Dead-Logic

Laughing With God

2012-02-14T07:15:00.006-06:00

Friends of mine can tell you that I have a rather eclectic taste in music, and I tend to gravitate toward musicians who are less than mainstream. Yes, I've been accused of being a hipster. When Clayton and I were roommates he often had this confounded look on his face when I'd sit in the living room listening to The Silver Jews or Vampire Weekend (he's such an uncultured philistine).

I have a special place in my heart for female vocalists who play piano (or female pianists who sing, whichever): Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, Amanda Palmer, Regina Spektor for example. Lately I've been on a Regina Spektor kick, listening to her album Far mostly. The album has a wonderful (and thought-provoking) song called "Laughing With." Have a listen (lyrics are below the video):

[via WeidnerbrautDD]

Laughing With

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one's laughing at God when it's gotten real late and their kid's not back from that party yet

No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake
No one's laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they're mistaken
No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say "We've got some bad news, sir,"
No one's laughing at God when there's a famine, fire or flood

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they're about to choke

God can be funny
When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious
Ha ha
Ha ha

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one's laughing at God when they've lost all they got and they don't know what for

No one laughs at God on the day they realize that the last sight they'll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
No one's laughing at God when they're saying their goodbyes

But God can be funny
At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they're about to choke

God can be funny
When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

God can be so hilarious

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war

No one's laughing at God in a hospital
No one's laughing at God in a war

No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor

No one's laughing at God
No one's laughing at God
No one's laughing at God
We're all laughing with God

There are certainly those who will put their own interpretation on the song, regardless of their religious or non-religious predilections. I think we need not forget that Regina Spektor's style is that of a storyteller. Regina herself isn't entirely sure what to make of god and religion, going back and forth on the matter. I get the impression that it interests her, but she doesn't spend much energy dwelling on it or trying to figure it all out. Considering her song "Laughing With," I keep her storyteller spirit in mind when I hear the lyrics. I also keep in mind the fact that a song like this is rather open-ended, and thus it lends itself to numerous possible interpretations and applications. Good art can do that, regardless of the medium.

This song isn't so much a story about god as it is about people. When I first heard it I thought of the old "there's no atheists in foxholes" canard, but the more I listen to the song the less I think that's the angle. I lean more toward the idea that the song is about believers, particularly casual believers who don't care much about their god - even being flippant about god, telling their best "god-themed jokes" - until it hits the fan and suddenly they get all solemn and reverent because now they're looking for a divine bailout.

I can't help but suspect that the only "true believers" out there are "the crazies" who live out their religious convictions with no reservations: folks like Fred Phelps, Marshall Applewhite, Harold Camping, Osama bin Laden, and Rick Perry. Nutjobs we call them, but at least they are consistent, right?

Think about it: why would a Christian be afraid to die? Why does a Christian mourn the death of another Christian? Don't they know heaven awaits them once they shed this mortal coil, and this life is but the brief flicker of a candle's flame? And if most of the world's population is going to die and go to hell as so many Christians believe, why is most of their money going toward fried chicken and ice cream and home entertainment instead of constant evangelization and mission work? Seriously, look at how fat Southern Baptists are. Of course, one could argue that they're just trying to get to heaven as quickly (and as deliciously) as possible.

Oh, the religious folks will shout and argue and protest and vote Republican until they're blue in the face over such "crucial" issues as making sure gays never marry and ~~the god damn Flintstones~~ creationism gets equal representation next to evolution in science classrooms and "In God We Trust" stays on our money and women stay the fuck in the kitchen and never ever have abortions, like you know, never ever ever. Why? Because it's "god's will," that's why. Yeah, god's will. Believers never seem to notice how god always tends to agree with their ideas of what's right and wrong. Convenient.

"If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor." ~ Voltaire

I love the blatant jabs at religious fanatics and Bible-thumpers in the song's lyrics. When Regina says "the crazies" who say god hates us and the folks who speak on god's behalf who present him as a genie or Santa Claus make god "funny," the next line, "God can be so hilarious" sounds facetious, like when we give the guy who's 6'4 and 250 lbs. the nickname "Tiny."

The most haunting lyric in the song is the very last line: "No one's laughing at God... We're all laughing with God." Appropriately, it's the lyric that serves as the song's title. It's the lyric that ties up the story Regina tells to us. Most of the time, when we tell someone, "we're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you," it's a (rather obvious) line of bull. Seems like something an atheist might say to a section of empty space that represents the god who isn't there. Throughout the song Regina lists numerous examples of suffering and pain. I think of believers who must force themselves to "laugh with god" - i.e., take his side - even though they don't really "get the joke" or understand why any of this is happening or how any of it could jive with god's "perfect plan." I know I sure as hell don't get the joke.

"We're laughing with you" is an obviously fake line we say to someone we're actually laughing at. The lyric reminds me of Pascal's Wager: the supposed "safe bet" that's little more than faking belief just in case god's there and he happens to be insecure enough to care about what we believe. If god is what the Christians think he is, then god would certainly know such "belief" is obviously fake - just another line of bull.

These aren't my interpretations of the song as much as they are where the lyrics take my mind. Where do they take your mind?

— Dead-Logic

Thanks to the Grammys...

2012-02-13T08:04:00.005-06:00

... I now understand that domestic abuse isn't such a bad thing if you're a good-looking guy who can dance. And what do Chris Brown's fans think?

This is what's wrong with the world. This.

— Dead-Logic

[via justsayins]

Happy Darwin Day!

2012-02-12T00:00:00.001-06:00

It's a day to celebrate science!

Who Wants to Keep Talking About Elevatorgate?

2012-02-11T01:20:00.002-06:00

I sure as hell don't, but there are people out there still bringing it up, and I found myself dragged back into it again. Yesterday afternoon I checked my blog's stats, and saw that readers had been directed to Dead-Logic via some blog called "ManBoobz." Seeing that this blog drove some traffic my way (and seeing how it has such a classy name), I decided to check it out. I'm always on the lookout for a new blog to read, and if someone's sharing the love with me, I like to try to share the love back.

But I found no love. Apparently Mr. ManBoobz thinks I'm a "decidedly non-feminist atheist" for reasons he doesn't bother to say. Given that he linked to my criticism of Rebecca Watson during Elevatorgate, I get the impression that Mr. ManBoobz thinks I must be a non-(or anti-)feminist because I didn't agree with Rebecca Watson. I don't know for sure, so I posted this response on ManBoobz's blog:

As you can see, whether Mr. ManBoobz thinks this way or not, this Xanthe person sure does. Indeed, calling oneself a "freethinker" as Xanthe does is no panacea for closed-mindedness and short-sightedness. As I told Xanthe in reply, it’s one thing to claim that you’re a freethinker: it’s another thing altogether to live it out.

Sad thing is, I think we’re actually on the same side. All of us - Xanthe, Mr. ManBoobz, your ~~humble~~ blogger - want the same thing: to see a world in which women are seen as equals, shown respect and dignity, able to live without fear, and are able to succeed and live out their dreams to the best of their abilities. Are we always going to agree on the particulars? Of course not. But those disagreements shouldn't turn into battle lines drawn between people who are fighting for the same cause.

Hell, I still like Rebecca Watson. Mr. ManBoobz might not care, but the last time I wrote about Rebecca Watson, I defended her criticism of r/atheism. Before some idiot trying to be clever stuck a "gate" to the end of the infamous elevator, I posted a comment on Rebecca's video About Mythbusters, Robot Eyes, Feminism, and Jokes. You know, the video in which we first heard about Mr. Elevator Guy - the video that sparked Elevatorgate? My response to Rebecca's video (and I don't comment often on YouTube) was positive. I enjoyed it. It was the stuff that happened after that video - the stuff that became "Elevatorgate" - that I criticized. And even in my criticism, I shared what I thought Rebecca did right (See kids, it's important to read it all the way to the end).

Look, folks, I won't sit here wasting time defending myself. I know where I stand. I know what it is I uphold. I believe in it so strongly I had it tattooed on my skin. I'll let my blog, and more importantly, my life, speak for me.

Yeah, I know, most people think of Boondock Saints when they see my ink. That's okay too, because those movies kick ass.

— Dead-Logic

A Magical Definition of Faith

2012-02-10T14:30:00.007-06:00

Magic: the Gathering is a competitive trading card game with a fantasy theme: magic, wizards, angels, vampires, dragons, knights, zombies, et cetera. I've been playing this game since it was first released back in 1993. Yes, kids, I'm a long-time geek. Fortunately, I'm not the stereotypical gamer geek: I'm physically active, a martial artist, an avid sports nut, I smell good, and I have sex. Still, I love chucking the Magic cards around with the local geeks at the game store. Don't judge me. I mention all this because I came across this Magic card recently called "True Believer." It's an older card that I've seen before, but just now I noticed the card's flavor text. Here's the card:

"So great is his certainty that mere facts cannot shake it." Looks like someone over at Wizards of the Coast understands how faith works. A "true believer" won't let the facts change his mind. Hallelujah. Isn't that right, Bill Craig?

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]

Until next time, may geeks of all forms dwell together in harmony.

— Dead-Logic

Be Not Unequally Yoked With Unbelievers

2012-02-07T15:45:00.002-06:00

This is becoming a recurring theme among my Christian friends on Facebook. Here's the latest:

Maybe I'm feeling more sensitive about this because I've been extremely ill the past two days. Maybe it's because I'm just tired of seeing shit like this. I hate the fact that people I care about a lot feel the need to keep "my kind" at arm's length (or further). It's disheartening, insulting, and hurtful.

— Dead-Logic

Sam Harris on Atheism

2012-02-07T12:03:00.000-06:00

Yeah, more Sam Harris. It's entirely unintentional:

The Eugene Gerber Series

2012-02-07T12:02:00.006-06:00

Here are all the relevant entries in what has become the "Eugene Gerber Series" (for those of you who might have missed any):

A Stupid Atheist Gets Offended Over Being Called Stupid

Critical Thinking Sucks

Koinonia

Atheism in South Africa - Eugene Gerber

Taking Down a Billboard - Eugene Gerber

Taking Down a Billboard

2012-02-06T07:45:00.000-06:00

Eugene Gerber – 5 Feb 2012

I first saw the Rivers Church billboard on 26 Oct 2011. Had it not been for an Axe commercial being pulled off air a few weeks earlier by the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) of South Africa, Rivers Church might well have been allowed to continue disseminating their mindless propaganda. The aim of the ad still eludes me; were they luring hapless infidels into their web of lies, deceit and money grabbing? Perhaps the message was aimed at their devout flock, reaffirming the absurdity of atheism. Regardless, their message would have remained untouched.

With the Axe episode fresh in my mind, I got that familiar feeling that religion is once again receiving the benefit of unjustified favor. I can only imagine what the response would have been if a billboard quoted Dawkins’ apt description of the Old Testament god. Or perhaps a quote from the 16th century Geneva Bible branding the Pope as the Antichrist.

Reactions to the ASA ruling banning the Rivers Church billboard ranged from praise and worship to absolute scorn. A hero for atheism – a villain for free speech. Further confusion arose when I commented that my action was an attempt to further the free speech cause in our country. Hopefully this article will shed some more light this aspect of the debate.

Atheists in South Africa are disorganized. No member organizations, limited social networks and most importantly, no funding. Some bloggers did comment that a billboard of my own would have been more appropriate. But money talks, and I have limited means. Even if I had the means, approval would have taken months if not years, and once erected it would have been taken down through the same channel I used. Fire with fire was not an option.

Another option would have been to lobby for an amendment to our constitution, essentially the foundation of the ASA codes. The right to dignity (section 10) and freedom of religion (section15) is protected, which were explicitly referred to in the ASA ruling on the Rivers Church billboard. Once again, funding and a lack of numbers would render such an attempt futile. I suppose I could have expressed my views regarding the billboard on the net, and I’m sure that we would have had a good laugh at the Christians. But how would this change anything in South Africa? As much as free speech needs to march on, religion needs to have its wings clipped. I dismissed the option of doing nothing, much to the dismay of some free speech activists on the net.

Ultimately I decided to lodge a complaint and have the billboard removed. Given the ludicrous fiasco with the Axe commercial, success was virtually guaranteed; ditto for widespread reaction on the net. I doubt free speech is even aware of the blow thrown her way. The reaction I was hoping for was an outcry from millions of Christians in South Africa, condemning the petty absurdity of our advertising code. If lady luck was on my side, I might even have succeeded in getting the Christian establishment to put their ill gotten gains to work in promoting free speech. As it turns out none of this has come to pass, which was disappointing. If Rivers Church had any grit they would have debated the issue, but they know better.

With the benefit of hindsight I have to ask myself if I would do anything different if a new billboard should pop up. Perhaps I would. I might approach the church and suggest that we work together to allow unbridled free speech, the alternative being a complaint to the ASA to have their billboard removed. Perhaps this is something I should do in any event.

Sam Harris on Faith

2012-02-05T07:45:00.003-06:00

I admit it's taken a while, but Sam Harris is starting to grow on me...

Still, Sam can be kinda goofy sometimes. I miss Hitch.

One Reason Why Religion Persists...

2012-02-03T10:00:00.000-06:00

... in my not-all-that-humble opinion:

Dead-Logic.com

Atheism in South Africa

2012-02-02T06:30:00.002-06:00

Eugene Gerber – 31 Jan 2012

Dictionary definitions aside, the diversity of opinions on atheism in South Africa is second only to our menagerie of 11 official languages and the associated cultural splendor. Confusion abounds – atheism vs agnosticism; atheist vs antichrist – chaos in the minds of the masses.

There is very little to go by in terms of official numbers on atheists here. At the time of writing this piece I am unaware of organized atheist groups or associations. If they do exist, then whatever they are up to never makes media headlines. According to our 2001 census, the religious demographic is as follows: Christianity 79.8%, Islam 1.5%, Hinduism 1.2%, Judaism 0.2%, Other faiths 0.8%, No religion 15.1% and Refused to comment 1.4%. Atheists are lumped in there somewhere with the 15.1% “No-religion” group.

My experience suggests that atheists represent a very small portion of our population, probably less than five percent. Given the amount of time I spend confronting our 79.8% Christians on their shameful attempts at serving their god, even if we were a five percent group I should come across atheists more often. But I don’t. The few that I do meet remain conflicted – they would not belong to an atheist group if it existed, yet they yearn to see the end of religion. Atheists here simply want to be left alone. Stigma it seems is also doing its part. A close friend of mine is open about her homosexuality (another hot topic over here), yet her atheism remains a guarded secret.

As with any topic in South Africa, race is also a factor. I have seen comments on websites in South Africa about the lack of black atheists. This is strange given the 17.5% of blacks that have “No-religion” according to the census, versus 3.8%, 2.2% and 8.8% for Coloreds, Indians and Whites respectively. My view is that black South Africans are prone to superstition, and hence religion. In May last year a pastor was burnt to death for using a magic penis to sleep with women in the community. His wife was also accused of turning into a snail and terrorizing the community. This is an extreme example, and no reflection on the general mindset, but I dare you to find a similar story in your country.

Whatever the numbers are, the fact is that the atheists in South Africa are disorganized, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. I was recently involved in the banning of a Church billboard. Several people on the internet thought a more apt response would have been to erect a billboard of my own. My response was simple – with funds that I find where? Atheism in South Africa has a long way to go to mirror the good work being done elsewhere in the world. At least our constitution protects our right to freedom of religion – or the lack thereof, something we should not take for granted. This is a luxury very seldom afforded in the rest of Africa.

[Next: Taking Down a Billboard]

Koinonia

2012-02-01T21:00:00.006-06:00

Koinonia (κοινωνία) is a Greek word that means "communion by intimate participation." If you are or were a Christian, chances are good you've heard this word. English counterparts include "fellowship," "participation," and "communion." Koinonia implies not only fellowship, but a joint venture, teamwork for the greater good. This κοινωνία is the very thing I said I missed about being a Christian in my previous post. A few folks posted comments reminding me that I am part of a new koinonia of freethinkers here on the wild world wide Internet. Seriously, go read the comments. I am humbled and grateful to be part of a group of such insightful readers, fellow bloggers and critical thinkers.

And while this online koinonia isn't quite the same, in a lot of ways it's even better, and way more meaningful. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by it. Consider South Africa resident Eugene Gerber. I wrote a blog entry about him not too long ago in which I pretty much threw everything at him: sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek insults, even sparkly animated gifs, and after all that, he had the strength of character to engage me in discussion and present his side of things. Our discussions went from here on the blog to one-on-one via email, and now, per my request, Eugene submitted a short write-up about atheism in South Africa, which will be posted here at Dead-Logic tomorrow.

This is the kind of koinonia I want and need, where we can challenge each other - even somewhat acrimoniously with egregious displays of glittery animated gifs (if one is so inclined) - and still come out of it with respect for each other. I'm not sure how to end this except by saying that you guys rock.

My Christian Friend

2012-02-01T09:00:00.002-06:00

I have brief moments every once in a while when I wish I could go back into Plato's Cave, get plugged back into the Matrix, so I can wake up one day and be able to step inside a church and actually believe in all of it again. Like I said, those moments are brief, and they are few and very far between. What I really want - or I should say what I really miss - is the feeling of acceptance. I miss the feeling of family that comes with the comfortable bubble of Christian culture.

Still, life is more fulfilling now, though I still long for the type of community my former religion provides. Even in those brief moments when I wish I had never taken the red pill, I know I can never go back, and deep down I would never want to go back. The images I saw there were shadows, illusions, deceptions. I was a Christian who wanted answers - real answers - and when I applied logic and reason in search of those answers, the whole thing collapsed.

[This entry is a follow-up to the entry, Last Night on Facebook, so make sure you've read that first before continuing on here.]

I shared the conversation I had with one of my Christian friends, whom I am now referring to as "Mutual Respect Guy" (MRG) on the blog because I'm keeping him anonymous and, well, I have to call him something. Apparently that conversation wasn't the end of the story; in fact, it wasn't even the beginning of the story. I learned later on that MRG got into this big discussion/debate with another friend who is an atheist, and that led to the Facebook post in which MRG questioned how there can be mutual respect among Christians and atheists, which of course led to my discussion with him.

A couple other people responded to that post, and I saw MRG wrote this in response on that thread:

It's not about close-mindedness, it's about being a Christian that gives more than lip service to what you believe in. If I say I love God, but I spend all my free time in situations that disrespect him, I'm a liar. A friend of mine put it really well. Christians need to evaluate their friendships and consider how they effect their relationship with God. If they have a negative effect on it, you may have to reevaluate the time you spend with those friends.

This pissed me off. I consider MRG a very close friend, and here he is suggesting that he might have to "reevaluate" certain friendships (i.e., his friendships with atheists) because we happen to poke fun and religion once in a while when we all hang out. I felt expendable. I felt like our friendship doesn't mean that much to him. So I replied:

Sounds like you're thinking about discarding a few of your good friends who love you because you can't handle religious differences. That goes beyond the realm of offensive, and into the realm of hurtful. I think you are a man of stronger character than to allow religion to force you to deny the bonds of friendship. I hope I'm not proved wrong.

A minute before I posted that reply, MRG posted another reply which I didn't see until after I sent my response. He wrote:

I'm sure there are people out there who will say that's just the Christian cult keeping you from opening up to other viewpoints, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't be friends with non-believers, and I'm definitely not saying we should avoid considering other viewpoints. What I am saying is that who you are, what you do, and who you spend time with when you kick back and let your guard down is the best indicator of who you really are. I'm either someone who accepts that God is real, and chooses to live a life that makes him happy, or I'm pretending to be a Christian as long as no one is watching.

Nice, so he's basically saying he has to make sure he doesn't spend too much time with his atheist friends, because he doesn't want to be like them. After all, "who you spend time with when you kick back and let your guard down is the best indicator of who you really are." So now I'm insulted, and I don't get insulted that easily. After reading that, my atheism sense started tingling, and so I made sure to save these comments because I suspected MRG was going to delete the thread.

He did.

I was left in limbo. I wasn't even sure whether we were still friends, so I sent him a private message on Facebook to ask him: "Are we still friends?" He said yes, but the more I've been thinking about it, the more unsettled I get with the situation. First of all, why the hell should I ever have to ask someone I feel close to whether we're still friends? I asked MRG out of curiosity, but later on it felt like I was grovelling. My friend insults me, threatens to either distance himself from me (and "my kind") or discard me entirely, then deletes the thread without any explanation. And I'm the one asking him whether we're still friends. Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's the deal: if he can't handle being my friend, then I don't need him. It'll hurt, sure, but life goes on, and I'd rather spend time with people who actually appreciate my presence and influence in their lives. MRG says he still considers me a friend, but things are different now - at least for me. Now, when I see him, all I'll think about is whether something I say is upsetting his precious sensitive Christian sensibilities. Hanging out with MRG will mean that either my guard will be up and I won't be relaxed, or he'll catch me in a more mercurial mood and I'll unload both barrels of my proverbial 12 gauge atheism shotgun right in his sensitive Christian face. Most likely it will be the latter, given how upset I am at all this, and how much I don't want to appear like I'm grovelling for his friendship.

Once again I see the negative effects of religion, and once again it's affecting me directly. Thank you, MRG, for reminding me why I'm an atheist.

Dead-Logic.com

Bonus Facebook Fun!

2012-01-31T21:00:00.009-06:00

Another one of my Christian friends on Facebook (who's neither Clayton nor Mutual Respect Guy, FYI) shared this image he found on a Facebook page called "I Just Want to Praise You, Jesus":

Out of curiosity, I clicked on it and read the responses to this picture. I couldn't help myself. I trolled. Just a little...

I know, I'm bad. But I'm a little riled up over some stuff right now (I'll explain later). I still have some self-control, however, which I exhibit in this little exchange with my wonderful (and hyper-religious) niece:

I didn't have the heart to push the Enter key. Oh well. I also found this image on Facebook, which reminded me of the time Clayton and I spent as roommates (see if you can guess who is who - even the hair color is fairly accurate):

The first guy actually really looks like Clayton. All the second guy needs is a goatee and a black T-shirt. This picture makes me laugh. I'll have to show it to Clayton. He'll laugh too.

Rock & Roll, baby.

Dead-Logic.com

Last Night on Facebook

2012-01-31T08:30:00.003-06:00

A good friend of mine who is a Christian (and who's not Clayton, FYI) posted this status update on his profile:

Being a Christian with a bunch of atheist friends is a difficult thing. As an atheist, you have to believe that the Bible is a pack of lies, and people who believe it's true are fools.

As a Christian, how do you maintain a friendship with people who hate what you believe, and think your an idiot for believing it? How can there be any kind of mutual respect in a situation like that?

Compelled to respond, I posted a comment which led to an interesting discussion between my friend and me. Much of my conversation with my friend is below. I cut out comments by other people for the sake of length, and because they don't directly affect our conversation (although I chuckled a bit at my friend's mother-in-law, who, rather than actually contributing anything meaningful, trolled the thread by posting random Bible verses and lyrics to old hymns). Enjoy:

Bud Uzoras: I disagree that an atheist *has to* believe that people who believe the Bible are fools. Incorrect, sure, but the atheists I know don't deny that many Christians are rather intelligent (though many think the Bible is ridiculous, but that certainly is not the same thing). Speaking of respect, Christians (generally) believe non-believers are going to hell. How can Christians have any respect at all for someone they believe god (the perfect judge) has deemed worthy of eternal damnation (apart from compartmentalizing or ignoring such a fact, which honestly is disingenuous on the Christians' part). I can respect someone even if I disagree with that person. Of course, I don't think hell awaits that person for not being correct. Respect is earned among friends when a difference of opinion can be tolerated because the greater priorities are to maintain compassion, concern and the mutual bond of friendship, which is more lasting than differences of opinion or belief.

