things will take care of itself. The repetition of the process speaks to the ability of people to put off and put off and put off the actual effort required to accomplish something like weight loss. Procrastination is the mother of many failures because it is something that accumulates sloth and turns it into a habit, much like a cartoonish snowball rolling down a mountain side. Basically a great piece of advice: If you say you're going to do something, do it.

No matter how much dread you assign to the work involved to complete a task, getting it done always tastes much sweeter. It is so hard to recognize this prior to the completion of the task, but it never fails to amaze me how good one feels after the fact (and this is coming from a guy who suffers from major procrastination bouts). If people around you have to deal with your procrastination, it just adds to the dissatisfaction.

Now what does this have to do with religion per se? Nothing really. But it is definitely topical to the case of the New Year in this 2011. If I were to put a religious spin on this topic, maybe I would urge the moderate community to take their religion seriously. Obviously there is a double-edged sword to encouraging this since a literal or intense interpretation of holy scripts may lead to a hard-line dogmatism, but on the flip side, there is an opportunity there for people to actually learn about religion, the arguments for and against the existence of God, and maybe even come closer to what they perceive as God if it is something that they desire. This goes back to my point about doing what you say you are going to do or are doing. If you consider yourself as religious, please study the topic critically. Intellectual laziness is something that plagues the masses, and I don't say this in the form of condescension; it isn't something people perceive to have the time of day for, but I believe inquiry into topics such as science and philosophy and history have rewards that people don't really account for upon initial consideration. I believe if people put the effort into educating themselves for the sake of knowledge while damning the potential hazards in the way, they will feel much better about their state of affairs.

At any rate, have a great 2011!

Doubt As Virtue?

2010-12-30T01:58:00.002-05:00

Highlighting the benefits of doubt should come as no shock to an atheist community that has doubted the validity of at least one commonly held societal belief. I'm reminded of this quote from Bertrand Russell:

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Probably the most interesting effect of this little truism with regards to religion (not that I would necessarily brand all theists as "stupid") is the fact that doubt is seen as an affront to coming closer to their God. While in popular culture doubt is shown to bring people closer to God, the tradition of theism demands certainty. Even though this certainty is rooted in a leap of faith almost paradoxically, I don't believe there can be a lot of compromise between doubt and certainty in a theistic lifestyle. The lifestyle changes that result from the adoption of religion is no simple thing; after all, the logistics seem rather difficult between going to church and praying with the thought creeping in the back of one's mind that there may be a 25% chance of this practice being futile.

I've heard many theists say that for atheists, evolution and naturalism are the "only game in the town" or else our worldviews crumble. Sure, I suppose in a sense it could be true that our conceptions of how humans came to be would be in error, but that in no way shows theism is true. After all, the alternatives could be another brand of theism, deism, or some other naturalistic explanation that we weren't creative enough to contemplate. The benefit of being a self-proclaimed skeptic is that, while you can hold onto beliefs with varying degrees of certainty, we hardly base our entire life's efforts around our worldviews considering we leave the door open for the possibility of being wrong.

Not that all atheists do this, obviously. Some are just as assured in competing moral positions as religious people. But I believe doubting all claims of the metaphysical variety can be a definite bonus to our attempts at gaining knowledge. It also helps tone down a bit of the zealousy that characterizes a lot of this world. This isn't exactly adopting some form of epistemological relativism or even moral relativism for that matter (as those are different discussions), but those are different than leaving the door open to falsification.

Biola University Frowns Upon Flirtation

2010-12-20T02:26:00.004-05:00

I've been following William Lane Craig closely for over a year now; I realize that he is the foremost apologist of the Christian suasion, and while the anti-Craig segment on this Web site doesn't always offer airtight argumentation since some hostile sentiments rise to the surface in place of said arguments, I'd like to think I get the point across in a way that doesn't rely on ad hominems. I wanted to get a better feel for the culture at Biola University, who employs Craig, and went to their Web site the other day, and noticed that Biola takes their Christianity seriously.

Apparently last week, there was quite the fuss concerning Biola and the spreading of a Web site called "LikeALittle", an on-line flirtation Web site. The student life group at Biola issued a statement on their Web site that can be read here. I'll copy and paste the most relevant parts, just because it struck me as interesting for some reason.

Within the last few days many people, both on and off campus, have asked about our response to the new social networking site called "Likealittle." If you are not familiar with it, Likealittle is a new application designed, according to their website, for "anonymous flirting." It has gotten quite a bit of media attention and a number of students on campus are using it. Some have suggested that we block access to the site due to inappropriate comments that have been posted there. We have discussed the issue with the leadership of AS and we agree that this is a teachable moment for our community. Here are a few thoughts that we would like for you to consider as the Biola University student body.

• Realize that all forms of communication, including anonymous electronic postings, should reflect Biblical principles of communication; i.e., using our words to build people up.

• While some students may believe this is simply innocent banter or an expression of "natural feelings," it is not encouraging a Christ-centered mindset or helping us to think appropriately or respectfully about our brothers and sisters.

• Rather than having Biola IT block the site because some students are using it inappropriately, we would like to challenge you to monitor it yourselves and live out our values as a Christ-centered community.

The only reason this is intteresting to me is that it sends off the signal of how closed off this bubble is, or at least how closed off the folks in the administration's bubble is. Anybody who has spent a nanosecond on a high school or college campus ought to know that flirting is a "pandemic," to use a phrase that might suit the context of this discussion.

First things first, even the discussion centering around banning a Web site seems ludicrous to me. It doesn't seem to be the job of a college university to seriously monitor the students that severely, while it is more understandable that something like peer to peer networking is banned considering the strain it puts on the network and its illegality (sidenote, I don't think it should be illegal, but that's another story). However, I assume the more curmudgeonly types are the ones pushing the idea of suppressing the free expression of students on campus, but I applaud the university, no matter how misguided I think they are, for leaving the site available. In a roundabout way, it seems that I agree with the university that if people aren't free to exercise decision-making, then the effect certainly isn't there. You can't coerce people into behaving in a certain way and maintain that their actions were legitimate in that sense.

Another interesting point to note is describing other people as "brothers and sisters." Now there is the chance that there is too much being read into this, but I believe that is designed to shift the focus from sexual attraction onto something more familial. It's a common phrase no doubt, but advertising complete strangers as brothers and sisters may take the attraction level down a notch.

• Hold each other accountable for abuses. If you flag comments that are inappropriate the site is pretty good about taking them down. You can also use the comment feature to respectfully address comments that are inappropriate. We have spoken to the current student-moderators of the site, and they have promised to work diligently to keep the site clean.

• Don't say things that are unkind, sexually suggestive, or characterized by sexual innuendo. One of the reported concerns is ‘innuendo-one-upsmanship,’ where each anonymous commenter pushes the conversation just a little further toward inappropriateness.

Our hope is that, when people who don't know us come across this site, they would leave with a very clear impression that we love Christ, that we love each other, and there is evidence that we are indeed being equipped in mind and character to impact the world for Jesus Christ.

Not much else to read, but the reason I posted these snippets of the press release was to talk a bit about how Christianity views sexuality, and obviously its precursor, flirtation. When suggesting people do not say things of a sexual nature, it seems to rear the ugly head of sexual repressiveness (something Christianity in particular is pretty good at, but Islam has it beaten by lightyears).

Now when that is said, it is not being suggested that people have uninhibited sex or anything like that. But I don't believe the attitude is healthy. After all, is there any marital pairing that did not begin with the idea of sexual attraction? Obviously there are people who come to know each other without previously being physically attracted to each other, but when meeting complete strangers, the Darwinian magnetism is certainly at work in all instances. After all, with respect to humans, our concepts of beauty are heavily tied into sexual fitness (I'd like to get into this with my next Debunking WLC as a matter of fact). There's no reason to be ashamed for being a little flirtatious or being sexually attracted to another human being.

It is interesting to note the moral disparity at work here. Atheists on one hand are branded as being hedonistic sexual deviants because they may engage in casual sex or may have relations with their significant, unmarried others. But again, I fail to see the harm. What it really boils down to is an attack on the self in a form of aggression upon one's well-being. An act such as masturbation is frowned upon even with the empirical verification that it leads to stress relief and a general improvement in healthy developing human beings. There's really no reason to be afraid of it.

All in all, it seems as if they are trying to beat nature (i.e., to them: Satan) at its own game, and that usually fails.

Poll #4 Results!

2010-12-14T21:12:00.003-05:00

This question was, who would win in a battle of deities? The winner is.....Yahweh! I was kind of surprised that Yahweh won this one, as I was definitely expecting Thor with his mighty hammer to take the crown here. I endorsed Hachiman, the samurai warrior God of Japan from some centuries ago, but lo and behold, I guess people think Yahweh is too big of an all-powerful jerk to lose to them.

This new poll is: "When in Hell, Who Do You Most Want to Meet?" I tried to cover many different bases, with Carlin as a comedian, Nietzsche as a philosopher, Confucious as a Far-East philosopher, Einstein as a physicist, Carl Sagan as an astronomer, and Mark Twain as an author. I plan on having a good time if these interesting people are there!

Debunking William Lane Craig: On Non-Belief

2010-12-14T19:27:00.010-05:00

I was reading the most recent Reasonable Faith Q&A that is published on William Lane Craig's main apologetic web site and read a rather inane article that even tops the bar usually set by the premier Christian apologetic. Things become much more interesting when Craig delves into theology versus philosophy, something that is more applicable to the layman and is not as esoteric or, I suppose, arcane and inaccessible as some areas of philosophy in which Craig purports to be beyond proficient.

So this Q&A asks the question of why God feels the need to punish nonbelievers who sincerely believe that God is not apparent and that God does not exist. It seems silly (as it most likely is) to punish somebody for a sincerely held belief that is simply wrongheaded. As I have said earlier, given Yahweh's existence, an atheism that is based on evidence and not based on misotheism or antitheism is one that stems from a simple misunderstanding of reality. I don't believe a misunderstanding of reality can be based on "moral failure," as Craig has suggested in the past and this sentiment of his rears its ugly head again in this Q&A. Let's begin.

Christians are supposed to think that God will punish atheists for choosing not to believe. But how can an sincere atheist be blamed for not believing? I don't think belief is a choice.

Suppose your friends push you to believe in Santa Claus. Could you force yourself to believe in Santa? At most you can act like a believer, but you will never be a sincere believer. Therefore you will be a hypocrite!

Now suppose Santa Claus "asks" you to suffer for him. If you do not believe in Santa, will you have enough motivation for endure suffering for him? Can you be blamed for give up suffering for Santa?

Jesus asks the believer to do more then suffer for him. Christ asks the believer to hate his own life in this world (John 12.25). Now how can an atheist have enough motivation for obeying Christ if he even not believes in Jesus?

If an sincere atheist thinks God is a fairy tale, how can he be blamed? If belief is not a choice, no one can be blamed for not believing. It seems absurd to punish an atheist for being an atheist like it is absurd to punish a dog for being a dog.

How should we respond to this objection?

The questioner brings up a very valid point (from Brazil, so the typos are his). This also hits on the idea of Divine Hiddenness, which Craig thinks he has shrugged off. I won't go into it here, but one of Craig's two main arguments for divine hiddenness is that God "whispering" into our ears why certain things happen is akin to living in a "haunted house." Hmm. This presupposes that God can't appear directly to us like a good friend of some type and, after all, if God whispered things into our ear from a nonmaterial distance since we were born, I'm sure it wouldn't seem so absurd. But when dealing with a naive realist and a best-of-all-worlds advocate, you can't expect Craig to think outside of the box here.

The second argument is that God telling us why something bad happens to us would have the opposite effect, if the effect is for us to come closer to God. Now, the problem obviously here is that every bad thing that has ever happened to anybody would have had to have been potentially thwarted by God if he told us. I think that seems unlikely, but that is Craig's argument in a nutshell.

I find that contemporary atheists take great umbrage at the biblical claim that God holds people to be morally culpable for their unbelief. They want to maintain their unbelief in God without accepting the responsibility for it. This attitude enables them to reject God with impunity.

Well, I mean how would you like it if I told you that you must be punished if we reached the finish line of life only to find out that atheism is the case? Obviously we can't do that since we're dead....But you know what I mean.

Now we can agree that a person cannot be held morally responsible for failing to discharge a duty of which he is uninformed. So the entire question is: are people sufficiently informed to be held morally responsible for failing to believe in God? The biblical answer to that question is unequivocal. First, God has provided a revelation of Himself in nature that is sufficiently clear for all cognitively normal persons to know that God exists. Paul writes to the Roman church:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1. 18-21).

For somebody who is a Christian, I'm surprised, but then again I'm not surprised, that I often see Craig quoting or referencing St. Paul more than Jesus. If anything, that's a referendum on where Christianity wound up. As Nietzsche did say, "there was one Christian and he died on the cross."

At any rate, I haven't really addressed the topic so far. So, Craig begins by citing the oft-quoted passage in Romans that states the reason that influences Paul's version of apologetics that gives God the authority to punish non-believers. The answer in this case is simple: You're not really a non-believer, you're just a rebel. Paul takes the equation of non-belief out of the picture, because he thinks nature itself is evident of God's glory. For me personally, when I see the trees, I get an insatiable urge to thank Vishnu for the trees, but that's me. At any rate, Craig thinks that is good enough.

There is also a bit of an interesting bit of psychological warfare going on here. The assertion is made that, "you really know Yahweh exists." This casts doubt upon the mind of a non-believer who may have felt that he was certain in his belief structure. When they make a claim like this, it is highly suggestive and plants a seed of doubt no matter how confident you may be. There's always that possibility that you are just suppressing the knowledge of Yahweh.

In Paul’s view God’s properties, His eternal power and deity, are clearly revealed in creation, so that people who fail to believe in an eternal, powerful Creator of the world are without excuse. Indeed, Paul says that they actually do know that God exists, but they suppress this truth because of their unrighteousness.

This.....This sounds dangerously close to:

Now obviously, this ignores the fact that we're not only talking about "God," but rather Yahweh. We are talking about the ancient God of the Jewish desert. There is not only one proposed God.

Second, wholly apart from God’s revelation in nature is the inner witness which the Holy Spirit bears to the great truths of the Gospel, including, I should say, the fact that God exists. Anyone who fails to believe in God by the end of his lifetime does so only by a stubborn resistance to the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing that person to a knowledge of God. On the biblical view people are not like innocent, lost lambs wandering helplessly without a guide. Rather they are determined rebels whose wills are set against God and who must be subdued by God’s Spirit.

The difference, then, between God and Santa Claus, is that (i) there is good evidence in support of God’s existence which is evident to all, and (ii) there is an objective witness of God’s Spirit which warrants belief in Christian truths. Of course, the unbeliever will deny that there is such evidence and such a witness of the Spirit. Fine; we Christians disagree with them about that. We think they’re mistaken. That’s why we engage them in dialogue, to show them that the evidence is sufficient and that their objections are weak.

Isn't there something about this that seems fallacious? Craig appears to be the ultimate presuppositionalist here. We have to establish that Yahweh is active in leading people to the Bible first. But if Craig is only stating the Biblical scenario, I suppose that is okay. I can't pin Craig down on a definition of what the "inner witness" actually is and how it works, but Craig doesn't feel the need to explain.

It is a curious thing that Craig can diagnose non-belief as he does. He believes that atheists deceive themselves into non-belief out of an innate desire to rebel against Yahweh. I don't know that this is the case, but for those who are misotheists or antitheists (I would be the latter as an atheist), it mostly stems from a rejection of a few things. Mostly Yahweh makes it almost too easy to deconvert. It's not quite as easy to deconvert from a belief in gravity since it's strain on us is, quite literally, omnipresent. The evidence for Yahweh simply isn't as sufficient as our recognition of gravity is, and, coming back to Divine Hiddenness, it certainly would make it a lot easier on us if his existence didn't rely on multiple second-hand testimony from fallible human beings.

But more to the point, why do these select humans find the idea of God so repulsive? The inner-slave of many theists believe this is due to a sense of rebellion. But what is so bad about that? The idea of hell and eternal suffering for the mere non-acceptance or non-recognition of a human sacrifice seems so odd to many people. This is something that demands an explanation, but instead of an explanation all they get is threatened with Hell if they deny the necessity or justification for the existence of Hell. If God did implant some "morality chip" in our brains, this is certainly where I would start because it probably is the cause of many deconversions across the globe.

Contrary to what you say, Wagner, on the biblical view, unbelief is a choice. It is a choice to resist the force of the evidence and the drawing of God’s Holy Spirit. The unbeliever is like someone dying of a fatal disease who refuses to believe the medical evidence concerning the efficacy of a proffered cure and who rejects the testimony of his doctor to it and who, as a result, suffers the consequence of his own stubbornness. He has no one to blame but himself.

Atheists and agnostics are not like dogs. They are persons created in the image of God, endowed with freedom of the will, and pursued by a loving Heavenly Father who yearns to reconcile them with Himself. Their unbelief is culpable because it is maintained in the face of the evidence and in defiance of the Holy Spirit.

Oh, poor Yahweh. It almost makes me feel bad for the fellow. He wants me and others so badly, yet can't program us in a way that makes it conducive. I'm sorry that when evaluating competing claims about existence that I demand concrete evidence and not metaphysical speculation. The Christian dogma seems absurd on its face and there are many legitimate criticisms of the Christian religion.

I don't think there has ever been any reliable first-hand testimony of heaven nor anything that validates what Jesus said. The New Testament is full of assertions made by Jesus and we have no way of verifying if Jesus really is God; the assertions made by Jesus could be the same unfalsifiable drivel you might hear from a psychic. To say that the evidence is so clear and that atheists are delusional and/or rebellious in their rejection of God is to steer clear of the entire concept of what it means to be faithful. Christians are supposed to believe in spite of the evidence. They are supposed to hope against all hope. Faith is rendered meaningless in such a scenario, and Craig doesn't seem to realize that. If evidence of the supernatural is as easy to believe in as picking up a book in a library and acquiring factual and unobjected-to information, then why call it faith? [NOTE: Re-reading this, I realize I kind of contradicted myself by making a case for God to reveal himself to humanity, but I'm using a tenet of Christianity against Craig's apologetics in a different context here.]

I believe the questioner (who is a Christian) raises a valid point and it withstands Craig's barrage of theo-rationalizing. It is certainly claimed in the Bible that God makes himself evident, but we don't see that in everyday life. Gee, I hate to sound condescending here, but could it be that the Bible is wrong about the nature of reality? I don't see people in Papua New Gineau think to themselves, "I'm sensing the presence of a figure named Yahweh and his son Jesus Christ. If only there were some missionaries to come here and fill in the gaps." No, they have no clue of who Yahweh is or the doctrines of Christianity. Just as some people feel no spiritual connection. Craig gives me the vibe of an absolutist who is incapable of pondering thoughts other than his own. He is the ultimate universalizer.

Personal Morality and God

2010-12-03T13:27:00.001-05:00

I am loathe to admit the superiority of any Christian idea over its Judaic counterpart. But there was a stroke of brilliance in Christ's message that is often misunderstood even as it is asserted by those call themselves christ-like, and it should be pointed out.

Judaism is a religion under the law, which is prescribed by the Tanakh. The only way to truly know the god of Judaism is through his word as imparted by the holy books. It is precisely because of this that it is considered a terrible blasphemy to attempt any alteration to the Law; it has already been transcribed.

Christianity is often purported by its adherents as being something other than a religion. While maintaining the relevance of the Old Testament to their beliefs, Christians also assert the belief that the law is useless to providing salvation when compared to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This emphasis on personal salvation and individual contact with deity are very far divorced from the religion of the Jews, for whom God is eternally transendent and separate from human life.

I say then that Christianity is superior to Judaism in at least one facet because in its purest form it challenges believers to find God through their own hearts rather than through the script of a page. And because of this difference, this emphasis on personal inspiration and grace over devotion to the study of holy law, is an important question not raised? What if the god of the bible appears to all one's sensibilites to be a intolerable monster undeserving of worship? What if this god is not the God of one's own heart? Is it not then reasonable for a Christian to conclude that the holy book is, in fact, wrong? If God does truly exist, and created mankind in such a way as to be capable of knowing Him, then would personal intuition not be more valuable than cloistered learnings from a knowledgable scribe of religion?

Of course the theological opposition to the former suggestion would come in the form of doctrine regarding Original Sin or Total Depravity. Both derive their conclusions from the premises that human beings have lost any nature that is godly, or have at least lost the capacity to be truly godly. In light of this, the best way to find God is ostensibly through the teachings of the prophets who have been directly inspired by God.

The trouble with that kind of argument is obvious. If human beings are indeed fallen, and incapable of doing good or knowing god, then how are they to discern which holy book is correct? Assuming that they could in some way find this knowledge, how would they then proceed to follow through in a personal relationship with God? The answer is that they could not. They would depend utterly on the text. They would be exactly what they claim not to be, which is a people bound to the law of God as transcribed in the holy books. Furthermore, if all men are truly fallen, disgraced and, if we are to take Total Depravity to its conclusion, are wholly incapable of godly thought or action, would not the drive to worship God and find salvation be in the first place founded upon sinful and ungodly urges?

If the religious are to assume that all human action and thought is evil, then there is no recourse in a holy book. If there is some capacity for good in human nature, even in the allegedly sinful state in which it now lies, then that goodness should be trusted where it manifests itself in intuition. To obey a god against which one's own morality and spirit rails is cowardly, evil, and pathetic. The only God deserving of worship is the one which inspires the human soul that prostrates before it. The only god that deserves to be the God of the human heart is one that adheres to the morality found therein.

Environmentalism

2010-12-02T15:37:00.004-05:00

It seems as though a certain obvious point has come to be regarded as some sort of esoteric mantra. Said inference, being readily apparent, can be stated thusly: those concerned with the environment hold their sentiment for selfish reasons; which is to say that environmentalists only care for the ecology of the planet insofar as it concerns them. They care for their surroundings only because they know they depend upon them. This observation, as stated, is within the reach of the most stunted of sighted men and women, yet there are those who believe they have not only stumbled onto some secret but also that such a "revelation" invalidates the work of environmental workers entirely or exposes them as frauds after a certain fashion. The idea to be repudiated then, is that human beings need a reason other than their own self-interest for preserving the planet (such a reason being nigh impossible in any case).

Oil spills, deforestation, the endangerment and extinction of our fellow animal species, these are all rallying calls for the populace to awaken to a very real issue: the planet cannot support our current lifestyles and activities, at least not if the earth is expected to retain its life-supporting majesty in the style we have come to take for granted. Problems affecting the globe as a whole will inevitably begin to exert malevolent influence over the lives of even the most affluent members of society. Those with some measure of foresight know this, and act to prevent the loss of their wealth, property, and well-being. Or if their motivations be more lofty, they act out of a desire to preserve the planet for future generations. These reasons are inherenty anthropocentric. Does this infringe on the possible benefits for the entire world over and for all the species counted as less than human? Of course not, no matter the motivation of those seeking to restore the planet or at least stop its continuing decline matters very little in light of whatever results they produce. If one is dangling over the face of a cliff and a man offers his hand in assistance, what madness is it to question his motivation rather than accept his help?

Other than decrying the worthiness of environmentalists, there is at least one rhetoric-based camp that believes human beings are a plague unto the ecosystem and that the world is better off without our species. This seems to stem from the idiotic notion that humans are somehow separate from nature, which is akin to saying a beaver has stepped away from nature by building a dam. Everything humans do lies within the sphere of nature, though all-too-many people have a notion of dichotomy between the natural world and that of human beings. But even were this point to be granted, how exactly would the "planet" be better or worse off for lack of sentient beings? Such a question and the reason for asking it are utterly ludicrous. There is no Gaia spirit, the earth is not concious, and although I admittedly speak from an unavoidably biased point of view, sentient beings, namely humans, are the most valuable creatures within nature. The existence of higher forms of life is the outcome of millions of years of evolution, and now in self-loathing some of our species would condem us all as unworthy of our birthright? There is no other purpose for the earth except the lives of sentient beings, of which we are the first and so far only kind. It's beauty and magnificence go unnoticed without observing minds.

The earth belongs to human beings. Such a statement should not be regarded as crass or insulting to the "natural world". Human beings are the finest products of the natural world simply by virtue of our ability to question our impact and change behavior accordingly. Acknowledging that the earth was not in any way "made" with us in mind and that we rather adapted to the environment, the world is still ours so long as we prove ourselves worthy of the responsibility entailed therein.

The Sin of Scientism

2010-12-02T05:47:00.003-05:00

Is scientism such a bad word nowadays? Stephen Hawking, the great physicist, recently opened up his latest book titled "The Grand Design" with the sentence that, "philosophy is dead." While probably meant for effect and drawing off the idea that questions such as, "why is there something rather than nothing" is only speculation, claims such as these have given the impression that scientists are lacking in the philosophy department.

The favorite bugaboo for theists who are (somewhat) philosophically sophisticated is to point to problems in science. Most notably, the Problem of Induction and the Demarcation Problem. As you may be aware, the Problem of Induction just says that because, theoretically, every apple you have ever seen is red does not mean that all apples are red, as it may or may not be possible for apples to be different colors. The Demarcation Problem is probably the biggest issue in the philosophy of science camp and it deals with what constitutes science, how pseudoscience is defined, and what science can answer. And the latter portion of my simplified definition is the main point of contention coming from anti-scientnism types.

Obviously what is now referred to as scientism is an offshoot, or perhaps more accurately a direct descendant, of the logical positivism started in the Vienna Circle. The main idea was to apply the basic themes of the scientific method to the process of philosophy, eradicating most of metaphysics. As scientists though, I think this denies their place in history. During the enlightenment, the essence of a Renaissance Man was that he was skilled in many fields--primitive psychology perhaps, mathematics, language, epistemology, and more. Indeed, at that time, they were referred to as "natural philosophers" if their main preoccupation was dealing with the natural world.

However, I think the criticism of scientism mainly lies in the idea that it is nihilistic in nature. And by nihilistic, I only mean it to be value-free. It is, in its purest form, the strive for objectivity in a sense that is devoid of emotion and separated as best it can from the individual biases that plague our understanding of the world. While I actually believe this is an accurate depiction of science, I don't think it is an accurate depiction of those who claim that science is the best means to understand our natural world because the assumption is being made that they are mechanical robots. Obviously people such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and others who are accused of being scientism practioniers experience great emotion when doing what they love--studying the natural world. So I think it is strawmanning a bit to say that scientists are devoted in entirety to cold, harsh, objective reality and denying the more subjective and emotional experiences in life.

But there is no other way for the study of the natural world to be done. Seen this way, when a kid touches a hot stove and decides not to touch hot stoves from now on out, the kid is participating in some form of science, if you broaden the definition a little. Trial-and-error and pattern seeking is what we do best to make sense of our world. In a kind of Bayseian model, when new data enters, we adjust our theories accordingly. Perhaps the child in the example touched his first stove and it was hot, thus the idea that all stoves are not to be touched is created. If a stove is touched that is not hot, we may create a new theory that we should check to see somehow if a stove has been heated and maybe that will be a good model to determine the probability of it being too hot to handle. Basically, any concept we derive in the universe is a model of the reality that we are experiencing, and I believe it is pointless to pontificate on whether or not we can actually Know (with a capital K) or experience the "external world." We develop models that have explanatory power and serve us with predictive utility, and that is all science is aiming to accomplish. Science is in a constant state of discovery and updating, and the fact that it is not immutable is one of its greatest strengths, much to the contrary of theistic rebuttals.

Now, even with that said, there is a place for testing and a place for broader theory, which I consider a different type of science. If I'm allowed to interject a tad of political ideology, the economist F.A. Hayek, who was good friends with philosopher of science Karl Popper, was actually the one credited with popularizing the term, "scientism," and the criticism was not based on theological grounds. What Hayek was proposing was that, at least in the social sciences, people, and the interactions of people, are not as predictable as inanimate objects. What you have are minds studying other minds, so it is a difficult thing to do. Hayek's proposal was that you need some type of theoretical framework with which to draw practical conclusions or educated guesses and that equations and such are overrated in social sciences, and I tend to agree with that sentiment.

Another valid criticism of scientism I think is that for many it does eliminate practical concerns such as meaning and direction and even some political theory for that matter, at least when taken to its fullest extent. Because it relies so heavily on empiricism for the natural world and it is reductionist in nature, it has explanatory power for natural phenomenon but people who see the value in that tend to fall into the trap of denying emergent concepts. An emergent concept can be something like meaning or value that has an entirely naturalistic explanation but is best explained on a "philosophical" level, if you will.

If I rambled, I apologize but I believe scientism is an important topic. Nietzsche was right when he foresaw nihilism as a sweeping phenomenon. A scientistic mindset may isolate us from enjoying the more "irrational" aspects of life, such as art, beauty, and meaning. Now that may or may not be a bad thing, and it seems undesirable to me personally. Empiricism is not a bad thing when evaluating opposing claims about the nature of reality, but there is nothing wrong-headed about using philosophy/metaphysics to explain the material world's emergent properties. Theists have a mistaken view of scientists if they assume that those scientists believe science is the only means to reach any sort of understanding, although there are some of those people running around (Peter Atkins comes to mind). I believe it is not representative, that theist's ideas of nihilistic scientists are strawmans, and that admiration for science is a great thing.

The Good Villain

2010-11-23T22:36:00.006-05:00

Outside the city of Atra Flumen, there lived a successful farmer named John. He worked the fields with diligence and tenacity. His hard work was admired by the entire city and countryside, and he was hailed as the exemplar of the good citizen: hard working and loyal to his friends and family. His greatest friend was his mentor Fredrich, who was quick and mighty of mind, contemplating matters beyond the concern or ability of most men.

However, there eventually came a year in which John lazily prepared for the harvest. His behavior lost him the majority of his crop. He feared for his reputation, and dreaded appearing the market to beg for alms, but he knew there was no alternative if his family was to survive the harsh winter.

Fredrich kept close eye on the troubles of his friend though, and on the dreaded day he arrived in the market before John. Before John could accept the degree of shame necessary for begging aid of his neighbors, Fredrich loudly announced to all present that he had in fact destroyed John's crops in a fit of rage at the honor the farmer recieved, while he the philosopher recieved none.

Upon hearing the revelation, the people of the city drove Fredrich away in a fury. They razed his house to the ground and declared him an exile from the city. His reputation thusly ruined by his own words, Fredrich drew away into hiding. The people then donated graciously, even excessively to help John's family, despite his protests and public declaration of distaste for charity on his behalf.

At nightfall, Fredrich appeared at John's house. The farmer angrily demanded to know how his friend could have betrayed his trust. The older friend calmly reminded John of what he already knew: that his own lack of foresight had caused the calamity. Fredrich had simply spared him public shame and humiliation, and had done so by destroying his own reputation. To all who cared to weigh in on the events, Fredrich was a monster; he had become entirely ostracised from the community.