Christian: Bud, you should know better then that. You were a preacher. The doctrine doesn't teach that God declared non-believers were less valuable and deserved damnation. It says we all screwed the pooch, but he gave us a get out of jail free card. Not everyone has accepted. (Calvinism is a separate discussion, and that's not what I'm talking about)

Christian: And the problem here goes a lot deeper then respecting other beliefs. Atheism doesn't have to be a part of your identity. It doesn't have to be a major factor in how you live your life or what decisions you make.

Christian: Christianity is a part of my identity. It's not just a belief, it's who I am. I don't know a single christian anywhere who gets their kicks from talking about how stupid atheists are. We don't sit around actively mocking atheism or talking about how stupid is to believe in nothing. It's not really an issue. The attitude is "they don't understand. Maybe some day they will". There are militant Christians who shove the gospel down your throat, but they are usually the exception to the rule.

Bud Uzoras Sure, according to the "good news," everyone deserves damnation because... god said so. Those who escape such judgment are the ones who managed to figure out what "the truth" is before they died, because after you die it's too late, for reasons that are less than clear. But by faith you have been made righteous. Those of us who lack faith remain in our wickedness. And as the good book says: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14,15). You said I should know better, but I'm just going by what the Bible says.

Christian: I don't know a huge number of atheists, but every one I've ever met, present company included, never passes up and opportunity to take a potshot at the church. Yeah, most of the time it's a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing but a good natured reminder that we think your God is stupid is still an insult.

Bud Uzoras: ‎"I don't know a single christian anywhere who gets their kicks from talking about how stupid atheists are." Maybe you don't know any of these Christians, but they're out there, and there's a lot of them out there. And let's not forget about the multitude of believers who mock, scorn, and even threaten people who have been "outed" as atheists. It's a serious problem, yet Christians keep talking about how they're "persecuted."

Christian: Bud, that's still the fringe. I'm not saying it's okay, but I don't know anyone who is a christian who would support any kind of behavior like that.

Bud Uzoras: We can go back and forth on whether such Christians represent "the fringe," but unless we find some hard numbers, the point is moot. "Fringe" or otherwise, the number of Christians who act with prejudice and hatred toward non-believers is still very, very large. ‎"Atheism doesn't have to be a part of your identity." I disagree. In the context of a world in which most people believe in some sort of god (and where so very many of them judge those who don't believe), the fact that a person doesn't believe has serious implications and ramifications. In fact, the term "atheist" only exists because such people live in a world where theism reigns. The fact that a person doesn't believe in a god naturally has an impact on who one is, and what identity one has.

Christian: I can agree with that, though I still think the number is large because the number of Christians is large. 2 or 3 percent of millions is going to work out to a lot of people. (though I'd doubt the numbers are even that high).

Bud Uzoras Try being an atheist for a while. You might think differently.

Christian: How often do you have to make major life decisions where you have to stop and think, "now, I'm an atheist. How should that belief affect this decision?".

Bud Uzoras: I don't use that exact phrase, but everything that makes up my worldview - including my views on god - influence the decisions I make. For example, if I heard a voice telling me to kill my son, I'd think I needed medical help instead of thinking that god was commanding me to sacrifice my son as part of some divine plan.

Christian: Either way, were navigating away from the point. This isn't about which group has more jerks, it's about whether or not a group of friends composed of atheists and Christians can still respect each other.

Christian: Seriously? You think christians that hear voices are going to automatically assume it's God?

Bud Uzoras: No, I don't think that at all. In such cases, only "the fringe" would think that. To digress even further than we already have, I do find it interesting that most Christians would think hearing such a voice is indicative of a psychological condition, but when they read about Abraham and Isaac, it's commended as virtuous - an act of faith.

Christian: I would assume in Abraham's case, you don't hear the voice of God and not know it's the voice of God. You could argue that Samuel didn't know who was talking to him when he was a child, but there was still someone around to tell him. If God's gonna talk to you, your going to know it. Otherwise, your going crazy.

Bud Uzoras: Yeah, but how would you know? The more convinced a person who hears voices is that the voices are real - the more he "knows" for certain - the more mentally unstable that person turns out to be.

Bud Uzoras: But that begs the question, which lies at the heart of the skeptical movement: *how do you know?* What reason at all, other than emotional attachment or conditioning via cultural context, do you have for accepting the Bible as "the word of god"?

Christian: That doesn't have to be applied to Christians though. Crazy people can blame the voices they hear on anything. It's kind of silly to say that Christians don't know what is or is not rational behavior just because they believe in God.

Bud Uzoras: I didn't say that. In general, how would anyone know whether a voice is from god, satan, a really good ventriloquist, or due to mental illness?

Christian: Again, getting away from the point. This isn't about proving which one is right. It's about respect. Or, if I want to distill it down to the real problem, it's that my atheist friends don't respect what I believe in, and it's hard to deal with.

Bud Uzoras: I can understand that your atheist friends not respecting what you believe is difficult to deal with. That doesn't mean they can't or don't respect you as a person, and as their friend. Imagine how difficult is is to have so many of your Christian friends send you messages like "I see you're an atheist now. I hope you turn back to God before it's too late." Talk about not respecting what you believe! At worst, you have to worry about people thinking you're a fool. Atheists have to worry about people thinking they're going to burn in hell for eternity. No fun.

Christian: The two can't be separated. You can't mock my faith right in front of me, but respect me as a person. If you talk about how ridiculous the scripture is, or how belief is Jesus moronic, your making a direct assault on my character. That's not respect.

Christian: Normally something like that wouldn't bother me. Christianity getting kicked around is pretty much the status quo, but you don't do that to your friends.

Christian: And if you could think of a single time I've tried to ram scripture down any of our friend's throats or told them how they were condemned to burn in hell, I would be absolutely amazed.

Bud Uzoras: That highlights one of the problems with Christianity: a critique of one's belief/faith is equivalent to an attack on one's character/person. That's how it's set up. I, on the other hand, having freed myself from such a shackle, am now free to not worry about being wrong. If something I think or believe is shown to be false, I'm free to simply correct my thinking. I hold my beliefs with an open hand, because I know I'm not all-knowing. My beliefs are not me; therefore, an attack on my beliefs or opinions is not an attack on me.

Bud Uzoras: You've always been great to hang out with, never ramming anything unwanted down anyone's throat. And you've never told any of your hellbound friends that they're condemned to burn in hell. I assume you believe that, and have simply kept it to yourself.

Bud Uzoras: And as far as whether Christianity getting kicked around is the status quo, I beg to differ. Christianity gets its share of criticisms, but we're still a nation dominated by a Christian majority. Call me when we get an atheist president, and then we'll talk.

Christian: Hey, you can't argue the fact that bashing Christians is trendy in popular culture now. When was the last time you saw a TV show or movie that had an openly christian character that wasn't an idiot or a slime ball? Or, when was the last time you saw an atheist character that wasn't a hero?

Bud Uzoras: There are three realms I can think of in which Christianity gets bashed the most: entertainment, the Internet, and among scholars in the upper echelons of science and education. The first two are not exclusively anti-Christian. They could make a Passion of the Christ part two - it doesn't have to make any sense - and it would still make millions of dollars. Concerning the Internet, Jesus gets way more hits on Google than Richard Dawkins (go to googlefight.com and see), and Christianity has nearly three times as many hits as atheism on Google. What you call "trendy" is simply a handful of people - people in the minority - expressing their views. Calling it "trendy" is a bit dismissive.

Christian: I'm talking about the media specficially, because the media either reflects or dictates public opinion, depending on the situation. Passion of the Christ was a bad example. It's one of those exceptions that make the rule. One of the reasons it did so well is that Hollywood hasn't made a serious, respectful, big-budget movie about the bible in nearly an eternity. It was a fluke, and even with all the box office sales (driven pretty much exclusively by Christians), it's still a movie that Hollywood loves to hate.

Christian: As for the internet, of course Jesus gets more hits. Christians are still the majority by a massive margin. Lots of numbers means lots of business. It's a big demographic. But if that's the case, why are we so stinking unpopular in the media?

Bud Uzoras: You're not unpopular. That's my point.

Christian: But we are. We're always the bad guys in every story on TV. Brian is brilliant an intellectual (atheist), Peter's father is an abusive jerk (catholic), House is brilliant (atheist), Wilson is naive and a pervert (vaguely mentions god on occasion) , I could go on forever.

Bud Uzoras: Touched By An Angel, Seventh Heaven, The Prince of Egypt, The Narnia movies (while not explicitly Christian, are the adaptations of one of the most respected Christian thinkers of the 20th century, and the allegory in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is pretty clear). It's not all anti-Christian in the media.

Bud Uzoras: House is at best an anti-hero.

Bud Uzoras: As far as Family Guy goes, everyone in that family is dysfunctional, even Brian (alcoholic who's bad at dating).

Christian: Both are still the popular ones. The script is intentionally written to make you want to be them. It's like that in countless shows and movies. The message isn't even subtle. Atheist characters are smart and make you want to emulate them, christian characters (if there are any) and foolish/week/evil, and should be pitied or despised.

Bud Uzoras: Popular singers, professional athletes, movie stars, et cetera, still thank god when they win something. Justin Beiber is all about being a Christian. Sure, Christianity gets its share of criticism in the media, but it's not as bad as you think. Christian culture tends to exaggerate it because, again, they pass it off as "persecution" when in reality they don't know what persecution is. And I'm not convinced anyone wants to be Brian.

Christian: When Steven Tyler and Ke$ha thank God, it doesn't have the same meaning. When people like Tebow thank God, it starts vicious internet memes that attack his mother. Not really examples of how popular the faith is. Also.... I kinda want to be Brian.

Christian: And honestly, I don't think American Christians face persecution. I'm not going to lose my job, my home, or my life for being a believer. This is more like being in the unpopular crowd in High School. We get figurative wedgies and swirlies pretty regularly.

Bud Uzoras: Ah, but being an atheist *can* cost someone a job, or security, or friends in "the land of the free." It's difficult for me to take the complaints seriously that the media is so anti-Christian when Christians still run the country. Yeah, you guys get made fun of sometimes. Big deal. You are the ruling majority. The fact that there's even the possibility that young earth creationism can be taught on the same level as evolution in this country is evidence that Christians - and pretty fundamentalist Christians at that - are still running the show. A lot of atheists are either still in the closet, or have spent time - often years - finding the courage and strength to come out to friends and family, like they have something to be ashamed of. Declaring atheism is political suicide for someone running for office. Congress reaffirmed "In God We Trust" as our national motto because it makes them look good to the majority of voters. People hear "atheist" and automatically assume "devil worshipper" or "baby eater" or "wicked person." USA Today reported a study which indicated that atheists are as distrusted as rapists. Christians don't have to deal with that in this country.

Christian: It may not be completely anti-christian in the media, but we're still unpopular. I don't think it's a media conspiracy or anything like that. It's just that the majority of Hollywood movers and shakers are atheists, and their work reflects their views.

Dead-Logic.com

[UPDATE: Read the follow-up: My Christian Friend]

Who Am I?

2012-01-30T07:30:00.007-06:00

I woke up Sunday morning feeling really sick and kinda melancholy. I spent most of the day in bed eating soup and watching both Boondock Saints movies. When I wasn't being a huge baby (which was most of the day), I spent some time writing this blog entry. I have to warn you: I ramble on a bit, and I reference philosophers and concepts without explaining or defining anything, and in the end I never really answer my initial question. I blame it on my illness and severe dehydration. I would understand completely if you didn't read it. For those of you who choose to skip this entry, I offer you this awesome image I created as compensation:

Amazing!

Who Am I?

One of my biggest struggles in life - maybe my biggest struggle over all - has been trying to figure out who I am. I'm not sure whether my education in philosophy has helped me find an answer or thrown more mud into the water. I've gained some perspective in the writings of Heidegger, and I've been a semi-follower of Nietzsche since long before I left Christianity (cherry-picking his moments of brilliance from his more questionable content), but I've been left still wanting a more satisfying answer.

I place much of the blame on my religious background. Sunday School and Bible Study filled my head with thoughts of a "higher purpose" and a "divine calling." Oh yes, I was "fearfully and wonderfully made" in "the image of god." Not only did I have a mission in life, but the most important mission of all. I eventually realized/accepted my agnosticism, and then that mission - my life's purpose, and the relevance of the theology degree I earned that went with it - blew away with the winds of reality as nothing more than the ashes of a false hope.

In attempting to answer the "who am I?" question, I integrated into my paradigm the idea that who I am is a question of identity, and, to borrow from the Buddhist concepts of nothingness and conditioned arising (which I learned during my extensive theoretical and experiential study of Buddhism), nothing is ontologically independent. That is, every thing (person, place, idea, object, et cetera) is the result of numerous causes, conditions, associations, and other things; therefore, who I am is the amalgam of numerous influences, experiences, and stimuli that are atomic, biological, psychological, cultural and social in nature (to name a few).

I take from this that trying to figure out who I am is a bit silly since, as David Hume might ask if he were here, what exactly is this "who" and how is it distinct or unique at all? Seems to me that the "who" is (to borrow again from my Buddist influences) ontologically empty, and is best understood as all the causes and associations of an entity within its given context (which takes my mind back to Heidegger's understanding of dasein). Simply put, who I am is the aggregate of what I think, how I feel, and what I do, when(ever) and where(ever) I am.

Great! I feel so enlightened now. Problem is, I still have no answer for what I should do or how I should think or feel. Here's where the little Easy-Bake Oven lightbulb goes off in my head: I've been asking "who am I?" when the actual question I want answered is, "what should I do?" The loss of my life's purpose - or rather the loss of confidence that my life had a cosmic purpose that occurred when I discarded my religion - left me feeling lost and confused.

This is the rear naked choke of Christianity: it tells us we are a soul - a unique snowflake - with an absolute and eternal purpose that transcends what we apprehend with our senses, and that a being far above and beyond our universe loves us and watches over us individually, listening to and answering our petitions and loving us personally, thus making us the ideological center of the universe (even if science has demonstrated that we're not the physical center of the cosmos). Few have the wherewithal to break free from such an emotional lock; fewer still see the need to do so.

I am not saying the alternative to religion is worse: indeed, to borrow Darwin's words, "there is grandeur in this view of life," and I have never felt more myself than I have since I escaped my religion. Perhaps I should qualify my statement: I have experienced real freedom since escaping from the prison of unquestioned dogma and embracing a life of freethought. I am free to question everything, to seek truth, to embrace knowledge without fear, and even to borrow from any source I find that offers principles I find true or at least verisimilitudinous; for example, in this article I have borrowed concepts from a Buddhist tradition without pledging my allegiance to any dogma, embracing any cosmology or joining any group. I have the liberty to maintain an open mind, challenge the ideas of others and have them challenge mine, without finding demons in those with whom I disagree.

I can share an essay written by my Christian friend without feeling the need to warn people of the content before they read it. How many Christians would feel safe posting one of my articles on their blogs? They wouldn't want me to lead any of the sheep astray. That says something about the veracity of their belief system. I'm free to not worry about being wrong. When I was a Christian apologist, I had to be right. Everything counted on my beliefs being correct. Now, if something I think or believe is shown to be false, I'm free to simply correct my thinking.

Perhaps I'm getting a bit off topic, but I haven't strayed too far. I may not have all the answers yet, and I may not know what exactly I should do with my life, but I think I'm at least on the right track, because I understand that I have the freedom to choose what's best for me.

Dead-Logic.com

Seems About Right...

2012-01-29T08:08:00.003-06:00

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

Dead-Logic.com

Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: 25th Anniversary

2012-01-28T12:20:00.009-06:00

"Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home."
- Carl Sagan

"I touch the future. I teach." - Christa McAuliffe

The True Meaning of Faith

2012-01-27T09:00:00.002-06:00

I've decided that this will be my last entry in The Clayton Series. I'm doing this installment differently. I will be commenting throughout this segment of Clayton's essay rather than at the end. Clayton's words will be in blue. I'm continuing where I left off last time working through the section titled, "Controlling Definitions Means Controlling The Debate":

Clayton: ... I think that most Christians, when they are allowed to give the definition of the term, define [faith] incompletely. When a non-theist defines the term, it usually sounds something like this: faith is believing in something without evidence. I respectfully reject that definition.

Bud: A more accurate definition of "faith" is belief irrespective of evidence. Most people who come to faith do so apart from any rational reason. Few religious people - if any - came to faith via rational scrutiny of evidence and logical argumentation. Even those who accept faith for "reasons" don't have reason as the basis for their decision to convert. Those who, after already converting, desire to be (or appear) rational will begin searching for reasons to believe (or continue believing), but there's a huge difference between arriving at a conclusion through reason and attempting to use reason to justify a conclusion one's already accepted. Reminds me of this comic:

Clayton: The most common definition for faith that I have heard from Christians is from Hebrews 11:1; 'faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.'

Bud: There's a reason why it's the most common definition. Most Christians see faith as justification in itself. "How do you know god exists?" "Because I have faith."

Clayton: This isn't incorrect, but it is incomplete. It would be like me saying, "Lisa is my wife." The statement is true, but it is incomplete. Lisa is so much more than my wife, and if I were to attempt to completely define or describe her, I would have to say much more. In some ways, trying to define faith is like trying to define a human being, it is difficult to do because it is a thriving and growing thing, continually changing and different from person to person.

Bud: Indeed, how faith is defined differs from person to person, and I'll add from group to group. What Clayton misses in his attempt to define faith is that non-theists aren't trying to redefine the word in order to win debates or score points for "our side." We're simply reacting to how the religious folk we've encountered define - and live out - faith. We didn't make up that meaning of faith; it was thrust upon us, and we reacted accordingly. And let's go back to Hebrews 11, shall we? "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is the opposite of doubt, and doubt is required to think critically; therefore, faith is contrary to critical thinking, which means critical thinking is contrary to God's happiness. I didn't make this up. I come from a Christian background, and this is how most Christians live out their faith.

Clayton: I want to differentiate between two kinds of faith, both of which are seen as virtues in Christianity. The first kind of faith is simply belief. In the Christian religion this means accepting the propositions of Christianity as true. A lot of people have a hard time seeing this as a virtue because we do not see believing that anything else is true as virtuous. Belief comes when a conclusion is drawn from reason after an analysis of evidence. For some people the evidence is simply, 'I have heard it on authority'. In other words, my parents told me to believe it, and so I do. I know that many people believe that this is the engine that Christianity is driven on, but that is not entirely true. It is true in the sense that there are a lot of Christians whose faith is borrowed from their parents, or another authority, but there are also those like myself who have come to faith later in life without the involvement of any such authority. In fact there was a time that all Christians were that way.

Bud: There was a time all Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and Muslims and Jews were that way too. All it takes is one person with a "message from god" to form a small group of zealots who subsequently start making converts of their own. A preacher becomes a cult which becomes a movement which becomes a religion - as long as they get enough converts (and the cult leader doesn't have all the followers drink the poisoned kool-aid so they can reach the mothership or some other such nonsense). Religions like Christianity maintain a strong influence because of the fact that faith is passed down from parent to child. The indoctrination process begins at a very young age, before the child can do any kind of rational analysis of the teachings. How is this a virtue?

Clayton: The virtue of this kind of faith comes from holding to a belief that you have come to believe is true even in the face of, not contrary evidence, but a contrary mood. Most people who come to accept Christianity as true will inevitably go through a crisis of faith. Sometimes, albeit rarely in my experience, this crisis comes from conflicting evidence gained through reason. More often this crisis comes in the form of a depression, a feeling of abandonment, an attempt to cope with a tragedy or trauma, or a personality conflict with another Christian, particularly a Christian leader, or it comes during a time in adolescence characterized by rebellion. Then, this experience which is almost entirely emotional in nature, leads a person to reject certain premises that were accepted before the mood and accept other premises that were rejected before the mood based on the difference in... well, mood. I know that it is a common thought that most people accept Christianity on an emotional basis, it is my belief that most people reject Christianity for the same reason.

Bud: I'm sure many people reject Christianity for emotional rather than intellectual reasons, because virtually all Christians accept Christianity for emotional rather than intellectual reasons in the first place. I find Clayton's observation here to be mostly irrelevant. How many people left Christianity for emotional reasons isn't the issue: the relevant concern is whether there are any rational or intellectual reasons to accept - or reject - Christianity.

Clayton: It is absurd to believe that our conclusions are based entirely on reason.

Bud: I agree, but let there be no misunderstanding: reason is mandatory. To quote Hitchens: "Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake." We consider reason to be a necessary condition rather than a sufficient condition. And since we're on the subject of faith, I have to ask: when does faith find harmony with the notion of free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake? Never.

Clayton: Everyone has observed in other people the tendency to want to believe or disbelieve something about a person, or a food, or an organization, based more on emotion or fashion than on reason. But most people are very hesitant to acknowledge any such tendency in themselves.

Bud: I agree again, and believe that if Clayton truly understood the logical implications of his words, he would be well on his way to accepting agnosticism and a step closer toward discarding his religion.

Clayton: What I take in influences what comes out. If I am led to prefer a lifestyle that rejects traditional Christian values by my environment, the likelihood of me rejecting Christianity rises considerably. This is the reverse of the 'there are no atheists in foxholes' idea. People in danger are comforted by the idea that there is a God, and their likelihood to believe that it is true rises dramatically. People in the midst of a materialistic culture discouraging chastity, selflessness, peace and patience are more likely to reject a religion that holds those things as virtuous.

Bud: I wonder whether Clayton is subtly dissing atheists here. He says people in the midst of a "materialistic culture" (whatever that means) discouraging chastity, selflessness, peace and patience are more likely to reject a religion that considers those virtues. I'm not sure of the "culture" to which he's referring. Atheist culture? Let's be clear that the current atheist culture may not be so worried about chastity (instead focusing on proper sex education and proper health and protection, which interestingly religion has prohibited over the ~~years~~ centuries), and patience is a virtue insofar as it doesn't evolve into complacency, but most folks representing the atheist community place a great deal of value in peace and selflessness, as well as kindness, love, and compassion.

Just so we're clear on this.

Clayton: The Christian virtue of faith in this first type is to keep in mind the beliefs that we have accepted to be true. Belief needs to be fed to be immune to mood changes. To put the primary beliefs of Christianity in front of you daily, to repeat them, to say daily prayers, to read the Bible every day, all help to guard this kind of faith. It is a virtue to hold onto things that you believe to be true in spite of your environment. I cannot imagine that a freethinker would disagree.

Bud: I disagree. Why should belief "need to be fed" at all? Let me borrow the words of Dan Barker, who said: "Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." Belief only needs to be "fed" is it lacks a solid foundation of reason to support it. Regardless of what mood I'm in, I won't suddenly reject the theory of gravity.

Clayton: A second type of faith is derived from the Greek word pistis. Anytime you see the word 'faith' or 'believe' in the New Testament, it is from pistis. The reason it isn't always translated as 'faith' is because we have no verb form for that word in English. People don't go around 'faithing' things. So the word 'believe' is chosen instead. This is unfortunate, because it gives the false impression that instances of this second type of faith are actually instances of the first kind. The best and simplest explanation that I have ever heard for pistis is this:

Faith = Belief + Obedience

This is the idea that you believe something to be true, and strive to live in accordance or conformity with that belief. In this form, I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone would deny this as a virtue. I believe that my wife is not having an affair, that she is telling me the truth when she says that she is at work, and not with some other person. I cannot prove this to you. I cannot demonstrate empirically that this is true. I can only have faith. Now, there may be a time when I am presented with contrary evidence that may cause me to reevaluate that faith, but until that time comes it would be foolish of me to not strive to live in accordance with what I believe to be true.

Bud: No one is denying that "living in accordance with what one believes" is a virtue. This section ignores the heart of the matter; namely, how faith is really lived out by the faithful. They aren't simply "living according to what they believe": they are doing so at the cost of reason, by ignoring or twisting the facts in order to maintain their faith.

What bothers me even more is the implicit proposition throughout this section that everyone, whether theist or non-theist, has "faith." Seems like another attempt at leveling the playing field.

Clayton: I think a significant portion of the frustration associated with the idea of faith comes from those who have encountered Christians who are unwilling to consider evidence that is contrary to their faith. I agree that this is frustrating.

Bud: It's not just a "significant portion": it's just plain why we reject faith. Believers, acting "in faith," reject or ignore evidence contrary to their belief.

Clayton: To completely write off or deny evidence that is contrary to your current beliefs because of the fear or discomfort associated with doubt isn't faith; it's anti-intellectualism, or stubbornness, or foolishness.

Bud: Like I said, how faith is defined differs from one person to the next. When I was a Christian, I didn't define "faith" that way. I considered myself a freethinker, which is why I'm an atheist today. I considered the evidence for Christianity, and found it lacking severely. Perhaps Clayton doesn't see his faith as contrary to critical thinking. I can't speak for him. I know, in my own case, my faith held me back. Even as I extolled the virtues of critical thinking when I was a Christian, I wrestled with compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. I wrestled for years until I was able to dislodge myself from faith and truly follow reason.

For most Christians (whether they realize it or not), faith is equivalent to anti-intellectualism, stubbornness, and foolishness, as well as wishful thinking and unfounded hope.

Clayton: I think that it needs to be acknowledged that this tendency is present on both sides of the theism debate, but I take it as true that it is more commonly found among Christians than non-theists. The problem isn't faith, it's a lack of education.

Bud: Yes, there are folks on both sides of the ideological fence who base their views on something other than reason. Yes, this is more prevalent among theists than non-theists. And yes, the problem is a lack of (proper) education. Of course, the lack of good education has lead to the longevity of faith.

Dead-Logic.com

The Right to Teach Evolution - Eugenie Scott

2012-01-26T11:00:00.001-06:00

[via ibiomagazine]
Taking a stand for good science! Eugenie Scott is awesome.

Please Don't Indoctrinate Me

2012-01-25T07:15:00.006-06:00

[Photo by Lynn Fellman]

Ah, more billboard-based controversy. I suspect that this will likely be the most unheeded as well as the most resented atheist billboard to come down the pike in a long while, and that illustrates what's severely wrong with religion. Religion has such an emotional choke hold on the faithful. People are afraid of hell enough as it is, but when they consider the eternal fate of their kids and the chance they might wind up burning in hell, well, who wants to think of such a thing? They feel they must indoctrinate their children because no one wants to think of their own children trapped in the torment of hellfire for eternity. Having children think for themselves and make up their own minds is way too dangerous. The religious justify their actions by arguing that they are "just teaching their children what's right," but there's a reason most Christians converted before the age of 18.

If Christians actually respected the individuality of these children and waited till they were old enough to understand and think for themselves, I suspect Christianity today would be nothing more than a fringe cult group with a handful of members - assuming it would survive at all.

What do I think of this billboard? Well, I count myself among the ranks of those who hate Comic Sans font, so that's one strike against it. I'm not crazy about the "talking baby" thing either, but that's a personal preference issue. The message, however, is spot on. On another personal note, seeing this billboard reminds me of all the reasons why I hate children's ministry.

Dead-Logic.com

The Meaning of Religion

2012-01-24T06:30:00.004-06:00

I have read Clayton's essay, "Why Am I A Christian?" three times all the way through. There are some things in it with which I agree, a lot of things with which I don't agree, and a few things that almost made me angry. At the very least, I felt a fire ignite inside me, and all I could think was, "he can't actually believe this." The section of Clayton's essay that raised my ire more than any other is the section titled, "Controlling Definitions Means Controlling The Debate." I'll post the first part of it here (sans the parts I left out due to length and relevance), followed by my response:

Controlling Definitions Means Controlling The Debate

Part of the frustration of the theism debate is how wrapped up it is in agenda. The Science vs. Christianity issue is tired, and honestly I think, mostly the result of reactionary Christians in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Somewhere along the lines people on both sides started using their own definitions for things, and this is incredibly frustrating. Christians are guilty of it, sometimes even without realizing it, and non-theists are guilty of it as well.

If you can control the definition of a word, then you can largely decide a debate about it from the beginning. This is classic rhetoric or debate strategy. Unfortunately, it isn't very helpful in discovering the truth of a given matter. I want to take a bit of space to define some key terms for the discussion. I am not pulling from any authoritative source for these definitions, they are what I mean by them (or what authors I have read mean by them). One of the words that needs to be defined is Religion.

There are a lot of available definitions for Religion. It is interesting to me that most of them contain a word like 'supernatural' in them. I think that this is a misunderstanding of the idea itself that has been creeping into philosophy since the Enlightenment. If I accept religion as requiring a supernatural component, then I can adhere to a set of beliefs that inform what I believe is right or wrong, my self-worth, etc. while still attacking religion as long as my personal beliefs have nothing to do with the supernatural.

Incidentally, I don't like the word supernatural (except as it relates to one of my favorite TV shows). This is a matter of worldview. If the Christian God is real, then His interacting with the world around us is naturally part of the world around us. In other words, if God is within the realm of things that exist, then His actions are in that way natural. If there is such a thing as the spiritual, then it seems that it would be part of what we would consider natural. Supernatural is only useful as a word if you do not believe in God, and want a word to quantify His supposed attributes, activities or agents. The word itself implies that what we are talking about is less, or at least differently, real than the parts of the world that we can see, taste, touch, and measure.

A good definition for religion is this, "It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing." I use this definition mostly because I acknowledge that there are religions with no supernatural component. I was an active Martial Artist for two decades. In that time I met a lot of people who considered Martial Arts to be their religion, whether they acknowledged it verbally or not. Darwinism is another philosophy, or worldview, that I believe firmly functions as a religion. Philosophical Darwinism isn't the same thing as evolution, it's a worldview which has lead to schools of thought such as 'Evolutionary Psychology', which I will discuss briefly later.

Christianity is that religion whose adherents have faith in an uncreated God; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who created the universe from nothing, has interacted with mankind in history, sent His Son in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, who was crucified and resurrected, to begin the process of reconciling His fallen creation to Himself.

And that is where the definition of Christianity ends. In fact, that is where the definition of Christianity must end, because there are so many differences in the beliefs of its adherents from there on. The most well known type of Christianity in the United States today is Protestant Christianity. There are more Protestant Christians in this country than any other kind, and it is Protestants anyway who tend to be noisiest about their beliefs.

Most people whom I have spoken to who have rejected Christianity have done it for reasons outside of the definition I proposed. Again, my experience is by no means comprehensive, but those who have left the faith have usually drifted away, or have been hurt and disillusioned by Christians, or have fixated on one particular belief of a particular church and have found it implausible...

... I want to clarify that whether or not you like, or find pleasant, the ideas within Christianity, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. In other words, a person who says, 'I couldn't believe in a God who would send people to hell', aside from having a dramatic misunderstanding of hell, is asking the wrong question. The question that is key to Christianity is whether or not the historical event of the resurrection took place. If so, then Christianity is true. If not, then we really don't need to bother with it at all.

I sat down meaning to address Clayton's definition of faith, but found myself needing to first address his definition of religion. The next installment will be on the meaning of faith. I'm trying to break up his essay into manageable chunks. There are parts of this excerpt I left out to make space, or because it's not relevant to the discussion. I omitted the argument for Christianity Clayton borrowed from Timothy Keller for both those reasons, and additionally because it's such a bad argument it makes my head hurt and I really don't want to deal with it. Moving on...

Clayton laments how much the debate is wrapped up in agenda, and how "people on both sides started using their own definitions for things." But then Clayton does that exact thing in the very next paragraph. Clayton, wanting to define the "key terms," wrote: "I am not pulling from any authoritative source for these definitions, they are what I mean by them."

Clayton then proceeds to offer his own definition for the word: "[Religion] is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing." Clayton thinks this is a "good definition for religion." I think it's a load of tripe; what's worse, I think his definition is the result of his own agenda to not make Christianity look ridiculous.

Even if we have a difficult time defining "religion" precisely, it's a lot like the difference between art and porn: you know it when you see it. Consider the following:

Buddhism
Christianity
libertarianism
Islam
Culinary Arts
Communism
Hinduism
Anarchism

If I took this list out into the world and asked people to point out which of these are religions, which would most people choose? More importantly, why? The reason is, whether one can explain it discursively or not, there are elements of religion that are well known.

"Religion" as defined by Dictionary.com is:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion

something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion.

The last definition is closer to what Clayton is saying about religion, even though it's still way off, but consider that hypothetical sports fanatic: glued to the TV, watching his favorite team play his favorite sport. He wears their jersey, he cheers over beers when his team scores, and wipes tears away with Cheeto-stained fingers when the other team scores. Indeed, we can say his favorite sport is this person's religion, but only because we first understand (at least intuitively) what a religion is and how a religious person behaves, and then we draw the comparison between the religious devotee and this avid sports fan.

Why settle for making up our own definitions and meanings when we have a world of knowledge at our fingertips? Is it really so hard to go to Google or Wikipedia and read up on what religion actually is?

Does the idea that there might be knowledge frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you frighten you?
- Tim Minchin, "Storm"

But let's not lose sight of the big picture: Clayton first attempts to define religion in such a way as to put everyone in the same boat. Next he defines faith (which I'll address next time), and employs the same tactic. This is an often-used strategy in a Christian apologist's arsenal. If we're all in the same boat intellectually, emotionally and ecclesiastically, then Christianity shouldn't look too unreasonable by comparison. It's a weak attempt to give Christian theism credibility.

Dead-Logic.com

A Few More Thoughts on God and Morality

2012-01-23T08:30:00.005-06:00

Getting back to Clayton's essay, I had a few more thoughts on the claim that god is necessary for morality. Seems to me that, if the Christians are correct about the nature of god, then we wouldn't need morality at all.

According to Christian theology, god was the only entity or thing that existed at some point. Whether "outside of time" or not, if god is the only "uncreated" entity, then there had to be a moment when it was only god. Did morality exist then? How could it? What would "being good" mean if you're the only thing that exists? Then god creates someone else. According to the Christians, god is perfect, which implies that god lacks nothing, so he must not have created other beings because he was bored or lonely, because that would imply imperfection. Whatever the reason, god creates someone else. Now how does morality work? How do any values work? The only way it can work is to set up a system of behavior that's entirely subjective. God would have to create this moral code of conduct. But if god had made people perfect like he allegedly is, then there would be no need for morality.

If everyone were perfect - i.e., not lacking in anything - then we wouldn't need morality. We wouldn't need anything by definition. Morality is necessarily subjective because it's contingent upon the needs of the people.

But the Christian account of our origins says god created a couple humans, then those humans disobeyed god's command, so god cursed those humans and every one of their descendants, thus making both them and their world flawed. But they were already flawed. "Adam and Eve" weren't created perfect, because they had desire for something they didn't have. God made them this way, then punishes them and all their children for acting in accordance with how god made them. How does this make any sense?

Dead-Logic.com

Women's Rights / Theism's Wrong

2012-01-23T00:15:00.005-06:00

I created this animated anagram in honor of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22). It’s a small reminder that we should never take our rights for granted, and there are people out there working to turn their religious dogma into law and deny women the right to choose for themselves what happens to their own bodies:

Critical Thinking Sucks

2012-01-21T06:36:00.011-06:00

Critical thinking is such a bother. Seriously, it's a pain in the ass. The hardest part about it is the letting go of sacred cows. Everything can be scrutinized, critiqued, and if deemed unfit, discarded. No idea, thought, belief or opinion is beyond reproach. That's not an easy lifestyle to maintain, and I think it's important that we understand that. Let's not fool ourselves: we play favorites. Even those of us who understand the value of reason wrestle with bias and our personal desires.

Critical thinking is difficult. No one wants to be wrong, and when we are presented with an idea or argument contrary to what we have said, we have a hard time reconsidering what we just said. No one wants to be wrong, and certainly no one wants to admit that they were wrong. Hell, we're usually not in the mood to even consider that the other side of the coin might actually have a case.

I have had the pleasure recently of conversing with Eugene Gerber, whom - if you're unaware - is the man I facetiously referred to as "stupid" in a recent blog entry. Someone pointed him to my blog, he offered his comments, and then he and I proceeded to have a very interesting conversation. To keep it short, he presented his side of the story. He made his case, and I think he made it quite well.

(For the record, I never actually thought Eugene was stupid. I was merely trying to make a point about free speech, rights, Orwellian nonsense, blah blah blah. I was still pretty fired up from all the SOPA stuff.)

So now I have to reconsider my position. But I don't want to. I don't want to consider the possibility that I'm wrong. I expressed my position in a blog entry that has been read by hundreds of people already. I want to be right!

But critical thinking demands I at least consider it, and I have. I'm still considering it, to be honest. As of right now, I think Eugene made a good case for why he did what he did. I don't think I agree with his actions, but I certainly understand why he did it. I could be wrong.

The process of becoming an atheist have given me some existential understanding of why people remain in religion. No one wants to be wrong. We all play favorites. We take sides and have a really hard time even trying to consider the other side's view. We see things through our own context, through the filter of our preferred prejudice, and resist stepping out of our skin, looking through the lens of another person's context, and empathizing. We hate that.

We want to be right. We look for other people who agree with us, so we can all be right together. This thought occurred to me after reading Tristan's blog entry on sports and religion. I responded to his post by noting that both sports and religion satisfy a basic human need: connection. Religion gives people a sense of connection in a common purpose, common beliefs (regardless of whether said beliefs are right or wrong), a shared sense of validation (we are "saved"), a mutual affiliation and an identity. People want to feel like they're "in the club."

Sports is the same. We choose our team, and we associate ourselves with that team (it's "my team"). When our favorite team wins, then "we win," giving ourselves a sense of validation. We wear our team's jersey and become evangelists and apologists for our team, and when we see other fellow fans of our team, we have an automatic connection ("I like her, she's a ______ fan!"). Our favorite team becomes part of our identity. Sports even comes with its own version of "Satan" in team rivalries. And nothing unites people and gives them a sense of rightness like having a common enemy.

We don't want to consider opposing views in the same way we would never want to change who our favorite sports teams are. We become as devoted of fans of our beliefs as we are of our sports teams. We resist the "enemy" with as much contempt as we have for our rival teams. I've noticed this as a blogger. I always, always get more opposition from atheists when I criticize other atheists than when I criticize theists. My guess is, if I were to put forth a really bad argument against something an atheist said, I'd get other atheists calling me out on it. If I were to put forth a really bad argument against something a Christian said, however, I imagine the rebuttals from other atheists would be at a minimum. This is a guess, and - again - I could be wrong.

Guh. Critical thinking sucks. I think I'm going to just keep posting more animated gifs like all the cool kids do instead.

Go Bulls!

Dead-Logic.com

Your Moment of Zen for the Weekend

2012-01-20T10:00:00.004-06:00

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."
— Carl Sagan

A Stupid Atheist Gets Offended Over Being Called Stupid

2012-01-19T08:30:00.004-06:00

I can only hope Eugene Gerber, an easily offended atheist, will somehow stumble onto this blog so he can get even more offended, because guess what Eugene...

I don't know whether Eugene Gerber actually is stupid. His recent actions are kinda stupid, but here's the point: freedom of speech, Eugene. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me back up and tell the story:

This billboard was erected beside a church in Johannesburg, South Africa, on the property of the Rivers Church in the Sandton suburb. It was pulled down following the ruling by South Africa's Advertising Standards Authority, prompted by "a complaint from a non-Christian member of the public." The complainant, atheist Eugene Gerber, felt offended by the billboard's visual implication that he's stupid; furthermore, "he does not consider his existence to be an accident."

Aw... Eugene was offended. Boo flipping hoo, Eugene. My heart is crying for you. Grow some stones. You're acting like the namby-pamby Christians here in the United States who get their knickers in a knot over billboards like this:

Do I think Rivers Church's billboard conveys a good message? Of course not. The billboard is (to use the word of the day) stupid. Hell, I don't like the American Atheists' billboard either. Eugene didn't like the "atheists are accidents" billboard. So what? If we get so easily offended and demand that everything we find offensive be taken down, removed, censored and prohibited, then honest and open dialogue will be shut down.

Atheists have come a long way in the struggle to be accepted and understood, but we still have a long way to go. Ironically, the billboard Eugene despises so much illustrates the fact that atheists still have a lot of work to do, but we won't reach our goals by shutting people down because (*sniffle*) we're offended. We must never oppose freedom of speech. I won't, because I believe in freedom. Oh yes, I believe in sweet freedom:

[Trigger warning: sarcasm, poking fun at American patriotism, & more sparkly gif action]

Freedom, Eugene. Freedom.

Let freedom ring, from South Africa all the way to South Carolina, from Johannesburg to Pittsburg. Let freedom ring, Eugene.

Seriously, though. Eugene: Stop hurting the cause, man. There are more important issues to worry about than your precious delicate easily offended feelings. Get over it, son.

Dead-Logic.com

Click Here:

Update: Critical Thinking Sucks

Stop Internet Censorship

2012-01-18T00:00:00.002-06:00

[via A Day of No Takei - George Takei]

Transcendent Virtue

2012-01-17T08:00:00.001-06:00

Picking up where I left off in my series of responses to Clayton's essay, "Why Am I A Christian?" in which I post segments of his essay followed by my responses/critiques (which I've decided to group under the tag The Clayton Series), I want to respond to Clayton's assertion that there is no basis for morality apart from god, a proposition for which he argues in the section of his essay titled, "Transcendent Virtue." Here is that section of the essay, followed by my response:

Transcendent Virtue

An objective standard of right and wrong has always been intuitive for me, a thing I believed in my core to be true without having to be convinced of it.

The Christian belief is that right and wrong are present in a person's life because they are made, somehow, in the image of God and that God has imparted grace to all people in all times. Of course, there are always exceptions. Just as a person can have a genetic anomaly a person might have a moral one, but by and large people are born with some basic conceptions of right and wrong which are, I would contest, as universal as such a thing could possibly be.

To borrow again from C.S. Lewis, can you imagine a culture where it was seen as virtuous for a person to be a coward and run in fear from battle, leaving behind his compatriots? It is easy to see how evolution would pass that type of a trait on, but it is not something we see played out in any culture that I am aware of. Further, can you imagine a culture that believes that rape is virtuous? Not just that it isn't morally reprehensible, but that it is a good and noble thing for a person to go about doing? Or a culture in which men considered their wives better for having been raped, and were thankful to the rapists? I cannot.

A challenge to this particular aspect of objective morality comes from Darwinism. The theory is called the 'Sociobiological Theory of Rape'. A fascinating and very disturbing book called A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases for Sexual Coercion has been written on the subject claiming that there are legitimate evolutionary causes for rape to enter into human behavior, and we ought not to classify it by definitions of 'right' or 'wrong', but something more akin to 'desirable' and 'undesirable'. Evolutionary psychology provides us with one logical conclusion of philosophical Darwinism, and it is a place I sincerely hope that our society is not headed. For rape to be a thing that is classified as within acceptable activity, or even to be unacceptable simply because it is no longer biologically necessary instead of being reprehensible and morally wrong, is a place I do not want to live.

I have no desire to live in a society embracing literal moral relativism, but Darwinism does not even promise us that. In a totally relative society, there are still justifiable reasons for behaving as we would today consider morally, because a person may behave any way they wish. In a fully Darwinist culture, altruism itself can be considered undesirable behavior if it is not beneficial to the progress of the species toward a goal chosen by the thinkers of the day. That society, more than any other, is one that I have absolutely no wish to be part of. And the call for the abolition of theistic religion that is present in many of the 'New Atheists' books is a step in the direction of exactly that type of society.

I believe that rape is wrong. I believe that it is always wrong, and that any justification of its legitimacy is in itself an anomaly and cannot ever be considered the norm. The charge that I've heard that the Bible endorses rape comes from a dramatic misreading (or a lack of reading) the stories in which the events are described. God never endorses rape, or ritual human sacrifice, or a whole host of other things He is accused of endorsing by those without an extensive understanding of the Bible. There is an unavoidable sense of right and wrong deeply known to us human creatures, and I do not see how that possibly makes sense outside of theism.

I'm going to ignore the bits about philosophical Darwinism and evolutionary psychology because that can take us in all sorts of directions (check out sites like TalkOrigins if you're interested in that) and instead focus on the crux of the matter: is god required for morality? Clayton says yes, explaining that he doesn't see how morality "possibly makes sense outside of theism." Clayton is arguing for a code of ethics that's both objective and transcendent, meaning that it's not contingent upon personal preferences and it supersedes personal preferences. In other words, we didn't create it and we are obliged to obey it. God, Clayton argues, is a necessary condition for such a code of ethics to exist.

My prima facie response to this is: how does he know? Clayton claims there is "an unavoidable sense of right and wrong deeply known to us human creatures" and "people are born with some basic conceptions of right and wrong," but what is the evidence to support these claims other than the general concern humans have for doing good? Do humans even agree on these alleged "basic conceptions of right and wrong"? Throughout history we see great variance among many different cultures. Naturally, one may find agreement on certain underlying moral issues, but how such morality is executed differs wildly from one culture to the next. My point here is that it's one thing to say morality is objective, absolute and transcendent, and quite another thing to provide evidence for that claim. Clayton hasn't provided any evidence; he, like C.S. Lewis did in his book Mere Christianity, simply makes an appeal to our feelings.

The next obstacle to overcome comes from the writings of Plato, and is known as the Euthphro Dilemma, named after a priest named Euthyphro, who engaged in a dialogue with Socrates on the topic of ethics. This discussion is found in Plato's book, appropriately titled, Euthyphro.

Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" To state the dilemma another way: "Is what is morally good commanded by god because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by god?" Thus the Euthyphro Dilemma is comprised of these two horns:

1) God commands something because it is good.

2) Something is good because God commands it.

The Euthyphro Dilemma poses a serious problem for those who want to base morality on god: if the first horn is true, then there is a standard for morality that transcends god, but nothing is higher than god, so that can't be right. If the second horn is true, then god's rules are arbitrary, and his commands are reduced to nothing more than "Do it... because I said so."

Most theists unwittingly align themselves with the second horn of the dilemma when they argue that god is necessary for (objective) ethics. What they fail to see is that, if they're right, then morality is wholly subjective, fully contingent on god's will, thus eliminating any objective standard for morality.

Theists say "god is good." Most of them also say "good is determined by god" (the second horn). If good really is determined by god, then the statement "god is good" will always be true, regardless of what god's nature or character is. And consider the inherent contradiction: when people say "god is good," they are judging god, evaluating his character, which means they are applying some standard of "good" that must be independent of god. Notice how fervently Clayton argues that his god "never endorses rape, or ritual human sacrifice, or a whole host of other things He is accused of." This is Clayton's morality, regardless of what god says.