Fredrich spoke to John, saying to him, "If all the world's indeed a stage, then what travesty is it to be deemed monstrous by the audience? To sacrifice public image and reputation is intensely difficult. I ask you my friend, would it be not have been infinitely easier for me to simply offer condolence as a wise old man is wont to do? In such a way I would endear myself to my peers and enhance my own position, all the while appearing both sympathetic and noble. But this serves my friend hardly at all. Instead, is it not truly noble to take the more difficult, unsung path? Rather than perform the useless but lauded duty of a friend as expected by the rabble, I take the blame upon myself. I am destroyed in their eyes, but what matters the opinion of the masses compared to that of a friend? If I am mentioned in the stories of our people I will be synonymous with betrayer and fiend. Take heed my friend, the noblest deeds are the ones that remain hidden from the sight of gullible sheep, and the greatest of men are all unknown."

Self-preservation

2010-11-16T19:19:00.008-05:00

Every man, woman, and child is driven in myriad and sometimes inscrutable machinations of their own self-interest. A noble human being is constrained to his nobility by his own devotion, which he would not betray lest he lose his invaluable honor. A religious person is driven to serve their deity either by such lofty motivation as the nobleman or by more base desires for immortality and reward. A good samaritan helps the beleagured man because his conscience demands it; his good sleep demands it. I say this not to deprecate or devalue the actions of human beings, but only to establish that the human mind is irrevocably centered upon the only thing it can ever truly know: the ego. Motivations seem to be undeniably selfish, but are they? It would seem that certain actions can be carried out which would utterly ruin the benefactor, such as self-sacrifice unto death itself.

For the sake of this question, let us assume that death is indeed the end of life, so that we might avoid for a moment the unending squawking of theistic foolishness. After such assumption, let us imagine that one human being dives in front of a bullet for a person he has never met, sacrificing his life for the sake of a total stranger. Surely this is a selfless deed, is it not? The dead man will recieve no compensation; he will not receive so much as gratitude from the man who lives due to his heroism. It seems that the self-sacrificing man in the scenario not only disproves the idea that all actions ultimately feed the ego, but also shows that human beings are capable of acting against their own instinct toward the preservation of self.

And yet, such an answer seems unsatisfactory, if only because of my own vanity and arrogance regarding my ideas. Could it be that there is some sort of selfishness in such a selfless move? I say that there is; the man was no more altruistic (in motivation) than anyone else. If we could peer into the mind of this hero, might we discover that he understood the inevitability of his own demise, whether it be seconds or decades away?

I say that all who sacrifice themselves do so for the same reasons that guide other human decisions. They sacrifice themselves that they might transcend their mortality either by their legacy as heroes or by reward in a world after. The hero claims immortality for himself after the fashion of Achilles, though rarely in such magnitude. The more heroic his dangerous and potentially self-destructive deeds, the greater his legacy, the greater his legend, and the more long-lasting his immortality. It must be agreed that death in the service of some perceived "good" or "just cause" is far more attractive than a death stained with ignominy. In losing themselves they are able defeat the encroaching rot of the conqueror worm, which otherwise would not be denied.

The rational know that their days are numbered. For such men who are able to recognize cold truth and who are inclined in the direction of the heroic, it is not such a difficult choice to sacrifice oneself for another, since death approaches regardless of the movements made by men. Rather than wait for it, a hero meets it head on, and wins a small measure of infinity for himself.

Don't Grant the High Ground

2010-11-09T12:23:00.002-05:00

In debate with theistic advocates, it isn't hard to seek out their strategy. In defense of a being whose existence is, at the least, highly dubious that resides outside the normal rules of fact-finding, the tactic most used is to take something that most humans deem desirable and allow God to monopolize it.

It's pretty obvious that these things are: ethics, meaning, and cosmic purpose. The theist side assumes the existence of objective morality / intrinsic value, objective meaning, and cosmic purpose. Their scope is so limited that they can't perceive anything from a non-anthropic perspective, but let's ignore that for now. I believe it is a mistake to acknowledge the proposition that these attributes of the universe are desirable in the first place, thus ceding the "high ground," so to speak. I have seen in debates (most notably with William Lane Craig) where an atheist may play the game on the religious apologist's terms. By ceding this high ground, the audience or potential "convert" will wind up being more sympathetic to the apologist's emotional argumentation.

Put differently, instead of claiming, "yes, those things are nice but here's why I believe they don't exist," atheists could make more headway in obliterating the very idea that these are nice things. Let's begin:

1. Objective Theistic Morality

First things first, theists say that in order to claim God is tyrannical, one must allow for the fact that good and evil exist and the only way that can exist is with a higher authority than man. They never substantiate this claim, it is just made with no justification. Why can't man's opinion be the highest form of value judgments? Why do we need a celestial babysitter to declare that one action needs punishment and the other reinforcement?

I, for one, am not a moral realist in the sense that moral "facts" aren't really facts, but in no way does moral anti-realism (which doesn't deny some type of modified code in human behavior) follow from atheism. There are many defensible forms of atheistic morality, like Ideal Observer or Natural Law. Now many prominent atheist philosophers such as Nietzsche (who I'm closest to) or Camus or Sartre had their objections and were anti-realists in some form or another, but their positions need to be argued for or against and are in no way a given.

Secondly, referencing the main point of this piece, what is so great about having God tell us what is good and what is bad? The way this system is set up, it is supposedly objectively good to send the majority of humanity to rot in Hell. There's no way to appeal this sentencing and God has coerced you to belong in his system. At least with competing human moralities, there is some sort of cooperation and compromise so that the least amount of damage is done to each party. After all, according to Divine Command Theory, what we have is a being who promulgates something as being good irrespective of our opinions. A good example is placing prohibitions on human sexuality. If it makes us less happy and more uncomfortable, what is the point of morality? It ceases to serve us with any utility. At this stage, morality becomes a control mechanism. God can punish moderated envy, moderated lust, and moderated anger, all of which are important to individual health, for no other reason than merely classifying it as evil. The good/evil dichotomy is where religion has distorted our intentions regarding behavior. Instead of a dialectic of good/bad, desirable/undesirable, or smart/misguided, this system promotes an ultimate "us vs. them" mentality without really having to give a justification for why something is good and why something is evil. Instead of thinking critically about why things are to be applauded or avoided, God's authority stems from being a presupposed archon whose authority is not earned, and thus not evaluated reasonably and manifests itself as internalized fear. This separates our desires from our goals, and that causes emotional frustration.

So in a nutshell, what humans really want is freedom to overcome their limitations and seek desired ends in a reasonable manner that takes into consideration the abilities of others so that we aren't raging psychopaths, because that is our nature inherited from evolution. What the theist in this argument wants to do is coerce you into an all-or-nothing system. "You can't have that if you don't accept all the other baggage that our God provides, and if you don't like the baggage, that means you are rebelling against God." It's a very clever device, but one that we need not fall into.

2. Objective Meaning

The argument concerning life's meaning is another religious creation that offers an inflexible, all-or-nothing trade-off. As I believe Peter Atkins once put it, "theologians really make a living out of inventing questions and then denying that science can answer them." Either you accept Yahweh's plan for you to understand him, or you have to contemplate suicide and you may as well kill yourself since you have no meaning in life.

Again, is Yahweh's plan for us something that is desirable? Theists, again, make an interesting case that if you don't know Yahweh, then you can't experience how fulfilling his plan really is. So basically, "if you can convince yourself Yahweh exists and you convince yourself how fantastic his plan for you is, then you can fully appreciate his plan for you. And if you don't understand or appreciate his plan, then you're not trying hard enough." Again, more ham-handed reasoning.

Yahweh acts as a celestial dictator who coerces people into situations that they do not approve of for reasons they don't understand. I'm sorry, I don't like that system. His "meaning" is not my "meaning." If meaning in this sense is what we strive for, what we live for, and what we enjoy, then we have many sources for meaning. We humans can create our own meaning. This meaning may have its origins in many facets of life such as struggle against insurmountable odds, happiness, helping others for the apparent sake of helping others, etc. It is many things to many people. Human-created meaning need not be a one-size-fits-all solution as it can vary from individual to individual. Two secular thinkers who helped articulate this are the philosophically (somewhat) opposed Socrates and Nietzsche when they stated, "Know thyself" and "Become what you are" respectively. I don't know if better commands have been stated, and certainly anything the petty Holy Fuhrer Yahweh has uttered does not come close.

3. Cosmic Purpose

Cosmic purpose is something that can be desirable or undesirable to different people. Some people may feel the need for their lives to be dramatic on a grand scale and others do not. I believe it is a sign of emotional maturity to accept the fact that our lives were not intended, that we are accidents, and that nobody has plotted out what we make of our lives. It also gives us an extraordinary amount of freedom to act out as we wish.

There is no need to assume we are anything greater than what we are; a primate species evolved with the best known capabilities of abstract / logical thought and one of the highest forms of emotional capacity. Why do theists need to expect anything more? And while apologists of many stripes may harp on our lowly origins, as Darwin stated, I fail to see how that effects the human species in the here and now. What matters is not how we came to be, but where we are going. And being capable of explaining how psychological phenomenon can be reduced to neurochemical impulses does not diminish the grandeur of the subjective experience of neurochemical impulses. So I believe the idea of cosmic purpose ties into ideas about the soul and how humans aren't elevated above the other creatures of this planet, at least not in an arbitrary sense.

---------------------------------------

In conclusion, the offers on the menu presented by theism can be modified by atheists and implemented into our own individual repertoires. We don't need to be told what our meaning in life is, what can make us happy, or how to live a "good" life. What we need is to get in touch with ourselves and actualize lives that we think will accomplish all of these things. The largest failure of religion is to ignore the individuality of the human species and disregard the utter failure of top-down authoritarianism. And why wouldn't it? It is a by-product of the infancy of our species, one that was illiterate, uneducated, mystical, brutish, and fearful.

Desperate to be Unique

2010-11-07T23:58:00.010-05:00

Amidst the massive crowd of rabble, which is still limited enough just to be numbered, a man cannot help but despair at his lack of worth. As the colony continues despite the death of a single ant, so too does the world of men continue without noticing the loss of an individual. Maddening horror envelopes any poor soul intelligent enough to recognize his generic existence but not outstanding enough to rise above it. To know that one is not unique even in the realization of insignificance is to take the full weight of existence onto one's shoulders. To bear that weight and endure that stark reality is courage, but for all too many it is a burden that cannot be tolerated. Escaping into delusion is not difficult, as indeed it takes only a few words to convince some that they are the deliberate creation of a caring deity, and some others believe they can become god-like themselves. Still others seek respite in delusions of grandeur, egregiously inflating their own egos and believing themselves superior by virtue of something beyond control, like race. Desperation to escape resounding truth is endemic of the cowardly and foolish.

In the glory of youth, the desperation to be exceptional is largely absent. Even if a child struggles to find self-worth it isn't a strecth of the imagination to believe that in some conceivable though far-off day, the child will achieve greatness. Teenagers and young adults are similarly protected by the sheer amount of time that is presumably open to them. Even if a life is rife with failure and disappointment, it is still quite difficult for cold, frank truth to entirely quash the dreams of glory.

At some point though, the dreamer is forced to wake. This point is commonly referred to as a mid-life crisis. It is quite aptly named, as it is indeed a crisis, and it could not be experienced before the onset of one's later years. Even if I, writing this very article, or you the reader were to summon the courage necessary to admit that our lives will more likely than not end in disappointment and paltry success at best, we could still not understand the depth of despair felt by those who have seniority of years. To think on despair is one thing, to have the experience forced upon oneself is quite another thing altogether. A man (or woman) cannot accomplish everything desirable in life, and since certain spheres must be neglected to the benefit of others, it is inevitable that regret will surface. This regret could be reasonably managed if the person still had the saving grace of time; their lack of time and recognition therein is the source of despair.

How might such feeling be combated? Success is ironically guaranteed to those who are weakest of temperment, as in their superstition they are easily convinced of their worth by virtue of worthlessness, they essentially believe themselves blessed because of their failures. This victory is founded on delusion, but it is a victory nonetheless, since many will go to the grave believing their lie without ever having the truth hoisted upon them. And thus they die undefeated, but still deluded and pathetic. If one is to truly triumph over inadequacy and impotency in the face of reality's all-consuming and crushing force one must be willing to admit a certain degree of failure. Not everyone will become famous, nor will everyone be remembered or glorified. One must renounce the need for such validation before true meaning can be established against the tides of nihilistic horror.

Revolting Against Sunday School

2010-11-03T18:28:00.003-04:00

What is the harm of church? After all, most people who grow up in Christian households don't feel the need for apostasy and many continue on in the tradition of their faith. They enjoy the solidarity, interconnectedness, and relationships that they build within the confines of church and see no reason to abandon it. In most places not called The Bible Belt, this is the extent of religion in America--It acts as, at most, a psychological deterrent against death and at least as an excuse to get out of the house and meet people.

A few weeks ago some troll posted a message branding us as (sarcastically) "fiery apostates" for railing against religion. Basically the point was to mock strident atheists who go out of their way to study, debunk, and denounce religion because, as this Christian apparently saw it, religion isn't that big of a threat.

In a way, he's right. I never grew up in a very Christian household. I kind of did, but it was never shoved in my face. It was one of those things that lurked in the background of political discussions or discussions about life's circumstances and of course as a family we didn't like evolution, but those things are mostly peripheral. The point of having a family is to foster a loving environment and I had that, religion or no religion.

But for many people, my case is not typical. For many people, religion does act as a mind-forged manacle and shackles constructive thought. Many branches, like a lot of Mormon sects, resemble cultish behavior and prey on the vulnerable minds of children, most of whom literally believe in Santa Claus until the age of 12 or so before they start questioning his existence. And mostly, for me, it is the predation of defenseless minds that irritates me the most about religion and always has. Religion in general has many benign attributes, but ultimately it comes down to wish thinking and I personally despise wish thinking.

The other issue is that even in a benign setting such as Sunday School where little children learn about the Beatitudes, there is always that element of authoritarianism. There is always that obedience that church leaders extract out of the young and then project some type of social pressure on people who (how dare they!) consider apostasy because that is where their mind takes them. And that is mostly what we like to provide on this blog--A forum that encourages individual thought. Obviously there are many other topics discussed, but the overall message here is to think for yourself.

The other point I'd like to make is that atheism is not inherently evangelical. I don't enjoy talking about religion because my parents forced me to go to Sunday School (which they never did), but we just like talking about it. I personally find it insanely interesting. I'm not going to go out of my way to publicly question your personal superstition, but the minute you enter the arena of ideas, be prepared to experience some backlash. Christians in general tend to think they are being picked on by militant atheism when in reality they are experiencing blowback from not being even capable of considering other points of view. And this is the true and toxic nature of religion; it encourages blind obedience to authority figures who have not earned their status while at the same time promoting absolute certainty about what the best course of action is for humanity at-large. It is inherently a one-size-fits-all system and it is inherently totalitarian. That is why I rail against public religion and unfortunately, that is the form most religion takes.

The Curious Case of Christology

2010-11-03T17:33:00.002-04:00

Here is how Wikipedia defines Christology:

Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God. As such, Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life (what he did) or teaching than with who or what he is.

I find it rather bizarre that an entire field of study can be used to study the existence of somebody who's existence is mildly dubious. But to set that aside for now, this entire field reeks of presuppositionalism. Of course, we a) have no way of knowing that Jesus existed (which I'm willing to grant) and b) know that his nature is going to be entirely derived from Biblical principles and whatever the scriptures say. The scriptures have been refuted somewhat as being plagarisms and their historical veracity has come into question with some gospels being determined as Canonical and then outright dismissing the gnostic or rival gospels. And of course they can't even agree on the details of Jesus' birth or how the tombs of Jerusalem opened up or numerous other details.

But even granting all of that, the religious' work is still ahead of them. Christology is basically an attempt to make the figurehead of the Christian religion seem somewhere coherent, at least enough for faith which, ironically, doesn't require coherency as one of its basic building blocks. In order to do this, of course, one must rely on the gospels as being holy writ and divinely inspired. There is no way to verify if such is the case and it must be totally taken on faith that the Biblical scriptures represent reality, and thus its legitimacy is presupposed off the bat.

But let's play the theistic game. Let's examine what they say about Christ. Many Christian apologists attempt to balance the fine line between faith and reason when making truth-apt claims about the universe. One of the key components of modern apologetics is that logic is part of God's nature. God can't make a four-sided triangle, for instance, because triangles are definitionally three-sided. But when I see those engaging in Christology attempting to balance the God-man nature of Jesus, I find a very difficult time in figuring out what they are even talking about.

The central thesis, to most Christians obviously, is that Jesus died for our sins. But as the definition above states, who was Jesus and what were his attributes in relation to the divine? There are those who say he is fully God and those who say he was fully human. I'm not willing to get into that as I admit up front that my knowledge of presumptuously useless and esoteric Christian theology is not up to par; however, I will be willing to call out those who say God cannot make a four-sided triangle yet can create a human being with a dual-nature.

First off, what is a dual-nature? Nobody knows what that means. No human has ever had a "dual-nature," even if they happen to have split brain psychologies. That is just an element of their psychology and nothing more. They are still fundamentally the same person. This dual-nature that theologians speak of seem as incoherent as a four-sided triangle. Basically what this is similar to is claiming that there exists a realm "outside of space and time" when our entire experiences (and that thought itself) have been in the context of space and time. We don't have a meaningful concept of what that could possibly be.

I hate to leave this post off here, but I am dangerously close into lapsing into theological noncognitivism. I have yet to see where a coherent case can be put forth that Jesus was half-man half-God or any variation of that sort. Ultimately it seems like a load of nebulous windbaggery.

Are Animals Truly Inferior to Human Beings?

2010-11-02T23:45:00.003-04:00

The most obvious answer arises instinctually. Of course the life of an animal is inferior to that of a human being; the existence of an animal is incontrovertably less valuable than that of our own species. But can this emotional reaction to the question be defended, or must it be attributed to simple and unthinking anthropocentricism? Without invoking some vague and outmoded concept such as the soul, can human beings truly be regarded as more important than other living creatures? More succinctly, is speciecism defensible? It is foolish to deny the first answer, the one born of emotional and instinctual outcry in favor of one's own brothers and sisters. The urge of instinct burns as powerfully in the human animal as in any other, it merely takes guises made possible by superior intelligence. Such guises are so brilliantly wrought that one might almost forget that instinct underlies all thought. The question is then whether one of these guises, namely logical construct, has any power that might be brought to bear in defense of human superiority.

Let it not be denied, human beings are in all essence nothing more or less than animals. We are simply the most intelligent and therefore most powerful of any creature known to have arisen thus far. It is extremely important to recognize that the separation between man and beast is one of structured stratification and not essential difference of nature. Other animals display the capacity for traits that have traditionally been viewed as the domain soley of humanity. Higher animals (stratification is obvious in this label) in particular are often motivated by that which was once thought exclusively human: the motivation of action by feelings of compassion or cruelty. Mammals universally care for their young and pack animals behave in similar fashion to primitive human tribal societies, demonstrating a strong impulse driven by an equally powerful need for hierarchy and domination of the strong. Juxtaposed to this human-like solidarity for the sake of survival is the similarly human activity of dolphins who hunt and kill porpoises for the sole sake of dislike and sport. It can be inferred that the killing is done for the sake of entertainment because the porpoises did not threaten the dolphin's food supply and they are not consumed by the dolphins after they are killed.

The similarity of lower creatures to ourselves, coupled with their lesser but still notable and laudable intelligence invites the objection to any notion that human beings are in some way better or their lives more valuable by virtue of simply being human. If the only difference is in degree, and not principle, if human beings are simply a small step away from their animal cousins, is it logically defensible that human need always take precedent over animal life? Is it not heinous to put animals to death for the sake of feeding omnivorous human beings?

The answer is complex, but not unduly so. It is my opinion, and that is likely all it can ever be, that human beings are more important and more valuable than animals to such an extent that a single human's is worth an entire species of animal. Of course losing an entire species of animal would likely lead to problems for the human species as well, I am assuming here that the choice is more simple: either the human being lives or the animal species lives with no consequences to follow. Putting aside emotion, which of course has long concluded the answer, human beings are logically more valuable for the simple reason that they are the highest form of life known to exist. Everything that is admirable in the behavior of animals exists to a far greater measure in humans. Obviously the opposite is true as well, human beings have a greater capacity for cruelty and capriciousness than do animals. But humans alone have such developed instinct as to allow room for mercy and self-sacrifice. Humans have created ideals for themselves that are more important than immediate benefit, which is the most far-sighted goal of any animal. The very query that is the subject of this article is evidence of human superiority, no animal would hesitate to eat another animal if it was hungry, but a human being might conceivably be possessed of mercy that gives less thought to itself than to another. Humans are as much bound to instinct as any other animal, but their intelligence allows for the manipulation of instinct to better ends than can even be conceived by lesser creatures.

Is it right to slaughter animals for food? Is harshness and cruelty justifiably directed towards them? Our outcry for mercy and restraint when we could easily destroy, and our ability to discern the need for such restraint in our own self-interest demonstrates the logical conclusion long ago determined by the heat of emotion: human beings are superior to animals and their lives are more valuable.

Onward Christian Soldiers

2010-11-02T01:04:00.001-04:00

It is incredibly easy to laugh in the face of Christians who so righteously declare themselves the rightful property of their god as his creation, all the while smiling their slavish grins and hoping for the onset of another world. Of course to an individualist, and to presumably most who claim the title of atheist, such feeling is ignoble and disgusting. It is difficult for one of humanistic inclination to avoid exasperation and sadness to hear another human being announce with pride their own slavery and worthless nature, deserving of death but delivered by grace. However, Christians are human beings first, and they too yearn for nobility over deprecation. They simply believe that nobility is impossible given their mere existence, tainted as they believe they are by unavoidable sin. In some variations of the cult it is believed that, once saved, they are able to boldly serve their god and please him. It is these less deplorable sects that attention is now directed, so that their conception of duty and honor might be given deserved respect.

Envision the following scenario: A great king rules over the entire world with an iron fist. By necessity he is unyielding and harsh, but his loyal soldiers never doubt that he does love his kingdom and its citizens. They willing throw themselves into harm and humilation's way to defend their sire. In defending his honor they honor themselves. They largely fight against those who have twisted the vision of their king into something perverse and repugnant, or against those who have denied the name of the king outright. These groups are viewed respectively as either foolishly misguided or insolently undisciplined. The lot of those soldiers who are truly loyal is sorry indeed, and thankless. They toil all of their days in unceasing service, with little to no reprieve even imagined. Yet they trust in their king and hope beyond hope that they might find rest and peace in a world beyond their mortal lives, seeking to spread this message of salvation when possible.

Discipline, honor, and duty. These concepts are rightully glorified by the best of mankind, and it would be false to say that no Christians can be found amid such a host. Their service to their god captures all their virtues, and it can be assumed that this enough for some without even the promise of eternal reward. That being said, this idealized version of Christianity, and of noble Christian knights standing amid a sea of barbarism and insolence is obviously false to anyone not under the heel of self-delusion. The king described above is not the Christian god, since Yahweh knows no necessity, and has no reason to be cruel. Despite the mendacity of the scenario above, it is important to consider that such a viewpoint could be the driving force behind the faith of at least some sheep found amidst the herd. Rather than slaves, they are loyal centurions carrying out a will commanded by honor and duty which they might not understand but they always trust to be for the best. To say that this notion is misguided is indeed a laughable understatement, but how wonderful is it to know (or at least hope) that our Christian brothers are not uniformly slavish and cowardly?

Writing on the Wall

2010-10-25T23:49:00.002-04:00

The origin of the term "writing on the wall" finds its roots in the Holy Bible. The painting above, done by Rembrandt, illustrates the scene in which Belshazzar is being informed of the impending doom that will overrun his kingdom, Babylon, for utilizing stolen material from the Jewish temple during a feast. What the phrase "writing on the wall" means should be obvious to any person with a modicum of knowledge concerning the English lexicon; practically, something that is bound to happen or something negative that the subject learns is virtually inevitable.

So with that in mind, the topic of evolution really is a giant bugaboo for the theist, most notably in the monotheisms which state that God takes more than a passing interest in the affairs of mere human beings and that our trifling occurrences on the middling planet referred to as "Earth" is the apotheosis of the universe. The problem of course is the contradictory nature between Scripture's account of man's creation and the scientific account of man's emergence. Now, with this recent scientific discovery which, surprise surprise, does not match up with an ancient and naive guestimate as to how human beings developed, theistic apologetics are forced into conceding the point that evolution has happened and is about as reasonably considered a fact as you can derive from science. So much so that detractors are compared to flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.

Let's keep in mind now that even though St. Augstine theorized that God is not limited to literally creating the universe in a matter of six days and that this interpretation could possibly be purely metaphorical, the young Earth creationist theory was the default position and taken literally for quite some time, including many in and around the time of Charles Darwin. The peculiar case for theists now is to explain how evolution maintains a certain level of efficiency, not during the course of evolution as evolutionary progress more than likely tends toward more efficient mechanisms to interact with the environment, but on the part of God's creation.

The sticky predicament for theistic apologetics is to explain why God chose this route for human beings to develop and "prosper." The amount of time, for one, seems exorbitant and wasteful. As we can see in the process of domestication and selective breeding, known "intelligent design" used by humans can produce massive genetic changes in a few thousand years. The cow is a great example of rapid evolutionary change thanks to intelligence. Now, assuming nature operates via blind and indiscriminate mutations, no wonder it takes so long for species to differentiate and evolve. It appears as if there was no intelligence behind the course of evolution when we compare nature's inefficiency and intelligence's swiftness at generating change in organisms' gene pools.

But that aside, there is nothing stopping God from snapping his fingers and creating the state of the universe as it is. The amount of death and suffering that heartless evolution creates seems excessive in the least and there is no conceivable reason why this alternative is more efficacious than my finger-snapping scenario. Christian apologist William Lane Craig has said in a debate versus Austin Dacey that it is "awfully presumptuous" to assume that if God does not meet our standards that he therefore is either capricious or non-existent. But what other standard are we allowed to use? After all, we can't play this both ways when we assume that God has given us divine insight into the key features of reality and then turn around and say that our perspectives are puny, puerile, and faulty.

Perhaps even worse, this same apologist has made the case that efficiency only matters to those with "limited time and limited resources." Exactly, which is why it makes God's design apparently even worse! Maybe if God was constrained by certain elements that this creation was the best he could compile, but really? This disavows God of his ability to make a more efficient creation? If he is not constrained by these elements, then I believe we have every right to expect better than to be ridden with cancer, not being able to grow back severed limbs like many amphibians, be without sonar like bats, have better immune systems, and maybe even be able to fly manually (hey I can dream, can't I?). Of course, these features would just be my subjective preference concerning what I would find to be cool, but many of us can agree that these physical attributes can be an improvement. We don't even have to ask for much else, just that maybe we could live healthier lives and that disease were not so prevalent. Or how some kids may not grow up to be autistic. Or how some women wouldn't die in childbirth.

So in conclusion, I believe it seems that the reason theists are so pestered by evolution is that the writing is on the wall so to speak. The Belshazzar in this instance is the reluctant, squeamish theist while the mysterious hand may be scientific inquiry and rationality concerning the outcome of understanding evolution. What the theist fears is that this dislodges us from our perceived place in the cosmos and makes us one of many species struggling to survive in a chaotic and unreasonable world.

Carl Sagan vs. H.P. Lovecraft

2010-10-24T21:53:00.004-04:00

Admittedly, the very title of this article is a bit laughable, and more than a little evocative of certain mind-numbing entertainment so enjoyed by the lowest echelon of society. Perhaps the "versus" in the title is a bit much, but in any case it deserves some explanation before the main idea is presented. While I won't descend into mere detail concerning the two men, I will state that the two, while very different and necessarily so for the sake of the article, dealt with one unifiying issue from which there sprang two contentious views. Such views need not be associated by necessisity with either of the two men, and crediting them entirely to these two is less than perfectly honest. However, their names are expectedly well known and so suffice to represent the aforementioned views and the conflict between them that I would like to present. To put it quite succinctly, both Carl Sagan and H.P. Lovecraft were witness to the enormous nature of the cosmos, and such a view afforded them with bright optimisim and bleak pessimism respectively. This is the area of interest, namely the belief in humanity espoused by Sagan pitted against the meaningless helplessness made clear in Loveraft's writings.

H.P. Lovecraft was a master of horrorifying fiction because he was horrified by all of existence. All the struggles of man appeared to him as nothing more substantial than those of ants; both were equally pointless and impotent. Lovecraft believed that "the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear". In light of this inherent hopelessness regarding the state of man, he was wary of knowledge to the extent that it opened up new vistas of the universe to the gaze of man, since such knowledge was ultimately useless and would serve only to cement the horror of man in recognition of his totally helpless situation. This is made glaringly clear in this opening line from one of his most famous works The Call of Cthulhu, "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hithero harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or else flee from the deadly light into the peace and security of a new dark age." Of course Lovecraft is speaking through his character so it cannot be completely clear if the thoughts are his own. But that actually matters very little, it is important only that these thoughts were expressed at all and might now be reviewed, regardless of source or sincerity in terms of their inception.

In stark contrast to the overbearing despair of Lovecraft's ideas, the entire philosophy of Sagan is teeming with hope, and even more conversely, with comfortability. The preceding current of existentialist thought in the late 19th and early 20th century focused largely upon man being, in the words of Camus, a stranger in the universe. Even his natural habitat was alien to him, the unthinking and inhuman universe was utterly incommensurable to man. Sagan, however, saw man as being quite at home in the cosmos, even going so far as to name mankind the children of the stars. Living during the Cold War, he was not ignorant to the fragility of mankind, and actually came to the conclusion that if intelligent beings did in fact arise in the universe, they would destroy themselves more often than not. But this was possibility, not inevitability, and such devastation could be averted, especially with the aid of increasing knowledge. A man of science, as well as the producer and writer of the Cosmos series, Carl Sagan strongly supported education in general. He believed that humanity was capable of overcoming the limitations and vices that seem to be inherent in its very being; this could be accomplished largely through education en masse. Knowledge was not seen as an instrument of horror, but rather a necessary tool of salvation.

Which view is more tenable then? Lovecraft and Sagan were both undoubtedly and demonstrably aware of the fragile condition of man, along with the mortality of the universe as a whole. Lovecraft is not mistaken in his declaration that the void will eventually consume all, and both men seem to agree that a species is snuffed out as easily in the universe as is a small flame on a windy earth day. It would seem at first that Lovecraft is largely more correct in his conclusions, as even if Sagan's dream of space exploration and colonization were to be realized, entropy cannot be conceivably reversed and even the stars themselves will die in due time. The final destruction of intelligent life will at best be concurrent with the destruction of the cosmos that allowed it at all. However, if by such logic we conclude that there is no real value in knowledge, since it merely delays the inevitable, then we must also conclude that because individual lives will one day end, there is no value in any moment of life. Since suicide is deplorable even given the knowlege that death is staring at us all, there is no reason to committ societal suicide by surrendering the pursuit of knowledge that sustains and improves civilization. It may be that an intelligent race could reverse the othewise unavoidable path towards final destruction in the cosmos, but even if such a thing is truly impossible, life still has meaning in the moment. Therefore, effort should be expended to improve and protect it. Even Lovecraft refrained from suicide, indicating that final end is no call for immediate end.