But what if god ever decided to change his mind and say things like rape and child abuse and human sacrifice are good? If "the good" is based on god's whim and will, then that's a possibility. Many theists will respond with, "but god would never do that," but such a response misses the point. If morality is based on god, then it doesn't matter if god would, it matters that he could, again illustrating that god-based morality is indeed subjective morality, because if god says it's good, then it's good.

God-based morality is dangerous. People who argue in its favor perpetuate bias by bolstering the very wrong idea that "atheist" is equal to "immoral"; furthermore, it reinforces the "infidel" label religionists give each other because morality being dependent on god implies being dependent on the right god. If Clayton is correct, then it's not theism that's required for morality: one needs the correct religion. That means everyone who follows a false god/religion lacks a proper foundation for ethics too. In spite of how we may feel, we can't escape from a subjective morality. Theists can't escape it; they just make god the subject of moral standards.

What is the purpose of morality? I argue morality should be used for selfish (but not solipsistic) reasons. Theists want to turn morality into this selfless set of actions we should do for its own sake, but religion deals with selfish motives as well: avoiding hell, getting eternal joy and god's blessings, et cetera. By promoting morality, we promote a set of attitudes and actions which contribute to happiness and peace, less suffering and more fulfillment of our desires. The "Golden Rule" is actually a good idea, even though it's been hijacked by religion. A while back I shared an illustration by David Hayword (aka "nakedpastor") titled, "the senseless cycle of violence." When someone asks me why we should be moral, I point to this:

I am just one human, one small piece of life dwelling on a little drop of water floating in the infinite black. I am a child of Africa, one permutation of "star stuff" as Sagan would say, existing within and as an intrinsic part of the universe. I am one of billions like me. We all share the same tiny home, and we all desire to be happy. That is enough of a moral impetus for me. I embrace the ethics of reciprocal altruism grounded in the solidarity of all humankind and all life on earth, opposing racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia, upholding freedom of speech and freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom from religion, the separation of church and state, science, logic, critical thinking, literacy and proper education, and the pursuit of truth, wisdom and happiness.

This is my morality, and it's just fine.

Dead-Logic.com

Thank You, Dr. King

2012-01-16T12:03:00.003-06:00

The "Love Jesus/Hate Religion" Guy

2012-01-14T07:00:00.001-06:00

As of this writing, Jefferson Bethke, aka "bball1989" on YouTube, aka "The Love Jesus/Hate Religion" Guy, has received well over nine million hits on his viral video, Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. If somehow you haven't seen it, here it is:

Following close behind this video are the memes, which have spread throughout the Internet, with witty phrases on them like "What if I told you Hitler came to abolish Nazis?" and "Hates Fruit, Loves Apples." It's true, of course: trying to separate Jesus from religion is like trying to separate apples from fruits or, as I'm about to discuss, separating birthdays from celebrating the moment you came out of your mother's womb.

Jefferson claims Jesus "came to abolish religion" but then proceeds to endorse everything the Christian religion upholds: "Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin." He emphasizes how Jesus "took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face." Jesus "took what we all deserved." When Jesus "was dangling on that cross... he absorbed all of your sin." So what has Jefferson taken away from Christianity that makes it no longer a religion? Seems like all the essentials are still there: holy book, the church, sin (which implies damnation, hell, and all the terrible judgments Jesus is supposed to save us from by "dangling").

Jefferson might as well say he hates birthdays, but loves celebrating the day he was expelled from his mother's womb. "Now let me clarify," he'd say, "I love presents, I love parties, and yes I believe in cake." But of course he would oppose birthdays.

That's bad enough, but it gets worse when Jefferson makes a less-than-subtle shift in his spoken word poem by first talking about Jesus in contrast to religion, then exchanging "Jesus" for the word "Christianity." By the end of the poem, he wants his listeners to accept not only that Jesus is separate from and contrary to religion, but Christianity is as well.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Judaism, Jainism, Sikhism, Din-i-Ilahi, Mithraism, Taoism, Shinto, et al are religions, but Christianity isn't a religion. Yeah, that seems reasonable.

It's the old "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" shenanigans, except now Jefferson has given it a makeover. It's still a vain attempt to divorce Christianity from it's brutal and bloody past, in spite of how edgy and artsy bball1989 makes it appear.

Holla at ya boy

Make no mistake, I know where this guy's coming from, and I can sympathize. For him, Jesus is real, and he is in a relationship. His life isn't about rituals or empty practices. He and Jesus are pals. Problem is, his "relationship" with Jesus is the same as every other religion, whether he calls it "religion" or not: it's based on faith. Now, as Clayton so eloquently put it, "controlling definitions means controlling the debate," and even though Clayton's definitions of "faith" and "religion" are woefully incomplete and/or inaccurate (I'll address that in future blog entries), he's entirely correct: how we define words - the definitions of words we enforce - determine the course of the debate. If you can sway the crowd toward your definition of a word, you control the debate. This is why I've said for years now that people argue words when they should argue meanings. People fight over statements and when they should be wrestling with the propositions behind those statements.

Consider the word "religion": Jefferson defines it as a practice of empty rituals, self-righteousness, "man seeking god" (ineffectively), hypocrisy, a fruitless attempt to do good and be good. At least, that's his connotative definition, and for him that's all that matters. While I may actually agree with him on this point, and while I question how a person can say - historically speaking - that Christianity doesn't fall under that rubric, I must protest that Jefferson is attempting to control the debate by limiting his definition of "religion" to this particular connotative meaning. Denotatively, Christianity is just as much a religion as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Jediism.

What interests me the most is how much Jefferson Bethke and I agree about religion. In fact, to borrow a technique from another man named "Jefferson" - Thomas Jefferson - I'd like to offer my Jeffersonian version of bball1989's spoken word poem:

What if I told you voting republican really wasn't his mission
What if I told you republican doesn't automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind doesn't automatically give you vision

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn't love them if they've ever had a divorce

Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
They can't fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religion's like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It's just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like let's dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it's funny that's what they use to do to mummies while the corpse rots underneath

Fools, don't you see so much better than just following some rules

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
Religion's a man made invention, the infection
See because religion says do
Religion says slave
Religion puts you in bondage
Religion makes you blind

So for religion, no I hate it
In fact I literally resent it

Dead-Logic.com

Happy Birthday, Ken Pulliam

2012-01-14T06:22:00.007-06:00

My thoughts today echo the sentiments expressed by Mike D, who wrote:

Today would have been Ken Pulliam's 52nd birthday. I didn't know him personally (though I certainly wish I could have picked his brain over a glass of Scotch), but I read his blog regularly, and respected him greatly. I took it as a tremendous compliment that he followed this blog, and his picture in my "followers" list acts as a reminder of a great mind lost far too soon. I wish his family well on what's surely a rough day for them, and I strongly encourage my readers to check out his outstanding blog:

Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity

I also recommend checking out Ken's blog. While we have lost a great mind, we are fortunate that his writings remain with us.

While I'm at it, here is a list of other wonderful minds you should read:

The A-Unicornist

Advocatus Atheist

Fallen From Grace

Why Evolution Is True

Sandwalk

Lady Atheist

Infidel753

(Mis)understanding the Bible

2012-01-13T10:00:00.008-06:00

The people have spoken; therefore, I will be posting segments of Clayton's essay followed by my observations and critiques. I sat down at the laptop intending to write a response to Clayton's segment on "Transcendent Virtue" first, and though I've written about the topic of god and morality before (in reference to a discussion I had with Clayton, interestingly enough), and I've written about the issue more than once, the notion that "there is no morality without god" still pervades both the conventional wisdom of theists as well as Christian apologetics, and thus the topic deserves to be addressed yet again.

I will get to that, but I need to digress for a moment. There is an underlying premise throughout Clayton's essay; namely, the claim that those who criticize the Bible either haven't read the Bible enough or lack "an extensive understanding of the Bible." As I read through the section on "Transcendent Morality" in Clayton's essay, this part jumped out at me:

The charge that I've heard that the Bible endorses rape comes from a dramatic misreading (or a lack of reading) the stories in which the events are described. God never endorses rape, or ritual human sacrifice, or a whole host of other things He is accused of endorsing by those without an extensive understanding of the Bible.

So... whenever the god of the Old Testament is accused of, say, genocide or endorsing slavery or allowing rape and mistreatment of women or just being a selfish, petty, violent, abusive, egomaniacal Doucheasaurus Rex who demands your love, worship and blood sacrifice as though he's as insecure as a junior high kid who just got stuffed in his locker by the football team while the girl he has a crush on watched and giggled, the Christian can fall back on the old familiar accusations used by many a biblical apologist: you just don't understand what the Bible is really saying. You haven't studied the original languages, or investigated the historical and cultural context. It seems, no matter how well-studied a critic is, if her view of the Bible makes god look bad in any way, the Christian accuses her of "not knowing the Bible well enough." I remember using this tactic when I was a Christian apologist, and in retrospect, I see now that it was just a way to dodge the issue.

Christians - at least the ones I respect - admit that the Bible can be difficult to understand. Even the Christians who refuse to admit this can't deny all the denominations, divisions, differences, deviations, divergence, disputes and disagreements among Christians over every issue of orthodoxy and orthopraxy under the sun. We can blame humans for not listening or misunderstanding god's revelation, but at some point we have to start questioning the messenger.

Did god - the alleged "omni"-everything being that he is - really think that this was the best way to communicate his will, his love, and his "transcendent morality" to humans? Let's assemble a bunch of really old writings in different languages (which of course will have to be translated), written before there were even books, put these writings together later on, call this collection "God's Word" and let the human race misread, misunderstand and misinterpret this collection of obviously unclear writings which only serve to prove that, if god is anything like his "inspired" word, he must be omni-ambiguous. If, as the Christian apologists claim, the Bible is difficult to understand - and if so many intelligent critics of the Bible lack "an extensive understanding of the Bible" no matter how much they've read it, then perhaps the Bible isn't what these Christian apologists purport it to be.

Time for Bible Study!

"But," some apologists might say (and as I used to say), "the Bible's purpose isn't to be God's revelation to the world. God revealed himself to various people in various ways, and ultimately he revealed himself in Jesus. The Bible is simply the records of these revelations, as well as a guide for believers who have already responded to God's revelation by faith." The effectiveness of "god's revelation" aside (and that has it's own set of problems), I have to ask: how do you know what the purpose of the Bible is? The book by itself is difficult to understand, and god never provided a handbook or list of instructions on how to read or use the Bible. And even if that is the purpose of the Bible, wouldn't it be nice if this "guide for believers" actually contained clear guidance?

The Bible reminds me of the early 80s TV show, The Greatest American Hero. The main character Ralph is given a special red suit that gives him super powers. The problem is Ralph lost the instruction booklet that tells him how to use the suit, and so each episode features Ralph trying to learn how the suit works by trial and error (mostly error). The problem with the Bible is that we have no instruction manual to tell us how god wants us to use this book. If we can glean any information about god and the Bible from the 38,000 or so different Christian denominations in the world today, it's that hermeneutics in the church is also a process of trial and error - and, again, mostly error. Either god in his infinite wisdom failed to provide clear instruction on how to read, study and use the Bible, or this book isn't the inspired word of an infinitely wise god.

Dead-Logic.com

[Digression over. Discussion of god and morality next.]

Are Christians Stupid?

2012-01-10T13:00:00.001-06:00

I'm trying to figure out what I want to do next with Clayton's essay. When I asked him to write it, my intention wasn't to set him up to be a personal punching bag for me to attack. I simply wanted his take on why he is - and remains - a Christian. I knew he could provide some food for thought. I had a more intimate reason for this request as well: I wanted to gain a better understanding of my friend.

What Clayton submitted was much longer than I expected, which is both good and bad: good in that there's a lot to consider; bad in that it's so long I'm sure a lot of folks said "tl;dr" and skipped over it entirely.

So I'm wondering what to do next. I'm leaning toward posting segments of Clayton's essay along with my observations/critiques. If you have any suggestions, feel free to share them in the comments below.

I asked Clayton to share his perspective because he isn't stupid. I know there are atheists out there who label all religionists as "stupid" or "brainwashed" or "gullible," but I contend that this is an egregious overgeneralization. Yes, there are a lot of stupid, ignorant, misguided religious people out there, and - to be clear - I am convinced that religion encourages ignorance and the repression of knowledge, and it breeds prejudice, hatred and elitism, but idiots can be found in every worldview. Being an atheist doesn't make one immune to mental or attitudinal missteps.

Religion (and I disagree entirely with Clayton's definition, but I'll get into that in a future entry) makes claims which are either wrong or unverifiable; thus, religious people are incorrect or misguided vis-à-vis metaphysics or epistemology. That alone doesn't make them stupid or irrational, just incorrect.

I am defending (certain) religious believers because I think categorizing people into two groups - "rational" and "irrational" - is the wrong approach. Clayton, for example, is a rational person. He isn't the only Christian friend of mine whom I consider rational either. I just think his paradigmatic starting point - or base presupposition upon which his worldview rests - is fundamentally flawed. I hope to elaborate on this in future entries. What I will say here is that everyone bases her beliefs on a starting presupposition: a certain assumption or set of assumptions upon which every other truth claim rests. Christians, for example, start with the base assumption that god exists and can be known/understood. Someone who starts with that presupposition - like my friend Clayton - can develop a complex, coherent, and even rational paradigm (to a degree). But if that base assumption is wrong, then the rest of the worldview - regardless of how rational or coherent it might be - collapses under the weight of scrutiny.

Consider all the scientists who preceded the scientific revolution who adhered to the ptolemic geocentric model. They were wrong, for their starting point was flawed, but they were no less rational than the scientists of today. In fact, their rational process led to the furthering of our knowledge, eventually discarding Ptolemy for Copernicus.

When I was a Christian, I was - more accurately, I became over time - a rational thinker. Naturally, I credit said rationality as the reason I advanced beyond religion to atheism in the same way the scientific community advanced beyond Ptolemy, but when I look back on my previous religious self, I contend that I was a rational thinker even prior to the discarding of my faith. I simply had what I consider now to be an incorrect starting point. One can be rational yet wrong. The attempt to be rational and the process of examining evidence and drawing conclusions that make the most sense - while necessary and intrinsic to the pursuit of knowledge - are no guarantees that true knowledge will be acquired. Likewise, one can be irrational and correct. Plato compared such a phenomenon to walking in the right direction while blindfolded. The fact that one is walking down the correct path has nothing to do with the choice to wear the blindfold.

Religion is pervasive. It saturates every aspect of a believer's life. I know from experience how difficult thinking outside the religious box can be. Religion, it seems, was designed to be that way. When we attack otherwise rational people who find themselves imbued thoroughly with religion, we gain nothing by attacking their intellects. Instead, we should consider their points of view while giving them food for thought as well, promoting honest inquiry and clear communication rather than drawing battle lines. Our goal as freethinkers should be twofold: to seek truth and knowledge, and to promote peace and happiness.

Dead-Logic.com

"Why Am I a Christian?" by Clayton

2012-01-08T18:00:00.006-06:00

Clayton is one of my closest friends, a devout Christian and minister by occupation. I asked him to write an entry for Dead-Logic addressing a "simple" question: "Why are you a Christian?" I asked him to write this article for my blog for a few reasons:

One, Clayton was, as he mentions in his essay, one of my students, an Aristotle to my Plato so to speak, so to read his current thoughts - and see how they are as divergent from mine as Aristotle's were to his mentor Plato's teachings - is a curiosity to me.

Two, Clayton is eight years younger than me, and I can't help but think that I finally accepted my agnosticism eight years ago. Had I stayed on the Christian path, I think my line of reasoning would have sounded much like Clayton's (though not exactly the same). So I look at Clayton as a way of "looking into a mirror dimly" into a hypothetical parallel life - a path I could have followed but didn't.

And three, being a freethinker is about being open to ideas, scrutinizing them rationally and allowing our minds to follow the arguments wherever they may lead. I mentioned in a recent blog entry that most Christians discourage this practice, shielding themselves and other believers from non-Christian books, shows, music, websites, et cetera, which they consider a threat to their faith. Certainly a skeptic has nothing to fear from rational inquiry, so why not have an occasional post by a Christian, especially one like Clayton, who is willing to at least consider other points of view without casting judgment upon everyone who disagrees with him?

What Clayton submitted to me was quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. It's several pages long; nevertheless, it's worth taking the time to read, and while I found myself disagreeing with nearly all his main points, he also made several noteworthy comments that I think atheists should take to heart. Even the points Clayton made with which I disagree serve as rich soil from which good, thoughtful discussion and reflection can grow. So let us be scholars, for the sake of truth. Veritas Liberabit Vos.

- Bud Uzoras

Why Am I a Christian?

By Clayton

My name is Clayton. You may know me from some of Bud's posts about our conversations (here, here and here for example). It's interesting to read about myself on the site and sometimes feel like Bud's token Christian friend. Bud always does me the service of writing of me very kindly, and I'll take a moment to return the favor. My being any type of thoughtful Christian whatsoever is entirely Bud's fault. I got to know him through a small group he led in a Steak 'n Shake when he was a minister, and learned the skill of critical thinking from him. Our journeys have taken us in remarkably different directions, and I suspect that we both hold out hope that the other will come back around to our way of thinking. We joke quite a bit about religion and philosophy, and frequently find ourselves without the ability to be around each other and not engage in some type of theological or philosophical discussion, all of which are occasions that make me think, and that I greatly enjoy. I owe a lot to Bud, in the past as a teacher and mentor, and in the present as a brother and friend.

When Bud asked me to write this post I was a bit intimidated, feeling like I was being asked to walk into a lion's den. When I was younger I enjoyed the fight that goes along with debate more than I do now. I get tired of the emotionally driven attacks that come from both sides. I hear Christians talk about everyone outside of the Church as if they were an enemy, someone to be feared or pitied or laughed about. At the same time, I get on YouTube and see post after post about Christians as if they were all judgmental or foolish or irrational.

This is most difficult for me in relation to the frequent attacks on the 'heroes' of either side. For example, my favorite theologian (for now, I'm afraid I am very fickle with this sort of thing) is Alister McGrath. I read reviews of his books or comments on his debates and hear people criticize his intelligence or scholarship. In my opinion, this is simply absurd. To interact with any of this man's prolific works and not come away with the feeling that you've been inside of a talented scientific and theological mind is difficult to comprehend. He is brilliant, holds multiple degrees, and is a 'heavy hitter' in Christian theology and apologetics. Disagree with him on every point, but don't name call or doubt his intelligence. The same is true of Richard Dawkins. Too often I hear Christians, whether on YouTube or in book reviews, criticize Dawkins as a scientist. This is absolutely foolish. The man is brilliant, and I take that as being beyond arguing. I disagree with him philosophically and I wish he were better read in matters of theology, but to deny that the man is more intelligent than I would be woefully ignorant.¹

The issue at hand is one of truth, but too often it is made out to be 'us vs. them'. Again, I believe this to be prevalent on both sides of the issue. I have no doubt that some people on this site will read what I have said and will say and be offended, just as there would be some offended in the Church. If anyone is going to be honest and speak with people they disagree with, they're going to end up offending. If we are going to get to the truth of the matter of whether or not there is a God, of what the nature of reality is, we have to put away the 'us vs. them' that has come to surround the issue. C.S. Lewis said:

Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have. So let us leave behind all these boys' philosophies -- these over-simple answers. The problem is not simple and the answer is not going to be simple either (emphasis mine).²

I didn't grow up as a Christian, it's a change I made when I was about eighteen. Since then I've done a lot of reading, debating, learning and trying to understand the Christian faith. I want to share with you some of the reasons that after wrestling with my faith, after struggling with and through doubt, I have decided to continue in life as a Christian. I have endeavored to write this article through the lens of 'Why I am a Christian' and not 'Why I think you should be a Christian'. It hasn't been easy, and I've left several issues untouched or without sufficient treatment because they have not affected my personal faith journey. The intention has not been to provide any type of comprehensive apologetic but to give the reasons that I have maintained my identity as a Christian, to explain how I view some relevant issues, and to discuss how I view the Christian faith.

In this article I will frequently refer to 'what Christians believe'. This is a bit of a misleading statement. There are very few things that all Christians believe. The religion is very segmented. Aside from tens of thousands of protestant denominations, there is the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as other independent branches. Aside from official church teachings, there are over two billion Christians in the world who all hold individual thoughts and beliefs. To describe or debate Christianity is truly to try to pin down a very fragmented thing. I will talk more about this later. For the time being, when I say that 'Christians believe' such and such, I really mean that 'The way I understand and interpret the Christian faith on this matter is...'. I am not aware of any particular point of theology where I hold anything resembling a unique view, but I am also not aware of any other person or denomination who believes precisely as I do on every matter relating to the Christian faith. I have always believed that when two people agree completely, one or both of them are not thinking for themselves.

I will refer to 'non-theists' frequently in this post. The reason I do so is because I believe that truly irreligious people are very rare. There are, in my opinion, many religions that do not carry theistic beliefs, and when I am contrasting them with Christianity I use the term 'non-theist'. The terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' have come to carry too many connotations to use them in effective communication, and so I strive not to.

One further note. It is my habit to write as if my audience has only a small amount of knowledge in the area of my subject. The reason for that isn't to insult anyone's intelligence, but to ensure that no one is left behind. As I strive to write at a level that my high school students could read comfortably, please do not think that I am implying that you are simple, or that I am not informed on the subject because of my vocabulary. My intention is to be as readable as I can be.

Worldview

Before I talk about why I am a Christian, I want you to understand how I am a Christian. In other words, before I tell you about my beliefs, I want you to understand how I live.

For me, to be a Christian is to see the world through the lens of a Christian worldview. I endeavor to see everything that happens to me in my life with the idea that there is a God, and that idea changes everything. I don't believe that I belong to myself, I believe that I am someone else's work, someone else's person. This has been an evolving concept for me. As I've grown in commitment to it I have begun to change.

I've observed this change most in how I spend my time. I have never needed my hobbies less than I do now. My life used to be dominated by them. While I still enjoy my hobbies, the concept that my time isn't my own has changed how much time I feel like I need to spend on them. I read more than I ever have before. I spend time in prayer, commit myself to excellence in school and at work, because I believe that I am doing these things for someone else. I do not believe that God is angry if I spend an afternoon playing Xbox, nor is He happier with me if I spend that afternoon in prayer. But our mutual quest, my coming to more fully imitate His son, is furthered by one and not the other. And so, over time, I've gladly begun to use my time more productively.

My wife reaps more of these benefits than anyone else. She views the strength of relationships largely based on how much time they are given, and I was surprised at myself with how difficult it was for me initially that she wanted so much of my time. I have always valued solitude, time to spend on my hobbies, and my relationships with my friends. All of these are good things, but I have found myself increasingly and remarkably content with letting go of all of them as my understanding of my role as a husband has required me to. Some of this, to be sure, is that I am falling more in love with my wife as time goes on. The rest of this, I am convinced, is because I am growing in my understanding that I am not the most important thing in my life.