Perhaps the discussion would have been better served if simply entitled "Optimism and Pessimism". But I think the positions and thoughts of two brilliant men serve to establish a certain valuable context. As is almost constant, the decisions regarding veracity and value are largely left to the individual person.

A Basic Argument Against Christianity

2010-10-21T00:45:00.003-04:00

If one is pressed to give the number one reason why Christianity is a farcical death cult, one only needs to refer back to the essential doctrine of Jesus. That can be found in John 3:16, which states that God sent his only begotten son to die for our guilt, vicariously, because God loves us so much.

In order to illustrate why this paints Christianity as a farcical religion, one must explore the nature of what it means to sacrifice. In the dictionary sense, it can certainly and accurately be posited that Jesus Christ, given the validity of the divine ransom, did sacrifice himself for humanity; he experienced temporary pain to forgive humanity of their dim-witted failures at being perfect beings. In essence, Jesus was blameless and took the fall for people that he loved.

One more random example, if I were to buy some ice cream and planned on eating it all by myself until I later find that a good friend or family member also wants a scoop or two, technically I am sacrificing my share of ice cream to satisfy another member of the human race. This is a totally voluntary reaction, first off, unlike the extortion that occurs at the hand of God, but that is a different debate for a different time. Needless to say, this is not much of a sacrifice considering where the taste of a bowl of ice cream ranks on any human being's value scale. But it is one nonetheless.

Now there is something awry with this scenario, however--how is this a meaningful sacrifice? The reason I bring this up is because Jesus' sacrifice doesn't seem all that impressive to me. Now this could be labeled as being a totally subjective process and that may be. But so is my illustration of the ice cream situation. Most of us would agree that that sacrifice is no big deal. The reason Jesus' sacrifice seems miniscule is because Jesus knew the outcome ahead of time and only experienced temporary torture.

The reason that a soldier diving on a grenade about to explode to protect his comrades seems so commendable is that there is a certain finality about the decision to relinquish the capacity to experience life so that others may live on and continue enjoying their personal experience. The uncertainty that lies beyond the realm of existence is something that we all have to deal with and ponder, but none of us know what happens when we die. However, we probably have good grounds to assume that existence ceases. So it is seen as a totally selfless act to protect members that you share affection for.

Now, if a soldier knows that eternal paradise will await him if he jumps on this grenade, what is the point of doing so in the first place? One issue that could be raised is that his fellow members may be better off for dying, for when they do, they will experience eternal bliss. But the larger point is that if the solider does this with certain knowledge that heaven awaits him, the trade-off seems like a winning deal with no detriment. Sure you may lose your earthly life, but what is that compared to everlasting contentment?

To complete the analogy, Jesus went on the cross to be tortured for a few hours knowing full well that he will rise three days later in spiritual form free of the pain that Earth provides. Some interpretations (although extrabiblical in nature) also believe that Jesus spent those three days in Hell, which also makes no sense because three days compared to an infinity of torture doesn't even cover .0000000000000001% of the time most of humanity will spend in Hell. For in order to be a true sacrifice, Jesus must actually participate in the system and spend an eternity in Hell, it seems, to cover for other people.

Of course, this barbaric system of divine coercion and mafia-esque ransom tactics must strike one as awfully bizarre. I'm not sure how Jesus spending a few hours nailed to some planks of wood exempt me from my sins, so long as I accept the fact that Jesus spending a few hours nailed to some planks of wood exempt me from my sins. I'm even willing to grant the concept that God didn't "make" the rules and that he must abide by them because it is objectively Good, somehow. But even with that in mind, the Christian still doesn't make it clear how we are all implicated in this. I had nothing to do with Jesus being crucified, yet symbolically (and symbols are just that, symbols with no inherent meaning) I am responsible because I think the opposite sex is attractive (forbidden thoughts, oh my!) or I got really mad at somebody at some point in time or I told a fib when I was six years old because I thought I could escape punishment that I found undesireable. Again, this system is completely contrived and Jesus' time on the cross is drastically unequal to the punishment we will receive. In the end, Jesus didn't lose much compared to what he gained through death, making the sacrifice void.

March of Equality

2010-10-17T21:52:00.004-04:00

Down through the history of mankind there has been a progressive dismantling of hierarchy. In modern western society particularly, position has become less dependent on birthright and privelage. Modern men (and women) fully believe that they are members of a meritocracy in which effort and skill are rewarded with prestige and power; they are often vindicated in that belief. There is a certain trend to be observed though, one that archs back through centuries and whose outcome might still be centuries ahead. From aristocracy humanity has moved to meritocracy. But in a meritocracy are human beings not still bound by the limitations present and inescapable by the condition of their birth? The conditions of birth still hold undeniable sway over the lives of men; there has merely been a shift from class to ability. True equality would mean equality not only in opportunity but also in power both physical and mental. Will Meritocracy give way to something more equitable?

Is such equality possible? It is certainly not unthinkable. The mere description evokes images of Albert Huxley's Brave New World, wherein genetic engineering is used to fashion each successive generation, albeit in an explicit hierarchy rather than a mass of equals. The advent of human mastery over genetics could herald an era in which physical and mental advantages are either tapped to bestow an arguably unnatural level of skill and prowess onto those whose parents or benefactors can afford the cost, or they could be removed in order to ensure that the tyranny of talent never reigns again.

Is such equality desirable? That answer is surely dependent on who is questioned. How could a man who was born with undesirable genetic factors not desire a certain levelling of life's playing field? How could a person on the advantageous side of the gene pool not desire a maintenance of his superiority? True, it can be said that if every person is equally talented and skilled, then no one is truly talented or skilled. The exceptional is by definition apart from the huddled masses. But who could expect those masses to accept their generic existence if the possibility arises for them to ascend it? Hero worship surely only extends so far as the worshiper is unable to become a hero himself.

If the foray into genetics does result in some revolution of human existence, then it can be expected that calls for equality will come long after the first inception of the technology. More than likely the wealthy will benefit first and foremost, with the mob achieving a measure of success after long and protracted battles against the more powerful minority. So if a prediction is to be made it is this: genetic engineering will vastly widen the gap between the affluent and the desperate until a certain point at which the gap will disappear entirely. What happens then is impossible to discern (for me at least).

In Pursuit of Truth

2010-10-14T21:06:00.003-04:00

What's the point of finding out what is true?

A question like this is one of our fundamental inquiries. Truth obviously is better than falsehood, we may believe. But a better question perhaps may be why are we so eager to pursue truth?

An obvious point to be made is that not all of us choose to pursue the Truth, with a capital T. We generally convince ourselves of what is true thanks to our biases. The biases lead us to sort out information that we are predisposed to believing and we shun dissenting opinions or other points of views. But even for atheists, there is a degree of painfulness sometimes in experiencing the raw reality of any situation.

For instance, when evolution is true, it displaces our place in the cosmos. We are no longer the sole purpose of the universe, but we are an accidental spin-off of random mutations and natural selection. The world is cold and it doesn't care about us. When we die, we are gone forever and cannot experience any longer. The implications are many and there seem to be many reasons not to pursue truth. Is ignorance bliss in this situation? We would say no, for one main reason.

There really seems to be a sort of finality about the discovering of truth (or at least a glimmer of Truth). For instance, no matter how many mental barriers we may enact, once something as simple as evolution and its implications become so glaringly apparent, there is nothing we can do to reverse the impact it has on our ideas. There is no point of return. But for us who believe in free inquiry, the value is in ridding ourselves of superstition. We experience the world, maybe not as it is, but as it seems. We eliminate bogus theories about reality so that it does no pollute our experience.

Basically it takes a level of maturity to deal with cold, hard reality. Theists tend to be devoid of this ability. Something like determinism (which is absolutely not a given if atheism is true) is something that theists find unacceptable. A lack of theistic objective morality is another thing that theists find absolutely unacceptable. The idea that they are mere material is unacceptable. So really most of the dismissiveness is due to their bias and their standards of what they would rather believe, it seems, rather than having actual good grounds for rejecting these beliefs. Now, atheists engage in these types of debates as well. They make arguments which grant the existence of God and then seek to expose its undesireability. But it is a different argument. Atheists, I'm sure, would rather live longer than they do and I'm sure atheists would prefer having free will versus deterministic laws. But that is beside the point; atheists want to go where the evidence leads for the sake of it rather than believing what they want and forcing the wants to meet the facts.

Mainly, the point of bringing this up is because theists face similar dilemmas; theistic people tend to suffer in this life for the sake of pleasing God. There doesn't seem to be another reason. The fundamental difference between atheists "suffering" at the prospect of evaluating uncomfortable information is that it is for the purpose of informing themselves and acting upon correct information as opposed to theists confusing themselves about things that don't exist. Once the superstition is removed, it ceases to act as an action-guiding force, which goes back to my point about the finality of discovering certain truths. Humans have goals and the best way to meet these goals is to know the circumstances. If our goal is self-improvement, superstition will only get in the way of improving our earthly lives and theism poses a problem to this struggle.

Chosen Fate?

2010-10-14T02:14:00.003-04:00

For most Christians, the existence of freewill is the foundation of the entire religion. Freewill excuses any foul deed committed by god and any problem inherent with the world. Or so they say. The evils of the world are attributed to the sins of man, which are possible only if man has freewill. This desperate claim to freewill actually showcases the compassionate side of Christians; they are unwilling to accept that their god might be spinning the loom of fate all the time condemming innocents to suffering on earth and in hell. However, this goodwill is poisoned by the religion as it leads to a constant desire to essentially blame human beings if they happen to be living in some sort of sin.

Until 1978 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints held a policy of institutionalized racism. They banned blacks from their priesthood under the pretense that dark skin was a sign of sin. Of course such an idea is lunacy; how could blacks choose their skin color? The church actually held the belief that in a "pre-mortal" existence, the people who would in life be black committed sins that resulted in their darker skin. Mormons deluded themselves with such a fantasy in order to reconcile their beliefs in the inferiority of blacks with their assumption that human beings choose their own fates.

In the current day, a large number of Christians either condemm homosexuality outright, or at least view the act itself as sinful. They viciously reject any claim brought forth that homosexuals do not choose their sexuality; that it is actually an ingrained and natural tendancy for them to be attracted to the same gender much the same as heterosexuals naturally find attraction in the opposite sex. The idea that there is no choice is unnacceptable to Christians because it would mean that a behavior counted by them as evil was not actively chosen. Such a view would imply that god created homosexuals to sin against him, which is an understandably uncomfortable conclusion. Rather than face the more unsettling aspects of their religion, which is spelled out clearly in Romans 9, Christians choose instead to attempt in pathetic fashion to convince themselves and others that their god is one of love, and that sinners condemm themselves to hell.

All things have their source in god, if the mythology and ramblings of a thousand crazed preachers are to be believed. If the bible is any indication of truth, let the first honest recognition be that of god's authorship of evil. Creating evil men to destroy them is stated outright as a right of god since all is his creation. If the bible is the source of truth, then god surely does create those with a tendancy to revel in what Christians decry as sin, just so that he might show forth his wrath and power in their destruction. Let us stand together as human beings are reject the purported ownership this deity purportedly holds over us. Let us put aside our irrational hatreds and fears, rather than attempting to justify the inherently irrational and immoral.

Lord of the Dance

2010-10-13T16:19:00.002-04:00

Religion, or mythology in general, has held an undeniable sway over the hearts of human beings since before history properly began. The desire to explain and to understand is an integral aspect of humanity itself. Matching spiritual thinking in terms of both sheer longevity and significance in human culture is the art of music. Very often music works in tandem with spiritual ritual to evoke a sense meaning and connection with divinity. The religions that take advantage of the natural love human beings hold for the beauty of music are the most tolerable simply because they deny one less valuable dimension of what it means to be human. Those religions (or denominations) that ban music or place restrictions on the types of music adherents may enjoy must be denounced as cruel and dehumanizing.

An important question to pose is why a religion would seek to impose itself on the types of melodies in which the sheep are allowed to delight. As is usually the case, the answer is less than logical and far short of defensible. Some music is ostensibly against the teachings of the religion, denying the "absolute truth" of the holy books or some other sort of nonsense while simultaneously espousing rebellious themes. Rebellious music, or anything thought to even hint at any kind of revolt cannot be allowed within either the literal temple of a religion or the metaphorical temple of an individual's mind. But this is madness. What could be more spiritual than the feelings resulting from the pure joy or relatable understanding that young people are able to find in their music? If a religion would deny them what fills them with meaning, joy, and understanding then the religion is wrong.

It is assumed within most religions that some sort of music is allowed despite the attempts to ban more "worldly" tunes. However, some cults ban music outright, believing it to be a manifestation of the desires of the physical world, and therefore anathema to the virtues and goals of the religion itself. The Puritans and some practitioners of Sharia Law come to mind as detractors of musical merit. Some Christian and Muslim sects ban dancing as well, for the same reason music is frowned upon or declared vile. Surely such limitation on the expression of man is pure insanity. It is intolerable to deny men and women the extremely important catharsis and understanding made possible by music and dance.

Music is spiritual where spiritualism fails. It is an exaltation of divinity even in the face of God's death. Music needs no gods and no religion in order to lift man up out of the mundane and into the ecstatic; it is simultaneously the source of man's hope in his own often confusing and terrifying life. To deny it is to deny human nature. Some religions know this, and seek to strip that nature from the very face of the flock begging for salvation. Such poor huddled masses would do well to learn the lesson that salvation need not lie in the false promise of a fictional horror story or the gilded words of a con-man in holy vestments. Salvation can be found in the moment, in a pure moment of joy made possible by a music that sings to whatever man has that can be called the soul. Religions that facilitate that moment of joy are infinitely less harmful and hateful than those that would seek the path of self-hatred and self-flagellation. The Lord of the Dance is far from an acceptable deity, but he is infinitely superior to the Lord of the Whip.

Possibility Ad Infinitum

2010-10-13T12:34:00.004-04:00

Time and again theists have invoked the proclamation of the brilliant Dostoevsky that without god, "All things are permitted". They use it to attempt a demonstration of the lack of morality in the case of a world filled with disbelief. Aside from the obvious observation that the russian author intended this as a sigh of exasperation more than a joyous declaration, the theist fails to carry the thought through to the end. Instead of following the mode of thought to conclusion, they opt instead to point and cry out their delusional beliefs that man is a monster kept moral only by the chains of promised reward and punishment.

If god did not exist then all action might indeed be permitted, in the sense that there exist no eternal ramifications for temporal deeds. Of course there are certainly consequences resulting from immoral action that are fully justified in the physical realm of mortal man. These should not be ignored simply because they lack the severity of the sadist's ultimate dream: hellfire. Mankind is quite capable of punishing criminals and upholding its own justice, which had begun to develop long before monotheism and will continue to serve the desire for justice inherent in man long after he has freed himself from he yoke of the supposed almighty. The invocation of this one phrase demonstrates a lack of respect for mankind that shouldn't be surprising on the part of theists, particularly Christians, with their belief in the innate and inescapable sin of every human being since first emergence into the world.

Though all could arguably be permitted in the case that god did not exist, one could easily make the case that all is indeed permitted even in the event of his existence. Either way there are punishments for wrongful actions, whether they be self-inflicted anguish of the conscience or punishments inflicted by collective society, or in the assumed reality of god the punishment of The Pit. If a human being accepts the consequences for wrongful action then there is nothing restricting him in carrying out the movement. If history has any theological lesson to teach, it is that god does not interfere to save the innocent. The Jewish people at least understand this, but of course they had the courage to put god himself on trial. I could not expect such bravery from Christians. In any case, all is actually permitted regardless of whether or not god exists.

The situation is simply made infinitely worse if god was indeed the foundation of reality. If that was true, then all would not simply be permitted, but also possible. There would be no limit to the horrors that could potentially be released by the hand of an almighty god. Every foul king can eventually be put down, even if it takes the invisible hand of death to dethrone him. But the master and creator of death will endure forever, utterly without limit to intention or its carrying out. The terrors that are envisioned by man, speaking here of his fiction, are all potentially real. But they are only whispers and ghosts of the monstrosities that could be summoned forth by the merest thought of the universal sovereign. To speak of death as a savior, even the most broken peasant might hope for the release of the conqueror worm. There will be no escape and no release from the tyranny of the almighty.

There's a reason for the phrase, "Put the fear of god in you", as well. If awful pain is caused by a human being, then one cannot help but feel afraid at what could be effected by a power infinitely greater. There is no end to the possibilities for the joy that god can offer to those who are slavish enough to kowtow on command. And there is similarly no end to either the punishments inflicted on the noble or to the variety of torments they will be made to face. Our mere existence permits all that we are capable of doing; the existence of god permits literally everything and also makes it possible.

The Religious Marketplace

2010-10-11T21:40:00.003-04:00

The first amendment of the United States Constitution has contributed to the growth of religion in the United States.

To understand this hypothesis, one only need contrast the two continents of North America and Europe. Europe, spanning the time from the 16th to the 18th century which was probably the height of their imperialism, was highly authoritarian and highly statist in political philosophy. The feudal system was in the midst of disintegrating, but the remnats of monarchy and absolute command were still highly intact. Not only that, but the States being in bed with the Vatican also contributed much to the interconnectedness between church and State. While the Vatican is seen today as a religious institution (although be it a very reprehensible and slimy one to most atheists), during the medieval and Renaissance periods it was a highly political institution. The threat of excommunication made it so that the kings must bow underneath the Pope in terms of political authority. Of course, Martin Luther and England's break from the Church entered in a seismic overthrow of the common order.

When Luther nailed his theses into the doors and public opinion shifted (somewhat) from the control of the Vatican, it ushered in a new era of decentralization. One that allowed for thought to expand, grow, and change over time. We saw the rise of Zwingli and Calvin in addition to Luther's modifications of Catholic dogma and this represented freedom of thought. The pilgrims landed in America seeking refuge from European tyranny and for the ability to express their religion in a free and open manner. While Puritanical society was also very dogmatic and very authoritarian in its own right, the fact that America was symbolic for a hotbed of freedom and escapism from European political institutions would carry over well into the period of the American Revolution.

So up to now, while Europe had kept the connection between Church and State, America had the line sharply divided. America would let the marketplace take care of religion and let the State handle public matters. I believe this highlights America's religious tradition in that, while not having religion imposed on them by the States, it allowed cultural and religious exchange between Christian denominations. Even in Europe and the rest of the globe today, the denominations mostly come down to Catholic or Anglican (which are two sides of the same coin basically) along with protestant denominations being prevalent, but not accounting for a significant proportion of Christians in the world minus America. In Europe, the connection between having religion imposed on them seems to have a tendency to shift public opinion against religion and have a more skeptical outlook on the institution whereas in America, the freedom bred prosperity (although as an atheist, that may not be the right word!).

A good example that help illustrates this is the news media. The government controls much of the broadcasting industry with the FCC. There really are only so many TV stations being broadcast, with the main service providers only offering fewer than a few hundred distinct channels. It's a very highly regulated field, but if you compare it to the magazine industry, it becomes much more esoteric. Just think of the psychology, popular science, computer, gaming, fashion, home decoration, and tween magazines, to name a few. And obviously these magazines have dozens of competitors and (a totally arbitrary observation) must range in the thousands of different publications. Obviously it is much cheaper to start a magazine than a TV station, but the principle is the same. Decentralization generally leads to more opinions and more flow of thought.

In a larger context, however, religion today can be seen as a marketplace. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. all expanded in influence as memes and crowded out the paganism of the surrounding areas. Firstly, they can be seen as a function of power. After Christianity was adopted by Rome and the Holy Roman Empire, its expansion was rapid. Islam was also spread via the sword. But after the brute strength wears off and the religion becomes settled in, it can compete for adherents. The reason these monotheisms can be seen as so successful in light of its originally being imposed on unwilling converts is because of what it preaches. Islam means submission and, in a highly patriarchal and obedient culture as the Middle East, it can flourish. Christianity, with all its ugliness, is generally seen as a good thing because Jesus was apparently a nice guy who did all sorts of wonderful things. But the kicker obviously is the guarantee of another life. A religion that can provide this connection to our "spiritual" instincts is one that will succeed.

The Triumphs of Man

2010-10-05T18:57:00.007-04:00

Wading though murky pools of self-doubt and despair, through the sun deprived forests of nihilistic reflection, and in the full shadow of oppressive fate, mankind has triumphed. Man has seen the death of his gods, he has borne witness to the awe and terror-inspiring cosmos, he has realized not only his own mortality, but also that of life and the universe in general. Yet there are no calls to halt the progression of society, nor is there insistence on the utter pointlessness of life in the absence of eternity. True enough, man is a creature of habit, and his fervant and continued desire to survive maybe be attributable to instinct. But what matters it? Man can be seen for what he is: an organic construct bound as tightly as the most primitive bacteria to the physical laws and tendancies beffiting his condition. Does this revelation shatter the beauty of humanity and the its creations, feeble and fragile as they may be? Or is such a statement insignificant in light of the admittedly and necessarily ingrained feeling of love felt by the brothers and sisters of humanity?

Our species is still young, and we have not shaken off the baggage of barbarism. Around the world the screams of innocents ring out, ceasing only in the much more awful silence that follows. Down through all of history this has been the norm, but this is no reason to give in to despair and apathy. The very desire to resign oneself due to such misery is itself a call to arms against resignation and admission of defeat. If the outcry of the unfortunate evokes such sorrow, then such a feeling is proof of our capacity for empathy, which for a large part of our history was owed only to close family members, and even then offered sparingly. Mankind has begun to awaken to the truth of our universal brotherhood, and though the attempts have been tenative at best, there is real effort to enact measures protecting our newly recognized family from those who are as of yet unelightened.

Without god, man has been afraid to deem the actions of others either good or evil. Let us admit to ourselves that good and evil are our creations, subject to our whims! There is no way to prevent evil and promote good if man hasn't the courage even to stand on the merits of his own conscience. Let us proclaim once again, "This is right, that is wrong!". We have seen great suffering as a result of our earlier attempts to impose such judgements, but this is no reason to surrender. We must instead look carefully at the outcomes that are desirable. Ideals of brotherhood and love above all? Or perhaps survival at any cost is most important. Difficult choices require deliberation and consensus, not cryptic mewling from cowards denouncing the very effort to survive and improve. Those who proclaim the death of all that is human have sounded only their own helpless terror in the face of the vast expanse of existence with which man must aquaint himself.

Whether in hope or despair, man has discovered his unerring passion for life itself, and he has awakened to his great strenght, refusing to kowtow before the powers of his ancestors or the phantasms of his own imagination. He stands at the precipice of annihilation and laughs at the instruments of his demise, which are also the catalysts of his origin. Courage in the face of annihilation, and progress towards a better existence for all, these are the triumphs of man.

Cruel and Callous Creator

2010-10-03T04:37:00.006-04:00

The power of a religion is in its influence over the hearts of adherents. The average theist could hardly even speak on the topic of theism, much less argue using the terms of any philosophical proof purported to prove the existence of a god. Justications and proofs of god aren't important in themselves; they are necessary in order to justify what needn't, by definition, warrant justification: faith. Of course both unfalsifiable hypotheses and devotions paid to invisible beings is certainly viewed as silly or foolish in the modern world, founded as it is on the principles of honest scientific inquiry. For this reason faith is rarely enough; it serves as a convenient final position for the theist backed into a corner when and if their proofs have been defeated, but other than that theists are reluctant to attribute their beliefs to "mere" faith. What matters most is what a religion promises to its ever-eager flock, and that, while varying, typically constitutes the survival of the physical body's demise.

The promise of immortaility is without a doubt, the most powerful tool in the arsenal of religions, especially when viewed in their monotheistic variants. But to those actually interested in science and knowledge, such a promise means less than the attainment of real truth, if such a thing can truly be found. For such men of learning, the philosophical proofs and any iota of scientific backing for god become quite relevant, but for altogether different reasons. Rather than trying to justify belief, they would seek instead to find reasons for what is observable. For example, if it is accepted that there must be a cause for everything in existence, then it would be difficult for a man of the enlightenment to deny some sort of prime mover. Even admitting that though, for the deists of that scientific revolution and the deists of today, the religious systems of Abraham seem barbaric and cruel. Their idea of god is one that sets the universe in motion and then allows it to be governed by the natural laws inherent in its being; there is no interference or intercession on the part of the divine. As such, there is little to no belief that prayers actually reach the creator, much less a belief that he (or she) is influenced by them; there is similarly no belief in miralces, which would constitute the largest intercession imaginable.

This is the point of contention I find unavoidable in a deistic ontology and that of the theistic bend as well. While I find the idea of divine interference into human affairs quite appalling, I find the lack of such interference infinitely more appalling. To be sure, a true God would not have to intervene, as the system and the creations therein would be utterly perfect in their performance, without any need for constant revision. But the world in which we reside is not perfect, and that imperfection is painfully and hatefully apparent in the function of the natural world and in the actions of human beings. Of course I am being entirely anthropic here; I am judging the natural world to be imperfect by its lack of hospitality towards humanity. But what other judgement could be made? Crashing and exploding galaxies filled with all manners of radiation deadly to man, constant entropic decay leading to a universe inevitably incapable of supporting life of any support since usuable energy will be utterly gone, volcanoes, earthquakes, unseen pathogens, all conspire together to cruelly slay the undeserving human masses. What foul being could devise these horrors? The god of the bible isn't excused from the attrocity, if his existence is assumed, because these things have nothing to do with human freewill. They could easily be remedied and human beings would be no less free than theists so passionately believe them now to be.

But a deistic god cannot be excused either. Such a god is by the very definiton a being of non-interference. Every travesty, every assault, every horrific crime prevented by men, what caused these things? What might have prevented them? To be sure, they are casued by circumstance, either of the genetic or the environmental, and which of these is chosen by men? Put a desperate and violent criminal in a safe haven from childhood and see if he becomes the monster. It may well be that the beast was produced by the harsh surroundings of the child. Even if he succombs to darker passions, how can he truly be held accountable for fulfilling his detestable nature, which is his own even before he is born, always unchosen? One could say that he has the choice to resist such vileness, but the capacity and inclination to make such a choice are themselves products of his environment and the make up of his brain, neither of which he has any power to alter.

There is too much pain, too much sorrow. It is all utterly futile because man is a creature at war with himself, despising and embracing his alternatively high and foul nature. A tyrant is overcome only to be replaced moments or years later by one far worse. A child is saved only to be attacked the following day. And these momentary victories and temporary salvations are not the interventions of any god, they are the noble attempts of humanity, pitiful though they may be. It is expected by the courageous and noble that those in a position of power not stand by and watch suffering if it can be prevented. If one can act, one should act. Gods are either unlimited in their abilities of action, or at least extremely superior to men. But still they do nothing to ebb the flow of the terrible attrocities endemic to human life, from the most awful genocide to the small cruelties paid by man to his fellows in the comfort of "civil" society. My free will was forfeit the moment I became reality. Would that the illusion might die too, and drag all pretense down to hell alongside, if only for once I could proclaim, "God is real, and good as well!" But how could anyone possessed of any kind of empathy worship a being devising and permitting the plagues of the world? If gods be real, they offer nothing but despair in the knowledge that our sufferings were not unavoidable pains of the human condition, but rather the contrivances and play-making of callous and monstrous beings that cannot be cast down.

If god is indeed real then there is no hope for anything, for every thing and event in existence has been planned an eternity in advance by a being which proves its hatred for humanity with every deformed child and every slaughtered innocent. Even the writing of this blog is nothing more than the spinning of an insignificant cog in the master plan that constantly comforts those full of misfortune but lacking certain faculties of critical thinking. Disbelief, or rebellion alongside unwilling belief means absolutely nothing, as any outcry against eternal injustice is absolutely impotent against what the Christians so gleefully refer to as an "awesome" god.

Socrates' Daemon and the Irrelevance of Normativity

2010-09-30T20:35:00.002-04:00

The cliched angel/devil-on-your-shoulder cartoon has long been in the popular memory for quite some time now. And what it represents is an interesting dichotomy. Obviously one side has the devil and another has an angel, each pressuring the individual to make a choice the angel or devil approves of.

Humans are an interesting species because we each have the biological drive of our ancestors to behave in a way conducive to society, yet at the same time we can make cost-benefit analyses that, possibly, can override these basic drives. Now, the question is where do these intuitions come from? As any concept not fully explained by science becomes subject to the superstition of, for lack of a better word, uncritical-thinking ignoramuses, the first resort is to give credit to God for divinely informing us or whispering into our heads what the "right" thing to do is. So much should be expected from religious thinking.

Yet again, evolution by natural selection is all that is needed to explain this phenomenon. Of course, evolution does not give us all the answers as neuroscience is an ever-developing field of science, but it can certainly give us clues into the right direction. The conscience has been with us from the dawn of man and to our primate ancestors before that. One of the first instances the conscience was articulated was by Socrates, which he called his "daemon." This daemon would speak to him when he felt he was manipulating or taking advantage of an audience. This comes from the primal drive to be truthful to others. Species that develop these characteristics are better adapted to survive, so it certainly makes sense that this would develop over time in the form of mirror neurons.

So basically the "inner voice" is an internal attack against deviations from social norms. These norms generally come about because it helps society function. Now, the funny thing is that without objective morality, theists state, we would all be emotionless automatons who make cost-benefit analyses and think to ourselves, "hmmm, if I'm hungry, I'll just go to the local Taco Bell and rob the place if I can get away with it." Now, if this person has a malfunctioning anterior prefrontal cortex that is not engaged in conscientiousness, then they might go steal from the Taco Bell. But those of us with functioning anterior prefrontal cortexes will stop them, because we feel compelled to do so.

Without objective morality, we still have the evolved desire to be helpful towards and care about others in our society. There is no rule floating in the sky, in the heads of men, or in the metaphysical abyss that says, "one ought to care for others unconditionally." Ultimately, the individual actors decide what they're going to care about, and what they value is informed by their genetic predispositions and their physical brain makeup. It's as simple as that. What these people are missing is that in a world without objective theistic morality, Socrates daemon is still present and pressuring you into making decisions conducive to the group. Saying, "yeah but we just evolved that way" is committing the naturalistic fallacy on a grand scale. It doesn't matter how it came about, all that matters is that we feel these intuitions and see no reason to act against them. Ethical values cannot be true or false--They are merely characteristics that develop over time. Now I think objective moral judgments can be and are fallacious, but that is a different discussion for another day.

It seems as if robbing the Taco Bell if you can get away with it is in your "self-interest." What this is not taking into account is the emotional distress you receive from doing so. While theists think this is evidence of a "divine spark", as C.S. Lewis put it although be it in a different context, evolution and neuroscience have alternative, plausible theories.

Our Necessary Religious Pragmatism

2010-09-30T16:22:00.003-04:00

If man, in his increasing knowledge, should recognize certain limitations that constantly dog his progress and impede his ascension to greater understanding, is it necessary to conclude that said limitations are endemic of his very nature and therefore inescapable? To phrase it differently, are there some categories of knowlege that are truly unworthy of purusit by mankind by virtue of their incommensurability and subsequently supposed uselessness? I submit that there are no such ideas, there are no vistas of knowledge that are beyond the grasp of man, for if there are, we surely do not know them. By virtue of even seeking for matters of truth and grasping that any sort of truth requires struggle before triumph, we are made worthy of the prize. If the human species had evolved to use something other than sight to detect prey and predator, then it would not have gazed at the sky and pondered such mighty questions as it did. By virtue of sight, and immeasurably more so by virtue of intellect, human beings are able to search out the mysteries of not only the macroverse beyond the limit of the sky, but also the microverse inside every atom. A question not worth pursing is a question that has never been asked, all others are vulnerable to human inquriy. Simply put, if we are capable of asking the question, then it is relevant to life and deserves an answer equal to its inherent magnanimity.

This need for truth applies especially the outcome of our survival instinct, which is namely the search for god and some hope of immortality. It is not enough to say that certainty cannot be obtained on this question outdating our entire species, even though that statement is true. For the individual, the question must be contemplated and comprehended else it will hound one relentlessly. Of course for that to be possible certain changes must be made to the question, because one can certainly not sure of something that is, in modern definition, unfalsifiable. Logical proofs may be constructed in support of the atheistic or theistic position, but they are all underpined by emotion. An indivudal, for instance, might not be able to speak matter of factly on either god's apparent existence or lack thereof. But that same individual is capable of wondering what the consequences of each possibility would be. The choice to believe in god is a logical decision only for those who have been free of hardship or who have not been raised to believe. Those who have suffered, and those who once longed for god cannot escape from their pathos when confronted with a question such as this. The choice, as always, lies with the indivudal, but it should never be said that such a choice is easy or logical. For it is assumed in most, if not all religions, that god is not a logical being and is not bound by such laws as would apply to such a creature. For such a reason religious people refuse to listen to the dictates of their reason; the emotional drive to believe is too great and they are constantly offered the loophole of god's impossible power, rooted in the Absurd. The original question cannot be answered universally; the answer is eternally relative. But that in no way hampers the impact of such a question on indivduals and on society as a whole.

Consequences of Material Consciousness

2010-09-24T16:58:00.005-04:00

The human mind is a poetic representation of the brain; it is a quasi-mystical view of what contains and expresses everything that is human. Of course, it isn't difficult for us to envison ourselves being mythical in some way, and somehow apart from other animals by virtue of our very tendancy wonder if we are actually distinct. The distinction is often thought to be made quite obvious by the ability of the human brain to contemplate it at all. No other animals observably do this, with the noteworthy possibility of our most closely related primate cousins. We find ourselves special then, and wonder what separates us from the beasts. The loudest answer is always that human beings are in some way unique; closest to the heart of whatever deity is imagined to have created us. But no matter the strength of our desire to see ourselves as luminious beings transfixed temporarily to mere matter, it must be admitted that everything we are is entirely dependent on the condition and nature of our physical bodies. It may be that the idea of a soul cannot be entirely eliminated, but it does not exist in any meaningful way, except as a consolation for those who choose to believe in it. Of course those who believe in the soul are not likely to give up their faith for the sake of a few paltry words offered here, so I would ask only that it is assumed for the sake of this argument, that the soul does not exist. Only then can the consequences of physicality be discussed with sincerity.

Taking for granted then that the brain, being a physical entity subject to physical laws, the question of long-defunct objective morality becomes relevant once more. It is conceivable that the brain, and therefore the person, could be understood to the point at which the motivations underlying our behaviors at last become readily apparent. In the case of such Laplacian observation, it could be possible to comprehend the mind so perfectly as to correlate its contents and understand fully not only what it means to be human, but also what informs all human action. In short; it might be possible for an objective morality to be established based upon knowledge of the human brain, in all its complexity and hereto unavoidable ambiguity. How this is to be done and whether or not it is ultimately within our power isn't clear though. Morality remains a choice, and so it seems impossible to establish a truly universal standard for it, even if every mind (brain) in existence were to be perfectly analyzed. Consider: three men are known to have differing views of morality. The first exalts his ego above all, the second expresses an unyielding faith in a deity, and the third holds fast to the ideals of humanism. Clearly the systems of morality sharply contrast with the others. Now, even if were demonstrable that one of the systems is the best in terms of utility, the others could still disagree and commit themselves to the idea that their own system is the most moral. Such a decision is impossible to refute, because human beings do not want to be told what is best for them.

How then, would the quantification of consciousness affect the conundrum? The mechanics of the brain could, through careful examination and study, allow one to pierce through any deception on the part of any of the three, and reveal their real reasons for choosing the moral systems they support. Awareness of what causes a person to subscribe to a certain mode of ethics would allow for what is undeniably a very uncomfortable situation. If the underlying genetic and environmental causes for moral decisions were to be known, then it would be very possible to influence the minds of others, especially children, to simulate certain conditions which would lead to a certain view of morality. This would give parents or other figures of authority an awful and abominable level of control over the minds of those who depend on them. This can already be seen in the indoctrination of unfortunate children of fundamentalists, who are never afforded the chance to choose their religion or ethical beliefs for themselves. They are thus far controlled by the most tried and true method: fear. However, knowing the level of control and indoctrination that is already possible, it is sobering to consider the unthinkable outcomes of knowing the brain and its method of decision, down to the most redundant neuron.

The human brain, being physical in nature, is inescapably limited to certain paths of thought. With the current strides of science, it is inevitable that the brain will be fully understood eventually; it is only a matter of time. This knowledge will almost certainly provide countless benefits to millions of people around the globe. Every movement forward in science brings new benefits and new dangers. Unlocking the power of the sun is arguably the greatest scientific feat thus far, but if I may speak from an anthropic position, unlocking the secrets of the psyche is likely to be far more enlightening. The discovery will subsequently carry great risk, as all great discoveries do. The dangers made possible by enlightenment must not deter us from the path of improvement, but it is always important to be wary and vigilant against the potential misuse of mankind's greatest triumphs.

Religion Denies Emergence

2010-09-22T23:06:00.004-04:00

Humans are bad at identifying how systems work.

When you see the complexity of, say, a hurricane, is it easier to imagine the hurricane as a singular entity or is it easier to imagine the hurricane as the interaction between wind and varying ocean temperature? Because are brains are wired in a certain fashion to be economical (we generalize and conceptualize and forsake complexity because it's generally more efficient in everyday scenarios), we often can realize pitfalls in our reasoning ability. There's no inherent flaw in conceptualizing a hurricane because it's easier to do that. But this is endemic of a larger problem--The seeing of intelligence where there is none.

When we think of human society at-large, what we see is a nexus of individual actors each sorting through their own place in society. When viewed from the top down, we can see trends and infer what the population wants, but if we don't reduce down to the individual, there may be no way of realizing why the population is acting as it does. We see the same thing with nation-states; we conceptualize a land mass known as "the United States of America", but really it is an arbitrary conceptualization determined by fiat land claims. Let's say we can only view things from the point of view of states. If the U.S. declares war on Iraq, we can see that Iraq is doing something the U.S. doesn't like, but we don't understand what it is, what the motivation of people in power are, how the decision to go to war came about, why the population supported the war in the first place, etc.

The easiest example of emergence-denial I can think of is when intelligent design advocates prattle on about the complexity of the cell. Of course a cell seems complex, but that is because we are the results of evolution. You're asking a brain that evolved to see things on a macroscale to understand intricacies they weren't designed (aherm, evolved) to identify. Basically the problem is humans are too easily impressed! And this is the fundamental issue: If we can grind through our low standard of impressionability, we can find out how these systems emerge. And while it may seem hard to swallow, we can understand it.

Of course, thanks to science, we partially have a clue of what constitutes human consciousness. Basically it is an extremely intricate interaction between electrochemical impulses. But we don't see it that way for a reason--it's too complicated. But that doesn't mean it's false, it only means we tend to perceive things in a certain manner. On a side note, these electrochemical impulses give way to things like metaphysics and philosophy, and that's what really matters in the end. Holistic thinking isn't always bad, but it seems to fail miserably when trying to explain how things work and come about.

So why does religion deny emergence? Well it is the foremost primary example of holistic thinking versus reductionistic-leaning thinking. The naive holist (which many religious people are) would probably tend to view the universe and its complexity with appreciation and fail to see what makes the universe the way it is. It is taken on face value from birth that the universe could not have been created out of the interaction of physical laws of some sort which may not be understandable for humans that adapted to live in a specific environment, but only intelligence can produce such a thing! A good way to refute this is to cite evolution, granted the theist takes evolution in some form as truth.

It was stated for centuries that God suited organisms for their environment. We now understand that it is the other way around; organisms suit themselves to the environment thanks to a feedback mechanism known as natural selection. While interacting with nature, reproduction solves the problem of complexity as information in DNA structures are constantly being added and modified. Organisms with good traits live on and see their offspring more similar to them, bad traits die out. There you go, simple as that.

Of course, the sheer irony is that emergence creates emergence-denying systems. Religion obviously fails to see the intricacies and, in our typically self-centered manner, give our own intelligence and species too much credit when proposing the idea that God is like us and made the world for us. Basically in the end, we aren't smart enough to take all factors into account and it's easier to use heuristics, but emergence is a key feature of reality and must be understood to some degree.

Orwellian Faith

2010-09-22T15:15:00.005-04:00

Faith, in its unadulterated form is simultaneously the utter failing in regard to any perception of dubiousness and the exaltation of blind acceptance. However, describing it as blind certainly invokes certain connotations that would be rejected by Christians. It is preferable that an agreement as to what constitutes faith be reached so that criticisms and honors might be justly bestowed as they are actually merited. Attempting then, to avoid the negative connotations of faith endemic to a mind which values reason, faith will be designated as the belief in something for which there is no significant proof. It is acceptance based on something other than evidence, and although it seems overwhelmingly clear to some that this other is daunting authority with a foundation of fear; such an observation and its possible veracity are quite irrelevent here. The point of import is that faith depends on putting stock into that which is contrary to daily life. Water is not transformed into wine, diseases are not healed by touch, and corpses do not rise from their tombs, at least not in the reality that is readily observable. To believe these things requires faith.

Of course there are those among the masses of Christians who would dispute the claim that diseases are not regularly healed by supernatural occurrence, and that water certainly doesn't turn to wine; perhaps in the process of transubstantiation. They must necessarily be written off as delusional by those who actually wish to follow the sometimes daunting road to real truth. For this remains a challenge to them, while they can fake the curing of disease and they can lie to themselves about the power of the mass, they certainly cannot revive a corpse. That account at least, must be taken on faith.

What requires faith more than anything else though, is the belief in something that simply defies logic. The trinity is at once three beings, yet one being. Or it is one person in three beings, or one being in three persons. No matter the apologetic argument, the trinity is explicitly a mystery and not meant to be solved or viewed as a riddle would be. This fulcrum opon which the weight of Christianity turns is inherently impossible to understand because, for the Christian god, 3=1 and 1=3. No amount of semantic rambling can bring the incommensurability of such a statement into the arena of logic, and so faith is necessary to believe it. One must believe, knowing full well that 3 does not equal 1, that 3 does equal 1. One must be able to admit to oneself and in assembly that 2 + 2 = 5.

Poll #3 Results

2010-09-20T16:57:00.004-04:00

And the results from our latest poll! The question was which religious founder was the worst, and the answer was none other than Muhammad! Congrats Mo, it took a lot of slaughtering to beat out Moses and it took a lot of stupidity to beat out L. Ron Hubbard, who made a run at it but finished in second place.

The latest poll can be seen to the right and the question is: Which God would win in a battle of deities? It's the question for the ages certainly and your options are: Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, and Hachiman (a samurai-worshiped God in the Shinto religion). Hachiman is my dark horse!

Plantinga/Craig's Nonchalance--Disbelief or Sociopathy

2010-09-17T19:57:00.007-04:00

Christianity is a cruel religion. Not only is redemption found via blood sacrifice, but the ones who do not merely partake in the acknowledgement of said blood sacrifice are put into an eternal frying furnace that would put Adolf Hitler to shame.

Even with this in mind, the least theists could do is show remorse and sadness for those souls who are lost for eternity. The very fact that atheists, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, Mormons, Buddhists, etc. will be burning for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years times infinity should at least compel Christians to be more willing to evangelize and attempt to convert the masses. Instead, apologists such as William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga find it in their hearts to make light of the situation.

Plantinga's instance of making light of the situation happened in his response to Richard Dawkins' God Delusion where he makes the following statement:

Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal...

Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)

Umm....Excuse me? Is that a threat?

Craig happened to turn Hell into a light-hearted joke (I infer this via the tone and exclamation points) in the opening sentence of one of his Q&A sessions on his blog:

Well, Bill, yours is certainly a novel defense of the atheist’s hope: hope of escaping the judgement of God! I must concede that the atheist may--indeed, must--hope that he will not fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10.31)!

So what does this mean in a larger context? Well, in the title of this post, I have narrowed this seeming nonchalance to two possibilities: Disbelief or sociopathy. I find a hard time reconciling this with the latter, but let's explore the possibility.

Christianity is a religion that is inherently slavish. The idea is to suppress your will to God's, who has the objective answer for everything even if you don't recognize it. This suppression is to deny what you want for what God wants. In most scenarios, God acts as a barrier between rational ethical decisions and irrational ethical judgments. Most Christians are concerned with menial things thanks to unfactual information presented by Christian theology. So it's not surprising that the people on the forefront of apologizing for Christianity can be so sycophantic, but mentioning Hell in the form of God's judgment and God's ability to destroy the puny Richard Dawkins displays, if not non-belief, a numbness towards the prospect of Hell.

It seems that disbelief in the back of their mind characterizes this numbness better. I really hate telling people what other people really believe, but I'm not claiming they are dishonest; rather, the point is that this disbelief is unconscious. Plantinga and Craig are being put in the odd position of having to defend an eternal torture chamber and balance that with a loving God, something they would find unfeasible outside of Christian indoctrination, so the means of apologizing for Hell's existence is more of a case of making Christianity coherent for the sake of maintaining turf than anything else. The problem is that no human being on Earth has had any verifiable experience of Hell or the afterlife to begin with (as near-death experiences often vary from religion to religion and can be explained via neuroscience). So since none of us have any experience, it is easy for many Christians to show a lack of understanding about what Hell actually would entail. Or, I suppose it is possible to understand what Hell could be like, but the fact that we have no contact with it allows us not to take it very seriously.

Plantinga and Craig obviously have a lot invested in religion, but if they truly believed in Hell as a reality, there should be no time for vacation; they must, I repeat, must, be in the street 24/7 shaking people by the collar warning them of the impending danger if both of them maintain belief in Hell and love their neighbors as themselves, as they claim to do. After all, the opportunity cost of living an enjoyable/semi-selfish/fruitful life is only temporary and while this seems like a demanding task, shall not the lamb receive the reward of his suffering?

The Earth is Fine-Tuned For Dolphins

2010-09-16T20:28:00.003-04:00

Anybody who has spent time on planet Earth has been around to appreciate its bountiful wonders. Tsunamis, shifting tectonic planets, tornadic activity, monsoon season, hurricanes, avalanches, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, floods, blizzards, droughts, heat waves, etc. All of these negatively impact human beings, so it appears as if the Earth was not made for us. Rather, the universe was fine-tuned for the existence of another intelligent life form, the dolphin.

The dolphin is an extremely complex animal that, only under the right conditions and cosmological constants, can arise thanks to certain environmental conditions. First off, dolphins can only occur in aqua environments. How lucky did planet Earth have to be to obtain so much H2O? After all, the planet's axis tilts on a knive's edge, so a few degrees difference, and the water would freeze or be too cold for the mass existence of the dolphin species. How lucky!

Dolphins, according to Wikipedia, have been blessed with what is referred to as a "fusiform" body. This means that their body is "spindle-shaped", perfect for swimming through dense (relative to air) material like water. Fins provide direction and the ability to keep its swimming stable and secure while the tail allows for propulsion. If dolphins didn't have tails, they wouldn't be able to use propulsion so they wouldn't be able to swim. It appears that this system of biological features that suit the dolphin to its environment is too complex to have arisen by itself. I get to be the judge of what is "too" complex by reflecting my own biases onto the evidence at hand.

Dolphins are also capable of echolocation, which simply means that they are capable of utilizing primitive forms of sonar! It took humans forever to develop sonar, so it must be very elaborate and, dare I say it, designed. Without the echolocation, dolphins would be like a blind man in a cave and not have the advantage echolocation provides in deep water environments. But this only disregards their eyesight, which is some of the best on the planet and certainly top-tier for underwater organisms. The eye is too complex to have come about naturally, so what do you think caused it to develop?

While dolphins are not as intelligent as human beings, dolphins are considered the most intelligent of the non-human species. However, dolphins can interpret information quicker than humans because of their reaction time and their propensity to lean on sound as a major focus of sensory input. Dolphins have also been shown to have at least a sense of numerical value and numbers and the ability to think abstractly.

Last but not least, dolphins are capable of showing extreme altruism, even for other species! It's almost like the creator dolphins instructed them that they are the caretaker of other species as well. Dolphins stick together in clans of up to 10 or more fellow dolphins and care for sick or unhealthy dolphins. If this were just merely a means to propagate their species, it would lose all value, so clearly the dolphins, with their reasoning abilities, must recognize that an objective set of dolphin ethics exists or else everything they do would be for naught. They may as well, I don't know, kill themselves if they realized their kinship was a waste of time. Dolphins have even been seen using such things as tools! Dolphins sometime use sea sponges when searching for food so they protect their snouts. If those sponges weren't there, they'd really be in for a tough time! It can't be a coincidence that these organisms coincide with each other, there must have been a plan to put them in the same environment at the same time.

As you can hopefully see by now, without the same conditions that "randomly" occurred at the time of the Big Bang, it's obvious that the universe was fine-tuned for dolphins. Most humans should desire to be like dolphins; I mean, who wouldn't want to be smart yet at the same time really playful, squeaking as they do, swimming with fluidity through the water with grace....Aw, it's so awesome! So much cooler than humans. This is not my subjective preference, this is a value that all humans ought to share regardless of their preconceptions. Because of this, we humans shouldn't be so biased when the real answers about what this universe was created for is staring us in the face.

Christian Cognitive Dissonance Regarding Violence

2010-09-13T20:54:00.002-04:00

"If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it." - Jesus, Mt. 16.24-25

It's rather incredible that one of the largest displays of cognitive dissonance on a mass scale, probably in human history (and I do not believe that is hyperbole), is the concept of Christianity and violence cohabiting together in a worldview. If it's not obvious to a novice religious reader of the Bible, Jesus spent a great deal of time preaching in the New Testament against violence of all sorts.

After all, was it not Jesus who offered the silly advice of handing an assailant an extra garment of clothing for the hell of it? My theory is that this non-retribution is proffered for one reason: shock. It seems to me that one is supposed to live a life of humble meekness according to Jesus and, in the process, will "lead by example" and show the assailant compassion and a distaste, or at the least an acknowledgement of the valueless nature of, material possessions and that "love" is the way. In other words, Jesus was a model for his followers in the purest way possible, no matter your opinion of his positions.

But what about the scene in the temple where Jesus flipped over tables and publicly denounced the traders? Well, does any of this qualify as violence? Actually it can, and while Jesus did violate the property of the temple traders, he was never actually threatening them with physical harm. The right-wing conservatives use this scene as an excuse to justify their intolerance of any minority and say, "Jesus wasn't always Mr. Nice Guy!" Regardless, this was one incident among the many preachments of nonviolence and while it showed rebuke, Jesus still is perceived as having a soft spot for all sinners and never physically threatened the traders with actual violence.

So why the Christian defense of systematic violence in the form of war, state action, and property defense? Well, the obvious reason is that there are excusable actions of violence. Defense of property is an obvious one. In extreme situations, violation of the property or well-being of one who is causing harm to other innocents is another (and in that case it's not really considered a violation). Society would be hard-pressed to function without some barometer of acceptable violence. Unfortunately, those in the Bible Belt support systemic violence in the name of Christianity. One only needs to realize that, regardless of whether or not you like or despise government, the thing that sets government apart from any other institution is the legal initiation of force. This force is used to coincide with their agenda. No liquor sales on Sundays. No abortions. No gay marriage. No sodomy (used to be the case in some states). No interracial marriage (which I believe was still illegal in South Carolina until the 90's, but was never enforced). No drugs, even marijuana. The issue here is that any law is backed up with a death threat. If you violate the law, cops will either fine you or take you to prison. If you refuse and attempt to protect yourself thanks to the violation of consenting adult's rights, cops have the authority to kill you. Is this something Jesus would employ to promote his agenda?

This cognitive dissonance dates back as far as there have been Christians. While the early Christian church often lived a life very close to what Jesus suggested, which was communal living, anti-materialistic, and love-your-fellow-neighbor type thing, the straying did not take long to occur and all it needed was normal human thought to infiltrate Christian dogma. A couple of fantastic medieval examples come from Emperor Constantine who saw Jesus in the sky before battle to encourage the morale of the war leader (probably a political ploy), Clovis king of the Franks, and king of the Holy Roman Empire, Charlamagne. All three of these men employed violence and domination tactics to convert barbarians to Christianity.

Another example of this pro-violence cognitive dissonance can be found in the Christian theory of Just War. Any human being in their right mind would probably support this concept of Just War as it can extend to any form of violence and not just conflict between States. A secular adoption of this method is very consistent and stable as an idea. However, I still fail to see how it falls in with the extreme teachings of Jesus and his 180 degree opposition to any form of using the sword. I guess we can just die in Jesus' name at the hands of a ruthless dictator while Jesus comes back on a white horse to conquer the world. Then is the time for violence!

Shaming the Theistic Notion of Moral Absolutism

2010-09-13T16:49:00.006-04:00

While the idea of moral absolutism as a whole is thus far nothing more or less than a complete fallacy, there is a particular brand of this idiocy which cannot seem to avoid being completely odious. It takes substantially less than a Mycroftian intellect to presume upon my implication. Christian Theology has made a profession out of this one philosophical debacle, whereupon a series of denials and delusions are constructed with the mortar of cognitive dissonance. This construct is so poorly constructed and so easily dismantled as to be alternatively laughable or deplorable. The principle in this abominable yet necessarily monolithic tribute to inanity are the concessions it is forced to make for the cultural context of the one group of people in history allowed by its system to commit any crime imaginable.

What form does the argument of a moral objectivist, particularly one of a theistic persuasion, usually take? Most often it is simply a blunt assertion that the morality of the speaker and the version of theism personally preferred by him or her is universally true and superior to all other thoughts on morality, which are viewed as incontrovertably wrong. Take for instance, the morality of German Paganism. It places a high value on personal honor and virtue; individuals are expected to be noble and upright, and nowhere in its system is there to be found any sort of salvation, or indeed any desire or necessity for such a concept. The theist will inevitably argue that their system of morality was flawed because it didn't include a desire to know and worship the "one true god". However, this is an impotent assertion, for what reason is there to believe that the gods of one mythology are superior to others, or that any exist at all? The real argument is whether the people of the society behaved in a way that is considered to be moral by those carrying out the discussion. It may be that the aforementioned society is barbarous and monstrous to those discussing it, and that is the reason for the culture's failing in the eyes of the theist.

However, as any learned biblical scholar is forced at some point to admit, the Israelites carried out their fair share of genocide, rape, and bizzare punishments. Of course, it is an extremely difficult postiion to be put in, for the theist, to have to defend the orders of god that led to the enaction of attrocity. The answer that repeatedly returns to the forefront of any discussion is that, "It was ok in the cultural context". This seems to imply the strange idea that it was not entirely god that forced the hand of the Israelites, but the nature of their situation in the promised land. To speak nothing for the time being of the obvious conclusion that such a situation was in fact the result of god's own handiwork by his mere definition, this idea is astonishing in its stupidity. If the context of the situation is the judgement by which moral judgement is made, then there obviously cannot be an objective, absolute, eternal morality. If such a thing existed, why was it forgotten at any point in human history, and if it wasn't lost why wasn't it employed? The answer for that will of course be that the Israelites sinned, and were imperfect, but that is merely the pathetic excuse-making of the apologist. Whereas before he was arguing that the actions were moral, he now blames them on human failing.

If concession is made for the Israelites on the basis of their circumstance, why can't a similar concession be made on behalf of all peoples who have committed wrong in the past? Remember that the argument is not that their action was legitimized by god, but rather by their environment. The implications of god's complicity and command in relation to genocide and rape are another matter entirely. The arguement of social context is the weakest kind of apologetic drivel, one which itself shows that morality is not absolute, because at least one exception has been made. This does not mean that horrors and abhorrent action must be regarded as blameless, but merely that mankind has not always observed the same morality and laws that he now does. Our recognition of our own morality as transitory and fleeting doesn't lessen our ability to make moral judgement, it is merely an admission of the obvious.

Lust for the Eternal

2010-09-06T17:10:00.004-04:00

What is most desirable to the hearts of men and women? A horrendously vague question, one that is useful only in demonstrating the difficulty of probing into a belief system for the purposes of unearthing some pure reflection of the human spirit. However, despite the great difficult inherent in such a pursuit, it might be possible to glean a certain feeling for the zeitgest by probing into its observable emanantions. As religious institutions are subject to the whims of the masses comprising their membership, an understanding of current religious doctrine could lend itself to comprehension regarding the desires of those who have contributed and subscribed to such dogma. If I am to examine the matter of the modern christian desire though, I am forced to descend into the uncomfortable territory of the anecdote, for the bible proves itself useless in this matter. This is because the holy book, while certainly not eternal or absolute (given its numerous translations/mistranslations), is more enduring than the current attitudes of men, which must perish along with their ultimately fragile mortal coils.

In my admittedly limited excursions to the christian centers of worship, there can always be found a familiar element. Well usually there are two, but only one of them matters here. This aforementioned aspect is joyous adulation. But that fails to truly capture the heart of it; while they certainly worship god for his mere attributes, their true praise is reserved for his promised destruction of death and the bequeathment of immortality. This is the heart of the religion, and the promise of Calvary: that no man might perish if he should believe in the son of god, sent to die for the sins of mankind. This sets the stage for a most awkward question which must nevertheless be posed thusly: Do Christians worship their god out of love, or so that they might attain eternal life? The question could be phrased another way: Do christians view god as the end in himself, or the means to their true end, which is immortality?

This question cannot be wholly answered, as the attitudes of the few cannot be generalized to represent the many. It can be answered to a degree though, and such an answer is to be found in the Christian reactions to atheism. They regard it as being essentially an iteration of nihilistic mood. "Without God", they say, "What would be the point of anything? For we are but mortal men doomed to die, without god we have no recourse unto the infinite". There is damnation and revelation in their response to a possible universe without god. They reveal themselves not as lovers of truth and goodness, but merely seekers of a power which, if properly placated, might allow them to escape a fate which is deplorable to them.

Now, there will certainly be a response to this claim of mine, and if possible I will anticipate it and defeat it before its inception. The Christian will say that they love god in such a way as to desire eternal communion with him, and therefore the desire for the eternal is merely incidental in love of god. But here I would pose a question dependent on the impossible power of god. If god were to impart the happiness of an eternity spent in his presence, and then allow the Christian to die, would said Christian be satisfied? If god used his omnipotence to bestow absolute fulfillment and happiness, condensed into a matter of actual time rather than immeasurable eternity, would that be sufficient?

I will draw back from my unforgivable arrogance of assumption at this point and answer only as myself. For me, such a thing would not be enough. When a man (or woman) experiences true joy, there is an innate desire that such a feeling will endure beyond the breaking of time itself. This is only natural, and it isn't denigrating or insulting in itself. What is insulting beyond words is the cowardice that hides behind a desire for fulfillment and satisfaction. All men and women fear the unknowable finality of death, but real courage is in confronting that fear, not in false bravery masquerading as piety.

The Value of Science Fiction

2010-09-05T20:00:00.006-04:00

As we stand now, there appear to be certain aspects of reality that, depending on the set of one's mind, provide instance for the outpouring of either joy or sorrow. Regardless of the specific reaction brought out though, it would seem that these dimensions of existence are themselves, unavoidable. The existence of suffering for instance, requires overcoming or resignation from the individual. Either a man may seek solace in the comfort of a god, or he may face the unyielding reality into which he finds himself thrust. These are matters of life, and therefore unavoidable. Even the most callous must acknowledge such things, and one might often find that the most callous of men is simply the most talented actor, and also the one most moved and paralyzed by the cries of his fellows. The terror is not lightened in the heart of the religious man, unless it were by fallacy. Given enough courage and honesty, he must admit that at the bottom, his god is the cause of every horror to which he inescapably bears witness. The man who lands at last at the point of confrontation lives a life of (happy?) defiance, and finds neither rest nor reprieve until finally the earth claims its own.

How can we scorn those who find themselves addicted to what is deemed useless and time-consuming? I speak here of that group among the populace derided as being consumed by science fiction. Therein is a very interesting breed of men and women, who are intelligent enough only to recognize that they have not the powers of intellect to personally improve the situation of humanity. And so rather than act, they seek to teach. I beg pardon here, as broad generalizations such as these are oftentimes unhelpful or somewhat dishonest. Obviously not everyone involved in the writing or consumption of what is deemed "science fiction" stands on the same intellectual platform, or uses what talent they do have toward the same ends. However, I am primarily concerned with those who are not as brilliant as say, Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov, but who are intelligent enough to believe that something must be done to positively affect the condition of mankind.

In a world divided, is it not seductive to picture humanity brought together by a common enemy emerging from the void of space? Is it not glorious to imagine a desperate triumph against impossible odds, or a victory achieved by a truly virtuous hero whose strength is such that the audience cannot help but gasp and cry out in his trying moments? Though our lives have been vastly lengthened, who could say that they don't wonder at all, if mankind could extend their lives ad infinitum by mastering at long last the enigmatic secrets of the universe? Is there anything more hopeful to the pragmatic, modern man, than that proclamation of Arthur C. Clarke, watered down to its essential nature, that the current dreams of science fiction become the scientific realities of tomorrow? It is incredibly difficult to resist the promise of such a claim, even if one suspects that it is born of the same delusional optimism of most other quasi-religious statements. In roughly two centuries man has reached beyond his own planet, is it absurd to think that in another two his accomplishments might dwarf even the dreams of our present day?

Science fiction, despite any jokes or mockings, is simply the modern cry against eternal problems that have found articulation in modernity. At best, a love expressed in popular culture might endear itself to an ever wider audience and lead to a universal love of science and the improvement upon our past accomplishments. Even at worst though, the love of science fiction provides a hope for those who need it, and cannot bring themselves to find it in similarly false narratives. Personally though, I think false hope is little use no matter the source. It may allow some to sleep at night, but in that sleep what dreams may come?