As this has continued, this seeing myself less (not less valuable, in many ways I see myself as more valuable now than I ever have before), and seeing others more, I cannot deny the changes in my character. This is the essence of Christian spirituality, and is the proof of my faith to me. This is why I don't know that I'll ever seriously wrestle with doubt again. My life makes the most sense through the lens of Christianity. To once again quote C.S. Lewis, "I believe in Christianity like I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."³

I know that none of this is proof to you. In fact, it may not be relevant at all. But it is important for me that you understand what I see the life of a Christian to look like. It is an ever increasing desire to see others first, to think of yourself and your own needs last. It is incredibly liberating to not feel 'owed' so many things. I am certainly not perfect. Bud is one of the people that I do not hide anything from, and he will be more than willing to agree that I do not love others perfectly. But I am growing, and that 'fruit' is part of the essence of a Christian life.

Before I go on to discuss the nuts and bolts of why I am a Christian, I want to share one more thing with you. I have come to realize that people can find a rational basis to believe or disbelieve just about anything. Three people can look at the same evidence for a crime, and one can find reason to believe one person is guilty, the second enough reason to believe another is guilty, and the third to believe that there is insufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. I firmly believe that absolutely any argument I might present here can be believed, or disbelieved, on a rational basis. My encouragement to you is to check your own motives, your own reasons for disbelief, and hold them fairly in front of you as you read. Even if you are not convinced by anything I say, I hope that you will at least understand why I am a Christian by the end.

Controlling Definitions Means Controlling The Debate

Part of the frustration of the theism debate is how wrapped up it is in agenda. The Science vs. Christianity issue is tired, and honestly I think, mostly the result of reactionary Christians in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Somewhere along the lines people on both sides started using their own definitions for things, and this is incredibly frustrating. Christians are guilty of it, sometimes even without realizing it, and non-theists are guilty of it as well.

If you can control the definition of a word, then you can largely decide a debate about it from the beginning. This is classic rhetoric or debate strategy. Unfortunately, it isn't very helpful in discovering the truth of a given matter. I want to take a bit of space to define some key terms for the discussion. I am not pulling from any authoritative source for these definitions, they are what I mean by them (or what authors I have read mean by them). One of the words that needs to be defined is Religion.

There are a lot of available definitions for Religion. It is interesting to me that most of them contain a word like 'supernatural' in them. I think that this is a misunderstanding of the idea itself that has been creeping into philosophy since the Enlightenment. If I accept religion as requiring a supernatural component, then I can adhere to a set of beliefs that inform what I believe is right or wrong, my self-worth, etc. while still attacking religion as long as my personal beliefs have nothing to do with the supernatural.

Incidentally, I don't like the word supernatural (except as it relates to one of my favorite TV shows). This is a matter of worldview. If the Christian God is real, then His interacting with the world around us is naturally part of the world around us. In other words, if God is within the realm of things that exist, then His actions are in that way natural. If there is such a thing as the spiritual, then it seems that it would be part of what we would consider natural. Supernatural is only useful as a word if you do not believe in God, and want a word to quantify His supposed attributes, activities or agents. The word itself implies that what we are talking about is less, or at least differently, real than the parts of the world that we can see, taste, touch, and measure.

A good definition for religion is this, "It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing."⁴ I use this definition mostly because I acknowledge that there are religions with no supernatural component. I was an active Martial Artist for two decades. In that time I met a lot of people who considered Martial Arts to be their religion, whether they acknowledged it verbally or not. Darwinism is another philosophy, or worldview, that I believe firmly functions as a religion. Philosophical Darwinism isn't the same thing as evolution, it's a worldview which has lead to schools of thought such as 'Evolutionary Psychology', which I will discuss briefly later.

Christianity is that religion whose adherents have faith in an uncreated God; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who created the universe from nothing, has interacted with mankind in history, sent His Son in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, who was crucified and resurrected, to begin the process of reconciling His fallen creation to Himself.⁵

And that is where the definition of Christianity ends. In fact, that is where the definition of Christianity must end, because there are so many differences in the beliefs of its adherents from there on. The most well known type of Christianity in the United States today is Protestant Christianity. There are more Protestant Christians in this country than any other kind, and it is Protestants anyway who tend to be noisiest about their beliefs.

Most people whom I have spoken to who have rejected Christianity have done it for reasons outside of the definition I proposed. Again, my experience is by no means comprehensive, but those who have left the faith have usually drifted away, or have been hurt and disillusioned by Christians, or have fixated on one particular belief of a particular church and have found it implausible.

Please indulge me on a bit of a tangent. I think that it is important for people to know that most of what our country is aware of within Christian belief outside of the definition I gave above comes from Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology had its beginnings with John Calvin after the Protestant split from the Catholic Church, and in many ways, reflects his personality. Reformed theology tends to be the home of the most severe Christian groups, the most 'our way or the highway' churches. Even those Protestant churches that do not hold to many aspects of Reformed theology find their origin in splits from it or have been heavily influenced by it. There are two other traditions which actually have a stronger historical claim to being closer to the original form of Christianity, and those are Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This is a major over-simplification of the issue and I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about any of this here. I do want to say that many people who reject Christianity are actually rejecting some form of Reformed Theology. I am not discouraging this theological tradition, I belong to a Protestant church heavily influenced by Reformed Theology, but I do think it is a tragedy that there isn't always an effort taken to see if there is a form of Christianity that better fits the specific issues that a skeptic finds implausible.

I want to clarify that whether or not you like, or find pleasant, the ideas within Christianity, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. In other words, a person who says, 'I couldn't believe in a God who would send people to hell', aside from having a dramatic misunderstanding of hell, is asking the wrong question. The question that is key to Christianity is whether or not the historical event of the resurrection took place.⁶ If so, then Christianity is true. If not, then we really don't need to bother with it at all.

In The Reason for God, Timothy Keller reasons that if Christianity were true, and not the product of any particular culture, then we would expect it to cross all cultures at some point. In other words, if a person is not made uncomfortable, or even offended, by any aspect of Christianity, then it is most likely the result of a culture similar to one's own. But if it comes from a God who is separate from any culture, then there are bound to be sticking points in each culture. Are there aspects of Christianity that offend you? The idea of hell? Of submission and obedience? Of faith? Of prayer? None of those are ultimately consequential to the 'truth'. If the resurrection happened then it means that we belong to someone else, and are asked by our Creator to conform ourselves to Him.

Again, if God is real, and if He represents the perfection of morality, wouldn't it be utterly foolish to critique Him by a human moral standard? This would only make sense if Christianity were a purely human invention. We critique philosophies made by other people all of the time, and have the right to do so. But if there is a God, we should expect that He would offend us, unless we ourselves are perfect. I know that this is not the case with me. I am not perfect, in fact, in striving to imitate the character of Jesus Christ I become more and more aware of how imperfect I am. If an imperfect being is put in the place of judging a perfect one, then we should not expect a fair judgment. I submit to you that whatever your personal qualms are about Christian faith, they bear no weight on the truthfulness or falsehood of that faith. The only thing that matters is Jesus. If He is real, then it is we who are broken, flawed and imperfect. It is we who need to change, and God is the standard.

Before I talk about Jesus, I want to define one more term: Faith. This, perhaps more than any other, is a word that each side of the Christianity discussion is in a hurry to define and demand that the other side adhere to. It is a perpetually hot topic. I feel the need to spend quite a bit of time discussing the way that I understand faith, because so many people have an issue with the concept. This is how I understand the concept.

I think that most Christians, when they are allowed to give the definition of the term, define it incompletely. When a non-theist defines the term, it usually sounds something like this: faith is believing in something without evidence. I respectfully reject that definition. The most common definition for faith that I have heard from Christians is from Hebrews 11:1; 'faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.'⁷

This isn't incorrect, but it is incomplete. It would be like me saying, "Lisa is my wife." The statement is true, but it is incomplete. Lisa is so much more than my wife, and if I were to attempt to completely define or describe her, I would have to say much more. In some ways, trying to define faith is like trying to define a human being, it is difficult to do because it is a thriving and growing thing, continually changing and different from person to person.

I want to differentiate between two kinds of faith, both of which are seen as virtues in Christianity. The first kind of faith is simply belief. In the Christian religion this means accepting the propositions of Christianity as true. A lot of people have a hard time seeing this as a virtue because we do not see believing that anything else is true as virtuous. Belief comes when a conclusion is drawn from reason after an analysis of evidence. For some people the evidence is simply, 'I have heard it on authority'. In other words, my parents told me to believe it, and so I do. I know that many people believe that this is the engine that Christianity is driven on, but that is not entirely true. It is true in the sense that there are a lot of Christians whose faith is borrowed from their parents, or another authority, but there are also those like myself who have come to faith later in life without the involvement of any such authority. In fact there was a time that all Christians were that way.

The virtue of this kind of faith comes from holding to a belief that you have come to believe is true even in the face of, not contrary evidence, but a contrary mood. Most people who come to accept Christianity as true will inevitably go through a crisis of faith. Sometimes, albeit rarely in my experience, this crisis comes from conflicting evidence gained through reason. More often this crisis comes in the form of a depression, a feeling of abandonment, an attempt to cope with a tragedy or trauma, or a personality conflict with another Christian, particularly a Christian leader, or it comes during a time in adolescence characterized by rebellion.⁸ Then, this experience which is almost entirely emotional in nature, leads a person to reject certain premises that were accepted before the mood and accept other premises that were rejected before the mood based on the difference in... well, mood. I know that it is a common thought that most people accept Christianity on an emotional basis, it is my belief that most people reject Christianity for the same reason.

It is absurd to believe that our conclusions are based entirely on reason. Everyone has observed in other people the tendency to want to believe or disbelieve something about a person, or a food, or an organization, based more on emotion or fashion than on reason. But most people are very hesitant to acknowledge any such tendency in themselves. What I take in influences what comes out. If I am led to prefer a lifestyle that rejects traditional Christian values by my environment, the likelihood of me rejecting Christianity rises considerably. This is the reverse of the 'there are no atheists in foxholes' idea. People in danger are comforted by the idea that there is a God, and their likelihood to believe that it is true rises dramatically. People in the midst of a materialistic culture discouraging chastity, selflessness, peace and patience are more likely to reject a religion that holds those things as virtuous.

The Christian virtue of faith in this first type is to keep in mind the beliefs that we have accepted to be true. Belief needs to be fed to be immune to mood changes. To put the primary beliefs of Christianity in front of you daily, to repeat them, to say daily prayers, to read the Bible every day, all help to guard this kind of faith. It is a virtue to hold onto things that you believe to be true in spite of your environment. I cannot imagine that a freethinker would disagree.

A second type of faith is derived from the Greek word pistis. Anytime you see the word 'faith' or 'believe' in the New Testament, it is from pistis. The reason it isn't always translated as 'faith' is because we have no verb form for that word in English. People don't go around 'faithing' things. So the word 'believe' is chosen instead. This is unfortunate, because it gives the false impression that instances of this second type of faith are actually instances of the first kind. The best and simplest explanation that I have ever heard for pistis is this:

Faith = Belief + Obedience

This is the idea that you believe something to be true, and strive to live in accordance or conformity with that belief. In this form, I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone would deny this as a virtue. I believe that my wife is not having an affair, that she is telling me the truth when she says that she is at work, and not with some other person. I cannot prove this to you. I cannot demonstrate empirically that this is true. I can only have faith. Now, there may be a time when I am presented with contrary evidence that may cause me to reevaluate that faith, but until that time comes it would be foolish of me to not strive to live in accordance with what I believe to be true.

I think a significant portion of the frustration associated with the idea of faith comes from those who have encountered Christians who are unwilling to consider evidence that is contrary to their faith. I agree that this is frustrating. To completely write off or deny evidence that is contrary to your current beliefs because of the fear or discomfort associated with doubt isn't faith; it's anti-intellectualism, or stubbornness, or foolishness. I think that it needs to be acknowledged that this tendency is present on both sides of the theism debate, but I take it as true that it is more commonly found among Christians than non-theists. The problem isn't faith, it's a lack of education.

How does a Christian have faith? By trying to live in accordance with the logical conclusions of the beliefs that he or she holds to be true. If there is a God, then I am not my own. If there is a God, then every human being has inherent dignity. If there is a God, then I am called to love others the way I love myself. If there is a God, then I am called to serve Him. I do not think that most would disagree with any of these 'If...then' statements. Some people may require further clarification, like 'If the Christian God is real and is knowable', but I think the idea is sound. The difference is in the belief of whether or not the 'If' statement represents reality. A Christian who lives with faith strives to be obedient to the 'then' statements that come with the 'if' of belief.

Jesus, Paul, and the Early Church

Jesus has been believed to be divine by every age of his followers since the end of his life. (I know that this is disputed... and I don't feel like it has been disputed well.) There are evidences that a Christian must be prepared to respond to which challenge the Christian faith, and ought to cost Christians sleepless nights. But, the same is true in reverse. For a non-theist to never have lost sleep over the historical Jesus, or the Apostle Paul, or the phenomenon of the early Church, cannot come from anywhere (that I can imagine) other than a lack of understanding of the issue. I am not saying I would expect any non-theist investigating these matters to pop up and say, 'ah! Now I'm a Christian!', any more than I would expect a Christian who wrestles with the reality of evil and suffering in the world to pop up and say, 'ah! There goes my faith!' Evidence doesn't work that way... proof does.⁹ Evidence lends weight to a case, provides additional data to consider, and eventually is used by a person to make a decision when proof is missing.

N.T. Wright is my favorite scholar in the third quest for the historical Jesus.¹⁰ If you are at all interested in reading what he has to say (as I would strongly encourage anyone to do if they want to take this issue seriously) I list several of his books that I recommend at the bottom of this post. The historical evidence is convincing; a man named Jesus who was associated with a place called Nazareth really did exist. There is reason to believe so from Biblical and non-Biblical sources. He really did live, preach an eccentric message that put him in political opposition to Rome and the Jews, and was crucified. I do not know of a significant number of Christian or New Testament scholars who dispute any of that. The question, of course, rests on whether or not he really claimed to be divine, whether or not he was resurrected from the dead, and whether or not his followers wrote anything down that can be relied upon today.

Most of Paul's letters aren't disputed as being genuinely authored by him, and they contribute to my faith in a few ways. First, Paul was brilliant. A person can claim that his letters are inconsistent, or ambiguous on a variety of points, but they cannot deny his brilliance. Paul uses rhetoric as a master, and spends his life starting churches with the clear belief that Jesus of Nazareth is God. Theologians like John Hick who attempt to discount whether or not the earliest followers of Jesus believed in his divinity have had to confess that Paul must be hijacking the message of Jesus¹¹, because explaining away his claims to Jesus' divinity is simply too hard to do. You may be thinking that you've read Paul, and that he does not seem to saturate his letters with the idea that Jesus is God. But this comes from a misunderstanding of the 1st century world.

Paul frequently refers to Jesus as 'Lord', which is the Greek word kyrios, best translated into English as 'sir' or 'master'. The significance of this title comes in understanding that Paul's audience was primarily outside of Jerusalem and was not using the Hebrew version of the Old Testament. They most commonly read from the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, called the Septuagint.¹² In the Septuagint, the personal name for God, commonly understood to be Yahweh, was not written directly but substituted for the sake of reverence. The word they substituted in the Septuagint was kyrios. Kyrios, in the Septuagint, is the personal name of God. When Paul attributes this word to Jesus, he is alluding to Jesus' identity as God. And there is more: Paul splits the understanding of the Hebrew God into 'Father' and 'Jesus' in his reference to the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6; he cites hymns used by the early church clearly declaring Jesus equal with God in Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20. The list can continue, the point I want to make is that Paul included Jesus in his understanding of the identity of Israel's God.¹³

Another major support for my faith comes from the earliest Church. There is a burden of proof that has to be answered here by the skeptic. The best evidence indicates that in the first twenty years after the death of Jesus, over 10,000 Jews had become Christians. This brought with it some extreme changes in their ideas of how they were supposed to live that were part of the national identity that came with being a Jew. For an incredibly nationalistic people whose faith was entwined in their identity as a people, these changes to lifestyle and worship truly are remarkable. Eating unclean food with unclean people, worshipping a man as God, rejecting the need for circumcision, a dramatic change in their understanding of the resurrection, rebellion against their spiritual authorities, the acceptance of a spiritual messianic kingdom; all of these are remarkable for a people known for their self-assurance of who their God is and what He was planning to do. What could cause something like this other than a strong belief at the time that the claims of the early Christians were true?

Ignatius of Antioch, one of the first Bishops of the Church, a student of the Apostle John, provides what is in my opinion a more compelling case. Ignatius writes his letters around the end of the 1st century on his way to his death. His claims about the divinity of Jesus, within (or very nearly within) the same century as Jesus' life, the Apostle Paul's writings, and the birth of the Church provide a magnificent testimony to the believability of the faith.

To quote a few things from Ignatius:¹⁴

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible— even Jesus Christ our Lord.¹⁵

Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.¹⁶

I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that ye attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.¹⁷

Perhaps you don't find this compelling at all, but I most certainly have. I have had (and continue to have) sleepless nights after reading some of these early Church Fathers. While they didn't have the kind of education we have today, they were in many senses more educated than we are. They were much more immersed in philosophy and critical thinking, trained in rhetoric, and all raised in belief systems fundamentally opposed to the Christian faith either because of its strict monotheism (the Greeks and pagans) or because of its flirting with polytheism and endorsement of an apparent blasphemer (the Jews). These men were not easy converts, but they were converts all the same, willing to die for their faith.

The Bible

One of the major issues that I have with so many non-theists is their complete lack of respect for the amount of education required to even begin to offer serious critique of the Bible from anything close to an informed position. The more I learn and study, the more I realize that there is to learn and study. I've encountered non-theists from a wide range of Biblical literacy; from Richard Dawkins whose critiques of the Bible have been said to reveal an 'embarrassing' lack of Biblical literacy by Christian theologians, to those like Bud who have an undergraduate degree from a Christian University, to those who have graduate education or doctorates in Biblical literature. The issue is that the wealth of scholarship or information to be dealt with is massive, and even these levels of education aren't necessarily adequate to have anything resembling a comprehensive picture of the book to be able to offer a fair critique. For one, the Bible was written over an extended period of time throughout a variety of different historical and cultural situations, primarily in two different languages, neither of which is customarily read by common people today. The ancient middle eastern cultures were wildly different in many respects to contemporary western ones, and the book itself is very long. The Bible is the primary evidence for the Christian faith, but to be able to seriously offer an informed view of it takes a wealth of time and effort that most who do not believe it to be true have no desire to take in order to determine the validity of their stance.

The massive task of learning and understanding the Bible is one reason why Christians struggle so much in the world of debate. To support something, or to defend it, you must be familiar with it from start to finish. Christians are required to learn this book before they can seriously give any defense for it. To attack the Bible, one need only hone in on one passage. Often, this strategy, honing in on one passage without acknowledgement of the whole, is characteristic of attacks on the Bible.

There is an absolute wealth of scholarship on the question of the reliability of the Bible. Words get thrown around like inerrant or infallible. You will pick up one scholar who says something like 'All responsible New Testament scholarship believes that...' and then pick up another scholar who disagrees fundamentally with nearly every assertion made by the previous one who makes statements like 'No scholar seriously believes that...'. The world of Biblical Scholarship, Orthodox and critical, conservative and liberal, is a mess.

If you've read much on the Bible, I want to say that it is important to read authors who disagree with you. I encourage Christians who are critical thinkers to read historical critical scholarship to present themselves with something to wrestle with. I'll encourage you as well to read authors who are still arguing for the divine origins of the Bible and arguing well.

The very brief comment I'll make as the strongest reason for me that the Bible has strengthened my faith is its internal consistency with its own plot-line. The more I study, the more I learn about Greek and Hebrew, and the more I learn about the historical contexts of the books of the Bible, the more amazed I am by the clear continuation of themes from the very beginnings of the Bible to its end; as if the same author was at work from beginning to end. This is made still more amazing by the fact that the themes frequently do not become clear until you get much further into the book, themes clearly not perfectly understood when the book was written.

For example; the Temple. The Temple is a theme that begins in Genesis 1 and ends in Revelation 21 (the second to last chapter of the Bible). Temple language is integral in Genesis 1; a temple is where a deity rests, and a deity rests when something significant has been accomplished. Creation is described as God's temple. Then, Abraham is made three promises, and a temple is created when each promise is answered; the tabernacle, then the Temple proper, then Jesus. The temple theme continues to include Christians, the place where God dwells with His Spirit, and continues into Revelation to imply that the New Jerusalem itself will be the new temple. The plot-line is beautiful, multi-faceted and complex, continuous from beginning to end. If I came to this book with no agenda or awareness that it claimed truthfulness, and I studied it thoroughly, I think I would come away with the idea that the same author wrote it from beginning to end.¹⁸

Transcendent Virtue

I very much have debated writing this final piece of the explanation of why I am a Christian. Mostly I have debated it because it isn't strictly true that I am a Christian because of any of this. An objective standard of right and wrong has always been intuitive for me, a thing I believed in my core to be true without having to be convinced of it.

The Christian belief is that right and wrong are present in a person's life because they are made, somehow, in the image of God and that God has imparted grace to all people in all times. Of course, there are always exceptions. Just as a person can have a genetic anomaly a person might have a moral one, but by and large people are born with some basic conceptions of right and wrong which are, I would contest, as universal as such a thing could possibly be.

To borrow again from C.S. Lewis, can you imagine a culture where it was seen as virtuous for a person to be a coward and run in fear from battle, leaving behind his compatriots? It is easy to see how evolution would pass that type of a trait on, but it is not something we see played out in any culture that I am aware of. Further, can you imagine a culture that believes that rape is virtuous? Not just that it isn't morally reprehensible, but that it is a good and noble thing for a person to go about doing? Or a culture in which men considered their wives better for having been raped, and were thankful to the rapists? I cannot.

A challenge to this particular aspect of objective morality comes from Darwinism. The theory is called the 'Sociobiological Theory of Rape'. A fascinating and very disturbing book called A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases for Sexual Coercion has been written on the subject claiming that there are legitimate evolutionary causes for rape to enter into human behavior, and we ought not to classify it by definitions of 'right' or 'wrong', but something more akin to 'desirable' and 'undesirable'.²⁰ Evolutionary psychology provides us with one logical conclusion of philosophical Darwinism, and it is a place I sincerely hope that our society is not headed. For rape to be a thing that is classified as within acceptable activity, or even to be unacceptable simply because it is no longer biologically necessary instead of being reprehensible and morally wrong, is a place I do not want to live.

I have no desire to live in a society embracing literal moral relativism, but Darwinism does not even promise us that. In a totally relative society, there are still justifiable reasons for behaving as we would today consider morally, because a person may behave any way they wish. In a fully Darwinist culture, altruism itself can be considered undesirable behavior if it is not beneficial to the progress of the species toward a goal chosen by the thinkers of the day. That society, more than any other, is one that I have absolutely no wish to be part of. And the call for the abolition of theistic religion that is present in many of the 'New Atheists' books is a step in the direction of exactly that type of society.

I believe that rape is wrong. I believe that it is always wrong, and that any justification of its legitimacy is in itself an anomaly and cannot ever be considered the norm. The charge that I've heard that the Bible endorses rape comes from a dramatic misreading (or a lack of reading) the stories in which the events are described. God never endorses rape, or ritual human sacrifice, or a whole host of other things He is accused of endorsing by those without an extensive understanding of the Bible. There is an unavoidable sense of right and wrong deeply known to us human creatures, and I do not see how that possibly makes sense outside of theism.