Importance of Glenn Beck's Rally

2010-08-31T18:06:00.004-04:00

I usually make an attempt to avoid the political sphere on this blog, but sometimes religion and political endeavors become, regrettably, intertwined. The much-maligned yet populist-supported movement known as the Tea Party has been gaining an incredible amount of steam since President Obama took office. Nobody really knows why exactly since most of the same policies have been put in place (Bush probably would have had a phase-out option enacted in Iraq had he still been president by now). The only notable differences are probably quasi-socialized medicine and Guantanamo, but other than that, Obama has not had much of an antagonistic effect on American politics.

As a libertarian, I am skeptical of the State and people who support its policies. Democracy, as the saying goes, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. In the case of the conservative elements in the Tea Party, there is a real pining for the Leave-it-to-Beaver 1950's it seems. Which is a totally idealized state of affairs that never really happened; the model nuclear family was just a fantasy even back then and only remembered via nostalgia. However, the air of that day was one of judgmental behavior and social outcasting of anybody different, so I don't know if that is welcome. For the Left who mock the tea partiers, I say these folks are fair game.

So the Tea Party has its origins in the Ron Paul movement, but that lasted for roughly a nanosecond. Paul has the support of hardcore libertarians and market anarchists for sure, but at the same rate the quasi-minarchist, flag-waving, "let's get back to the founders" crowd was the primary factor in motivating the original tea partiers. Not long after, Glenn Beck mainstreamed the Tea Party and tax resistors with the help of people like Ted Nugent in April of 2009, and since then it has been a movement consisting of (randomly made up number) 1/3 libertarian/minarchist and 2/3 conservatives who are too busy whining because the other kid can play with the toys now.

So why the need for a post on this topic? Well, Tea Partiers, like liberal Democrats, can drink to their heart's content in the game of politics. The Left was outraged over George Bush and there was no shortage of comparisons to Hitler from Link TV, Democracy Now, and Hollywood. This is the way the game is played. However, one element I am a bit worried about is the notion that America needs a return to Judeo-Christian values. What exactly is it about these values that are so awe-inspiring?

It appears to be the case that the virtue of these values are assumed as honorable from the get-go. There's nothing special about them considering any human being with a conscious would agree with the commonly-cited ones, but it also mentions how jealous God is about worship, how you can't want anything and strive to take steps to achieve material wealth, and how working on the Sabbath is unholy. What do these have to do with the "foundation" of Western legal tradition? You tell me, Glenn Beck. You may as well say that Western tradition is based on Confucious' teachings and, even if they were, that is no reason to grant them a worthy status. They may be in need of revising or upgrading. Resistance to change is not necessarily a good thing!

This Christian fervor was put on full display at a Washington D.C. rally hosted and promoted by Glenn Beck, the champion of the Tea Party. The event was "non-political" (because this crowd isn't conservative WHATSOEVER) and was basically a fluff piece with no content discussing how the Founding Fathers were perfect (astute and revolutionary, but let's not deify them), how America is based on faith, and how we need to "restore honor." The whole thing smacks of moralistic superiority because the assumption is that secular-progressives (ATHEISTS!), as Bill O'Reilly labels them, lack things such as honor and integrity. Which they obviously don't any more than Tea Partiers, so there is no need to raise such points. They lack faith in a God and promote liberal policies. The Tea Partiers think their reality will be turned upside-down and be in Soviet Russia with communist propaganda posters being stuck around on every building if you don't vote Republican this November. That's it. Both sides roughly has as much integrity as the other.

And of course, as seen in the picture, there is the Christian flag that is also somewhat bothersome. I'm not sure what that exactly means. Of course, the Christian anthem (which is often said in accordance with that flag) goes something like this:

I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe.

Again, wolves and lambs, should these people gain control.

At any rate, the reason for this post is just to highlight my annoyance with Tea Partiers. There is a stupefying numbness in the brain and intellectual sloth that is exhibited through their audiences when they talk about "God and country." As if anything can be more toxic than that combination. It is an archaic, ill-founded, and destructive pathology known as unquestioning adherence to ideals that is damaging and fries people's brains. Notice, I didn't say "adherence to ideals" is exactly a bad thing, but those that are unquestioned are dangerous. I believe it was John Stewart Mill who proposed the ideas of inventing opposing views to see if stances past rigorous muster and the casual acceptance of "Judeo-Christian philosophy", in this light, is very irritating.

Gleeful Annihilation

2010-08-28T22:11:00.005-04:00

Perhaps no aspect of religion is as disgusting as the welcome prospect of the destruction of Earth to build a new Kingdom. "To Hell with unbelievers," one of the eschatological persuasion may remark, "I shall be with Jesus in eternal paradise." When God comes "as a thief in the night", unbelievers will be caught off-guard while the faithful will be swooped up into the heavens by the protecting, and apparently indiscriminate, arms of the Holy Fascist who shall then cast fire and brimstone and temporary torture upon the pitiless savages beneath; and this is only when the real fun begins! You might just wonder what is taking Him so long.

For every cult there is a moment of climax where the pathetic followers of the cult leader await states of bliss. Said cult leader eagerly professes his sophistry to the masses who lap it up like a starving dog. At this moment, the cult leader wields a great force upon the ignorant people who look up to him, and this was exemplified in the case of the preacher William Miller who, according to his calculations, had the Second Coming of Jesus pinned down to October 22nd, 1844. God has a tendency to be fashionably late.

When the day of October 22nd came and went, the masses let out a collective sigh of agony and psychological pangs. The whining, groaning, and lamenting highlighted what is known as "The Great Disappointment." Growing up, my father always told me that definitions are important because "words mean things," and perhaps no greater example can be thought of than what is known as The Great Disappointment. Who can be disappointed at the idea that the Sun rose in the East in the morning? Only the religious can dream up such a sickening scenario.

It is for this reason why predatory pastoral deception has such a negative role in our society. While our planet is going to waste, what does that mean to a premillenialist Christian who anxiously desires the destruction of our home? Still, even though Christians expect a better Earth to be built upon the ruins of human accomplishment, there remains the aspect of the destruction of people who share different opinions or who are merely shielded from the truth. Because of their unfortunate circumstances and decisions, this oddly justifies the period of tribulation that awaits them. Righteous vengeance is enacted against these stupefied people who were merely mistaken in their understanding of reality.

This isn't entirely exclusively a Christian shortcoming. In Islam, the arrival of the 12th Imam signifies the dominance of the Muslim faith across the world and Iran is actively seeking to bring about this Imam. If only their weaponry didn't make apocalyptic events a possible reality! Another horrid example of such a sentiment manifested itself in the infamous Heaven's Gate cult where believers assumed that they would be whisked away upon a UFO (while Earth and its remaining inhabitants were "recycled") in coordination with Haley's Comet. Haley's Comet passed and no UFO appeared.

And this is the story of eschatology: Just keep waiting. There is no end, as long as linear time progresses. Haley's Comet will come and go. Earthquakes and tsunamis will come and go. Religious conflict will come and go. Nuclear weapons will fire on and off (hopefully not), and the fallout will come and go. Christianity in particular plays their eschatology perfectly, as in the End Times the world will become debauched and actively reject Jesus as they partake in their hedonistic rituals. This sets up a bit of a Nash Equilibrium for any doubter; if they begin denying Jesus (because that's where their mind leads them to), is this a sign of the end times? If they believe just a little longer, will they be saved when the rest of the world begins disbelieving? If this quality was an emergent property of deluded spiritualists, it worked out beautifully for charlatan evangelical pastors who line their pockets with wealth sucked from the gullible.

Leave it to religion to turn something that has bothered us from the dawn of time to the modern day into something to look forward to, as if a comprehensive inversion of our conceptions about reality have turned upside down. Because of presumably sincere folks like William Miller and his modern-day ilk who peddle such folly, paranoia about the end of days will be with us for quite some time. From frightened hunter-gatherers who didn't know the first thing about geology and assumed volcanoes would bring the end of civilization due to dissatisfied deities to the History Channel analyzing Mayan "theories" about 2012 apocalypse, there seems to be this mantra: Just wait a little longer. Yes, just wait--and religious prophecy may be self-fulfilled.

Without Excuse? Perhaps Not

2010-08-23T19:45:00.004-04:00

It's a colloquial phrase that goes something like this: "It's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission." Humans like making excuses because we happen to be very adept to shifting blame and acting like the non-responsible party. Generally, humans also happen to be a rather fair species which has some sense of reasonability. Therefore, I would expect in the above scenario of pleading for forgiveness after the fact that ignorance can potentially absolve one of responsibility and hence justify as a legitimate excuse.

However, our good buddy Paul from the New Testament doesn't share this sentiment. While nature alone and our naive sense of cause-and-effect lends credence to the concept of a prime mover, it's rather difficult to gaze into nature and expect there to be reasonable evidence for the existence of God, namely Yahweh. God has still never revealed himself to masses of individuals (ancient Palestine notwithstanding) and many others feel no spiritual connection to the ancient God of the Jewish desert.

Yet Paul in Romans 1:20 states:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Of course, it must be said: Who is the arbiter of what is "clear" in this context?

I find it hard to determine how one can build an argument upon such a subjective concept of "clearness", as if there is some way we can measure that. What we can use however is a gradient of things that, at the poles, are obviously clear and obviously not clear, and I would state the case that nature itself as an argument for God's existence falls in the obviously not clear section. While some people walk away from nature on a spiritual high, this proves nothing other than the fact that the self-caused aggrandizement of ecological processes brought about by natural selection illicits a brain high. It certainly doesn't bring up the idea of Yahweh or the need to drop on one's knee and beg forgiveness from Jesus. Only somebody as self-assured as Paul in the existence of Jesus (deluded or undeluded) would claim that everything around us accounts for a supreme being.

This simple ridiculous statement by Paul in Romans is thus extrapolated into the Argument from Contingency, or "why is there something instead of nothing?" Two pedestrian rebuttals I suppose could be "why should there be nothing instead of something?" and maybe toss around the idea that there is technically "nothing" in the sense that the total energy of the universe remains at zero. Maybe those work, maybe not. But staring at nature itself is not evidence of God, as God is not revealed directly in any meaningful sense.

Aesthetics, Ethics, and Faith

2010-08-22T01:25:00.009-04:00

Of the many brilliant philosophers of the 19th century, Soren Kierkegaard remains an enigmatic and brilliant thinker whose views, while not widely accepted or even acknowledged by the majority of Christians, surely either rediscovered or reinvented faith itself. Of particular interest is a certain parable of his regarding a youth and the maiden whom he loves. The maiden, for her part, loves the youth in turn, but is betrothed to another, and the youth is fated to remain unrequited in his devotion. Kierkegaard approaches the issue from three distinct paths: that of aesthetics, that of ethics, and that of faith. Offered then, is an interpretation of his meaning regarding each path, and another route discovered by a more recent and no less brilliant philosopher, a route walked across the narrow bridge of faith, but paradoxically lacking in faith itself.

First then, the approaching of the problem as dictated by the aesthetical. The aesthetic ideal is essentially the action of the stoic hero who endures because he or she must, but is redeemed by the inherent beauty of the action itself. Kierkegaard posits that if the youth is to obey the nobility of the aesthetic, then he must remain silent in his burning passion for the young maiden. If he were to reveal his heart, there wouldn't be aught but despair because their love can never be, and if she knew of his love she would only be burdened by it in turn. In order to protect her from such a fate, he must remain unspoken and accept the decree of unfair and uncaring destiny.

Second is the direction of the ethical, which is defined by the universal. By that it is simply meant that one acting within the sphere of the ethical may sacrifice greatly in life, but in doing so will win acclaim and glory for the rightness of the action which is perceived by the universal, which in almost every case is synonymous with the masses. In this case, the youth has an obligation to speak his mind, and let his love be known to all. The truth must be revealed regardless of the consequences, the youth must have enough courage to reveal himself. He must do so in order to justify himself before the ethical, which demands honesty. Rather than obeying the nobility of the aestheical, he must deny himself even his dignity in pursuit of redemption in the universal.

Then, the most difficult of all, and also the one most highly praised by Kierkegaard himself: the leap to faith. The leap to faith is best defined in the dane's own paraphrased words, "True faith expects not only that water will turn to wine, but also that wine will turn to water". By this it is meant that faith does not belong in some distant heaven one hopes to reach, but rather remains relevant and significant within the world that is known now. The youth knows that he cannot be with the young maiden, but his faith sustains him because he knows that even though it is impossible that he might join with her even were he to be allied to all the power of the world, through god all things are possible and might yet be accomplished. While the youth knows full well he will not be with her, he paradoxically knows that god will bring them together. Faith belongs in the realm of the physical, the youth gives his utmost faith to the infinite that is god, and his faith is rewarded in the impossibility of redemption in the finite.

Now that the possibilities are understood, there is a different view for each to be considered. Such a view is defined by the presupposition that god does not exist in any of the aforementioned contexts. For the aesthetic, the youth remains silent and suffers great pain. But he may take solace in the knowledge that no veil of secrecy denies the sight of god, who knows all. His sacrifice is not unnoted, nor unsung. Without god, the youth must live his life knowing that he will take his secret love to his grave, without ever experiencing the catharsis of final revelation. His courage alone must be enough. In the ethical, the youth is justified by the universal i.e. his peers. He needs no aid from the divine in order to receive affirmation. A leap of faith though, can he do this? Without belief in the deity by whose power all might be accomplished, how can he place his hope in the absurdity of impossibility? The answer is that he cannot, he must accept that not all is possible in the realm of existence. And yet in his admission there is a call to defiance, a call for him to accept impossibility and also to strive against it. Such is the genesis of Albert Camus' absurd hero, the antithesis of Kierkegaard's knight of faith.

Dark Reality

2010-08-19T01:40:00.005-04:00

Atheism is the outcome of success, the result of man's triumph against both his superstition and his deadly surroundings. When enlightenment is achieved through the strained and hindered efforts of the brave and brilliant, then are the chains of religion broken, the tyranny of absolutism undone, and the glorious adventure of life revealed in all its undimmed splendor. But it may be that this light burns by the power of borrowed fuel and that all effort is vain. It may very likely be that even the greatest testaments to the victories of man are fleeting shadows before the crushing maw of eventuality. Were the worst to come, in the event of utter ruin of everything man has amassed and built, can atheism survive? A better question would be, "Can the ideals of courage and self-possession survive the brunt of a baser, more brutal reality, or would they inevitably give way to the sometimes illogical yet seductive notion of survival at any cost?"

If logic is placed conveniently to one side, then god is the mightiest and most valuable protector in a dangerous world. If one is able to perform the necessary self-deception, then it is possible to pray for deliverance from a plague which must have originated in the all-powerful mind of the deity. What greater comfort could there be in a world filled with bigotry, violence, and the dominance of those driven to impose their own will on others? When a child is born to a father whose older offspring have been wiped out disease, how can the father not cry out against the terrible injustice of reality? How can such a man not hope that beyond everything, including his own common sense, there is a god who, althought he won't necessarily save the child from pestilence, will at least preserve and glorify him in a life beyond the misery into which he was born? As affluence and comfortability in the material world increases, the need for a protector lessens. Although every individual must face that final test of courage before passing on to uncharted vistas beyond the sight of men, there is now real opportunity to achieve greatness in life, or at least live a long life with the joys of loved ones. Earthly life begins to seem worthy in itself.

Were the worst to come to pass though, and were civilization to experience an immense and unprecedented regression, who can tell if the values of the enlightenment could endure? If the lifespan of man were lessened from an average of 70 for men and around 80 for women back to the natural 30 years, would it be too tempting to give into the seduction of an afterlife, despite all justified revulsion and even evidence to the contrary? Impossible to say, only the situation itself would yield the answer. That answer would be determined, as they always are, in the hearts and minds of the individuals. By both sheer probablity and personal admiration for humanity in general, I would have to guess that courage and honesty would not lose out entirely to resignation and doublethink. It is true, after all, that throughout history, there has always been at least one lonesome spirit with the courage not to shirk from truth, but to embrace it regardless of the outcome, to embrace it purely out of love.

Debunking William Lane Craig: On the Nature of Jesus

2010-08-18T13:26:00.005-04:00

I find it rather odd that William Lane Craig, as a self-proclaimed enthusiastic molinist, claims that God is bounded by logic. Molinists, definitionally, support the concept that God cannot make a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor on pain of of logical incoherency. Most molinists, at least that I'm aware of, make the case that logic is a characteristic of God and manifests itself as true much in the same way that God doesn't create Goodness, Goodness is just part of his nature and can't act any differently. Now, forget whether or not this disqualifies him as omnipotent, because that isn't the point I'd like to make. But the reason I find it odd is because in this Q&A titled, "The Death of God and the Death of Christ", Craig seems to dispose of logic when it suits Christian dogma.

Hello Dr. Craig,

I would firstly like to thank you for your time and your work you put into your ministry. It has greatly benefited me and has also made me want to pursue a degree in philosophy.

My question is one I have never been able to get a clear answer on. When Jesus died on the cross, did God die? That being, did the essence of Jesus actually die?

I couldn't resist your question, Jesse, since it appeals to my favorite hymn, the magnificent "And Can It Be?" by Charles Wesley. I urge anyone who knows only praise songs and choruses to listen to this hymn and contemplate the wonderful lyrics about God's amazing love.

Something tells me that Christians mistake warm fuzzy feelings of unity they get in church with experiencing God. Can't just be me.

What kind of music do you think Craig listens to? Obviously gospel has to be high on the list. But what else? He doesn't seem like much of a classic country guy like most Christian 60-year-old conservatives (he is verifiably a conservative), but George Jones and Porter Wagoner could be his stuff. He could be an adult contemporary guy, but he'd have to be in his 40s to dig that.

I apologize for this minor digression. Moving on!

The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that the incarnate Christ is one person with two natures, one human and one divine. This has very important consequences. It implies that since Christ existed prior to his incarnation, he was a divine person before taking on a human nature. He was and is the second person of the Trinity. In the incarnation this divine person assumes a human nature as well, but there is no other person in Christ than the second person of the Trinity. There is an additional human nature which the pre-incarnate Christ did not have, but there is no human person in addition to the divine person. There is just one person who has two natures.

Hmmm? One person and two natures? Do I even have to explain how that is incoherent? As human beings, according to these spiritual dualists, we are supposed to have one nature tethered to a physical and bodily manifestation that is directed by our spirit. But I guess God can have two natures in one body because, hell, he's God! He can do whatever he wants, and that includes being logical when fending off atheistic dissent and illogical when Christians feel like it.

Therefore, what Christ said and did, God said and did, since when we speak of Christ we're talking about a person. For that reason the Council endorses speaking of Mary as "the mother of God." She bore the person who is a divine person. Unfortunately, this language has been disastrously misleading because it sounds as though Mary birthed the divine nature of Christ when in fact she birthed Christ's human nature. Mohammed apparently thought that Christians believed that Mary was the third member of the Trinity, and Jesus was the offspring of God the Father and Mary, a view which he rightly rejected as blasphemous, though no orthodox Christian holds it.

It seems whenever Craig opens his trap, he spouts out the word "therefore" for two reasons. First, he is a "trained" (and by "trained", I mean theologically trained) philosopher so it's probably second nature. But secondly, it seems kind of hasty and rushed in an attempt to move along so the point he just made is swept underneath the rug and accepted on the spot. Who knows.

At any rate, who cares about Mohammed?

To avoid such inevitable misunderstandings it is helpful to speak of what Christ does or how he is relative to one of his two natures. For example, Christ is omnipotent relative to his divine nature but he is limited in power relative to his human nature. He is omniscient with respect to his divine nature but ignorant of various facts with respect to his human nature. He is immortal with regard to his divine nature, but mortal with regard to his human nature.

[facepalm]

As someone who prides themselves on a rational defense of the Christian faith (after all, what else is apologetics supposed to be?), he sure is doing a whale of a job tinkering around with rationality.

You can probably see now where I'm headed. Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature. What is human death? It is the separation of the soul from the body when the body ceases to be a living organism. The soul survives the body and will someday be re-united with it in a resurrected form. That's what happened to Christ. His soul was separated from his body and his body ceased to be alive. He became temporarily a disembodied person. On the third day God raised him from the dead in a transformed body.

Okay, so Craig, I'm sorry but I have to ask this question: What was the point?

Christ's human nature therefore becomes irrelevant, does it not? He was supposedly an incarnation of an ultimate God. If Jesus is not God, then God is condemning an innocent person, but if Jesus is God, then he's killing himself, but only part of himself that doesn't really matter because he'll be resurrected in a matter of days and be in heaven. So did Jesus really die?

If I were to sacrifice myself knowing in advance that I would be in eternal paradise, is it really then a sacrifice? No, absolutely not. To sacrifice is to help another at your expense. The only way to determine if Jesus' human nature is valuable at all in relation to a potential sacrifice is to determine what Jesus has to lose. The answer? Absolutely nothing. A Christian who sacrifices himself out of love for his fellow man only has hearsay as to what awaits him on the other side. No matter how confident, he cannot be assured. So sacrificing his life still holds more weight than Jesus', because the possibility remains that a) he will die, be judged by God, and sent to hell or b) experience the void. So there's some risk involved that Jesus obviously had no qualms about.

In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person. So Wesley was all right in asking, "How can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" But to say that God died on the cross is misleading in the same way that it is misleading to say that Mary was the mother of God. So I think it better to say that Christ died on the cross with respect to his human nature but not with respect to his divine nature.

Again, how was this a sacrifice in any way, shape, or form?

Besides that, my other point is how can any human being even conceive of what it means to have a dual-nature? I'm definitely a verificationist-leaning person on these types of issues. Of course Craig would retort with some "witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart" baloney, but I would still maintain that even he does not know what he is speaking of. He is giving a false presentation of assuredness and authority that can be established merely by stating so. I have no reason to believe that we do experience the Holy Spirit in any way. Regardless, I would like for Craig to explain what having a dual nature even means because I certainly have no prior experience with such a concept or scenario.

The Issue of Madness

2010-08-16T18:09:00.005-04:00

As the emerging field of neuroscience continues to make laudable strides into the previously unapproachable dominion of the mind, it has become increasingly clear that the biological functions of the brain exert immense if not total control over the mental states of human beings. The other force enacting an inexorable force upon the mind is the environment in which one is raised. The exact dynamic between these two is uncerain, but it is known that certain mental conditions excluding an individual from the norms of society can be treated by mind-altering drugs. Knowing this, an ethical question is unavoidable. Is it conscionable to do such a thing? A person's mind is their most personal and sacred refuge. In altering their personality, is one not destroying their personhood?

Such a question necessarily requires a preceding query, "What is madness?". It is either a state of mind at odds with observable reality, or a mindset so utterly contrary to the accepted outlook of contemporary society as to result in the transgressor to be labeled as nothing less than mindless. In either case hubris seems interwoven in the judgement of another. A physical, objective world shared by billions of people appears for all intents and purposes to exist. It can be assumed to be real, but it is perceived in ways innumerable. An argument ad populum is a heinous aggression against reason; truth is not always readily apparent. However there is a certain measure to which things are demonstrable, and can be accepted as truth. While a person may perceive the earth to be mere thousands of years old , it has been proven to be otherwise, and anyone carrying on in that view is surely deluded. So it may be that arrogance is less involved than intelligent and honest inquiry in the attempt to procure the best possible view of reality. It would seem that while the majority should not determine validity of any truth, there is sometimes a good reason why the majority endorse a certain claim, noticably when emotions are less involved in discerning a truth value. But beside the questioning of reality, the qualification for madness is often mere deviation from contemporary mores. It is perhaps deceptive to gather all such accusations of madness into the net of "mere deviation" though. Such mere deviation could be a philosophical standpoint, or it could be the tendancy to indulge in sadistic and depraved action.

But the question has yet to be satisfied. Should those who are deemed abberations and abominations be altered through the use of psychotropic treatments? To effectively remove the mental deformities that defined their personalities is to destroy the former person, albeit a person who by most accounts warranted destruction. And yet, to acquiesce oneself in relation to their psychosis is to risk the infliction of attrocity upon the innocent by the hands of one who otherwise might have been prevented. Is effecting a change so profound on their psyche less than destroying their physical form? For the body will continue, but it might be that it is inhabited by an altogether different being. In this replacement is there not a form of murder? Assigining the penalty of death to another human being is no mean task, regardless of nearly every circumstance. And yet personalities are put to death continuously. Consider a man who is under the heavy weight of delusion. He believes that he is in communication with god. Is this considered madness? Not at all, it is simply viewed as an appetite for the spiritual, a hunger that is not the least bit frowned upon by the majority. Yet if he believes god is telling him to murder, human instinct steals back the reigns of society and demands retribution for his crime, or the placing of measures to prevent it. His insanity comprises the core of his beliefs in relation to all existence, and he is no more mad than billions of others. His madness takes another form to be sure, but to measure its intensity in contrast to his would-be fellows is an excercise in difficulty and likely futility.

The terms have been expressed, and the ramifications of their implementation explained. To ask whether the murder of the mind should be allowed is slightly deceitfuly however. Such a question is tantamount to asking whether capital punishment is justifiable. Rather than the initial query then, consider if severe alterations to the personality can be considered in the same vein as state sanctioned killing.

Ownership of the Self

2010-08-15T03:28:00.004-04:00

To what celestial magistrate or chthonic edifice is the very being of man owed? What fortress, resounding in unassailable authority and righteousness could possibly make a claim upon all that encompasses a human being? Whether its residence is taken up in the ethereal or the material, such an institution necessarily exists as a consequence of being itself. And yet this is the beauty of the thing, that it can, and indeed does, appear in distinct guise to all who would perceive it. Some behold the terrible phantasmic monstrosities of their own minds, and imagine that their lives lie clutched within the terrible claws of those bloodthirsty spectres, while others clasp hands with their fellows and by the their own toil bring about a construction of their own design and hope. Regardless of the choices, which are myriad, there remains one point of utmost importance, that this decision pertinent to the ownership of one's very soul belongs only to the one who makes it. This must be proclaimed and defended, for it is by this first leap that all related choices might be possible.

How can this be true? How is it that the claim of the spirit upon itself proves more magnanimous than any claim that only then might follow? First it must be settled that this is in fact the first move that can be made, that a person must attain themselves before aught else can be accomplished.

All value of conscience, all strength with which to declare, "This is right! That is wrong!", derives irrevocably from autonomy. For any value to resonate with meaning, it must have its genesis in the mind of those who would make it. If the source is anything but the individual, then it remains only a decree, which might be forced upon the individual, but cannot hold even the most impotent luster compared to the shining brilliance of that which is consciously chosen. The ability to choose anything is a direct consequence of the undeniable admission that the only valid motivation is that which is self-asserted and self-justified, even taking account of other opinions and of their oftentimes helpful power of influence. In order for the spirit to be truly devoted either to the pragmatic, the ideal, or any variation therein, first there must be courage enough to harness the readily apparent autonomy of the individual.

Thus speaks truth: The ethical depends fully on the foundation of the individual by whom it is ascertained. The consequences for society, which is obviously comprised of individuals, are not astounding, nor are they unreasonable. In light of the knowledge that to effectively assert oneself and engage in life in any meaningful way, one must retain the power of conscious decision, it is prudent to bring into existence a civilization capable of fostering such a virtue. One should not, however, mistake the state as the owner of the citizens, since it exists solely on the expectation that its power is focused on retarding the encroachment of similar yet more malevolent entities. Ideally, human beings would each be powerful enough in their own right to defend their freedom against would-be thieves. But realistically, a conglomerate can enslave the disjointed more easily than the united, and human beings will band together to protect their interests. The interest that must be held up higher than any other is the assertion that each man owns himself, and every consequence that follows belongs to him alone.

Neither gods nor governments may rightfully lay claim to the minds of free men and women.

Facades of Courage

2010-08-08T19:37:00.011-04:00

The most laudable of all heroes, and the most glorious amongst the mass of humanity, are those who stand unbowed to defy the terrible, the horrific, and the unspeakable. Men and women who refuse to be kowtowed, who will not submit to injustice, these are the greatest bastions of what should be, and sometimes is, human. Rather than submission, they make a conscious and honorable choice in favor of courage even in the face of oblivion. It must be counted among the most tragic aspects of the human condition that many of these heroes go unsung, and even the voices who sing their highest praises eventually fall silent. To weaken the impact of sacrifice, and cheapen the most powerful victories of the human spirit is an insult tolerable only by ignorance of what is entailed by the act. Such slandering and weakening is subtle, as it must be, for it could not be tolerated in the light of the obvious. Yet one is more readily recognizable, while the other is more mired in shadow.

It is a lie for the religious to claim their gods as the sole recipients of glory. For what is a martyr, or a soldier of god, unless it is one who manages to attain that small glory allowed in the religious mind, by fighting and dying for a cause appointed by the almighty? That is the foremost, and most obvious of insults to an otherwise untarnished human ideal. The true hero is mighty in the willingness to lose everything, the slave of god is pathetic in the expectation of receiving everything. Certainly the deed itself secures a measure of triumph in itself, David slew the giant Goliath, and in the context of the story none can deny that the deed was mighty. But David did so with the certainty of his faith that god would be with him on the battlefield. In his faith there was no room for fear, and thus no room for the courage that conquers fear. Either David's delusion or his faith prevented him from discovering his own strength. To name him a man of faith is reasonable, but it is a grave insult to call him a brave man.

The aforementioned second assault paradoxically hails from a less crude and insulting source, yet in effect matches or exceeds the former in delivery of grievous injury against the ideal. Like the first, it involves an invocation of the heroic standard and claims it. But unlike the first, the action is in the direction of others, and is not personal. Rather than claiming the heroic standard for oneself, those who carry out the second insult would instead claim that the burden rests with others in attaining the ideal. A recent example would be the outcry against the corporate executives who censored their networks in reaction to threats by terrorists. A great deal of blame has been placed on the shoulders of those who attempted to placate the terrorist group, and who inadvertently handed them a victory in the process. It is easy for those on the sidelines to speak of the ideal, as showcased by this very article. It is another matter entirely to be on the front lines, choosing between freedom and safety. It is all too simple to say that the life of the one is a small price to pay in order to preserve the freedom of the many, but what would that one person say if given the chance? Would they accept their role as the proverbial lamb offered up as sacrifice? Perhaps they would, and in so doing they would transcend their fellows and accomplish the heroic ideal. But for those who haven't faced the ordeal, it is the epitome of arrogance to presume upon the choices of others with regards to decisions influencing their own precious lives.

It is difficult to glimpse the foray of an ideal into the world of the mundane. And it is heinous to muddy such a vision with cowardice that masquerades as courage. To do so is to lessen the achievements of those with strength that stands as a pinnacle to which all can aspire. It is one thing to speak of what should be done, and another thing entirely to speak of what a particular person should or should not have done. Oftentimes it is much wiser to leave the latter to those possessed of the relative experience.

The Lewis Trilemma

2010-08-07T21:00:00.003-04:00

In his apologetic work, "Mere Christianity", Clive Staples Lewis argues passionately to prove the already long purported point that there exists in the cosmos, an absolute moral law. This law is said to govern all human beings, akin to the fashion in which theists often claim that every person's conscience exerts influence in accordance with a uniform code. Working from the presupposition of this moral law, Lewis turns his gaze towards the figure of Christ. He argues that Christ must either have been the son of god as he claimed, have been lying, or have been completely insane. Not surprisingly, Lewis reaches his foregone conclusion, justifying his belief that Jesus must have been both honest and sane, as his character had been shown him to possess those qualities in the multitude. Even to speak nothing of the possibilities that either everything Christ said was misunderstood metaphor, or altered and edited by Saint Paul, it seems that Lewis' simplification of morality, in his belief in a moral law, limits his understanding of the possible motivations of Christ.

There is a case to be made for the idea that Christ was lying and yet still working as best he saw capable in the service of his fellow man. That is to say, he lied that he might affect the condition of man more positively than he thought could be accomplished otherwise. To Lewis' absolute moral law, this would be antithetical to all that Christ was, and yet the point has not been reached wherein the conclusion can be drawn that Christ was more than mortal man, since this question of his moral character is still of dubious nature, and seems to be the defining test administered by Lewis. Therefore, it remains fully within the realm of possibility up to this point that Christ was indeed a liar. What purpose could he have hoped to achieve by such action? That is impossible to know, it matters only that he could have been a liar, he could have committed a tiny injustice against his conscience in order to ensure that his followers remained true to his teachings, if he believed fully that such teachings were vital to the improvement of man. Discovery of such an action would be obviously scandalous to anyone brave enough to favor truth over falsehood, and yet it is of little consequence how history would judge Christ in light of a discovered lie, what is of true importance is how Christ judged himself. The very real possibility that he could have lied cannot be denied by the precedent moral character showcased in the gospels, because his very ministry would likely have been built upon the fallacious. His moral character cannot be used to prove either that he was lying or that he wasn't, the reality that the mind of another cannot be truly known casts doubt on both assumptions.

Onward then, to the idea that Christ might have been a lunatic, or in the less extreme, delusional about his own existence. Again, this delusion would have polluted the nature of his entire ministry and it is therefore nonsensical to determine whether or not he was mad by use of character known only from the point at which it would have already been tainted by madness. The gospels and the information therein are rendered useless in ascertaining the true character of Christ beyond Lewis' original hypothesis that he must have lived in one of the three aforementioned states. The evidence for any of the choices is self-fulfilling and fed circulatory. If it is taken for granted that Christ was mad, then his entire ministry is used as evidence of his insane and erroneous belief that he was the son of god. If it is taken for granted that Christ was the son of god, then the ministry is used in a similar, opposite fashion. The same can be said if Christ were lying. But it cannot be said that anything about Christ's ministry would lead one to any of the conclusions above the others, because as stated already, the proof of Christ's character serves only the foregone conclusion of the "investigator".

Whether or not Christ was truly the son of god cannot be determined merely by his moral character. If there is to be a discovery as to the truth of this matter, the source must be something other than the gospels. Of course once one admits that one's own bias influences the readings of the gospels and the interpretations of Christ's character, and subsequently ventures outside the bible for answers, one can become a more educated and better rounded person, regardless of whether belief waxes or wanes.

A Less Biased Perception

2010-08-07T19:05:00.001-04:00

It goes without saying that, as each religious person has their own idealization of the divine, so does each atheistic person have their own reasons for the rejection of the very same. It would be an exercise of both tedium and potential impossibility to attempt a thorough classification of why some among the race of man choose to relieve themselves of the supernatural, and of god in general. Instead it would be far more interesting and thought-provoking to examine the differences between the misotheistic cause of atheism, and the scientific one. They are certainly not mutually exclusive by any means, but it may be that in certain individuals one waxes more influential, and in certain individuals the opposite is more dominant. As is quite common, it may be that the more scientific outlook is the more honest, as it is less weighted withe personal emotion, and more with honest inquiry into the truth of the matter.

Hatred towards the gods, or in the modern case, towards the one god, might seem quite absurd. Actually it feels like playing into the hands of idiotic apologists and pseudo-theologians to reject the idea of god because his existence seems to be both hateful and unbearable. A theist would have difficulty understanding this particular position, because a theist holds their god to be the highest good. If a person regards the betterment of mankind, and the freedom of the individual to be the pinnacle of what can be called good, the gods of all myths are a detriment at best and a monstrosity at worst. Such a person might not be entirely convinced of the nonexistence of gods, but would be relieved to discover in the end that they were fabrications. But this anxiety and anger towards the conceptions of divinity do not readily lend themselves towards honest pursuit of what is true. This is not to denigrate the hostility felt by many atheists (myself included) in relation to the idea of god, but only to point out that emotional ties can impede honesty.

For this reason, it is fortunate that there exist among humanity, men and women who are both discerning and intelligent enough to make decisions based upon the facts, and not upon their own emotion. These are atheists who have become such because, given the evidence, they simply cannot bring themselves to believe in god. For such men and women, the real battle is fought against ignorance, not with some figment of the imagination that misotheistic atheists struggle constantly to expunge from the mind. The scientific mindset is the most unfettered, because the goal is to ascertain truth as best it can be known, and damn the consequences of such knowledge. If the truth that is finally discovered leads to god, then so be it. It is this love of learning to which the entire species should aspire.

In matters of religion, which are often believed to have nothing less than cosmic importance, bias and personal conviction are all but unavoidable. That alone speaks to the value of those who have little to no interest in the claims of religion or any level of veracity they may or may not contain, the value of men and women who despise religion not only because of the vileness of its tenets, but rather because of its impeding of knowlege an progress. Ironically, it is not those who hate god, or those who love god who are able to speak best about his possible existence. Rather it is those who have little to lose or gain regarding the matter who are able to view it with a less biased perception, and discover for the rest the validity of claims either for, or against.

Steadfast in the Face of Finality

2010-08-06T00:16:00.006-04:00

"In whatever kind of a 'race' life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist." - Christopher Hitchens

As has been said on this blog in one way or another, the true courage of an individual is faced when the twilight of life begins. The time for reflection, contemplation, and thought about what life has (or had) to offer can probably only be actualized in these final moments that, for a brief amount of time, can be appreciated before the senses expire. I don't speak from experience, but this seems to be the case.

Christopher Hitchens has proven himself to be one of the more erudite and interesting individuals of the last 20 years. His political commentary has been astute, his work in prodding the once-stumbling atheist movement along has been the highlight of his career, and he certainly loves to talk about these endeavors of his. But on that same token, Hitchens was a hard-partier who drank too much and inhaled too much smoke. Time will certainly take its toll with that combination. So is Hitchens surprised that he has contracted esophageal cancer? In a recent interview on CNN, Hitchens states that he is not surprised and claims that, in some way, he knew this would come.

In the linked CNN interview, I can't possibly imagine how scary it is to teeter on the brink of death. The lack of knowledge of what awaits us on the other side can be frightening to some, no matter how assured of themselves they are that Hell does not exist. It seems to me that "The Hitch" may be unsettled, but not flustered.

So this brings me to the ultimate point of the post. Besides wishing Hitchens get well soon and defeating this often-fatal disease, I'd prefer this not be some type of premature obituary. Hitchens is currently undergoing chemotherapy, but the diagnosis is not very good. What Hitchens can do, however, is something he has never failed to do: Remain steadfast.

Hitchens is what I believe to be a man of principle. He sticks to his guns. And while in his own words the end of the race may be near, the mark of a good life is that, if in those waning moments, you can be happy for what you experienced and be willing to go through it all, good and bad, once again. When you can accept that, you can go gentle into that good night.

"What's the point of life if you're going to vanish someday?" Theists often ask this question. A similar question is what is the point of Hitchens going on TV, telling his story, reading during chemotherapy treatment, writing this article in Vanity Fair, and the list goes on and on. While it's a seemingly misplaced question at this point in the blog post and can't be answered in a few sentences, everybody is aware of their own death and contemplates this. While me, a person most likely just past 1/4 of his life, can sit here and talk about what it means to stay steadfast when death is around the corner, even I am frightened, to some degree, about the prospect of not being. But this is missing the point. The idea of living life is to experience. To hear, to feel, to smell, to taste, to think. As we may not realize, death is the default status. Nothingness, the void of before you were born, dates back to negative infinity B.C. (a gross oversimplification of time, but I'm thinking of a timeline!). How lucky are we? I once heard a line somewhere that "Jimi Hendrix didn't die, he experienced." While meant to have sort of humorous tone (Jimi Hendrix Experience), nothing could be closer to the reality.

To Hitchens, let's all wish him well. Here's to hoping that his best work is still ahead of him.

The Brain, Materialism, and Ghosts

2010-08-03T14:27:00.005-04:00

Even as the religions of the world lose clout, it seems that superstition endures. The reins of gullibility and credulity are simply passed on to the next generation of spiritual foolishness. It would appear that the weight of choice is constantly upon the individual, between the comfort of intellectual laziness and the cold void of courage in the face of the undesirable. Is there life after death? Do ghosts exist? Can human beings contact such creatures, assuming they exist? These questions might seem very trivial and idiotic, but to many people who may not be particularly religious, the answers here are of monumental importance. For someone who has forsaken religion, or been forsaken by former faith in their religion, the existence of ghosts provides a shred of protection against the realization that their being will not endure beyond the death of their physical form. But fear, even that greatest fear which is the possibility of losing everything, must not deter man from seeking the truth.

It must be stated bluntly: there is no reason to believe that human beings have a soul apart from their bodies. In fact, there is significant reason lending itself to the materialism, which is the idea that the material world is all that exists. Occam's Razor is not even necessary here, since there is actually a refutation of supernatural causation, rather than just a superseding of supernatural explanation by natural explanation. Now, it is exceedingly obvious even to a dualist that the mind is subject to changes effected upon the body. Obviously losing an arm (a change to the body) causes a change in personality or at least mood (a change in the mind). But that is not the extent of the connection. Consider: a man enters a brothel and is infected with a malady of the brain, syphilis. It is known that this disease attacks the brain, eventually leading to insanity. How could his personality and sanity be altered by a disease of his physical brain if his soul were transcendent or at least independent of the body? If it is put forth that the soul is not affected even though the personality is, then what use is the soul? It is reduced from the representation of consciousness to an ill-suited poetic license for asserting claims without evidence or cause. And that is precisely what the soul is, a poetic representation of human consciousness, whose actual existence has been refuted by the modern realization that human beings are effectively nothing more and nothing less than sophisticated machines whose brains determine everything in relation to personality, morality, righteousness, vileness, goodness, and wickedness.

As for the existence of ghosts, and for the purported ability to communicate with them, it all seems to be nothing more than a fantasy for fools and a source of income for the less than scrupulous. Relations with the paranormal usually fall into one of two categories. The first is investigation, wherein people will attempt to track and record evidence of ghosts and other activity not quite of this world. The second is communication and reconciliation, wherein a psychic medium will act as a intermediary between a ghost and a living relative. In the first category one will find pseudo-science attempting to pass off ambient noise as contact with the dead. In the second one finds con-artists using cold-reading to scam idiotic but innocent people out of their hard-earned money by promising a final goodbye or wish of goodwill from a sorely missed relative. Both of these proposed methods of interjection into or from the realm of a world beyond the senses are demonstrably false and usually only believed by the most credulous and naive people, who grasp at any straws that would allow them to remain in denial about their inevitable annihilation.

Human beings are children of this universe, and we haven't even begun to understand our home. We remain strangers even in the realm of our genesis. Why then, do so many feel the need to abandon the real world and all it's mystery and majesty, for the sake of a world created and inhabited by the pathetic excuses for imagination offered up by con-men and morons? There is no real reason to expect life after death, but any problem offered by that revelation can be solved by man. Let us focus on the mastery of our world first, before we feel the need to create another one out of fear and delusion

Ancient Astronaut Idiocy

2010-08-03T14:06:00.004-04:00

Famous science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke postulated three "laws" of prediction, the third of which is as follows: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In this way, technologically advanced beings could be mistaken for being supernatural., and ndeed, there are even documented cases of such occurrences. During the Second World War, Allied airmen landed and dropped supplies on certain South Pacific islands whose denizens had never before encountered flying machines or, presumably, any kind of modern technology. Believing the airmen to have supernatural powers, they set up landing sights so that the "gods" would continue to bring food and equipment to their villages. In a similarly primitive way of thinking, there are some who believe that the ancient monuments of man's past were constructed either by, or with the aid of extraterrestrial beings. There are three main reasons why this idea is highly repulsive, one of them being a skeptical and intellectual objection, with the other two being emotional responses.

Firstly, there is simply not any sufficient evidence for these "theories". The fact that these half-baked ideas are even called theories is an insult to science. Take for instance, the Great Pyramid of Giza. Mainstream (peer-reviewed) historians are in agreement that the Pyramids were constructed over a 20 year period which concluded around 2560 BC. Ancient Astronaut proponents have claimed that it is impossible to construct such a monument even today with modern technology in that time period. Admittedly, I do not have any sort of engineering experience or background, so I cannot in good conscience speak to the validity of that claim. But it is a little telling that the proponents of this kind of thinking are as lacking in engineering expertize as I am, and equally lacking in a similar admission of ignorance. When the proposed evidence for these notions are put forth, they are revealed as being little more than speculation. A good example is the so-called Baghdad battery, a clay jar lined with copper that can produce an electric charge when certain acids are combined within. It is widely believed in Ancient Astronaut circles that these bulbs were widespread in the ancient world, and were even used to light the insides of the pyramids. However, no apparatus that could be conceivably used in conjunction with the supposed battery has been found. If it was used so extensively then it stands to reason that the machines they powered would be left behind with them. Considering that few of these things have been found, it seems more likely that they were a unprecedented step in human technological advancement that went largely unnoticed. The charge that is created is detectable, but not powerful enough to do much, and it is certainly inferior to modern day electrical systems. If highly advanced beings wished to bequeath radical technology to the people of earth, why fashion a sub-par battery out of mud? It is impossible to say that there is absolutely no evidence supporting these claims, but thus far no real evidence has been brought to the table.

The second objection to this claim is, as stated earlier, purely emotional and an admitted opinion. It does not speak to the validity or lack thereof of the "theory" of alien astronauts, but rather to its insulting nature. The idea that the accomplishments of human beings, the lasting remnants of our barbarous yet brilliant ancestors, were constructed by extraterrestrial beings; this idea unforgivably robs the heritage of man. The labors of thousands are trivialized and regarded as the uplifting of our apparently pathetic forefathers to the status of slightly more competent yet still utterly barbaric creatures.

And this utter barbarism of our not-so-distant ancestors is the final point of objection to this utterly ridiculous idea. Consider that the primary cultures that are considered to have been "enlightened" by extraterrestrials are the Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans, and perhaps the Aztecs. In Ancient Astronaut "Theory", these cultures are thought to have worshiped the aliens as gods, and to have been ruled over by them. Consider the cultures listed above. Among the four, the civilization of Egypt is the only one not entirely stained by abominable practices such as human sacrifice. Even Egypt subjugated the lower nations surrounding it. But the other three engaged in overtly brutal practices which were carried out in the name of pleasing their "gods". Now consider that most proponents of Ancient Astronaut "Theory" consider the return of these beings to be a time of salvation for mankind. Lovecraft was closer in his fiction than these charlatans are in their claims of truth. If these beings were indeed the overlords of mankind in the past, they clearly cared little for human life or for the spread of knowledge, as the aforementioned civilizations developed nothing in the areas of science and medicine that would have been beyond their reach without the aid of otherworldly beings. Actually, the Baghdad battery is undeniably interesting, and could be considered an achievement ahead of its time. But again, it's design is lacking even by the technological standards of the 20th century, to say nothing of 21st century technology or the amazing scientific strokes of brilliance required to venture out beyond one's own solar system.

Of course, no amount of outrage or emotional rebellion against an idea says anything about its veracity. If there were evidence of alien lordship over the earth, the opinion that such an existence would be absolutely horrific could still stand, but it wouldn't render impotent the idea. As it stands, there is no reason to believe these things, and although in my humble opinion mankind should pursue the truth regardless of whether or not it brings harm, it should also examine ideas regarding salvation from a skeptic standpoint, especially if that salvation derives from an obviously malicious source.

At the Alpha and Omega

2010-08-02T21:07:00.001-04:00

It is difficult to find a philosophical position to match the utter hilarity and stupidity of Solipsism. The idea that the entire universe is contained within the mind of the individual, that all other minds are illusions, and therefore that the individual is the sole existing entity; utterly idiotic. Even in the event that it was accepted, where can one go from such a position? Assuming that the universe is just a distraction concocted by the mind of the solely real being: oneself, there would still be the same incentive to engage within life.

Most solipsists say they are incapable of altering the universe to their whim, or in any way showcasing the god-like abilities that should be within their grasp because it would spoil the simulation, and for some reason they have blocked off their own ability to do such things. In effect, they won't be able to act in any way that would seem becoming of their position until the game has ended i.e. they die. It is even more useless a belief than one of a religious persuasion, because that at least influences the individual in some way, even in a terrible way. A solipsist has no reason to act at all, and actually no reason to live, since crossing the threshold of death would only empower them again. Solipsism is incredibly inane as a philosophical position, but it is fascinating as a feeling, and it would seem that such a feeling is only palpable to sane human beings at the beginning of their lives and at the end.

Obviously, at the beginning of life, no human being is capable of appreciating the precarious nature of such a position. Therefore, it is at the end of life that the feeling of solipsism is experienced most distinctly. To be clear, it is not my opinion that for a second a person of sound mind begins to hallucinate that only they exist, even nearing the vista of death. Rather, a person's thoughts begin to concern themselves alone, and they are confronted with the real nature of their existence.

It seems unlikely that such an ordeal affects everyone as they approach the end though. Someone who truly had faith in their particular god would view death as a crossing over, rather than an end in itself, and would be unlikely to concern their thoughts with their impending end. For this reason, as this site is wont to do, the discussion will turn towards those who hold a materialist outlook from here. For someone who does not expect to survive physical death, the final moments of life are the ones requiring the greatest courage. This is especially true for those who actively reject the hope offered by the absurd, and who do not take refuge within the faith that relies upon impossibility. However, it is something to pondered, just how powerful such faith is when put to such a test.

There at the brink, one is focused purely inwardly, and in the last moments becomes solipsistic in all but the delusion of grandeur. Here the bare value of solipsism can be realized, and such realization can only be sickening. There is no glory in being a drifting soul in a vast empty cosmos, imagining phantoms, demons, and gods simply to fill the emptiness and distract from terrible lonely boredom.

The Fundamental Disconnect

2010-07-27T01:53:00.002-04:00

I recently had a comment back-and-forth with a self-proclaimed "right-brained" (artsy, spiritual, deeper meaning, people person, etc.; left-brained = cold, analytical, reads into things, etc.) individual on a video about consciousness. Here is the video. This was the mini-exchange:

Toro: "hmm.. purely left brained people will over analyze this and call it wishful thinking. i believe it is impossible to enlighten these people because they do not have the correct mindset to understand the concept. Its like trying to imagine what a 4 dimensional object looks like.. impossible to do. one cannot see outside the box unless one has been outside the box."

Me: "Toro, the problem is that you can't escape your own mind. I consider myself a "left-brained" person who analyzes things critically and skeptically. I can just as easily say, "you don't get it", but there's really no way of knowing with our limited perspectives."

Toro: "Actually, there's no way of knowing from YOUR perspective. Left brained people aren't evil, they aren't bad, and they aren't any less human than right people are.. They just don't see things the way people like me do. Many right-brained people have exceptional interpersonal skills and methods of reading and analyzing people that are so intuitive and complex that it would be impossible to explain them to someone who doesn't feel them naturally. People are books waiting to be read."

Me: "Exactly, and people like me think the key to understanding reality is through reductionism. We are at an impasse :)

This seems to me like some religious person saying, "you just don't understand how I experience God." I don't think you're experiencing God, but there's no real way to tell now, is there? It seems as if you believe right-brained people have access to understanding consciousness, but maybe left-brainers do. The perspectives are limited."

Toro: "Hahah maybe we are at an impasse, but the way I read, predict, and manipulate people on a daily basis makes me pretty confident in my ability to see into the perspectives of others"

Now, this guy I was talking to is most likely an atheist. At the least, a pantheist or a deist (assuming he has this "right-minded" approach, I'd be less than surprised). This fundamental disconnect is the inability for humans to see things from other perspectives. Our biology is not suited to figuring out the secrets of objective reality and discovering them unbiasedly, rather it is built in order to understand enough to get by. Humans have different personalities, left and right, and any claim for one to be better at ascertaining at truth I think has a difficult time ahead of them.

I hate to basically leech off of Nietzsche some more, but his theory on Perspectivism was way ahead of its time. I'm not about to disown the idea of the ability to know truth in the same way Nietzsche did who I believe did feel that there is no epistemological normativity. Nietzsche I believe understood that there was a concept of truth, or I guess the actuality of events or descriptions in the objective world that we experience. Nietzsche was merely saying that we can't be so sure of ourselves since we are all biased from a particular perspective.

When some Christian asserts that they have experienced the Holy Ghost, as an atheist I have to assume that's just chemicals in their brain doing the talking. I don't see the need for a Holy Spirit floating in the ether, but I can't see things from that individual's perspective. Obviously this is lacking as evidence and you can't expect a non-believer to accept this as evidence, but could it be? We just have to trust our instinct. There is nothing else to go on.

In Defense of Progress

2010-07-22T17:27:00.005-04:00

There an be little doubt now that the changes effected by man upon the world have begun to act to the detriment of our environment. An oil spill, a nuclear meltdown, the endangerment of other species, and the massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere; these are certainly not desirable outcomes of mankind's industrious nature. And yet, even accepting that progress has often dire consequences, are we to kowtow to some neo-luddite movement or even to some backwards conservative fool, that would seek to ebb the flow of progress that our species has managed to eke out against all odds? That, we must never do, as much as progress may harm the environment or even those who strive forward into uncharted territory, a surrender of that progress would be nearly impossible. Even could it be achieved it would all be for naught but the inevitable annihilation of the entire human race.

The resources of the earth are limited. The amount of usable energy remaining in the cosmos is eternally dwindling, though the amount of time and energy remaining before the final onslaught of entropy nearly defies human comprehension. What can be ascertained, is that human beings, like all animals, continually struggle for the control of limited resources. Trumping any ideological struggle is a conflict for the ability to survive, and nothing aids more effectively in that fight than constantly updated arsenals. Just as higher animals evolve out of the endless conflict and bloodshed of nature, higher society has evolved out of it's more primitive iterations in order to effectively compete with its rivals. The reason that technology and industry will not be abandoned en masse, is the same as the reason that nuclear armaments cannot be abandoned- to surrender them is to make oneself vulnerable and give the upper hand to a perceived enemy, even though their reasoning is the same.

Still, even though the abandonment of modern society is highly improbable, it does lie within the realm of possibility. There are two categories of reasons why this can never be allowed to happen. The first category of reason is immediate, while the second is extrapolation. Falling within the category of the immediate are the most obvious reasons, and the reasoning in the extrapolation category is more existential.

The immediate losses incurred by the breakdown of modern society would be devastating. The world would experience massive starvation, which would result from the lack of a majority of citizens to grow their own food or adapt to a yeoman farmer lifestyle. If the sources of energy were shut down, entire metropolitan areas would be plunged into darkness, and hospitals would be useless, including life support systems. After the relatively initial loss of life, it is impossible to speculate as to how the denizens of the world would adapt to living in a world divested of everything they knew. However, it is reasonable to expect that no matter how deeply the anti-progressive mindset was ingrained, after a few succeeding generations mankind would again seek to alleviate his primitive situation and attempt to regain what he didn't even remember losing. Because of this, the stance of so-named neo-luddites is ludicrous, since in the best case scenario they can imagine, their attempts are ultimately doomed to failure. Man will spontaneously seek easier ways to accomplish his means and triumph over his enemies, be they the natural forces of the world or his own distantly-related kin.

However, even though the goals of those who would seek a return to primitive life are ultimately pointless, they can be extremely dangerous to humanity. This is because of the very real, though not immediate, threat of extinction events-planet-wide catastrophes that our species would be hard-pressed to endure. The only hope is for human beings to reach for the stars and colonize other worlds, spreading so far as to avoid extinction. In the long run though, as said above, entropy will invariably increase and eventually the universe itself will be a cold void incapable of supporting even the technologically brilliant beings that make it that far. Here the discussion reaches into inane speculation and for that an apology is offered preemptively. But the limitations of technology are not known, and it may be that eventually a solution to the problem presented by entropy can be found, allowing the civilization that discovers it eternal existence. This is highly improbable, and very likely impossible given the very well-defined laws of thermodynamics. But for sake of the smallest possibility; for that alone progress is invaluable.

Reaching back into the realm of the immediate, technology has allowed comfortable and intellectual lives to be available for some of humanity to attain. Of course there is a massive gulf between the well-off and the desperate, but does that mean that all should be cast aside, barring solutions to the problems of the world? Casting aside for the moment the concept of overcoming the limitations currently known about the universe, the progress of science has continuously proven itself capable of improving the lives of men. If that improvement is so despised, let those who hate it be the first to cast aside everything it has afforded them.

God as Last Refuge of the Intellectual Sloth

2010-07-22T01:34:00.003-04:00

While the button shown at the top is a parody, it is pretty fitting nonetheless. I've always found, as most atheists do, God to manifest itself as nothing more than what the title of this post refers to as the sluggishness of the intellect. While his existence is a very pressing issue indeed, God is, in some way, downplayed from a loving father-figure being that we can all have a personal relationship with into an all-knowing supercomputer.

When I say that, what I mean to say is that because God is omniscient, he has everything sorted out for us. Instead of creating our own destinies, God is in control. Instead of figuring out what you desire and what you believe to be the best of possible worlds, God has already contemplated it. There's no need to question God because instead of fostering healthy dissent, it is a sin. After all, God knows everything and loves you to the incomprehensible max, so everything is taken care of.

What God therefore becomes is a stop-gap for giving the impression that opinions can be objectified. Disagreement about whether or not Jesus' sacrifice is legitimate or warranted ultimately can be shut down without much of a tangible reason due to the fact that God apparently said it was okay, and that shuts down the case. Instead of rigorously pursuing what we humans find to be a collective answer, it is force-fed to those of us who rationally disagree. We object to the inefficiency and manner in which the vicarious ransom was carried out, but we are incorrect because God says so. It really is a discussion-ender.

While I love discussion of various topics, what I personally despise the most is unfounded, unquestioned belief because some agent of a respected institution says so. If when you hear them acting as a proxy for God and it makes sense (along with what you perceive to be intelligible reasoning behind it), then more power to you. I'd love to have a discussion with you, even if there is a giant schism in our ways of understanding the world. If you are a dogmatic fundamentalist who hasn't examined your own beliefs, I'd much rather have nothing to do with you. It seems as if most atheist converts at least had the potential to be converted (definitionally) because they had the capacity for introspection and logical consistency. The intellectual sloths that fill the pews of churches every Sunday seem to be missing this important quality.

Investment of Happiness

2010-07-18T15:45:00.007-04:00

Man has undeniable talent within his mind to turn ill to good, suffering to joy, and the ignoble to the noble. No matter how dire the circumstance, the spirit of mankind cannot be fully trampled, or wholly ruined. This power to adapt is such that those trapped under the heel of oppression will actually begin to believe their predicament is to be valued, and that liberty is unthinkable. The question is whether this investment of happiness is a detriment to free thought. How could that be so? When enough joy and happiness is placed into a worldview, one obviously would prefer that such a worldview is true, and it becomes increasingly difficult to alter one's perception in favor of demonstrable truth rather than deluded preference.

Of course the obvious example would be the theistic position, but it would be superfluous to examine it because the very foundation is explicitly hostile to free thought. Therefore, more use is to be found in examining the stance of atheists instead. To avoid the mistake that is made all too often, and against which this site itself has cautioned, the only idea that will be truly examined is the nonexistence of god. However, as an admittedly shaky extrapolation, an implication of the first idea will be lightly touched upon: the end of being at the moment of physical death.

Atheism in this sense is by no means new, and it dates back to ancient thinkers like Diagoras, Euhemerus, Epicurus, and Lucretius. However, it seems that there is a very real difference between their atheism and that of the modern day, though it is subtle. Over the centuries everything good and worthwhile in the culture of the western world came to be lumped and coalesced together into an entity labeled "God". The rejection of this entity carries not only the consequence that it will not, and clearly could not, intercede on one's behalf, but also that one is rejecting the symbol of all that is thought to be good. Obviously the symbol is not necessary to do good, and indeed has been shown to lend itself to the detriment of what is good. But this is the genesis of existential anxiety, and the difference between the ancient and modern expressions of atheism.

But herein the fiery glory of man's spirit is truly showcased. In the darkest hour, which is the very advent of nihilism, he is able to draw forth his happiness from the very wellspring of his despair. The struggle against meaninglessness becomes, in itself, a font of joy and meaning for life, and in this way man defies the void. Here is the point in question, the frame of mind in which man is able to revel in the ultimate freedom of an inhuman, uncaring universe. Would it not then be a terrible curse to be forced back into bondage?

It seems an unavoidable aspect of being human, that all must carry bias and view the truth through a personal looking glass. But fortunately for society and for the individuals by which it is composed, this need not be detrimental. For by uniting in common interest, it is possible with the use of the scientific method to determine truth as well as can be done. In such a way, personal bias and all investment of happinesss can be removed from the pursuit of verifiable truth, and valued by the individual by whom they were created.

Oversights

2010-07-17T03:00:00.001-04:00

It is incredibly easy to make an egregious error when dealing with theists. All too simple is the mistake of forgetting the most important aspect of religion or spirituality in general. At the core of any belief in god is the personalization of deity. This personalization is unavoidable, and it is a major cause of deicide. Quite simply stated, the more benign and merciful the personal god is thought to be, the greater ease by which it is recognized as a fabrication of the mind and subsequently deposed. Applying only to former theists, the belief of theists in Allah and Yahweh is in part so disturbing because they appear as affronts to any kind of god formerly conceptualized by the apostate.

This disturbance is by no means unwarranted, although it can easily be a detriment to true understanding. Millions certainly profess their faith in the holy doctrines, and therefore in the deities described therein. But how many of these are unaware of the atrocities attributable to such gods? How many have the integrity and honesty to profess a disgust with the behavior even of god himself, should they be made fully aware of his purported actions? Those who claim that their gods would not cause harm to people and are in fact protectors are delusional and ignorant, but at least they haven't relinquished their sacred empathy. Those who condemn and decry their mortal brethren on the supposed behalf of that being who authored every woe known to man, have forfeited their humanity, and must regain it before they can ever be respected.