The greatest proof to me of my faith is love. In the Bible, the Greek word for this is agape. I hadn't really begun to understand the idea of a selfless love until I got married a few years ago. Since that time I have experienced the thrilling joy that comes from those moments where I find myself able to truly lose the need for my own satisfaction in order to benefit someone else. This is difficult to explain.

The English language is completely inadequate to discuss this meaningfully. To borrow from Greek, there are two commonly confused types of love: storge and agape. Storge is best understood as a 'warm fuzzy', something that brings you a joy that feels innocent or pure. Storge can have a varied intensity. It is present both in how we feel about our favorite Christmas song coming on the radio and in a mother who is nursing her baby. The first example serves to brighten a person's day and attitude, while the other may be the defining or greatest joy ever experienced by that human being. But both are storge. When I love someone or something because of how it makes me feel, or because I am in search of an affective reward, this is storge. Most of Christmas is this way. The warm fuzzy people call 'the meaning of Christmas' is most often no more than the internal reward they feel from spending time with family, or giving money to a good cause, or watching children open presents.

Agape is true altruism, but not for the sake of altruism. Agape is a coming out from yourself, and making someone else a priority, even when it is of absolutely no benefit to you. This is a parent who encourages their child to go away for schooling even though they will miss them greatly, because they know it is best for the child. Francis Chan, who is a sometimes controversial Christian Pastor and writer, gave all of the proceeds of his book 'Crazy Love' to the ministries in Cambodia helping to free women from the sex trade that is arguably worse there than anywhere else in the world.²¹ I don't know Francis personally, and it is possible that he is receiving something in return for that immense amount of money given as a gift, but I would wager that this is an example of agape.

I have begun to experience this myself on a regular basis only recently, and as is true of most of the things I learn which are truly worthwhile, I have learned it from my wife. In striving to be the husband I want to be, I have been able to let pieces of myself die and be replaced by something better. For mere moments in the beginning, and then more regularly (though I am by no means any sort of an expert), I find myself seeking my wife's highest good without seeking any sort of a reward, affective or otherwise. The goal is the good of my wife, and I do it because I love her, and whether I would otherwise have felt bored, or resentful, or proud, has slowly become less relevant, because it is for her good.

I fear that I haven't explained this very well, but this is what I see at the heart of the Christian life. The liberation I have experienced in letting go of myself toward my wife, or towards God, to seek the highest good without regard for myself, has made me more fulfilled than I have ever been before. I say fulfilled, not because 'happy' isn't an accurate word, but because it is deeper than that. Change happens inside of me, and I cannot explain it other than to say that I do not believe that it comes from me. To quote Anthony Hopkins from The Rite, 'there's something that keeps digging and scraping away inside me. It feels like God's fingernail.' As that continues to happen, and as I continue to grow, I encounter more and more often those Christians who are on the same path that I am, much further along, living the type of altruistic and genuinely other's centered life that I have never seen outside of the Church, and that I am skeptical exists at all outside of communities of faith.

I considered taking time to answer objections to Christianity that I hear frequently; the character of Christians, or the undefined and unmeasured purpose of prayer, or the issue between Christianity and evolution, etc. I decided not to, partly because it has all been done by others much better than I could ever manage myself, but also because I do not think it would convince you. As I said above, anyone can find a rational basis for believing just about anything, and I think that all of us people believe a whole host of things for reasons other than simple deductive reasoning. Instead, I'd like to end this with one more thought.

Please understand that I don't think lowly of those whom I disagree with. Bud posted a blog entry a while back about whether or not a Christian could respect a non-theist. The answer, in my case anyway, is absolutely yes. Both my faith²² and my personal experience lead me to this type of thinking. I read books by those whom I disagree with, or entries on blogs like this one, and am impressed by arguments. I see clearly logical thinkers, many of whom are much brighter than I am, on the other side of this discussion and value them as people. I hope that the same observation can be made in reverse.

Book Recommendations

I am not giving these recommendations because I fancy non-theists to just need to read the right book to come to an 'aha' moment and convert to Christianity. Please don't read this list as being condescending. These are books that I have read (or referenced, or have read part of) that I found to be beneficial to issues relevant to the theism discussion.

Simply Jesus by N.T. Wright. This book is a very easy read which places Jesus within his original context of 1st century Jewish and Roman influences. It is easy to read and is the best and most succinct discussion of Jesus that I have read.

Christian Origins and the Question of God (vol. 1-3) by N.T. Wright. These three volumes are scholarly works, but are strong defenses for an Orthodox view of Christianity. The third volume in particular, The Resurrection of the Son of God is the book I most recommend, if you're willing to give it the time to read it.

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. This is an easy read and can be done in a day, but it is a simple argument for Christianity. It isn't intended to tackle deeply scholarly issues, but he does discuss things like Pluralism, the problem of evil, the history of the Church, hell, Science and Christianity, the fine-tuning argument, etc.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I hate that this book is so often recommended as the 'cure for atheism'. 'Here, read this book and call me in the morning. It should clear up that pesky little doubt issue you seem to struggle with'. Please don't read this book with that kind of endorsement in mind, because I cannot imagine that you could possibly come to it charitably. Mere Christianity isn't perfect, but there is a lot of explanation for the Christian faith in there, and it is by one of the few truly original thinkers of the 20th century.

The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. This book is the best discussion I have ever read on why Christianity is not incompatible with evolution. That issue is discussed mostly indirectly, this book is about how Christians should be reading Genesis One based on its context in Hebrew history and thought.

Why God Won't Go Away by Alister McGrath. I have started, but not gotten very far, into this book. I recommend it mostly on the recommendations of others as a thoughtful discussion by McGrath on New Atheism.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. If you wonder if the earliest Christians really believed in the divinity of Jesus by the end of the 1st century, then I would encourage you to read this book.

The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis. If you wonder what Christianity should look like, this is my highest recommendation. Not because I want to subversively get you to read a book on spiritual formation, but because I honestly think that if Christians lived the way that the greatest Christian teachers have encouraged them to, there would not be nearly the venom in this debate at all. I recommend the Dover Thrift edition, it usually sells for around $3 online.

NOTES:

1. I recently made an Amazon review of Christopher Hitchen's book God Is Not Great and gave him five stars. Not one hour went by and I received a heavy criticism by a Christian for endorsing such a terrible book. The lack of charity everywhere in this discussion is terrible.

2. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. (New York, 2002), 42.

3. C.S Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?" in The Weight of Glory. (New York, 2001), 92.

4. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, Kindle ed. (New York, 2008), 13.

5. This definition is mine, it wasn't taken from any other source.

6. While peer reviewing this article for me, a Christian friend of mine whom I greatly respect disagreed with me on this point completely. Again, this is an example of how fragmented Christianity is. Again, when I say 'Christianity', I mean 'Christianity as I see it'.

7. All Bible verses are taken from The Holy Bible: New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996)

8. I don't give much weight to teenage non-theists. In my experience as a Youth Pastor it is most often the result of rebelling against the most key philosophy of their parents, because they don't have the experience or the education to seriously examine the claims of Christianity rationally.

9. I really wish that these two ideas would cease to be used interchangeably by Christians and non-theists on discussion boards. I take evidence as a fact, debated or not, which can be seen to lead to or strengthen a conclusion. Proof is an irrefutable empirical decision on a matter.

10. See Wikipedia Article here.

11. See John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate.

12. On the Septuagint, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint.

13. N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 65-66.

14. There is a debate on the reliability of some versions of Ignatius' writings. These quotes are all taken from the shortest and least verbose version of his letters, agreed upon almost unanimously as the most likely to be reliable.

15. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 52.

16. Ibid., 61.

17. Ibid., 63-64.

18. This is my plea to the reader. If you plan to offer a criticism of the Bible, take the time to get informed about it. Please do not presume that you are informed on the variety of issues regarding the interpretation or reliability of the book without serious academic study. Read from an author who believes it to be the divinely inspired word of God. If you are going to disagree with a viewpoint, you should always get your information from someone who holds that viewpoint. If you disagree with the need for that type of research, ask yourself how you feel about creationists who get their information on evolution from Answers in Genesis.

19. See Wikipedia article: Sociobiological Theories of Rape.

20. I must admit to be following a synopsis of the book I am describing. I have not read it, nor do I intend to. If this is a limitation of my understanding of the issue of evolutionary psychology, that I am not willing to read a book justifying perhaps the most heinous human action, then that is a limitation I am willing to take.

21. See an article about this here.

22. How any Christian can read Genesis 1:26-27 and not have an inherent respect for every person they meet is beyond me. No, none of us are perfect, but sometimes I wonder how much of the Bible is really believed by those claiming to be Christians.

Bibliography

Hick, John. The Metaphor of God Incarnate, 2nd Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Kindle ed. New York: Penguin Group, 2008.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.

Lewis, C. S. The Weight of Glory, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997.

The Nevermore Experiment

2012-01-06T10:30:00.003-06:00

My journey into this brave new world called the Internet began in late 1998. I had finally acquired a computer capable of Internet access, installed one of those AOL trial memberships CDs, and soon after found myself immersed in a world of chat rooms, email, and digital renderings of written documents and pictures. I inadvertently discovered what Drew Barrymore looks like without her clothes on. How little I knew about this new world. I had no idea what all the Internet had in store for me.

My story isn't unlike the story of most Christians at that time who were logging on via dial-up modem: we saw the Internet as a new vehicle we could use to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. Cutting edge evangelism. Pretty exciting stuff. I was a youth minister at the time, and I had created a monthly newsletter for our church's youth ministry called "Crossroads." Most of the articles featured in Crossroads were humerous, but I had one serious column I wrote (being the youth minister and what not) titled, "Words to Live By." I wrote about "crucial" topics like the importance of reading your Bible and why we should pray. Once I figured out how, I created a website for Crossroads, which led to other interesting online projects like the Email Bible Study and my first crack at running a message board where people could discuss all sorts of Christiany topics.

Over time, the small "Words to Live By" section of the Crossroads website grew in popularity, due largely to the 300 or so subscribers to the Email Bible Study. Indeed, the website had outgrown the small youth group of the small church where I had been the youth minister. The Internet connected me with a much larger audience.

When I left that church, the Crossroads newsletter ended as well after a two year run, and with it ended the Crossroads website; however, the Words to Live By web page (featuring regular articles by me, along with the Email Bible Study) had evolved into its own entity by then, and I continued to write. By the end of 1999, "Words to Live By" became a full-blown Christian apologetics and theology website. I also gave it a new name and URL: A180.net.

The website continued to grow, and I continued to write. By 2001 I had assembled a group of writers from various parts of the world to contribute to A180. I called this group the "Pantheon Club." I had men and women writers from various religious backgrounds, and each of them had a different perspective and topical interest, but they were all Christians of some sort, except for one, a Wiccan girl who wrote under the nom de plume "Scarlet." I wanted more variety. I wanted at least one atheist in the Pantheon Club, and maybe even a Muslim or Buddhist. I had a few atheist contacts whom I met online, but I couldn't find anyone willing to contribute articles as my token atheist writer. So I came up with an idea: I would become that atheist writer.

I chose the pseudonym "Nevermore" after Edgar Allan Poe's narrative poem "The Raven," because, like the narrator in the poem, I wrestled with a devotion that threatened to drive me mad, although my devotion was to my religion rather than a dead lover. I wrote my first atheist article as Nevermore, titled simply, "Why I am an Atheist." Thing is, I wasn't an atheist at all back then. I wrestled with doubts often, but back then I still had faith, and my "career" as an online Christian apologist was blossoming. I secretly became the atheist writer "Nevermore" for three reasons: I wanted an atheist writer in the Pantheon Club, and couldn't find one (even back then I encouraged critical thinking and being open to different ideas, even though I didn't quite have it all sorted out myself). Secondly, I felt my atheist contributor should have a gothic feel to him (don't know why). Thirdly, it was an experiment. Could I write a convincing article in defense of atheism? I believed I could, but I knew doing so would require me to "step outside of myself" and into the context and mindset of an atheist. I had to empathize, and moreover come to appreciate why someone would think being an atheist is a good thing, even if I couldn't agree with such conclusions myself.

I can't take credit for this experiment. I attended a composition class in college back in 1996 in which the teacher encouraged her students to write argumentative/persuasive papers on hot-button topics, but only if they chose to argue in favor of whichever side of the topic they opposed. If a student was pro-life with a golden cross around her neck and one of those "it's a child not a choice" bumper stickers on her car, my teacher wanted her to write about the importance of upholding Roe v. Wade. Atheist? Write about how there's no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. Vegan? Write about how everyone should eat beef. And so the class went.

I found such an exercise challenging, troubling, and thrilling all at the same time. I also understood the importance of separating oneself from one's personal preferences, bias and thought habits, and examining an issue through another person's eyes. So I wrote my paper on something I opposed vehemently: evolution. Remember, this was the 90s. I wore a black jean jacket that said "Prayer Warrior" in large red letters on the back. I was a young-earth creationist back then. For me to write a paper on evolution and make a serious attempt to support it rationally was huge. Turns out it was one of the best things I ever did.

I actually learned what a theory is, which consequently meant I discovered how silly the "it's only a theory" argument is. I had discovered how wrong all the ministers had been who taught me that evolution "wasn't scientific." For the first time, I began to understand what science is and how science actually works. Writing that paper was, to borrow the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi, my "first step into a larger world." I went from being a Hovindian young earther to a theistic evolutionist à la Francis Collins. I consider that progress.

So I conducted the same experiment with atheism, and the atheist writer Nevermore was born. Nevermore only had opportunity to write a few articles before A180.net shut down for good, but it was enough. I disappeared from the Internet in 2005, and didn't return until late 2009 due to various personal issues, including getting divorced from my wife of eight years and dealing with the subsequent fall out. As I have said before, I was too low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs to worry about matters of philosophy or theology. As I worried about bills, child support, finding a job and figuring out what I was going to do with my life, Nevermore lay dormant inside me.

When my best friend Steve died in 2008, I had an emotional resurgence of faith. Steve was a minister who started his own church, and when he died, I wanted to continue his work at that church. Steve's church was the only physical representation of my brother that I had left. Nevermore (i.e., the doubts I held and the atheistic conclusions which I slowly and reluctantly began to accept) became repressed by my emotional side.

In retrospect, I see why leaving the faith is so difficult, and why most people don't bother to even try. I visited Steve's church after he died, and felt the warmth of family, the unity of a common purpose and belief, and the comfort of repetition in ritual and oft-repeated praise song choruses. My emotions - raw from losing my dear friend and brother - found comfort there. I decided I would move back north and pick up where Steve left off.

My alter-ego Nevermore, however, knew better.

Once the emotional sting of Steve's passing dulled a bit, my rational side kicked back in, and I saw my "faith" was nothing more than desperation, a clinging to an old way of life, and a futile attempt to keep Steve alive in some form. I saw that my faith - my desperation and wishful thinking - was sustained by the repetitive and echoic conditioning utilized so famously by the church. The only emotion I felt at that moment was embarrassment. By 2009 I accepted what I tried to deny back in 2004: my faith was gone. I couldn't return to my old life of church services, pot luck dinners, weekday small group Bible studies, youth group activities, mission trips and Christian conventions. I could return to that old world nevermore.

Had personal crises not sidelined my intellectual life for four years, the Nevermore Experiment I conducted in 2004 would have most likely made me an atheist by 2005. I'm not saying every attempt to understand and try to defend a view one opposes will "convert" a person to that position. The point is, much like John Loftus' "Outsider Test for Faith" that I discovered in 2009, the "Nevermore Experiment" requires a person to step outside of her accepted belief system in order to examine the facts apart from one's typical paradigmatic filter. To qualify the cliché, "think outside the box," the box is our paradigm, belief system, or worldview. The Nevermore Experiment demands thinking outside one's paradigm.

I encourage this practice, whereas most religious people discourage it. I have witnessed time and again Christians doing their best to shield themselves and others from non-Christian books, shows, music, websites, et cetera, which they consider a threat to their faith. They discourage other believers from reading or listening to "the wrong things" that could "turn them away from the faith." When the theme of A180.net shifted from a strictly Christian apologetics website to more of an open-minded skeptical website, many of my Christian friends put a metaphoric "Enter at Your Own Risk" sign on A180.

Is faith so fragile that it needs to be constantly reinforced with ritualistic repetition, the habitual gathering together of believers for reaffirmation, the continual rejection of reason and a perpetual blind eye to anything contrary to one's faith? Yes. Christians prove this every day with their actions. They have to guard, shield and defend their faith like it's a newborn baby because faith is just as delicate, if not more so. Faith must be taught to people when they are too young or too ignorant or too emotionally-charged to think deeply enough about it; moreover, they must be conditioned to accept it. Why? Because faith is fragile. Deep down believers know this, and whether they realize it or not, they're insecure about it. The Nevermore Experiment is a threat to them, because reason is a threat to faith. A quote from Dan Barker comes to mind:

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.

Dead-Logic.com

Response to Vjack @ atheistrev.com

2012-01-04T09:00:00.001-06:00

[Vjack posted an entry today titled, Irrational Atheists, in which he wrestles with accepting the fact that atheists can be - and many times are - just as irrational as anyone else. The following is my response.]

"Atheist" is a label which implies only one thing denotatively, which is an absence of belief in god(s). The label doesn't imply rationality, or an appreciation of science, or a love of knowledge. Culturally and connotatively, the label "atheist" implies association or affiliation with a fellowship of like-minded individuals who, while not agreeing on everything, have the common denominator of possessing a desire for rationality, an appreciation of science and a love of knowledge.

Vjack wrote:

As atheists, many of us aspire to be more rational. And yet, we are still human. We are still prone to the same biases, prejudices, and cognitive errors known by cognitive scientists to be part of how our human brains function. While some atheists may be more rational than our religious counterparts on the question of gods, not all atheists arrived at or maintain their atheism through rational means. And once one sets aside the question of gods and examines other topics, one finds little evidence that atheists are any more rational than religious believers.

This is true, but I think a point should be made here, and to make this point I need to refer to the philosopher Socrates, whom - as the story goes - was declared by the Oracle of Delphi to be the "wisest man in Athens." Socrates didn't understand why the Oracle would say this, for Socrates knew that he didn't really know anything.

Eventually, Socrates accepted the Oracle's declaration, concluding that he was indeed the wisest man in Athens, for he was the only one who realized and accepted the fact that he knew nothing. In Plato's Dialogues, Socrates is the protagonist, conversing with self-proclaimed "experts" who, by the end of their dialogues with Socrates, were shown to be just as ignorant as anyone else vis-à-vis their subject of expertise. This angered many a discredited expert, which led to animosity against Socrates, which concordantly led to his execution via hemlock.

The story of Socrates exemplifies an arguably obvious truth: everyone's agnostic. We don't know whether there's a god or not. A lot of people don't know yet that they don't know, whereas only a few of us know that we don't know (Read that sentence twice. I wrote it like that intentionally). This fact is what separates most card-carrying atheists from the theists. We, like Socrates, find wisdom in the realization that we aren't wise. The first step towards knowledge is recognizing one's ignorance. The second step is to discard unsubstantiated beliefs to begin the pursuit of knowledge, truth and wisdom. That, to me, is as good a connotative definition of "atheism" as I can think of.

Vjack wrote:

Every one of us makes mistakes. We make stupid, irrational decisions that end badly. We don't always learn from our experience. We sometimes get stuck and repeat destructive patterns without realizing what we are doing. But we do this because we are human. Expecting atheists to consistently rise above the inherent limitations of our human brains is not only irrational; it sets us up for one hell of a frustrating life where nobody (including ourselves) will ever meet the standards we set.

I agree. "Atheist" isn't equivalent to "perfect" by any means, and we risk falling into the trap of hubris when atheists perceive themselves as intellectually superior to everyone else. Atheists already have a reputation for being arrogant know-it-alls. Where do you think that stereotype came from? Yes, from arrogant know-it-all atheists.

We wrestle with bias, personal preferences and desires which often get in the way of seeking truth and thinking critically. But, again, let us consider Socrates, and follow his example. Let us overcome our bias and think critically and objectively by first recognizing our bias so that we may overcome it.

If our atheism isn't grounded in both reason and humility, then our noble cause is lost.

Dead-Logic.com

2011 Twitter Recap

2012-01-04T07:40:00.000-06:00

Speaking of posting on Twitter, I thought it'd be fun to post a list of my tweets from 2011 (not all of them, just the ones I like enough to repost). I don't post on Twitter that often (other than posting blog updates), so this isn't a long list. Enjoy:

• "My ex-wife flew into a fit of rage. Well, she didn't really rage. She wasn't all that fit either." #ThingsIveSaidWhileDrunk

• "Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." - Carl Sagan

• "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -Carl Sagan

• I'm looking for this "war on Christmas" Christians keep protesting against. I haven't found it, aside from in their imaginations. #christmas

• The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Christianized): everything would fall apart explode & die without God. #atheism #science

• "What I lack in perfection I make up for in perseverance." - Me

• "I'm not trying to get you to think like me. I'm just trying to get you to think, like me." - Me

• I'm not a fan of "Blasphemy Day." I don't think it sends the right message or accomplishes anything positive.

• At a wedding. Bought a Tide pen to get rid of a stain on my shirt. Left a bigger stain. Irony.

• Just found out Harold Camping had a stroke. Guess he's trying to get a head start on Judgment Day. #atheism #haroldcamping

• To @WeCanKnow - think of the lives you have damaged. This is why we mock you. You're not just wrong, you're dangerous. #Rapture #norapture

• Hey @WeCanKnow - NOW will you start thinking critically, or will you make up an excuse to justify your crazy beliefs? #Rapture #norapture

• "Take off my pants, baby." "Fine. They don't fit me anyway." (example of conversations I have)

• “Ever have moments where you feel you’re three chapters ahead and everyone else is stuck in the prologue?” (example of conversations I have)

• "There will be no oinking on my blog." (example of conversations I have)

• Paula Deen makes me think Satan might actually be real.

• "You've met humans, right? They're fucking stupid." - Wisdom from my girlfriend.

• "Ooh, you can massage your chinchilla!" (an example of conversations I have)

• If there is a god, I bet he can't stand religion.

• Bad joke alert: Did you hear about the cat who swallowed a ball of yarn? She had mittens.

• Healthy = The slowest possible way to die.

• Anagram fun: Intelligent Design = Deleting Listening.

• "Stinky hippies are more fun than Republicans." - Liz, my ever-so-insightful co-worker.

• Beliefs that came to be during those times when humanity had such a limited view of the universe continue to limit our view of the universe.

• If you see a group that has the phrase "the family" in its title, replace it with "Christianity." You'll likely have a more accurate name.

Dead-Logic.com

My First Tweet of 2012

2012-01-03T06:57:00.002-06:00

Twitter.com/Dead_Logic

Bud's Final Soapbox Message of 2011

2011-12-31T20:17:00.015-06:00

Happy New Year, everyone. This is my final blog post of 2011. I am grateful for all the readers who frequent this blog. I've thought a lot about what I want to say, what "final message of 2011" I think is worth being the last post of the year. I think I figured it out:

Speak Out!

If the life and death of Christopher Hitchens has reminded me of anything, it's the importance of getting involved in the great conversation, speaking out, advocating critical thinking and rational dialogue with others. If we don't speak out, we will never change anything. Silence is consent: qui tacet consentire videtur.