The oversight is two-edged though. While atheists are sometimes guilty of assuming all theists are bible fundamentalists, theists are in turn sometimes guilty of assuming that atheists are opposed to their own personal god. In effect, the more level-headed, humanitarian theists assume that atheists are opposed to all the "good" effected by their god, not realizing that by dismissing the unlikable attributes of the deity, they are essentially worshiping a phantom of their imagination. From this there arises a good deal of the misconceptions regarding atheists. For example, the idea that atheists are nihilistic by default is a consequence of associating god only with life, forgetting that according to the mythology, he is the architect of both the original and second forms of death.

It should be said that atheists are often opposed to even personal gods. Like it's counterpart, the assumption is not totally unwarranted. But it must be recognized that being an atheist does not make someone a sadist, who desires to simply destroy the pleasures that have been wrapped up in a belief in god. Neither does being an atheist mean that someone is opposed to the things that more liberal views of god have epitomized: freedom, love, equality. It is simply the case that these views of god are entirely subject to the whims of those who believe in them, unsupported by even the shoddy evidence of any holy book, especially the bible, which portrays god as being the antithesis of real freedom, love, and equality for human beings. Rather than wanting to rob theists of their happiness, atheists would expose their delusions for what they are, in the hopes that they might achieve joy built upon the rock of reality, not the shifting sand of self-delusion.

Dilemma of a Free Citizen

2010-07-13T21:10:00.003-04:00

One day John approached his elderly friend Frederick in the countryside surrounding the city which both called home. The city, that place which of old is called Atra Flumen, was threatened with war by it's rivals. As the offending legions trekked along the the war path, the city's magistrates had begun to call forth all able-bodied men to meet the enemy in combat. Under such dire circumstances, John sought out his old friend to discuss which course of action should be taken.

Frederick! Noble soul I call you, rightfully counted as wise by the men of this good city, if not indeed the denizens of all the world over. It is in the greatest dismay that I have sought you, that which is born of uncertainty. The choices that appear before me are as two mighty rivers, but the tributaries I cannot discern. All men who can serve in the army have been called to protect the name and mortar of the city, and see driven all who claim enmity with us. But I cannot risk my life, as I have a new-born child and a wife to whom I must attend.

John, surely you don't therefore expect that you are released from your obligation? War is a collector of widows and orphans. Your situation is far from unique. The freedom and peace of your youth was purchased with the blood of those who came before, and by your sacrifice you will preserve it for your child. What would he think of his father, who languished beneath the high walls of the city, benefiting always by the services of the rest of society, if when the time came, he remained unmoved when summoned to repay his debt?

But is that not the gift of my homeland? That my life be always free from weregild of any type? The sacrifice of my ancestors is wasted if any coercive force should influence me, unless it were of my own conscience.

Ah you speak truly. Yet some bondage cannot be broken unless all ties with fellow man be shattered alongside. For as long as you benefit from the aspects of the city which you count as good, you must also bear all hardships. In choosing freely to live in the city, you have accepted the laws therein.

And if the law is unjust? By the virtue of my birth must I support the decrees of a tyrant? For many rules I have judged in my own heart to be unjust. By virtue of my very residence am I obligated to ignore my own conscience and submit to such edicts?

If your will is unsatisfied with the law only three options are open to your spirit, if it is noble. Either peaceful legislation in support of justice accorded to your vision, or failing there, the instigation of open revolution against injustice. But in lieu of that, or in failure, the option is ever open to simply remove yourself from the society your heart deems intolerable. A noble soul cannot abide naked injustice, thus speaks courage. To remain under what is witnessed as tyranny or injustice, for sake of comfort, thus coaxes cowardice.

It seems to me that to flee the city in the time of dire need is unbecoming of an honorable man.

The honor of each decision is according to the heart that makes it. The avenues available have been brought to stronger light, but I cannot influence you in any direction.

Speaking thus, the two men parted ways, the old man and the young would-be soldier. Both left with expected conflict demanding attention. While one took up arms, the other wrestled constantly with the doubt and unknowing of the human condition.

Presupposition of the Omnis

2010-07-13T00:06:00.004-04:00

EDIT: I guess I should acknowledge a forseeable rebuttal here after re-reading my finished post. A theist could say, I suppose, that The Problem of Evil assumes God's all-good nature and his desire to curtail evil. So I get that, but my problem in this post is addressing the epistemological problem of understanding God's omnis and how the presupposition of his traits equates to an unproven ipso facto statement (hope I'm using that Latin phrase correctly)

I hope to show how arguing with theists concerning the Problem of Evil is an absolutely futile enterprise wrought with all sorts of hidden miscommunication.

Let's just take the following proposition:

1. O.J. Simpson is all-knowing and all-loving.
2. O.J. Simpson murdered his wife.
3. Therefore, O.J. Simpson had morally sufficient reasons for murdering his wife.

See how this works? This little sleight of hand may go unnoticed by some atheists with regards to arguing against God's existence. This proposition is logically consistent, but we realize it is false because O.J. Simpson appears to be a walking scumbag. How do we come to that conclusion?

Well, we judge his character by his deeds. Simpson showed no remorse for his wife, published a book about how he would kill his wife "if" he actually did it, and he has also had more run-ins with the law in the last few years. We have a standard of what constitutes a scumbag, and with no ulterior overriding motive to guide his course of action, we determine that O.J. Simpson is, most likely, a sleazeball.

Let's take on God:

1. God is all-knowing and all-loving.
2. God allows AIDS, malaria, poverty, divorce, theft, rape, murder, oppression, malnutrition, depression, Pat Robertson's continued existence, etc. (You get the picture)
3. Therefore, God has morally sufficient reasons for doing all of the above.

Not a very convincing argument, huh? Basically what it amounts to is when you're a 3 year old kid and you want to play around in the road, your parents tell you not to. You ask why and they say either, "because I'm the parent" or "because I say so." There's not much of an explanation beyond that.

Theists believe they have sidestepped the Problem of Evil so long as there is even a possibility of God having "morally sufficient" reasons for allowing evil. The generic theist response is because humans are allowed to have free will. If one contests the idea that human free will is more important than the ability to carry out evil acts, where do you go from there? It boils down to human opinion, a moral gray area. If a theist retorts that it is morally sufficient "just because", that doesn't work. You actually have to demonstrate how it is morally sufficient to somebody who may not understand, and likewise an atheist would probably have to make a case for the opposite. How you go about doing that I think is absolutely impossible because, if you've read my previous posts on human morality, we overlap to a great extent but they are basically preferences.

I'm reminded of a semi-popular quote from Buddha. While I'm not necessarily a fan of his, this quote has a lot of significance to the above: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." If I sound like a broken record, no theist could ever convince me why Hell makes sense. The fundamental disconnect when dealing with what I refer to as the "emergent intersubjective consensus" (a.k.a., colloquially known as "morality") is that we treat them as matters of fact rather than competing opinions of how to maximize subjective well-being. While kind of off-topic (again!), this relates to the initial point. If you presuppose that something is all-moral, then of course anything they do is moral.

"But who are you to question God? God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful!" Again, we're stuck in the same position. Sure I can assume that if I ever meet him some day, but the fact that he disagrees with my sense of what "good" is means that I can never share his view of the world. We have a being that is sending billions of people to burn in a fiery pit. This is not something I would condone. God says it's okay. I feel that it isn't. Am I to forsake my own opinion? What if God is deceiving me and is just some supernatural celestial Adolf Hitler?

What this doesn't address is the very nature of the question: How is God all-moral? How do we know God is all-moral? You can't presuppose that God is all-good when that is the very characteristic in question!

A certain kind of faith

2010-07-12T17:41:00.002-04:00

I must start this article with a fervent apology. I have written about the philosopher Soren Kierekegaard before and expressed my admiration for him to a certain extent. That extent being the honesty that he showcased as a Christian in his understanding that faith is beyond what can be arrived at utilizing knowledge or reason, and is therefore absurd. However, I missed the most important part of what Kierkegaard spoke of, and it is within this massive oversight of mine that the key of his entire thought lies. Kierkegaard proved that Christianity is not beyond redemption, given the courage of the individual who embraces it.

It is important to realize first that faith serves two masters, and not equally. Faith is entirely useless to discovering the mechanisms of our world, and has been shown again and again to be detrimental to the growth of a healthy society. But the second service rendered by faith is unto the individual. Those possessed of enough courage and power of perception are able to realize that they are not only unable to realize the dreams of their hearts, but also that they are not even unique in the realization that their situation is doomed in such a regard. This is agony born of enough intelligence and power to recognize the inherent meaningless of existence, but not enough of such qualities to effectively overcome and create one's own meaning.

The first discovery is the testing ground of the truly noble. Upon finding that the nature of existence is precarious only by virtue of man's animal desire to survive, those of mightier spirits must admit the futility of their situation. This alone elevates them above the droves of those trapped inside delusions. The choice is then to live without hope in the absurd, or to embrace the surreal idea that with god, all things are possible. But of course all of this has been stated before, and more eloquently. The point that was formerly lacking in my discussions of Kierkegaard is related to his view of mortal man's earthly life.

The ingenius Danish Philosopher proclaims from the book serving as a mountaintop that true faith is only relevant to the here and now. This is music to my ears, because it banishes the afterworldly thinking that plagues Christianity and reduces it to a system of misanthropy and self-loathing. Rather than hoping for the fulfillment of one's dreams and desires in an ill-defined thereafter, Kierkegaard writes that one must have the faith that water will not only turn to wine, but also that wine will turn back to water. He means that a true man of faith invests invests it into the absurdly infinite, with hope for the mundanely finite.

It is still my opinion that the leap to faith is a coward's escape from true confrontation with reality, compared to the absurd hero of Albert Camus' writings who embraces the meaningless of the universe as the ultimate freedom. But Kierkegaard's embrace of real life is heartening, as is his sentiment that life is not merely a test for man in preparation for the next world.

Woo-Woo Masters and their Audiences

2010-07-12T01:48:00.004-04:00

Anybody who has listened to Deepak Chopra utter a syllable needs no explanation to understand that it is the epitome of mumbo-jumbo. Allow me to demonstrate by taking a few direct quotes from Deepak himself:

“Happiness is a continuation of happenings which are not resisted.”

“The physical world, including our bodies, is a response of the observer. We create our bodies as we create the experience of our world.”

"What is the soul? the soul is a bundle of consciousness which contains meaning, and context, and purpose and relationships."

Okay.....[vigorously massaging my forehead/bridge-of-nose portion of my face in disgust and utter amazement at how this individual gets away with this cheap excuse for enlightening speech].

What we have here is a fundamental disconnect between what the speaker is trying to convey (if anything) versus what we perceive them to mean. If the listener to this mumbo-jumbo is not skeptical enough to decipher the possibility that it is completely devoid of any substance, Deepak, or anybody of his ilk, may actually have the upper-hand in the discussion. The speaker of such nonsense has the possibility of coming off as knowledgeable with their understanding of reality being on another plane compared to the listener.

I've actually had a few debates where theists or New Agers fall back on the "the fact that you don't understand him shows how puny your intellect is" style of arguments. Forgive me for not understanding how happiness is a continuation of happenings which are not resisted, but that encapsulates the impasse doesn't it? It makes sense to the theist/new ager, it doesn't to me. If I actually do have a puny intellect and I am just unaware of that fact, then this information is inaccessible to me. If the theist/new ager has a puny intellect and is being sucked in by a charlatan (which I believe to be the case), there's no way to get through to them.

I suppose it comes down to how much you trust your own brain. I've been wrong on a lot of things, but from my experiences, I've found these individuals such as Deepak Chopra to be nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing looking for a quick buck to make. In the case of Christian apologetics, my intuition tells me that it's not about the speaking engagements or the notoriety or the popularity, but as a case of trying to prove to themselves the validity of their worldview. Either way, I could be wrong, or I could be right.

Either way (and I'm kind of rambling right now), it can also depend on the type of person you are. I find that mostly these kinds of statements such as the one listed above resonate with people who are more emotional, more social, and are yearning to appeal to something higher than themselves. It may be people who are more into art, music, appreciation of other cultures, poetry, etc. There is a heavy trend between occupations such as the tech industry and atheists, and that probably is no coincidence either. And I'm not saying the latter doesn't have its faults and that one type of personality is superior objectively to another, but the point I'm making is that when it comes to a question like the existence of God, most people go off of feeling rather than by analysis.

Merrymaking

2010-07-09T06:14:00.004-04:00

The goal of achieving a successful and comfortable life for oneself and ones family is shared across the globe, though it is known colloquially as the "American" dream. But the resources of the world, and even the universe are limited. Life itself is defined by constant struggle. It is unclear if the current notion of the "good life" is possible, or even desirable. And although a utopia by definition is impossible to achieve, there are many who live out their existence in situations that can only be described as idyllic. Even the middle class often have the goal of reaching the higher echelon of society and seem to work towards a goal of having no further need to labor at all. There is an important question to be posed, and it requires a moral system that holds the improvement of the human race as the most important tenet. The question is as follows: Is it morally reprehensible to spend one's time and financial resources in the pursuit of distractions, namely the accumulation of enjoyable material goods and leisurely activities?

It would be helpful, perhaps, to narrow down the target of this pondering. Essentially, it is the expenditure of billions of dollars on seemingly unnecessary tools of distraction. Distraction is certainly the best way to describe what is provided; distraction from the suffering of one's fellow man. Every penny spent could go toward easing the hardship of the third world, or indeed, the first world. The argument is not being made here that free citizens should be forced to spend their hard-earned money or should be coerced by anything other than their conscience. It has been said of man that he cannot live on bread alone, but should it rather be said that man is great enough to endure on bread alone, so that his fellows might also be sustained?

Should that then be the fate of all men? To labor without end in pursuit of what is, in essence, improbable if not impossible? There is a definite nobility to such a struggle, and a poetic beauty in a constant battle against circumstance itself in the service of oneself and society in general. But beauty is a matter of perspective, and all but useless as justification. There is reason enough to warrant self-indulgence. To live without it is to live either without hope, or with the support of faith in the unforeseeable. One must either live with the reality that the "good life" is and always will be inaccessible to most of humanity, or have faith in the ability of man to augment himself and his environment with the use of scientific knowledge. If hope is not surrendered, or faith is not embraced, then one cannot help but placate selfish desire.

Although the word "selfish" is used, it is not necessarily pejorative. In a very real sense, the facilitation of a comfortable environment can be seen as the crowning achievement of society. For what are lives spent and sacrificed for if not a better life for the next generation? Such an environment, in which enjoyment is abundant and beloved for it's own sake, is thus far the closest the human race has come to creating a paradise. But that paradise is built upon the backs of those who work so hard and for so little, that they are essentially slaves to the system that is so enjoyed.

The question has no easy answer, because any answer that can be found lies within the heart of the individual.

A mere whisper

2010-07-07T16:46:00.007-04:00

It is impossible, to know the final outcome of history, the conclusion of the cosmic experiment of which we are a part. As we are simultaneously the perpetrators and the subjects of the experiment, a certain bias towards finality of a hopeful leaning cannot be avoided, except by grotesque misanthropy. It is also important to remember at all times that the success of each generation is measured by it's ability to do two things: secure the future for the custodianship of posterity, and increase the general knowledge available to the species as a whole. Failure in the first would mean an abrupt end to the game, but what are the consequences of failure in the second instance?

From the first trials on the Savannah, through the great migrations across continental ice bridges, and down all of recorded history, it has been proven that human beings are still subjects of the same natural law to which they declare themselves superior. The ability to adapt and change to meet new challenges is rewarded, while stagnation is punished with the most severe of consequences. Through science man has been able to save vast numbers of his kin whose lives in eras prior would have been at the mercy of unforgiving nature. Each person saved is a win for the entire species, as even the smallest contribution to the collective knowledge of humanity increases the chances of our continued survival. New ideas allow the improvement of dwellings, food production, societal norms, and even genetic makeup.

The entirety of society is built upon the ideas hard-won by brilliant minds from centuries long past. Just as each newborn must learn to walk, each new generation has to be taught the knowledge of the preceding one, in order to build on top of it. If the foundations are removed, all will collapse, all of our knowledge will be forfeit. This cannot be allowed to happen, too much progress will be erased. While it is true that the advent of unbiased scientific research began a mere 200 years ago, all the time before that was necessary to prepare the superstitious and credulous lot of humanity for the innovation that would eventually be possible. To start over now and hope to recover would take time measured in millennium. Every year that humanity is unable to escape planet earth and colonize other worlds is a dreadful inhibition for the species' capacity to survive catastrophe.

What could possibly destroy this earthly firmament upon which all hope is lain? And furthermore, who could possibly wish to ruin it? Aside from the consciously misanthropic, only those who are unaware of the ramifications of their actions are capable of effectively ending the struggle of our species in favor of annihilation. Those who favor anti-science and superstition over the proven power of reason and rationality; these are the individuals that threaten the entire species. If their attitude were seized upon for even a generation, the consequences would be devastating. Because of misguided ideas that claim some knowledge as being dangerous, there is a real threat of book burning, changes to the historical record, and loss of brilliant ideas. If knowledge is progressively lost in such a way, society will be gradually more impossible to maintain. The great machines of the past will become impossible to understand by their scientifically illiterate inheritors.

The very present danger of this poisonous mindset merits disgust for those who would espouse it. They cannot be tolerated, nor can their history-changing, book-burning, knowledge-hating idiocy be allowed to infect and corrode our society. Let them teach their hatred of life and science in their own homes and churches of death. But we must not allow them to end our society, whether it be with a bang or a whisper.

What was the coolest Biblical Miracle?

2010-07-06T21:59:00.002-04:00

The results of the latest Atheist Altar vote are in. The coolest Biblical miracle by popular vote was the account of resurrected bodies walking about in Jerusalem after Christ's rise to Heaven.

Parting of the Red Sea	3 (8%)
Samson Ripping a Lion in Half	7 (20%)
Balaam's Talking Donkey	3 (8%)
Zombies Risen Post-Crucifixion	16 (47%)
Jesus Casting Demons into Pigs	5 (14%)

Temporal Rewards

2010-07-06T15:52:00.001-04:00

The case cannot be made that Christians commit any act, or do any deed, without expectation of compensation. This is not said with any kind of derision, nor can it be afforded any sort of virtue. It's simply a facet of being human. However, it is a much vaunted claim of their beliefs that their reward is expected only in the realm of the spiritual, that they shun the temporary material in favor of the eternally insubstantial. Such is the cost of faith, that one must live unsatisfied in all areas of life: knowledge, wealth, success, and love for any other that could rival one's love for god. For hope of the afterworld, Christians are expected to give unceasingly, keep nothing for themselves, and abandon utterly the world of the living. Would that they truly embraced their fantasy, and left the physical world in the hands of those who do not, and cannot see some variation of life taking precedence over this one.

An overwhelming majority of the American population subscribes to the Christian faith, and although they support varying denominations that are diametrically opposed, they find consensus in their serfdom. The political power of the country corresponds as one would expect to the enormous Christian population. It is untrue to say that all of these Christians across diverse backgrounds support political causes of theocratic bend or eschatological worry. But the concern is directed towards those who do, and their numbers are anything but lacking. Constant insistence that America is in some way a Christian nation, unceasing calls for the criminalization of what Christians consider to be abomination, these things are the result of power and office being held by those who stake their claim in a world beyond. It requires a hypocrisy beyond reckoning to decry the world as irrevocably disgusting and fallen, while at the same time enjoying the benefits of a country built upon secular values and ideas. Herculean effort is required to tolerate the denouncement of science by those who benefit most from the achievements accomplished by it's methods.

The failing of worldly Christians is two-fold. Not only do they cause needless problems for those actually concerned with the earth, but they fail themselves with regard to their own teachings. This isn't overly troubling for them, simply because part of their religion is that all human beings are utterly incapable of avoiding sin and failure. So their failings are seen as simply unavoidable, try as they might to live a Christ-like life. And yet failure implies that an attempt is made, and this is absolutely untrue in the case of one of Christ's most important lessons for his followers. When Jesus is speaking to the crowd, a youth inquires how he might reach the gates of heaven. Jesus inquires what he knows of the law and how to keep it. The youth answers to love the lord thy god with all thy strength, all thy will, all thy heart, and all thy mind, and to love thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus tells him he is correct, and that if he does this, he will live. He then tells the young man to keep the commandments: Ye shalt not steal, Ye shalt not murder, Ye shalt not commit adultery, Ye shalt not give false testimony, Honor thy father and mother. The youth says that he has kept all these things, and wonders what he might still lack. Jesus tells him that if he desires to be perfect, he must give all that he has to the poor. Obviously a difficult thing to do, if one cares a great deal for possessions or financial success. But since Christians expect to be infinitely compensated for this therefore easy sacrifice, they are without excuse for not even attempting to obey the teachings of their god.

The success one has at following the teachings of the Nazarene are affected by effort more than anything else. It is not expected that one be literally perfect, and all are expected to stumble along their journey through life. But it is absolutely inexcusable that Christians push their religion on others at the personal and national level when they themselves make no attempt to truly be disciples of Christ. Worse by far though, is the affect that outspoken Christians have upon the teaching of current scientific principles, work to preserve the environment, and the attempt to aid and educate the Third World. And for all of their undermining efforts, they are able to procure respect and wealth from their fellows, and these are by all accounts, temporal rewards.

Better for the cowardly

2010-06-28T08:06:00.004-04:00

There is an unavoidable end in which creed and dogma cannot endure, wherein the mettle of the human soul is tested to it's utmost breaking point. It is a moment of inescapable approach in which all philosophies are shattered, abandoning the naked will of man to stand alone against the stark, glaring, and inhuman universe. All human beings must face this final harrowing, this final test of their great courage whose result can only be known for a mere instant ere all record becomes useless. In this one instance the herds of Christians speak somewhat correctly, though they miss the meaning of even their own words. Do they not say again and again that the lives of the ungodly are filled ceaselessly with that stuff of the world that Christianity would quickly deem useless? They capture only a glimpse of the full scope however, and only through a thoroughly blemished window.

It is to the credit of the ungodly that they would gather all manner of "stuff" in order to stave off final understanding. Stuff comprises more than mere material possessions. Indeed, the most important possessions of both godly and ungodly are those which cannot be bought at any price: youth, vigor, and love. Of course such things are as insubstantial as anything else when subjected to the relentless pull of time. Yet they offer happiness and solace in the only life that can be expected, and in this are infinitely superior to the ascetic self-denial of the religious, which often carries a sinister or pathetic motivation that is rarely revealed. Without the ambitions of the ungodly, it cannot be said that society would still be in the throes of the Dark Ages, because it would never have advanced even that far. But, regardless of the worth of material goods, physical primacy, or the idealizations of those counted as wise, all things counted above are laid to rest long before the man who carries them. Not in all cases certainly, but the point of interest is in the long life at it's end, and the final confrontation of a human being stripped of all arms and armors against the the crushing maw of finality.

It is only in that final battle, that man is able to truly comprehend the choices offered by the insight of that brilliant Danish Philosopher. In the face of the ultimate unknowable, a retreat may be sounded into the relief of a faith beyond any constraint of reason or knowledge, requiring that man only leap to it. But to make the leap, man must be divested of his integrity and his courage. The falling-back to a keep of faith is the utmost surrender of one's own will. If the leap is rejected, then man is capable of defying fear and submission even unto his final breath. A defiance can be made in the face of the void, or a god whose possibility cannot be utterly ruled out. A final choice is made between the desire to remain true to oneself to the end, or to abandon the belief in oneself for a belief in salvation at any cost. This choice is intensely personal, and perhaps the only choice to ever be made in a truly solipsistic fashion, with only one's own ego considered.

The choices of those who have gone before will remain largely unknown. And even were they to be known, or in cases in which they are known, no judgment can in any good conscience be made. Only those who have been to the absolute brink of reality can truly understand the awesome and terrible vistas of possibility witnessed by human beings abandoned by the fleeting comforts of their world. However, an admittedly flawed assessment of the situation can be made, and a judgment made in bad conscience and arrogance. This is the greatest moment of honesty in the life of any human being. There is no need nor even want for any kind of facade, as the choice is made within the confines of the mind in it's final hours or moments. At a loss for leverage or potency of any sort, the choice is merely between a hope for safety and a loving courage in defense of one's own spirit. Fealty to one's own ideals is better for the courageous, while the abandonment of allegiance and strength in hopes of salvation is better for the cowardly.

Empathy in Action at the Ballpark

2010-06-28T00:37:00.004-04:00

I was watching the Yankees/Dodgers game last night on ESPN, and noticed something totally unrelated to atheism, but leave it to a militant atheist to use the experience to make a point!

Somewhere near the end of the game in front of a road crowd, Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter, one of the most despised/beloved players in all of baseball depending on who you cheer for, almost got drilled in the head with a fastball. Luckily, Jeter ducked out of the way, but not before the crowd behind home plate clasped their hands in front of their mouths, thinking about how close the ball was to cleaning his proverbial clock.

I wish I had the video, but I doubt I could pull it up. The reaction of the crowd behind home plate did the usual "oooooh!" with the oft-accompanied expression of shock on their face. This reaction did not require conscious thinking, as it was akin to a gag reflex. Although having nothing to do with atheism itself, I thought there was something to be learned from it.

Human beings are social animals. As such, we have biological adaptations that inform social interaction. This is a very simple notion to understand. We have, as other primates do, very sophisticated neural structures commonly referred to as mirror neurons. These neurons act as if an observed action directly affecting another is affecting the observer itself. Understanding this basic neuroscience leads to a simple explanation of why the crowd reacted so startled, uneasy, and scared at the sight of one of the most hated MLB players in recent memory nearly getting hit in the face.

Mirror neurons allow for empathy to work. Empathetic traits get passed on from generation to generation and it allows for further development of these neurons. Again, a totally natural explanation for why we feel empathy and sadness at the sight of other humans getting beaten, tortured, unfairly treated, etc. Does this require a celestial code of ethics? Again, obviously not. Of course, theists who love the Moral Argument may say something along the lines of God using mirror neurons as physical tools to convey these moral senses between moral agents.

As you can tell, Occam's Razor disposes of this fairly quickly. We have a perfectly natural explanation for why we, evolved primates, feel the way we do. With regards to moral justification, there really isn't any needed. Humans act in a purely egoistic manner (not "selfish" the way we define it, but in the form of psychological egoism), so if a complete stranger is getting mugged, we feel the urge to help them, because we can easily see ourselves in the muggee's situation and feel that we ourselves are being mugged, which we obviously have an emotional aversion to.

So, my question is what is the point of "moral justification"? I'm not saying that discourse on the application of certain social actions and how they affect human well-being is useless, just that having to prove that justice is "better" than injustice is factual. Does it need to be factual? Regardless if it is factual, it is how we feel. I don't think there is a truth value that can be assigned to preferring well-being to harm. It is the way we are.

A theist may ask, "well what's to stop somebody from doing whatever they want? They're wired differently, but they're like you too, just doing whatever they feel like." Well, okay, so be it. Those that value well-being will put a stop to it, because they feel the urge to. I hate to pull out "might makes right", but that's pretty much how it works. Obviously you have all sorts of theories about morality like Aristotelian virtue ethicists, Kantian, Randian, utilitarians, etc. and all sorts of political philosophies like Marxism, Keynesian economics, anarchists, market anarchists, liberals, conservatives, minarchists, etc. On and on, we humans have different interpretations of what may be the absolute best. But I have more faith (if I'm allowed to use that word) in humanity. Notice how none of the arguments are on the topic of whether or not murdering somebody is hunky-dory or how rape is acceptable. They are over complicated topics, like differing standards of well-being, what the limits of violence are, collectivism vs. individualism, etc. These are more complicated and where the disagreements generally lie in, but nobody is debating over the basics.

Moral skepticism (or some type of emotive non-cognitivism) sounds scary only because it deviates from how we normally talk about morality, colloquially. If you look at a crowd ooing and aahing at a player most despise almost getting hit in the head with a fastball, none of that requires an objective, divinely-informed morality. All it requires is a mechanism that evolved for 3 billion years that is also utilized in conscious deliberation.

The Attraction of Saintliness

2010-06-27T23:42:00.002-04:00

I've long wondered why saints or the devout or the pious or the faithful are always considered in such high regard. Just what is it, exactly, that makes people stand in awe of somebody with inane beliefs such as the Dalai Lama or Pope John Paul? What is the attraction of devoting yourself to a higher power? I think the key can be found in good old human psychology.

Now obviously I'm not going to write about neurons and the physiology of the brain for now, but I'm going to limit this observation to the macroworld. We human beings seem to gravitate towards things that seem out of the ordinary. In our normal, mundane lives, we may tell a fib one day, lust the next, or skip responsibilities for the sake of immediate gratification. After all, isn't this how most humans are?

Then along comes the Saint. The Saint is a different animal entirely, who publicly spends most of his time denying himself these pleasures "of the flesh." This has the ability, I think anyway, to captivate anybody willing to observe. If they can deny their own life-affirming qualities of their life, then what is there to this lifestyle that the individual is missing out on? There must be something extra if they are going to go this far out of their way to deny themselves.

I'm kind of getting this idea from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, which has a few segments on this type of thinking. In chapter 3, he vigorously attacks Christian sentiments in Europe at the time and also its decaying remains. Obviously, if you're not familiar with Nietzsche (who I've been reading a lot lately), his Will to Power plays a large role in this. The Saint, in this instance, has committed a self-attack against himself, which is just another form of the Will to Power. This Saint is trying to overcome himself, although according to Nietzsche, in an unhealthy manner.

And I would argue that the second phase of this newfound Will to Power can be found in the manner of its propagation. The Saint has a newfound aura of prominence and may see to it that others follow in his footsteps. I think a lot of religious people, although not consciously exerting their will on others in a purely egoistic or Will-To-Poweresque fashion, tend to proselytize to others not for love of their fellow man, but for self-reassurance. If the evangelist can convert others, then it attests to the truth of their adhered-to idea, or so they maintain or believe.

Again, this is just sheer speculation on my part. To recap, it is my observation that "holy" people attract so much attention because of their ways of self-denial. This garners interested onlookers who believe there must be something beyond human or divine that is inspiring the self-denier. This self-denier gets some type of gratification for denying their earthly pleasures for the sake of some vague feeling of perseverance or accomplishment. Then this individual may try to pass on their meme to others as a matter of self-reassurance that they are not alone in their quest for self-denial.

Acceptable Deity

2010-06-25T14:47:00.007-04:00

It is abundantly and obnoxiously clear that the god of monotheism is a retroactive creation of man, an illogical apology for the state of the world. Epicurus pointed this out brilliantly, and his words have not been successfully challenged, to his lasting credit. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient deity is utterly inconsistent with the reality in which we live. Of course theists can't accept this simply because of their temperament, and in the case of monotheists by virtue of their very definition this position is untenable. Not logically untenable of course, only emotionally. Ultimately the god of Christians, Jews, and Muslims is the source of all things, and the holy books proclaim without shame that this being is the source even of evil. Did he not send an evil spirit to torment King Saul? Did he not harden the heart of Ramses, leading to the events of Exodus? Of course these are paltry in comparison to the horrendously long list of his evil deeds, but the one at least is named as evil in the bible. Euththeists are deluded and Dystheists have accepted a god that they believe deals out evils to the world.