By speaking out, by engaging the world with logic and reason, we promote a lifestyle which values truth. We remind the world and ourselves that truth matters, and each of us has a responsibility for upholding and defending the virtue of inquiry and the value of knowledge. Again, consider Hitchens: agree with him or not, his words, his actions, his life were time and again resounding reminders of how we all should live.

So get out there. Speak out. Blog. Tweet. Update your status. Post thought-provoking pictures. Participate in conversations, both online and IRL. Share links to your favorite articles and blog entries. Spread the word about your favorite bloggers (*cough*me*cough*).

Dead-Logic... Tell your friends.

Don't try to be perfect. Just be you. Don't wait till you think you're able to say everything exactly the way you think it should be said. Don't try to be the next Hitchens or Dawkins or Sagan or Tyson. Just get out there and get involved and speak your mind. Challenge others, and let them challenge you. Change your mind when you are shown to be wrong, and don't be afraid to admit it.

"I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... let's evolve, let the chips fall where they may."
- Tyler Durden [Fight Club]

Let the chips fall where they may. Stay cool, stay positive, stay active, stay vocal. Don't let nonsense and the proponents of nonsense get to you. If you don't know where to start or what to say, ask yourself this: if you knew you only had one more hour to live - if this was your final moment - if you could broadcast one message to the world, what one thing would you say? When you answer that question, then you'll know where to begin.

Dead-Logic.com

Sneaky Christian Guy is Sneaky

2011-12-29T20:38:00.009-06:00

So I got this message on my blog this evening:

This guy - let's call him "Sneaky Christian Guy" - thought it was necessary to let me know that he used my work to "lead [people] to God." He posted this message today on my blog entry, Why I Gave Up On Faith, which is interesting, since the "drawing of the columns" he's referring to is from an earlier article titled Four Columns (or, The Sermon That Made Me An Agnostic).

Nice to see that Sneaky Christian Guy is making his way around my blog.

Sneaky Christian Guy believes he really got me good. He used MY drawing to lead people to... GOD (gasp!), and there's nothing I can do! What can I say, except...

Ah, curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

Oh, Sneaky Christian Guy, people like you give me hope. You see, more and more people are starting to understand the importance of reason and critical thinking, which means people like you, Sneaky Christian Guy, with your sneaky Christian ways, are helping the freethinkers by demonstrating everything that's wrong with religious faith. Thank you, Sneaky Christian Guy, for being an example to everyone of what not to be, kinda like a religious version of Jersey Shore.

Dead-Logic.com

("betrayal" gif via bonenerd)

A message to r/atheism, re: Rebecca Watson

2011-12-28T08:58:00.027-06:00

Lately (i.e., ever since one of my readers posted one of my blog entries on Reddit), I have become a regular visitor at Reddit. I spend most of my time at r/atheism when I'm there, and, to be honest, it is always an "eat the corn, throw away the cobb" experience. No surprise. There's a lot of good stuff there, but there's also a lot of garbage there as well. Be prepared to wade through the muck in search of gold.

Rebecca Watson had a few comments about r/atheism recently in a post titled Reddit Makes Me Hate Atheists. Rebecca's article focuses on the following photo submission from a 15 year old female Redditor named "Lunam," and the many abusive and sexist comments she received:

(This is Lunam)

I won't post the comments Lunam received. I'll let you read Rebecca's article for that. I'd like to make a few initial observations instead:

1. This is an amazing story. Her "super religious" mom gives her a book by Carl Sagan for Christmas. It's a story of tolerance, understanding and acceptance.

2. Lunam wanted to share this awesome story with the atheist community. And what better place to share it than "the front page of the Internet"? I'm glad she shared her story with us, in spite of the travesty that followed in the form of comments she received.

3. Lunam is 15 years old, and into Carl Sagan. That's impressive. Most teenagers - especially teenagers nowadays in the instant gratification epoch of video games, movies on demand, YouTube and Facebook - are as deep as a puddle after a light rain, and completely ignorant of anything that happened more than 10 years ago. Yet Lunam, who has been alive for about as long as Carl Sagan has been dead, shows signs of sophistication and depth. Here is an intelligent young lady excited about receiving The Demon-Haunted World as a Christmas gift, and also appreciating the significance of the fact that her mother - a devout Christian - gave her this gift.

Rebecca Watson writes:

R/atheism is a huge community of atheists, and here is an example of a young woman attempting to join it, to get more involved, who is sexualized and mocked for being a girl. Why would she ever want to be a part of any atheist community, if that’s how she’s treated? The next time you look around your atheist events and wonder where all the women are, think of this and know that there are at least some of us who aren’t willing to just accept this culture without trying to change it.

Rebecca makes a good point. I have hope that Lunam is wise enough to understand that there are many of us out there who support her, and while even the atheist community still has problems with prejudice and insensitivity like the rest of the world, we're on the right track. We need intelligent and brave women like Lunam to help us get to where we need to be.

To the folks at r/atheism: It's obvious that your moderators don't give a flying fuck about what people post there, and since they won't do their job, it's up to you people. What's troubling about all the sexist and demeaning comments Lunam received is the high number of upvotes they received. That means a lot of people thought being abusive, sexist and belittling was just a fantastic idea. Sorry, folks, but rape and abuse jokes aren't funny. Mocking Lunam because she's young and female isn't funny. Why bother claiming to be "freethinkers," "skeptics" and "humanists" if you refuse to rise above the hateful and oppressive mentalities fostered by the dogmas from which you escaped?

I know, it's the Internet, which means we'll never be completely free of repulsive morons spewing idiocy behind veils of anonymity. I also know Reddit is a pretty wild place. I think Rebecca Watson made a misstep insofar as she didn't mention any of the many positive comments Lunam received, and making the overly dramatic statement that "r/atheism makes me hate atheists" (which I'm sure she phrased that way for effect) paints all atheists in a poor light. Truth is, r/atheism isn't all bad. There are many contributors there who are thoughtful, respectful and rational. Nevertheless, Rebecca's message is an important one, and I encourage all the thoughtful, respectful and rational folks who frequent r/atheism to discourage and downvote the bigots and sexists whenever you can. Let reason and humaneness prevail.

Veritas et Aequitas, Compatior et Libertas.

Dead-Logic.com

I Gets Comments

2011-12-27T00:00:00.003-06:00

Naturally, in a world where the majority of people still think faith is a good thing, I knew not everyone would appreciate my rendition of Tim Minchin's quote on science versus faith. Here's the quote:

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed,
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

I received a response from someone named "LHGR" who was less than pleased with this quote by Minchin. Here are LHGR's comments, followed by my rebuttal:

LHGR:

Minchin's take on Science vs. Faith is hardly reflective of critical thinking. In fact it is quite embarassing.

First of all he describes "science" as having viewpoints and the capacity to adjust those viewpoints. He then describes "faith" as a behavior. Taking his statements as written, it is an apples to oranges comparison (a living thing compared to a behavior) and therefore not a valid argument. Of course we know science is a thing, a body of knowledge and can't have views or adjust those views. Obviously, I know that Minchin's intent is to attempt to make a comparison between science and faith so I will try to say it in a way that can be considered.

Science is the product of scientists adjusting their views based on what they observe. Faith is the product of believers denying their observations so their beliefs can be preserved.

Now that science and faith are in the same form, more or less, I have another problem. Minchen's definition of science is arguably a widely accepted definition. His definition of faith is his own and is constructed to portray it in the most negative light possible. It is not an accepted definition. That makes it a strawman argument. I realize one might say he is part comedian and fires for effect. However, he clearly fancies himself as more as do his followers. If he wants to tackle big topics, it's fair to expect at least basic logic.

Hardly reflective of critical thinking and certainly not compelling. I feel safe in saying that critical thinkers on both sides of the issue would not be impressed-Hitchens, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, etc.

Me:

You don't think Hitchens would be impressed? I take it you haven't read much of Christopher Hitchens' work. It was Hitchens who said:

Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.

Hitchens and Minchin are in agreement. C.S. Lewis might have had a word to say to the contrary, but... well duh. It's C.S. Lewis: he thought the Trilemma was a good idea.

You seem to be downplaying Minchin's views because he is "part comedian." I'm reminded of the words of Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who remarked: "A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." Indeed, much of the best comedy has a strong foundation in the truth. The fact that Minchin is a comedian in no way invalidates what he says; if anything, we might want to pay even closer attention.

That said, I find your initial criticism to be pedantic and uncouth. Of course everyone knows science is a thing that doesn't, as you wrote, "have views or adjust those views." If you were to sit down with Tim Minchin for a chat you'd find he'd agree with you as well. You are criticizing a line from a nine minute beat poem, not a dissertation or formal essay. Minchin was making accomodations for both rhyme and meter, so he took a short cut grammatically. When he says "science adjusts its views..." he's saying something along the lines of, "within the discipline of science, views are adjusted, changed and/or discarded based on the evidence (i.e., what's observed)."

Yes, I took the time to type all that out, even though one could argue that all I should have said in response was: you should know better.

You suggested that Minchin's definition of science is "arguably a widely accepted definition." Let me help you understand: that is the definition of science. Naturally, one could write an essay on the definition of science, but Minchin's definition works well enough. If you need a longer definition, well, here I go quoting myself:

The history of science is one of ever-increasing understanding: old ideas are replaced by better ideas, which are eventually replaced by even better ideas. Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be "finished." This pilgrimage has no Mecca, no final destination.

Science is the embodiment of humanity's endeavor to establish truth, to question everything, and to contribute to mankind an explanation and understanding of reality arrived at through constant, unbiased, open and transparent experimentation and discovery in which falsifiability and replicability are highly valued and relied upon. Science is the child of western philosophy, and as such the child bears resemblance to the parent insofar as both thrive on a sense of wonder.

My tl;dr answer to you is: Tim Minchin knows what science is. Oh, and let me fix your attempted "fix" of Minchin's quote:

Science is ~~the product of~~ scientists adjusting their views based on what they observe. Faith is ~~the product of~~ believers denying their observations so their beliefs can be preserved.

That's more accurate.

Concerning Minchin's definition of "faith," he's basing it on a rational generalization. Perhaps you have a "faith" that differs from Minchin's definition. If so, I'd love to know what it is. But Minchin's definition is wildly accurate vis-à-vis religion. This is the faith of William Lane Craig. This is the faith that is lauded in the Bible college I attended. Time after time a believer will congratulate himself for holding on to his faith "in spite of logic." This faith is why the disciple Thomas - commonly referred to as "Doubting Thomas" - is looked at as naughty for being a doubter. Faith is heralded as a virtue while doubt is condemned as a vice. You claim Minchin is attacking a straw man. The evidence says you are incorrect.

If you want a more complete definition of "faith," here you go: Faith is the denial/ignoring/misinterpreting/downplaying of evidence for the purpose of sustaining belief and maintaining both an orthodoxy and orthopraxy which conforms to the standards of the given belief system.

If you find that the definition of faith Minchin offers (and that I expanded upon) puts faith in a bad light, you may want to reconsider the value of possessing it.

(Read the rest of the conversation here.)

Dead-Logic.com

The Four Horsemen

2011-12-26T12:00:00.001-06:00

On September 30, 2007, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sat down for an unmoderated 2-hour discussion, convened by RDFRS and filmed by Josh Timonen.

In light of our recent loss of Christopher Hitchens and how the end of the year is always a time of reflection on the past as well as a time to think about the future, I thought watching this video again - listening to these incredible minds interact - is appropriate and just plain good.

This video is provided free online by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) and http://RichardDawkins.net:

Dead-Logic.com

Christmas Break!

2011-12-23T11:00:00.002-06:00

This is my last post before Christmas.

I hope everyone has a great holiday!

[via timminchin]

(This has nothing to do with Christmas. I just put it here because it's awesome.)

The Art of Intellectual Warfare

2011-12-22T07:00:00.002-06:00

Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations.

- Christopher Hitchens

Ours is a particularly unhistorical age. It is the spirit of the times to be interested in the latest products, not only of our advancing technologies, but also of our writers and thinkers and perhaps especially of our moviemakers and musical performers. Paying attention only to the present, however, is like hearing just snatches of a conversation. Its meaning is unclear, and one is likely to give it an interpretation that it will not bear. For we are engaged in a conversation, one that reaches back to earliest times and that, barring catastrophe, will be carried on beyond us.

- Norman Melchert

There may be a limit to what the human mind can figure out about our universe. But how presumptuous it would be for me to claim that if I can't solve a problem, neither can any other person who has ever lived or who will ever be born. Suppose Galileo and Laplace had felt that way? Better yet, what if Newton had not? He might then have solved Laplace's problem a century earlier, making it possible for Laplace to cross the next frontier of ignorance... Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still call hurricanes “acts of God” are the people who write insurance forms.

- Neil deGrasse Tyson

There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly alright; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.

- Carl Sagan

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

- Richard Feynman

A.T.H.E.I.S.T.

2011-12-21T08:55:00.003-06:00

Shouldn't everyone be like this?

[via Surlyramics.com]

Dear Bill Donohue

2011-12-20T07:00:00.006-06:00

My name is Bud Uzoras, and I am an atheist. I begin my letter to you by introducing myself because, considering that this is an open letter posted on my blog, I want to emphasize that I don't blog anonymously; consequently, my atheism is public knowledge. This is significant because I know many atheist bloggers feel the need to write under the guise of anonymity. There are times I wonder whether I'd be better off writing under a nom de plume myself. You see, Bill, being an atheist is a lot like being gay: many of us are in the closet, and many, many people still hold a strong and equally irrational prejudice against us, which intimidates many atheists into staying in the proverbial closet. A lot of folks don't consider atheists to be "true citizens" or moral or "normal" - another similarity we share with the gays.

Bill, can you imagine being persecuted and ostracized like that? Yes, I know, you think atheists are in league with the devil and together we are waging a war on Christmas and Christians have it really bad, but put aside that histrionic shtick for a moment and consider what it would feel like for you to really be persecuted. Imagine what it would be like to be told you can't marry the person you love because, for some reason, genitalia is the deciding factor vis-à-vis what makes a relationship "good," or that you have no hope at all of getting elected to public office because you happen to not believe in certain claims, or that you are considered "offensive" and "hateful" just because you have an honest and educated opinion. Can you imagine what that would be like, Bill? You pretend you do, but reality speaks strongly against that self-induced delusion of yours.

Now, Bill, I know how you feel about homosexuals: you think homosexuality leads to pedophilia, and you believe gay marriage is unnatural and wrong and... just really really bad. I remember you going on about how unnatural homosexuality is and how the prong has to penetrate the socket and some such. Seems Freud's got nothing on you, Bill. You have quite the way with words.

"Talk dirty to me..."

Lest we allow your clever pick-up lines to distract us, allow me to make my point: you have a knack for discriminating against those with whom you disagree, and you have a seemingly effortless proficiency for using your religion and position to promote misunderstanding and bigotry. Case in point: the "Adopt an Atheist" campaign. It's bad enough that you're ignoring the fact that a lot of atheists are still "in the closet" due to fear (and let's not forget that a significant number of closet atheists are members of the clergy), but you take it a step further and mock attempts made to comfort these closet atheists and encourage them to come out. In an attempt to mirror the efforts of David Silverman and American Atheists, you "want atheists to realize that there may be Christians in their community, even if those Christians don’t even know they are Christian."

Yeah, Bill, I'm sure there are tons of people out there who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, second person of the Holy Trinity, and trust him as their personal Lord and Savior and have no freaking clue that any of this is going on. I can't wait to hear the testimonials that should start pouring in as a result of the "Adopt an Atheist" campaign:

"Thanks to Bill Donohue and the Catholic League, I discovered that I had been praying three times a day to Jesus, tithing 10% of my net income to the church, watching the 700 Club and looking forward to the Rapture. I had no idea I was a Christian!"

I can let all that slide, though. Go adopt all the atheists you want. Go get all "Brad and Angelina" with the heathens. Whatever makes you feel good. That said... here's what I can't let slide, Bill. You wrote:

If we hurry, these closeted Christians can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who "believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing."

If atheists are looked upon in such a way, it's because bigots like you continue to misrepresent who atheists are and what they believe and don't believe. Atheists "believe in nothing," Bill? I alone have a few hundred blog entries right here that speak to the contrary, and I am certainly not the only one. Atheists "stand for nothing"? Bill, take a good look around. Read the blogs. Go to YouTube and type in the name "Christopher Hitchens" and watch a few videos. I can recommend a few good books for you to read. I want to help you overcome this crippling ignorance of yours which leads you to utter such nonsense. What I'm saying is, I am willing to adopt you, Bill.

You say atheists are "good for nothing." I'm not surprised. You're not the only one who thinks this way, and atheists are no strangers to dealing with this kind of bigotry. Consider the words of another Christian named Bill:

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.
[William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.]

Nonsense like this is why prejudice against atheists still runs rampant. William Lane Craig - with no evidence at all to back up his claims (which is usual for him) - criticizes atheists for "loving darkness." In other words, we're atheists because we're rebellious and bad people who ignore god willfully. Bill, I suspect that when influential Christians like you and Craig make such claims about atheists, the purpose must be to reinforce the negative stereotype and strengthen the bigotry of your followers. The fact that Craig's and your claims and accusations have no evidential or rational foundation is of no concern for either of you. But I understand why: if rational thought were a priority for you it would interfere with your agenda. For you to achieve your goals, hatred, small-mindedness and bigotry must prevail while compassion, understanding, reason and tolerance must be quashed.

I'm guessing you won't read this, Bill, but that's okay. This letter really isn't for you.

- Bud

Our Belief is Not a Belief

2011-12-18T22:00:00.004-06:00

[via El Tee]

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning "punctuated evolution" and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication. (My own annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights," is a part of a continuous argument.) We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and—since there is no other metaphor—also the soul. We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.) We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true—that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.

- Christopher Hitchens

A Further Reflection on Hitchens' Death

2011-12-17T06:00:00.001-06:00

Late Thursday night is when I learned of Christopher Hitchens' passing. I was heading to bed, and (as is my habit) I visited Facebook one last time via my iPod, and that's when I discovered Hitch was gone. Sleep had to wait. I had to write something. Anything. I wouldn't be able to sleep until I did. Even after I wrote it, I didn't sleep all that well.

The next day my Facebook was filled with tributes to Hitch: quotes, images, links to articles and blog entries, heartfelt expressions of gratitude for a man who meant so much to so many. We all knew this was coming, but that doesn't lessen our sadness or diminish our loss. A great voice is gone. And, in spite of the abundance of Hitchens-related posts that have hit the Internet already, I feel compelled to add yet another to the long list. Superfluous? Hardly. For someone of Christopher Hitchens' caliber, "too much" simply isn't too much. And, speaking on a personal level, what I wrote Thursday night isn't enough. There's more to my story as well.

I started blogging in October, 2009. That particular month of that particular year is a significant time for me for many reasons; among them, October, 2009 is when I wholly resumed the intellectual journey I had started years before, which led me from Christian apologist to atheist.

I knew who Christopher Hitchens was prior to October 2009, but I never read much of his works. I knew him only as "one of those famous atheists." As I continued down the path of truth-seeking, I learned more about the man. I began to understand his mind and his thoughts, conveyed to us via Mr. Hitchens' masterful wielding of language. Indeed, Hitch embodied the proverb that "the pen is mightier than the sword." Over time, Christopher Hitchens became my greatest inspiration as a writer. Every time I sat down to write, I wanted to emulate his greatness, even though I never felt I could quite reach his altitude, and even if I could, I wouldn't be able to breathe as easily as he could up there.

His passing comes with great sadness, not only because a great man is gone, but because I didn't really know him until after October 2009. I feel robbed of time. Two years isn't long enough. Not for me. Not for someone as awesome (in the original sense of the word) as Christopher Hitchens. Yes, he has left behind so much, but I still want more. I just arrived to the party, and he's already left. I feel sadder still for those who - whether by bad fortune or blind obedience to dogma - have not experienced or understood or appreciated the wit, wisdom and wonder of Christopher Hitchens.

I feel even more sadness for those who are so blinded by religious prejudice that they see the death of Hitchens as an opportunity to peddle their religious wares. I've already expressed what I think about Albert Mohler's recent comment on Twitter. Turns out that "purpose-driven" Rick Warren is just as classy as Mohler. Warren had his own douchebag moment on Twitter when he wrote: "Hitchens has died. I loved & prayed for him & grieve his loss. He knows the Truth now." Yes, Rick, use a man's death as a tool in your propaganda machine. If Warren truly "loved" Hitch, he would be honoring his memory instead of disgracing Hitchens for the sake of "the Truth" with a capital T.

Christopher Hitchens has left the world too young, too soon, and he left us too unprepared. We need more minds like his. We need more people with his courage to shake up the entire world in the hopes of changing the world for the better. I didn't agree with everything he said, but everything he said and wrote carried the weight of his convictions, which can be expressed best in Mr. Hitchens' own words:

[via Mike Treder]

Dead-Logic.com

What an Asshole

2011-12-16T11:12:00.004-06:00

An honorable man dies, and a dishonorable man lives on...

Because Christians don't get cancer and die young, amiright? What a flaming douche canoe.

Mr. Hitchens, You Will Be Missed

2011-12-15T23:11:00.007-06:00

We have lost one of our finest. Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62. His courage and resolve in the face of death is a testament to the power of the human spirit, and an example for the rest of us to follow. His passing has left a void which no one else will ever quite be able to fill. We still have his thoughts, his passion, his wit and his eloquence in the writings and recordings he has left behind - and we are truly fortunate for having had the opportunity to see this man do what he did best - but we as a collective have lost so much: we will never hear a new "Hitchslap." We will never get to read a new Christopher Hitchens' book. We will never get to hear him ~~debate~~ completely demolish an opponent in debate. We will never again here his mastery of language, nor hear this great man utter another inspiring word. Let's raise a glass of Johnny Walker Black in his honor. We were the fortunate ones for having such a bright light shine in our midst, even if it only radiated for such a short time.

RIP Christopher Hitchens. Agree with him or not, he always made things entertaining, he always made people think, and he made the rest of us better for knowing him. He will be missed.

Dead-Logic.com

You Decide What Kind of World This Is

2011-12-14T09:24:00.004-06:00

[source]

Why I Gave Up On Faith

2011-12-08T07:33:00.007-06:00

A visitor to my blog asked me "what didn't make sense" about Christianity/theism that caused me to walk away from it. The answer is... nothing.

During my time as a Christian, I grew more and more bothered and perplexed by the problem of evil, but it wasn't the problem of suffering and evil that made me step away from faith. Yes, there were aspects of the Bible that really bothered me: the character of god (especially as depicted in the Old Testament), apparent contradictions, the ridiculousness of the story of Noah's flood, but none of those things pushed me away from faith. I became more frustrated with how science-illiterate so many believers are. The more I learned about science, the more I learned about evolution, the more I resented the egregiously anti-science stance that seems inherent to the orthopraxy of so many believers. Still, this didn't cause me to discard faith either.

The historian in me read about the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and how a religious mindset - religious zeal equalled only by dogmatic blindness - comes with the high risk of prejudice, hatred, violence and death. Some argue that religion has been a force for good in the world, and inspires people to be kind and giving. Maybe this is true for some people, but I can't help but think of a popular quote floating around the Internet that has been attributed to Jon Stewart (though many say the quote finds its true origin in Charlie Chaplin:

In spite of these concerns, this didn't make me unchain myself from faith either. Religion's terrible treatment of women through the centuries, religion's justification of slavery, religion's prejudice and hatred against homosexuals, religion's "my way or the highway" attitude: all of this made my skin crawl, and all of this broke my heart for everyone who has been hurt and scarred in the name of religion... but none of this served as the final straw that broke my faith's proverbial back.

The one thing that finally made me realize that I needed to walk away from faith... was faith.

It was faith that made me step away from faith: the fact that faith is required at all. During my time as an online Christian apologist, I searched for arguments and evidence to use to support and defend my faith rationally. Such evidence and argumentation simply wasn't there to be found. I walked away from Christianity, and ultimately from theism, because of a lack of evidence. I had no reason to stay except for comfort based on preconditioning to accept it as true. When I came to the realization that my faith lacked a rational foundation - and then realized that "faith" by definition requires a lack of a rational foundation - that's when I began to understand all those other issues that bothered me so much. Without a rational base, anything can be justified. Cast aside logic and reason, and now the moon can be comprised entirely of Spam, I can build a house made out of dance, and 2 + 2 can equal Portuguese and any freaking atrocity you can think of can be justified simply by calling it "God's Will."

"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit."
- The Tick

And that, my friends, is why I gave up on faith.

Dead-Logic.com

Glimpses of the Galaxy

2011-12-06T06:00:00.001-06:00

[R]eality is wondrous and mysterious and inspiring enough without needing to gloss it up with fantasies and delusions...
- Bud Uzoras

This is a view of our galaxy from a photograph taken in Ontario, Canada:

Here is another view of the Milky Way from a photograph taken in Iceland:

I came across these images on Reddit, and was absolutely blown away by them. I can't help but daydream a little when I think of how amazing it must be to see our world in this way, not merely as images on the Internet, but in real life. Nothing compares to the raw beauty and intensity of the natural world.

I remember camping trips with my family. I was never a big fan when I was a kid. I hated all the hassle involved with setting up the pop-up camper, the long awkward walks to the showering areas (not to mention the lack of hot water), the annoying insects, the lack of a warm bed... and no TV. I thought I'd die. I wanted to go home.

Then one night my dad and I took a walk through the woods.

We found a picnic table and stopped to rest. My dad stretched out on top of the table and stared up into space. I was scratching bug bites when I heard my dad say, "Son... look up." I craned my neck back and felt my body instantly fall backwards onto the seat of the picnic table. All I could do was lie there, lost in the myriad of stars above me. I'm from Chicago. I had never seen that many stars. I didn't even know that many stars existed to be seen. At the risk of sounding like a failed poet, the only way I can describe my experience is the same way my childhood brain described it then: I felt like I was "looking into forever."

My heart breaks for the scientifically illiterate, for those who prefer to live in Plato's Cave, who choose to trade in their sense of wonder for a security blanket woven out of illusions and false hopes. I may have grown up since that time I spent with my dad staring into the cosmos, but guess what? Because of this wonderful thing we call science, I still feel like I am looking into forever.

The word 'mundane' has come to mean boring and dull, and it really shouldn't. It should mean the opposite because it comes from the latin 'mundus', meaning the world, and the world is anything but dull; the world is wonderful. There's real poetry in the real world. Science is the poetry of reality.
- Richard Dawkins

Dead-Logic.com

"What if You're Wrong?"

2011-12-05T08:00:00.001-06:00

"What if you're wrong?" the Christian man asked me. I told him his question has Pascal's Wager written all over it. I understand why he's asking: the threat of hell is so severe, so intimidating, so eternal, and such an essential component to the "loving" message of the Christian gospel that to be mistaken about god is the worst possible mistake a person can make. After all, one's eternal fate rests (for reasons that are less than clear) on believing the right things. "What if you're wrong?" when asked by a Christian comes with the additional implied question: "You don't want to go to hell, do you?"

What if YOU'RE wrong, Christian friend? Again, your question reeks of Pascal's Wager, which of course promotes a false dichotomy. Atheism and Christianity aren't the only two options out there. What if you are wrong, and the Muslims are right? What if all the religions are wrong and god is pissed off because everyone's idea of deity is incorrect? What if you are wrong, and you've spent your time, your career, your finances, your entire life advocating a fantasy while those atheists and freethinkers you have been trying to "save" have been the ones with the firm grasp on reality this whole time? I ask not with the implied threat of hellfire and damnation, but with a compassionate reminder that reality is wondrous and mysterious and inspiring enough without needing to gloss it up with fantasies and delusions, and there are enough real problems in our world without needing to create imaginary problems. Seriously, my Christian friend: what if you are wrong?

What if I'm wrong? Then I hope god or whoever/whatever is out there is intelligent and rational and compassionate and empathic enough to understand the limits of our understanding, that I and many others like me would have believed if we had only seen reason to believe, that many of us used to believe, and didn't step away from faith because we wanted to, but because we saw it was the right thing to do.

Dead-Logic.com

Random Enlightenment From the Pale Blue Dot

2011-12-02T07:30:00.004-06:00

Sometimes, when I'm plugged in to this virtual world we call the Internet, I stumble across a precious gem worth sharing with the world. What follows are a few of those gems: some good quotes, an excellent video tribute to Carl Sagan... random stuff meant to give you some random enlightenment. Happy December, folks. Enjoy...

[via The Thinking Atheist]

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.
- Dan Barker
Skepticism's bad rap arises from the impression that, however necessary the activity, it can only be regarded as a negative removal of false claims. Not so... Proper debunking is done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise. The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency--the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known.
- Stephen Jay Gould

How on earth can religious people believe in so much arbitrary, clearly invented balderdash?....The acceptance of a creed, any creed, entitles the acceptor to membership in the sort of artificial extended family we call a congregation. It is a way to fight loneliness. Any time I see a person fleeing from reason and into religion, I think to myself, There goes a person who simply cannot stand being so goddamned lonely anymore.
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
- Dan Barker

Trillions and trillions of prayers every day asking and begging and pleading for favors. 'Do this' 'Gimme that' 'I want a new car' 'I want a better job'. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday. And I say fine, pray for anything you want. Pray for anything. But...what about the divine plan? Remember that? The divine plan. Long time ago god made a divine plan. Gave it a lot of thought. Decided it was a good plan. Put it into practice. And for billion and billions of years the divine plan has been doing just fine. Now you come along and pray for something. Well, suppose the thing you want isn't in god's divine plan. What do you want him to do? Change his plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a divine plan. What's the use of being god if every run-down schmuck with a two dollar prayer book can come along and fuck up your plan? And here's something else, another problem you might have; suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? 'Well it's god's will. God's will be done.' Fine, but if it gods will and he's going to do whatever he wants to anyway; why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me. Couldn't you just skip the praying part and get right to his will?
- George Carlin
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
- Douglas Adams

We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen, all for the glory of God and the good of souls. The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the relgious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave trade go hand in hand.
- Frederick Douglass
I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.
- Katharine Hepburn

Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life - except religion.
- Christopher Hitchens
Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred.
- Bertrand Russell
They said God was on high and he controlled the world and therefore we must pray against Satan. Well, if God controls the world, he controls Satan. For me, religion was full of misstatements and reaches of logic that I just couldn't agree with.
- Gene Roddenberry
The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans.
- Richard Dawkins

Dead-Logic.com

BONUS: Check out Mike D's awesome blog entry: The disastrous results of gay marriage, featuring a video that's gone viral (it absolutely blew up my Facebook) of Zach Wahls, a 19 year old who was raised by a lesbian couple. It's just good stuff.

Reverend Uzoras, At Your Service

2011-11-29T07:00:00.005-06:00

A good friend of mine announced on Facebook recently that her girlfriend presented her with an engagement ring and proposed to her. Knowing my history in ministry and my experience both as a minister and with performing wedding ceremonies, she told me she wants me to be the one who marries her and her fiancée. I told her I would be honored to serve as the officiant at her wedding. The thought of performing a wedding ceremony for a gay couple just makes the civil rights activist in me smile. And I love doing weddings. I am an ordained minister, after all.

I got ordained into Christian ministry in 2002. I had already been doing Christian ministry for six years by then, but the formality of "making it official" was important to people, and I had just finished up at Lincoln Christian College, so this was the next logical step. If I wanted to ever get a "respectable" ministry position somewhere (as opposed to the low-pay positions I had been working), I needed my degree... and I needed to be ordained.

Here's a photo of my ordination ceremony:

A few notes about this photo:

1. This picture isn't the best quality. My printer (which has a scanner) is packed away in my closet, so what you're looking at is a photo of a photo taken with an iPhone (and edited in Paint, because I don't know how to illegally download Photoshop).

2. The woman kneeling next to me is ex-wife #1 Becka. They had her kneel with me at the end of the service so they could lay hands on us and pray for our future in ministry together (oops). I put a Guy Fawkes mask over her face because ~~she probably doesn't want me to post pictures of her on my blog~~ I like the photo better this way.

3. Yes, that's a Star Wars tie I'm wearing in this photo. I wore a Star Wars tie to my ordination ceremony. That's how awesome I am.

4. I was ordained into Christian ministry by the elders from my home church (including my dad, who's standing to my right with his hand on my shoulder), Becka's home church, and Bob, Steve's dad, who was like a second father to me growing up.

I know people can get ordained in a matter of minutes via the Internet, but my ordination was done the old-fashioned way. In fact, people would ask me, "are you really ordained or is it just something you did online?" My ordination was - colloquially speaking - "real." I had an actual ceremony with an actual group of people in an actual church. I was required to fast for three days prior to the ordination ceremony. Other ordained ministers commissioned me, and the church elders prayed over me.

Being "really" ordained is a process in which one gets selected and set apart for Christian ministry by a congregation of believers. A lot of people - even people in the church - don't really understand how being ordained works. Being ordained means one has been set apart for ministry, recognized by a group of believers as having the character and qualities necessary for being a minister of Jesus Christ. What most people (at least most non-denominational people) don't realize is that a person is ordained until that group decides to revoke the ordination. Being ordained was intended to be a form of accountability. The believers are supposed to make sure the minister they ordained keeps "walking the straight and narrow."

For many, many churches, getting ordained nowadays doesn't involve all that because they don't realize it should. I got ordained by a church that would revoke my ordination in a heartbeat if they thought that were necessary (or if they even realized they could or should). But like I said, they haven't thought about that part of ordination, so I'm technically still an ordained minister. Of course, I'm no longer a minister of Jesus Christ; nevertheless, I like to think that I am still a minister, sans any religious connotation. I am still a minister insofar as I try to serve and care for others. I am also a minister in that I have the authority to perform certain services - including wedding services - which in itself is a form of service to others. I served as the officiant at my friends' wedding six months ago, and was honored to be able to fill that role for them.

The book I'm holding with my notes in it in this photo isn't a Bible. It's a old "Introduction to Reason" textbook. That's right. Best. Minister. Ever.

Questions concerning any legal issues involved with my friend's upcoming wedding aside (we might have to roadtrip to a state where same-sex marriage is recognized), I have the authority to perform the ceremony. I'm not relying on my Christian ordination, because I don't really put much stock in that any more. I decided to get ordained through the First Church of Atheism. Yes folks, I got ordained online. It's "real" in that it's as legal as my Christian ordination. In the eyes of the First Church of Atheism, I am Reverend Bud Uzoras. If you want a non-religious wedding ceremony, let me know. Reverend Uzoras is at your service.

If you haven't heard of this, I assure you it's not a joke. I heard about it from fellow former minister John Loftus, who is also ordained through the FCA. This "church" was started to give guys like me and John and other former ministers who have been freed from the shackles of faith a chance to utilize the skills we acquired in ministry, and to give people a chance to have the ceremonies they want to have (like, say, a wedding) without the constraints of religion imposed upon it. Hopefully soon our country recognizes that every consenting adult has the right to get married to whichever consenting adult she chooses. Hopefully the constraints of prejudice and hate will be removed soon, and reason, thought and compassion will prevail.

Dead-Logic.com

Our Money, Our Message

2011-11-26T09:00:00.002-06:00

I saw this picture on Reddit, and, considering that my entry "Allah Dolla Bills, Y'all" garnered close to 18,000 views in a period of 24 hours (which is absolutely freaking huge for lil ol' me) after one of my readers posted it to Reddit, I thought I'd share the picture I found with you here:

It seems that stamping messages on currency has become quite the popular topic on the Internet, and to think that I was one of the driving forces behind it all. Yeah, I'm awesome.

So awesome.

Joking aside though, all this talk of money stamping raises a serious concern, because our money represents who we are. Money is an integral part of our lives. "Money can't buy happiness" and "money isn't everything," but in our society, one simply can't live without money. This is why most people go to work even though they don't like their jobs. Money represents strength, security, power, and even peace.

I agree that "money can't buy happiness," but I also know what it's like to have bills scatttered on the kitchen table that I didn't have the money to pay. In that situation, more money would have bought at least a little bit of happiness. Our well-being is intrinsically bound to our money. I used to work at a bank. I saw how emotional (and consequently irrational) customers would get when they thought something was wrong with their accounts. I spent years in banking getting yelled at, insulted and threatened, because people get emotional about their money.

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.
- Tyler Durden

Tyler might be right, but people still find their identity in their jobs and the amount of money they have and the clothes they wear. Good or bad, our money represents who we are, and until we reach that point where we evolve into a Gene Roddenberry-esque world in which money becomes obsolete, that's how it will remain.

In addition to this intrinsic connection we have with our money, our legal tender represents who we are to the rest of the world. The images, messages and designs of our bills depict (ideally) who we are as a nation and as a people. What does our money communicate?

"In God We Trust" is divisive. I made this point already in a previous article, so I'll simply say here that e pluribus unum would make a much finer national motto, because it stands for everything "In God We Trust" does not: unity, tolerance, compassion and solidarity. "In God We Trust" on the other hand - like so many other things based on religion - is elitist, separatistic and biased, not to mention unconstitutional. "In God We Trust" implies that, if you don't believe in "God" (however that's defined), then you are not patriotic or a "True American." Putting "In God We Trust" on our currency and adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance reeks of McCarthyist chauvinism.

United States citizens have the constitutional right to believe as they choose, and adhere to any religion or no religion at all, according to what they decide is best for themselves. No coersion from religious elitists should ever change that, even if such coersion is disguised as our national motto.

Dead-Logic.com

Finding Common Ground

2011-11-23T09:00:00.004-06:00

I wrote about a common area of disagreement between theists and non-theists in my previous post; namely, the foundational presuppositions upon which one bases her beliefs. Drawing clear distinctions that show the actual differences between two opposing parties is crucial for any real progress to be made in conversation. I have witnessed discussions and debates in which both sides hurl verbal javelins at each other, but neither side really understands where their disagreement lies. In fact, they usually have more in common with each other than they realize (or want to realize).

I have used the ongoing conflict between the pro-choice camp and the pro-life camp in the abortion debate as an example of this. Simply put, both sides value life, and both sides value human rights. The disagreement between the camps isn't about whether humans should have rights or whether life has any value, although you might think otherwise considering all the jargon and rhetoric each side throws at each other.

Concerning the "atheism versus theism" debate, when Christians for example refer to atheists as "god haters," "Satan worshipers," or being "in denial" about the truth of god, nothing good comes of it, because the Christians aren't addressing the actual disagreement atheists have with theism. They manage to get a few jabs in on some straw men, and that's about it.

Experience has taught me that drawing clear distinctions and discovering where the true disagreement lies requires following an important rule: find common ground. Arguing is easy. Taking the time to listen and understand requires a little more work. The goal should be to find areas where you and the other person(s) agree, and build from those points of commonality. When you find common ground, you will see the points of disagreement more distinctly, and thus you will be able to address those concerns more directly. First understand, then argue all you want.

Referring back once again to my favorite Christian apologetics blog, Apologetics 315, I saw a recent post which listed 15 Ways to Detect Nonsense. Here's the list Apologetics 315 provided:

1. Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words such as all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs, or attitudes.

2. Be alert to generalizations, especially to generalizations that are not supported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual, or extreme examples.

3. Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.

4. Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance, or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.

5. Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications and complexities have been identified, that its goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.

6. Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.

7. When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless his/her credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.

8. Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.

9. Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in an argument. Avoid making assumptions.

10. Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments. When a discussion becomes heated, stop the discussion, determine the source of the problem, clarify any misunderstandings, and then bring the discussion back to the topic. When people are disagreeing, make sure that they know the specific nature of the disagreement.

11. Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.

12. Don't quibble; don't argue just for the sake of arguing.

13. Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don't say anything, say to yourself, "This is nonsense."

14. Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. Ask three questions:
- Are the statements--the premises--the points being made and used as evidence--true?
- Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
- Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
15. Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado":

The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.

The world does not need another smart aleck.

Excerpt from: Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies by Robert J. Gula

Not a bad list, I think, though numbers 10, 12 and 15 really don't have much to do with critical thinking. I appreciate the sentiment of cordiality and respect, but you can be a dick and still be rational, and I think sarcasm is sometimes exactly what's needed. Nevertheless, consider that this list is being promoted by a Christian, and although I, along with other atheists, think this Christian's beliefs are lacking severely in coherence and evidential and rational warrant, we have (assuming our Christian friend genuinely believes in what he wrote) found some common ground from which genuine dialogue can occur.

Testimony time (Can I get a witness?)...

Testify my brother!

This is the same common ground I shared with atheists over a decade ago. This list represents many of the same virtues I upheld when I was a Christian, a minister, and an online Christian apologist. I am who I am today because of these virtues. If we are going to make our stand in defense of rationality, let's embrace the common ground we have with those theists who - like I did back when I was a Christian - share the same virtues that we uphold. If this is our starting point in conversation, then we will be better equipped to challenge others (and let them challenge us) to put their beliefs and ideas to the test of reason, to indeed see whether they "come incontrovertibly from the evidence."

Dead-Logic.com

Reason Versus Revelation

2011-11-22T00:00:00.001-06:00

When non-theists get into discussions with religious people, the focus turns naturally to areas of difference; not just concerning beliefs per se, but underlying assumptions and presuppositions which serve as the foundation upon which one's beliefs rest. Most common in my experience is the distinction theists draw between "man's logic" versus "god's logic." The underlying assumption made by the theist in such a scenario is that man's logic "can only go so far," and the mind of god is far beyond our comprehension. From here, the theist either argues that this is why we need faith (usually argued in a sloppily Kantian way), or that the non-theist shouldn't rely on "man's wisdom alone."

It's been a while since I picked on my favorite Christian apologetics blog, Apologetics 315, so I'll share a quote posted recently attributed to Sir Robert Anderson that emphasizes this typical argument from theists:

[W]hile Divine truth is spiritual, and can only be spiritually discerned, human error is natural, and can be met on its own ground. We cannot “reason” men into the kingdom of God, but by reasoning we can expose errors which prejudice them against it.

Here the foundation is laid: one cannot be reasoned into the kingdom of god, which (to me) implies that one cannot reason oneself into the kingdom of god either. If this is the case, then god is (again reminiscent of Kantian epistemology) "beyond human reason."

This view merely begs the question: if god is "beyond human reason" and thus the only way to know god is via revelation (whether by the "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" or sensus divinitatis or some other form of specific divine communication), then how can we be certain of anything relating to the divine? If deity is beyond our ability to comprehend as calculus is to a five year old, then how can we know whether said "revelation" is indeed from god? How would a five year old even know what calculus is? It is, as many apologists argue god is to us, "beyond" the child's ability to reason and comprehend. The logical inference one should draw is, if god is beyond human logic and reason, then we should all be agnostics, rather than confident followers of a religion.

I have heard Christians respond to this concern by saying (as William Lane Craig says) that believers have the "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit." This is just a fancy way of saying "god talked to me" which doesn't really address the concern. How do you know it's the Holy Spirit testifying inside you? What does that even mean? I have also heard Christians say that god "opened my heart" or - as the Calvinists would say, "god made me able to comprehend and accept his truth." Again, this doesn't address the concern. God is, as the argument goes, beyond our reasoning capabilities. That implies that one cannot know whether the spirit of god is testifying, or whether god has transformed a person into a being capable of understanding. They may as well say "I felt god's presence" (and many do say that, in fact), for it holds just as much evidential value.

This justification for faith is yet another example of circular reasoning. How do they know god talked to them? Easy: they know god talked to them because god talked to them. They know god because god revealed himself to them, and they know he revealed himself to them because it was god who revealed himself to them. Duh.

In contrast, the underlying presupposition held by many who bear the "atheist" or "freethinker" label is that "human reason" is just called reason and it's pretty much all we've got. That which we can apprehend with our senses and process logically with our rational capabilities is all we have upon which to base one's beliefs. Why do we think this way? Because it's all we've seen. We haven't seen one shred of evidence for any kind of god that isn't based on an a priori assumption and/or desire. We also think this way because we have seen it work. Science is a living, growing, ever-evolving discipline of gaining and refining knowledge. We see its effects. Even those who deny or show disdain for science cannot escape her benefits. This is all the more ironic in our digital age when those ignorant and disdainful of science use that which only science has been able to produce (*cough*Facebook*cough*).

Everything we believe, know or think we know - whether correct or incorrect - we understand via our reason. How accurate our beliefs are is based on: 1) the quality of data/evidence available to us; and, 2) our ability to utilize reason. The latter requires sufficient training in logic and critical thinking. Even if god could reveal himself in a way that made sense to us, we would have to interpret that divine message with the only tool we have: reason. The pertinent question is whether we will learn to use our reason well.

Dead-Logic.com

Dead-Logic

Laughing With God

Thanks to the Grammys...

Happy Darwin Day!

Who Wants to Keep Talking About Elevatorgate?

A Magical Definition of Faith

Be Not Unequally Yoked With Unbelievers

Sam Harris on Atheism

The Eugene Gerber Series

Taking Down a Billboard

Sam Harris on Faith

One Reason Why Religion Persists...

Atheism in South Africa

Koinonia

My Christian Friend

Bonus Facebook Fun!

Last Night on Facebook

Who Am I?

Who Am I?

Seems About Right...

Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: 25th Anniversary

The True Meaning of Faith

The Right to Teach Evolution - Eugenie Scott

Please Don't Indoctrinate Me

The Meaning of Religion

A Few More Thoughts on God and Morality

Women's Rights / Theism's Wrong

Critical Thinking Sucks

Your Moment of Zen for the Weekend

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."— Carl Sagan

A Stupid Atheist Gets Offended Over Being Called Stupid

Update: Critical Thinking Sucks

Stop Internet Censorship

Transcendent Virtue

Thank You, Dr. King

The "Love Jesus/Hate Religion" Guy

Happy Birthday, Ken Pulliam

(Mis)understanding the Bible

Are Christians Stupid?

"Why Am I a Christian?" by Clayton

Why Am I a Christian?

The Nevermore Experiment

Response to Vjack @ atheistrev.com

2011 Twitter Recap

My First Tweet of 2012

Bud's Final Soapbox Message of 2011

Sneaky Christian Guy is Sneaky

A message to r/atheism, re: Rebecca Watson

I Gets Comments

The Four Horsemen

Christmas Break!

The Art of Intellectual Warfare

A.T.H.E.I.S.T.

Dear Bill Donohue

Our Belief is Not a Belief

A Further Reflection on Hitchens' Death

What an Asshole

Mr. Hitchens, You Will Be Missed

You Decide What Kind of World This Is

Why I Gave Up On Faith

Glimpses of the Galaxy

"What if You're Wrong?"

Random Enlightenment From the Pale Blue Dot

Reverend Uzoras, At Your Service

Our Money, Our Message

Finding Common Ground

Reason Versus Revelation

"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."
— Carl Sagan