The time for creating gods is long gone. To do so would be nothing more than an exercise in futility and fantasy. At best such a creation would stand as a testament to the changing conscience of humanity and the desire for an acceptable deity who might replace the barbaric children of feverishly desert-addled minds, given as a gift of thought to those who believe that spiritualism cannot be truly removed from the mind of the populace. However, exercises in futility and fantasy are nothing if not interesting. If it is to be done, then certainly theism is a useless mechanism by which this god might be be born, at least in the sense that theism entails a deity with the qualities now ascribed to the monotheistic god. Theism is bogged down by baggage of the past that is probably too hefty for any further usefulness. Dystheism is equally abhorrent, humanity has no need now for an evil-doer or trickster deity, and it's unclear if it ever did. Eutheism is, of course, impossible given the existence of evil and suffering.

It follows from this deity's inherent goodness that it is not the source of evil in the universe. Nor will it be omniscient or omnipotent, since that would compromise the free will of human beings. The being's power is akin to early classical era greek gods, who cannot die but are limited in their power to affect booth the world and human beings. In the mock mythology of this deity, it will not be the Aristotelian first cause, nor the Gnostic Monad. It is a god only in the sense that it is immortal and operates on a level of power inaccessible to human beings. Rather than a first cause, it is a first consciousness, a being interested in human affairs for some reason. Every theology needs mysteries apparently. Much like pagan deities, who were empowered by their worshipers, this deity is empowered by the goodwill of mankind. It is invisible (of course) and impossible to detect, and without the need for direct worship.

This deity's power, although greater than that known to mortals, is still terribly limited. It is unable to prevent the natural disasters of the earth, or to protect humans on a grand scale. However, it is responsible for the seemingly miraculous occurrences in the midst of a tragedy, such as the uncovering of an infant child in the ruined husk of a building shattered by an earthquake-empowered tsunamis. Lacking omnipresence, this deity aids as many as it can, working ceaselessly but still doing little to ease the suffering of mankind.

In the tradition of prefixing theological positions in greek, this new and intensely pointless view is called Alexotheism, belief in a defender god. Whenever one sees a human being stand up for justice and compassion, one can rest assured that such a person is supported uselessly and invisibly by the god of Alexotheism. Or perhaps not.

Atheist's Wager

2010-06-23T01:06:00.004-04:00

If there is nothing to be said of the countless religions of the world, and nothing to be mentioned with regards to self-respect or a measure of integrity, Pascal's wager could be seen to be sound at least in the most technically logical of senses. Of course there isn't a discourse worthy of attention that entirely discounts personal integrity. And so it is hard to spare Blaise Pascal's intellectually interesting wager the rigors of valuations related to the entire experience at which it is directed, such experience unavoidably comprised of that which is counted as basically human. What exactly the human condition is composed of is complex to say the least. But it can be safely said that logic is not the only component. It can also be said that, without making a claim towards veracity, the overall value of an idea is related to either it's positive or negative effect on those by whom it is taken up. Again, the effect that an idea has upon adherents does not in any way influence its truth value, but the rejection of Pascal's wager by so many seems proof that pure logic is not enough to make a colossal decision regarding one's viewpoint on the cosmos.

Christianity, being the religion ostensibly chosen by Pascal due to his conclusion that it was the true religion, will remain in the repudiation of his thought for that same reason. Christianity and the embrace of this wager by Christians evinces a certain pride in selfishness not otherwise seen outside the writings of Ayn Rand. Pascal's concept of infinite gain of course applies only to the individual whose fear and duplicity leads to an acceptance of the terms of his chosen religion. That same religion, if believed, clearly outlines the inescapable fate of the majority of humanity, which might say something for the efficacy of this wager. The point is that at all times, the goal is to save oneself, thought of others extends only to presenting the same spineless rhetoric in a paltry and half-hearted attempt to "save" them.

In the spirit of atheism, the rejection of that terrible wretched plague upon humanity that is theism, there must be a full rejection and answer to the wager of Pascal, to be called for lack of subtlety, the atheists wager.

The Proposition of this wager is that it is better to believe that Christianity is false, rather than to believe that it is true. In the event that the religion turns out to be true, the individual will be rewarded for belief or punished for lack thereof. In the event that the religion turns out to be false, the individual will not gain or lose anything upon the loss of his or her mortal life. However, it is better to believe that it is false because it will spur the individual towards a commitment to an active role in earthly affairs.

1. Individual is an Atheist and Christianity is true.
The individual will be confined to hell.
The majority of humanity will be confined to hell
The individual lived a mortal life as he or she saw fit
The individual took an active interest in worldly affairs, hopefully influencing the earthly world for the better

2. Individual is an Atheist and Christianity is not true.
The individual is not confined to hell
None of humanity is confined to hell
The individual lived a mortal life as he or she saw fit
The individual took an active interest in worldly affairs, hopefully influencing the earthly world for the better

3. Individual is a Christian and Christianity is true
The individual will experience Heaven
The majority of humanity will be confined to hell
The individual lived his or her life according to the decrees and tenets of the religion
The individual shunned worldly affairs, focusing on a world to come, and failed as prophesied to save most of humanity

4. Individual is a Christian and Christianity is not true.
The individual will not experience Heaven or Hell
None of humanity will experience Heaven or Hell
The individual lived his or her life according to the decrees and tenets of the religion
The individual shunned worldly affairs, focusing on a world to come, all the while ignoring the earthly needs of his or her brothers and sisters

If Christianity is true according to the Bible, then it is inescapable that most of humanity is doomed to hellfire. Embracing the system of Christianity may well allow one to be saved, but is it more noble to endure suffering on behalf of one's fellows in the hope of alleviating even a small bit of their pain, or to save oneself at the first chance presented?

Logical Consistency Does Not Equate to Truth

2010-06-22T20:52:00.002-04:00

There is a movement amongst the Christian community at least, and I'm sure every faith for that matter, to make their worldview coherent. Even naturalists/atheists do the same. Since we assume the default position, it seems as if it is not our job to construct positive arguments for atheism, but fend off positive arguments for theism.

With that said, making a worldview consistent does not make it true. Consider the following proposition (a play on the Moral Argument):

1. Pencils would not exist without God.
2. Pencils exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

There isn't anything wrong with this argument, logically speaking. Of course, the premises must be true, but technically it is logically sound (i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises). The idea about objective morality existing so long as God exists is logically sound, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that the premises are true. After all, there could be some pie-in-the-sky most-rational-way-to-live type thing that exists only as an idea, something along the lines of Kant's categorical imperative. Obviously I disagree that such a thing exists, but I could be wrong as Kant has his numerous defenders and some moral realists say that if you're going to grant epistemological normativity that you can grant moral normativity. I disagree again, but they could be correct and I could be wrong.

All of this is beside the point though. It's important to note that if you rationalize the following.....:

1. God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering.
2. The Garden of Eden story is an allegorical myth and not to be taken literally.
3. Noah's Ark is another allegorical story.
4. Evolution is not a waste of resources for God.
5. God has logic and goodness as part of his nature and therefore he could not violate those parts of his nature.
6. Hell is allegorical or Hell is just.
7. God's ways are higher than ours, so we don't fully understand them.
8. God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience are all compatible.
9. It is fair to expect people to change their lifestyle because of a 2000 year old second-hand report.
10. God respects free will and still sought out the best-of-all-possible-worlds.

.....That it isn't true. The only thing that will do is some type of evidence. If you won't allow us humans to use reason, like John Calvin (with his total depravity) who couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag, we don't have anything to stand on. If all these things are made coherent, it still does not make it rational to believe it. The nature of God is presupposed without actually knowing whether or not God exists.

All in all, I'd say the best argument theists put forth is something along the lines of the Cosmological Argument. Even though it appeals to a supernatural force, it at least tries to sort out all natural explanations beforehand. The efficacy of prayer, nature of Hell, Molinist vs. Calvinist internal quarrels, and previously supposed literal interpretations of reality that have forced to become allegorical could all be consistent and sound, but they don't have to be true. The only way we can discern truth from falsehood is by postulating something that is falsifiable and a being that is beyond reason, skeptical inquiry, and science that is determined to be the omni-(blanks) is not falsifiable.

Weapons of Mass Delusion

2010-06-16T13:41:00.001-04:00

The rise of fundamentalist thinking has plagued a civilization that would have likely outpaced the secularization of Europe by now. The Middle East is a cesspool of anti-scientific and superstitious thinking, an ideal breeding ground for dangerous lunatics. However, it would be wrong to assume that denizens of that region have any more talent for insanity than the rest of mankind. Frustratingly enough, it's not only religion that gives rise to a ludicrous state of mind. All that is required for such a thing is esoteric teaching and a mind ill-equipped to handle it. The words of the brilliant are so often mishandled by the unlearned one almost suspects some sort of misanthropic joke being played by the elite to the constant dismay of the masses. Rather than properly contemplating the genius and nuanced thought of history's greatest thinkers, it is all too common that lesser men choose instead to bastardize them.

Obviously this is most apparent in the war-torn regions of the Middle East. The formerly useful tenets of monotheism have stunted what was once vibrant intellectual growth. Ideals and thoughts of a long-dead warlord and prophet continue to stoke the wildfire of Middle Eastern fanaticism and superstition. Young men and women grow up under the heel of oppressive indoctrination, embracing the only material available to them. Women are either convinced of their inferiority or simply submit out of fear, while men either embrace the system or die to glorify it. All for the sake of a myth that likely once united and strengthened communities. Unfortunately traditions are more attractive than innovation.

To find a poignant example of hijacked brilliance, one need not look to Islam. An idea dear to my own heart and insultingly slandered by pseudo-intellectuals is the Nietzschean concept of the Ubermensch. There are multiple cases of men who stumble upon the idea and decide that they are above the rest of the human race. Following this strange conclusion, they decide that being the god-men that they are, they need not be subject to the rule of law. Insanity and depravity inevitably follow. Another idea seemingly more common, but also lacking any sort of merit is the idea of social darwinism. This needs little explanation, upon the acceptance of such a view, one becomes incessantly deluded in the idea that certain human beings are simply superior both physically and mentally to their brothers and sisters.

Just as compassion and empathy are universal in the human species, so is the capacity for insanity and all the accompanying symptoms. The greatest test of the entire species will be whether or not our better qualities can eventually triumph over the darker aspects of our natures.

Misunderstanding Reality

2010-06-15T23:04:00.003-04:00

System of Nature, a philosophical essay written by Baron D'Holbach, otherwise known as Paul Henri Thiry, is one of the more significant works of atheist literature--At least during the Enlightenment. System of Nature is an important work due to the fact that it was basically the first public display of strong atheism in Europe at the time. Obviously Greek philosophers like Epicurus kind of beat Thiry et al to the punch, but in the post-pagan European world dominated by Christian theocratic influence of the nation-states/kingdoms along with the pull of the Catholic Church, such an affirmation of atheism at the time was startling. Many people I'd consider closet atheists hid behind the shield of deism at the time because the negative reaction of such a claim to atheism would have been unforgivable. One only need to recognize the American public's reaction to Thomas Paine after contributing to the liberation of that nation to see the visceral repercussions of admitting you aren't a Christian.

The one bit that stuck with me after reading parts of System of Nature was the opening paragraph of the book's preface:

The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:—He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him. To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage—it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigour and impartiality the opinions he has adopted. He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choaked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colours; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

What does this mean? Put simply, our rationality is hampered daily by childhood prejudices. Everything really is a prejudice. The idea that truth is better than falsity is a prejudice. Again, it's not necessarily a flaw that it is a prejudice, but it is something inherent in our nature nonetheless. We don't have an overarching reason for preferring certain things to others, but the point of this passage was to show that some of our prejudices, according to our sense of truth and perception of reality, distort reality.

Now this misunderstanding manifests itself in many ways. As humans who have a tendency to be mistaken, we oftentimes attribute patterns that don't exist or we make fallacious assumptions about the nature of existence. The idea that D'Holbach puts forth is the idea that rationality is the best way to escape this prison of continual error. The error, and thus the unhappiness, is derived from unnecessary prejudices that cloud judgment.

What does this have to do with Christianity? Well, it's a bit of a tangent but I thought it is worth discussing. According to traditional Christian doctrines of Hell, God sends us there for living faulty lives. But how do we come to live faulty lives? Is it because we are naturally evil beings? On the contrary, I would submit that if we are to accept the doctrine of objective morality a priori, the people who are "evil" are just suffering from this very misunderstanding of nature. Their judgment is clouded by worldly misapprehensions. If we are molded by genetics and our surroundings and if we fail to reassess our prejudices in a proper manner later in life, then is it our "fault" for not understanding God?

Remember, this is a God that apparently allowed us a fraction of his divine wisdom and has limited us in this spacetime continuum. God sends us to Hell for a simple mistake in assessing the nature of reality. Does this coincide with our subjective sense of fairness? For a mistake? If anybody hardens their heart, it was an honest mistake due to false prejudices. The people, whether consciously rebelling against God or not, were merely led astray by said prejudices. If they were allowed the reasoning behind God's actions in a concise manner, would they then harden their hearts toward God?

My guess would be no, they would not, in the same manner that learning about proper grammar or calculus leads you to accepting the lessons once they "click" or make sense. I think a good analogy of our Earthly tests of whether or not we love God and are worthy of his acceptance is akin to taking a calculus test without understanding the course. Of course people will fail, because they misunderstand the true nature of objective reality and thus it leads to unhappiness and error, as D'Holbach proposed.

God is on Life Support

2010-06-15T03:53:00.004-04:00

It's not often that one understands the phrase, "God is dead," in its fullest context. It sounds like a neat phrase signaling the end of religion, but it is much more than that. It is the destruction of value from on-high. It is a destruction of dogma, your way of life, and of objective meaning. This isn't anything to be taken lightly; the recognition of atheism to any serious mind is often a life-changing event that demands introspection and further extrapolation of into which direction this new found discovery leads.

The creator of the phrase, Friedrich Nietzsche, despised religion in just about all of its forms. From having the rare positive thing to say about Buddhism, at least in relation to other faith systems, Nietzsche in general detested dogmatism. Dogmatism in this sense is the unquestioning adherence to any specific set of standards accepted upon birth.

We are all born atheists. It is only after we are capable of rational understanding that we can analyze the truth or falsity of any religious claims, and often at the age of indoctrination we can't tell the difference. Young children are often seekers and inquirers about reality, but they are often susceptible to adult-imposed sanctions and assaults upon their reason. Thus, our childhood atheism is often and easily overridden by supernatural claims from our parents or elders who got these ideas unquestioned from their parents and elders, and so on and so forth. There is a never ending chain of dogmatism passed on from generation to generation and over time, predictably, these superstitions garner enormous importance in a given culture and persist to this very day collectively.

I believe this is the problem that Nietzsche is pointing out when humanity has come to the realization that God is no longer here with us; that our celestial babysitter cannot swoop down from above and save the day when humanity messes up. The society we have grown up in, and thus have been conditioned by, favors the God-based society. "Morality has to be objective," they say. "The meaning of life is to glorify God," they say. "Life is pointless without an afterlife," they say. As if it needs to be articulated, no, none of these requirements necessarily have to be met, they are just projections of societal bias, really.

So this abstract Leviathan that exists in pretty much most of our minds concerning what equals meaning or value is something we have to deal with. Many atheists want to play this game on the theistic terms, which is not going to work. Looking up at some transcendent morality or system of value or meaning is not going to produce anything; you have to look down, at yourself and to others. It's the only place any real value can be derived. Humans are naturally value-creating machines; if a means leads us to our ends, you bet we value it.

The root word of "nihilism" is "annihilation." It is the negation of a common way of viewing the world, at least in one form or another. This would probably be the type of nihilism Nietzsche advocates, but don't confuse that with the negation of all subjective value. After all, that's what Nietzsche fought the hardest against and he built his entire philosophy trying to defeat the onset of true nihilism. The point of destroying preconceived notions is to achieve the world that you want, that you value, that you prefer. It is to overcome yourself as well, and this can only be done after a thorough re-evaluation and annihilation of the baggage inherited in a religious world.

Issues With the Moral Argument

2010-06-14T00:51:00.004-04:00

Morality is a touchy issue. I've defended moral skepticism (not indifference as some people take that) before on this Web site many times previously, but these issues I'm going over in this post will be unrelated to proving that objective morality doesn't exist. I'm going to raise three other problems I have with the Moral Argument besides merely stating the case for moral skepticism, subjectivism, or whatever else you want to label my position as being.

1. What's the Point of the 10 Commandments and Jesus?

A quick point to be made, but valid nonetheless. As Paul says, in Romans I believe, the "Moral Law" is written on our hearts from birth, so this gives God a level playing field to judge our deeds. Jesus died for all of us because we have all fallen short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death.

That being said, why does God need to put everything in writing? Did the Jews think murder and theft were kosher before being told by God that they aren't such good ideas? I never exactly understood the goal of "publishing", so to speak, the 10 Special Things God Does Not Want You to Do. If we all just know the moral commandments, then listing them in the Bible seems a tad redundant. What does Jesus have to offer by way of teaching people via parables and the Sermon on the Mount if we already know the value in his suggestions?

Jesus' teachings were supposedly radical for his time. But why? If God has endowed us with this wisdom and the previously divinely mandated punishment for adultery was to stone people, why was it so shocking that Jesus told us to refrain from hypocrisy (..cast the first stone)? Does everybody "just know" to worship Yahweh when one of God's commandments is that there can't be another God worshiped before him? Again, some of these rules are vague, others are radical, and others are not second nature to our common ways of thinking. I think this at least diminishes the claim that, if there is objective morality presented in the Bible, it is found to be written on our hearts.

2. Euthyphro Dilemma

Does something become morally good if God wishes it so or does God act in accordance of some sort of transcendent Goodness? According to molinists who claim that God acts in accordance with logic and thus cannot create a married bachelor, it doesn't diminish his omnipotence because such a proposition is impossible. The idea is that God is bounded by logic. So therefore, is God similarly bounded by The Good? If so, does God need to exist for The Good to exist?

Obviously, theists believe that nothing would exist if God didn't exist. However, if they were converted to atheism, they wouldn't dismiss logic. Likewise, why should newly-converted atheists discard The Good, if theists are so convinced that such an entity or idea exists? This sort of ties into the idea of "grounding" moral values in a celestial being. I just don't see the point.

3. God's Subjective Value

The last point I'm making is that what constitutes Goodness is valued by God, subjectively. As I have stated previously, value-judgments are mind-dependent and value-judgments that are mind-independent are logical contradictions. So why does God have an inflated ability to make value-judgments and take precedence over our judgments?

When theists, or moral skeptics I suppose, try to dismiss secular claims about morality, they try to root out the presuppositions. "Well why ought we value X?" It's a good question, and there's no objective reason to value anything or do anything because again, these are mind-dependent claims. When asking these questions, theists never put God to the test. Moral skeptics obviously make that leap, but theists refrain. "Why ought we listen to God? Why ought God act in his nature? Why ought God interpret and apply The Good?" Two can play at this game.

Diamond in the Rough

2010-06-13T14:40:00.011-04:00

I must stake my claim alongside the brilliant Thomas Jefferson, and in opposition to C.S. Lewis. It seems that a human Jesus would indeed have been a good moral teacher, in a certain context. As shown in his authorship of his own New Testament which excludes all references to the supernatural, Jefferson found immense merit in the teachings of a purely worldly Jesus. C.S. Lewis on the other hand, concluded that based on his teachings, he must have either been divine or mad. Both of these views are certainly supported by the Scriptures that both men knew intimately. However, there is a case to be made in defense of Jefferson's view, that Jesus was a brilliant albeit eccentric person, and that his lack of godhood is the source of any nobility to be found in both his life and teachings. A defense should be further marshaled in defense of his sanity, and his belief in god as an abstraction. The case for nobility dependent on mortality is primarily supported by the picture of a Socratic acceptance of a death sentence painted by the gospels. The case for his brilliance is supported by his answer to the philosophical plight of the mortal individual.

By mere definition, the monotheistic god cannot die. It cannot be said that The Logos truly died at Calvary. Rather, it is believed that the incarnation of The Logos as the man called Jesus ended upon the cross. According to tradition, he died asking his heavenly father for the forgiveness of his persecutors. Although it's highly off-topic, it should be mentioned here that Jesus asking god to forgive them rather than administering forgiveness himself speaks volumes for the idea that Jesus deferred to the authority of god, and lends a good deal of credit to the appropriate heresies. Back to the point though, Jesus died because of his teachings to the lowly and desperate among the people. When questioned by the Roman authorities he did not deny any sort of divine nature that had been attributed to him by others, but neither did he affirm it. His commitment the ideas he had espoused led him to accept the sentence that we are constantly reminded was anything but fair. And as stated before, while he died on the cross, he asked his heavenly father to forgive those who were killing him. This forgiveness is immensely moving if this man were just that, a man. It is less than pointless if he was god. If he truly was god, then he was not near his end on the cross, he was at the pinnacle point of his plan in redeeming mankind, what need would his killers have of forgiveness for their hapless participation in such a plan? But if he was a man, his ministry was ending before it had truly begun, and he was dying at the hands of those he had thought to educate. Yet he had enough love for his brothers that even near death he did not wish them ill will. There is nobility to be found in his story, and it is here that, to me, Jesus' actions compensate for his previous failures. Yet if he was god, his courage is utter illusion and his request for forgiveness of those doing him evil is simply nonsensical.

The far more important defense is the one to be made on behalf of Jesus' teachings. After all, many human beings have died deaths that are on par or more noble than that of the Nazarene's. Although the manner in which a man confronts his demise undeniably reveals his character, it does less for the veracity of his ideas. And so it should be stated which of this man's ideas I find to be not only tolerable, but brilliant. Certainly his afterworldly disposition and his conception of hell are abhorrent. But these things aren't what derail his teachings for those of the same intellectual persuasion as C.S. Lewis. In his view, the teachings that are morally unacceptable in the event of a human Jesus are his ideas regarding the surrender of earthly pursuits and property. However, it should be noted that the aforementioned directions could also be thought to be insane even if Jesus was god, since they could only be considered valid if the end of the world was near. In any event, there is something to be valued in his distaste for worldly possessions and his relevant directions to discard them. There's definitely a certain value in a simple and frugal lifestyle that does not apply to everyone, but appeals to select individuals. The philosophical reverence for simplicity and a disdain for materialism is by no means exclusive to Jesus, and it is also by no means objectively useful.

Jesus was not really a magnificent moral teacher in my opinion. But neither was he a madman. He was simply a mediocre eccentric whose most noble moments materialized soon before his death. Even considering the disgusting nature of the majority of his teachings and their horrendous outcome, one can still find a certain diamond in the rough.

Back and Forth With a Theist

2010-06-11T17:56:00.002-04:00

This isn't going to be a post as much as it is my attempt to tear down 7 of the common arguments for the existence of God. This just a private message response on our Youtube account. Check it out! I'm still trying to get some more content on there, but half of the channel is the William Lane Craig / Christopher Hitchens debate.

Basically what this guy said is something along the lines of Craig providing irrefutable evidence for the existence of God, that his arguments are valid logically, and that since they have not been adequately refuted by Christopher Hitchens, that he's free to believe it. I chose not to go into the historicity of Jesus because I don't know enough about it, so, make of that what you will.

"Alright, first things first, I did visit your blogspot site posted in your channel description. I have to say, this is probably futile since you deny evolution and posted something about man walking with dinosaurs, but let me try anyway:

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument

I believe atomism is the correct description concerning mereology (the study of things and its parts). The idea behind mereology is basically discerning whether or not things can exist as a concept or if it is reductionist in nature. For instance, is this computer I'm typing on a "computer" or is it the number of things that go into being a computer (like a screen, keyboard, etc.)? But then what is a keyboard? Is it an actual "thing" or is it a combination of the bits of plastic that go into making a keyboard? When does something officially become a computer? Those types of questions.

Well, Kalam defies atomism because when William Lane Craig says, "everything that begins to exist has a cause." What is a "thing" and how does something "come into existence"? The bottom line is that, apart from actual physicists who know a lot more about this subject than I do, nothing is either created or destroyed in our present state of the universe. The things that WLC says that "come into existence" are concepts. A water bottle isn't a thing per se, it is a concept that humans find useful. A "water bottle" is a mass of atoms that make up something we drink out of and find utility in, therefore we have come up with a name for it.

So nothing "comes into existence", at least by our commonly-defined terms. William Lane Craig is a mass of matter that has been reorganized to constitute what we refer to as "William Lane Craig". The parts that make William Lane Craig were not created, but they "began to exist" at a finite point in time (the Big Bang). I don't know enough about quantam physics where things appear to pop in and out of existence seemingly uncaused, but for all intents and purposes, we discuss objects in conceptual terms, not actual terms because it's easier.

Besides these objections, I'd recommend you watch the video from Victor Stenger that I uploaded on my channel for what an actual physicist has to say about the Big Bang and "causation." He indicts Craig on using outdated claims about the Big Bang from the 70's and refuses to acknowledge changes in the physics community.

2. Teleological Argument

This is just an appeal to ignorance. "I find this unlikely, so therefore there had to be intelligence behind it." It's like drawing a great hand in cards and then assigning cheating to the dealer or something, even though a 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of spades is as likely as getting a jack of hearts, an 8 of diamonds, a 6 of spades, an ace of diamonds, and a queen of clubs.

Ultimately, we don't have enough information about the primordial state of the universe to really draw conclusions. What we do know about probability, however, is that if you roll 1,000,000 die, it is 100% certain that we will get one combination. Predicting the combination ahead of time will make it seem astronomically unlikely. It is 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6....(one million times), and that will be the likelihood of predicting the outcome before it is done.

Another thing, let's not forget about that dreaded fact of evolution. Environments are not suited for the organisms, organisms are suited for their environment. Everybody had this backwards before Darwin. Horses and giraffes have a common ancestor. This common ancestor in the savanna would have to have longer necks to reach food in order to survive and produce offspring. The ones whose necks were not long enough would not pass on their genes of having longer necks. Let's say over 10 generations, the neck size increases half an inch or so. Since having the horses' neck + .5 inches, a biological mutation of increasing that size .5 more inches still applies because we're still in the same environment. Over time, minor mutations of having slightly longer necks builds and builds and builds and over a few million years, we can spot the discrepancy between giraffes and horses evolved in a different environment. Same with human beings. We weren't a great species at some point in time and our neanderthal cousins along with other similar primate cousins went extinct because they weren't quite as smart as we were. Our intellect is a biological adaptation that has gotten us to where we are.

One more important thing to note, we can differentiate between something like Paley's watch (a tool designed for a purpose by intelligence) and something like a rock because we don't perceive the rock to have any purpose (but according to the teleological argument, there must be purpose to the universe! There's no inherent purpose in a mountain, in other galaxies, etc. I know Craig in one article one time mentioned something along the lines of an arrowhead, but yes, we have previous experience with man-made arrowheads so we know why they were made. We have no previous experience with the universe and any perceived purpose is just that, perceived and not known to be there. That's the whole point: God could have made the universe with a purpose in mind, but we can't say that for certain at all. This argument cancels itself out as a positive argument.

3. Objective Moral Values and Duties

If you watch my video review of J.L. Mackie's book on moral skepticism, you'll understand where I'm coming from. Opponents of moral skepticsm often mistake moral skepticism and moral indifference, which are not the same thing. Getting somebody to say the Nazis weren't "objectively wrong" strikes an emotional cord with people, but unless you explain your position, they are left with the idea that you can't take action against or you can't disagree with Nazism.

First off, let's define objective. Objective means it exists apart from interpretation and as part of the external world. Generally, in order for something to be objective, it has to be quantifiable and measurable. Is morality either of these? I would almost emphatically say no. What does it mean for something to be "valued" as well? It means that a mind is around to judge perceived utility in an action, idea, or physical object. This is the very definition of subjective--It is mind-dependent, not mind-independent. A mind-independent value is a logical impossibility. I listen to music because I value the chemical phenomena that occurs in my brain when I do it. I don't know why exactly, all I know is that my brain enjoys it. I enjoy eating because I like living and food tastes good. Why does it taste good? There are scientific reasons, but I'm not an expert. All I know is that it tastes good, so I value food. Over time, my species evolved a social code of ethics designed to bring about the most well-being. I value human well-being. Why? Hell if I know, all I know is that it makes me happy, so I would seek avenues to see to it that it human well-being is actualized.

Morality is a human-created concept that codifies basic biological motives. I believe morality also comes about due to rational experience when you are young, where your experience in the world develops a framework that gives you an emotional aversion to things like stealing, killing, etc., and we are also hard-wired (most of us anyway) to be empathetic to other people. Of course, there's no objective reason to do anything, which is why I describe myself as a moral skeptic/nihilist, but that doesn't mean I'm indifferent. We humans generally value beneficial social interaction over something like musical taste, so that's why we generally don't argue about music but we argue about social values. We share most of the same values anyway, so if there's no imposed force on humanity, it won't matter and we'll all get along fine. The basic values are there, but we differ on how we go about actualizing them. That's where the debate is at mostly.

4. Argument from Contingency

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why should there be nothing instead of something? What our intuitions don't realize is that, really, there is nothing! Just a different arrangement of nothing. I would recommend looking into matter/anti-matter pairs (although this is under heavy observation from the physicist community) and if you've taken a high school physics class, you should know that the total energy of the universe is zero.

5. Argument from Aesthetics

Again, see the moral argument. It's the same thing. There is never anything intrinsic in anything. It takes a mind to perceive beauty, utility, and value. Of course people also differ in what constitutes aesthetically pleasing things like some people love forests, others prefer sunsets, others prefer listening to heavy metal, others prefer classical. Whatever floats peoples boats. And again, these are not as systematized and homogenized as social behaviors and social values either because we don't consider them as important.

6. Ontological Argument

Imagine the greatest society imaginable (utopia). It is greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore, utopia must exist. See the fallacy there? If not, I don't blame you because it's easy to miss. This argument inflates the concept of God with the proposed being that is God, which are two very different things. This concept of utopia exists, but obviously utopia doesn't exist. Maybe "God" (the being) isn't so great after all because maybe he doesn't exist! This argument just plays word games and there's no substance.

7. Argument from Personal Experience

This is a cop-out. Something left for the Christian to lean on after all other arguments cease to be usable. What is being judged to be personal experience? Have you seen Jesus? Have you felt God touch you? Have you been haunted by demons or Satan? What? Even if you were, I haven't experienced it, so is it really an argument? If I told you that I "experienced" Allah in some way, I don't blame you for not believing me. You're supposed to take it on a report, which is unfair and ludicrous. I too, once upon a time, was religious and the feeling you get inside a church is one of community and cohesion and acceptance and belonging. That brain-high can also be mistaken for actually feeling the presence of God when really the physical brain state you are in is being rewarded, like a high basically, by genes that drive you towards being parts of groups. Without trying to sound patronizing, this is how cults are formed. They all have this element.

I think these 7 counter-arguments are all adequate responses."