tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9356396992523430812024-03-13T04:49:03.429-07:00The WorrywartThinking Again for the Second TimeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-59780918619380254292014-04-21T11:41:00.000-07:002014-04-21T12:30:40.977-07:00"Sight" Revisited<div class="MsoNormal">
Here in London Easter is a national holiday and most
businesses give you the Friday before and the Monday after off. This mean I had
a four day weekend. Needless to say I had a lot of free time. During this time
I often found myself looking back on my life and reminiscing. I listened to
songs I used to love, reread various sections of books I enjoy and I went
through my computer looking at some old writing I had done. While doing this I
stumbled ov<span style="font-family: inherit;">er a piece I wrote in 2004 the day after Easter. I first found it
interesting because I was reading it almost exactly ten years after I had
written it. What I wrote then was not a message or idea related specifically to
Easter but I did find it </span>interesting because it documented a time when I was
first beginning to move away from my faith. Now if one reads what I wrote I don’t
think that will necessarily come across. Rather what comes across is that I am
afraid. I am afraid that for the first time in quite a while I am feeling alone
or unable to see Christ in my life. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The description of fear was noteworthy because only the day
before I had written on Facebook that my move away from faith was not caused by
a feeling of abandonment by god. I was responding to a friend who commented on
one of my threads. I wrote, <span style="color: #0070c0; line-height: 115%;">“</span><span style="background-color: #fafbfb; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0070c0; line-height: 115%;">I felt god's (the
Christian one) love as well most of my life. In fact I never felt that love
disappear nor did I feel abandoned by god or any of those feelings that many
people assume I must have had to lead me to reject my faith. Rather I spent my
life studying my faith out of my love for god and desire to know him better. I
studied the theologians, scholars, monks, priests and mystics of Christianity's
history and what I found or should I say failed to find was one single
worldview or version of Christianity that actually worked and remained consist
with itself. Every version of god I found worth worshiping was one that
couldn't account for the existence of this world or a majority of the tenants
of Christianity and every god I found that could create this world and uphold a
majority of Christianity's main belief was a god not worthy of devotion, praise
or belief. Most of Christianity's short comings became clearest to me when I
viewed them through the eyes of a person outside of the faith where I discovered
a god who failed to love them as he had chosen to love me.</span>”<span style="color: #0070c0;"> </span>(<a href="https://www.facebook.com/zach.dills.39/posts/10154032913460398?comment_id=47672910&offset=0&total_comments=13&notif_t=feed_comment" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Click here to see full thread</span></a>) So here I said that I did not feel
abandoned by god whereas in 2004 I wrote that I was afraid that my sight of (connection
to) Christ was being taken from me. Obviously these are not the exact same
things, fear you are losing something is not the same as feeling abandoned but
still I found it interesting that I was reading this only a day after making
that comment on Facebook. Sometimes I think I forget just how difficult and
scary the journey from believer to non-believer was for me. When I talk about my
de-conversion now I think I often fail to give the emotional aspect of it its
proper due. The truth is that while I believe my decision to no longer be a
Christian was one that was triggered and ultimately cemented by intellectual factors
my emotions did play their part. I know there were times I was angry, lonely
and just depressed and those times are part of my story as well. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For fun I thought I would include the piece I found. I wrote
it on the 12<sup>th</sup> of April 2004. And while that isn't ten years ago to
the day it was the day after Easter just like today is. Now it would still be
five years before I decided I could no longer be a Christian yet I can’t help
but read this piece and see not only the person I was but the beginnings of the
person I would become, a person I never could have guessed I would be and a
person I wouldn't have wanted to be back then.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Please note that I have not changed anything I wrote from then
so there are a few typos as well as some other grammar mistakes but I felt I
should leave it the way it was. And yes I am scared/embarrassed to share this
because of how odd most of it sounds to me now.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So here’s what I wrote. I titled it “Sight” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #0070c0;">I find myself up at 1 in the
morning, which is not that abnormal in and of itself but for the first time in
a long time I am haunted by my thoughts to the point I cannot ignore them. My
life has been one of sleepless nights; nights filled with tossing and turning,
to awake just happy to get out of bed and away from the work of sleeping. The
past semester has been one little different except in one important area; fear.
I find myself truly afraid to turn off the TV and have to listen to my own
mind. Most nights I stay up far too long watching Sports Center two or three
times in a row until I simply pass out only to awake to the professional Table
Tennis or the 1994 Cheerleading Championships being held somewhere in Texas. I
then pull myself to bed where I instantly press play on my computer jukebox
program that provides music to drown out any last thoughts that may have
survived the numbing journey thus far. Like I said, tonight was no different
except that I am sitting at the computer typing the thoughts that would not be
silenced. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #0070c0;">I began simply uttering, “I am
afraid Christ” for that is all I had. There was no bright flash of light or
instant feeling of peace and tranquility but my eyes popped open. It was not
that I wasn't tired but my eyes just opened and I saw. I saw the pillow lying
right in front of me and I saw the shadows of the dark room surrounding me. I
saw in the dark, in the fear, I saw. And then it hit me, I've always seen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #0070c0;">Sight has been the one gift that
has most defined and dominated my life. It is a gift that was granted to me
early in my life and has always, in some way, been who I am. The day I became a
Christian, in fifth grade, it was due to sight, a sight that has followed me
every since. Every spiritual pursuit of my life has been spearheaded by sight.
My actions, my thoughts were no more than my sights. From foresight in the big
picture of the world to minor perceptions about the person who was sitting
across the table from me sharing a meal. What I see is what I know. My father
has on many occasions thanked God that I received my mother’s brains, though I
often lack his good sense, but truly all my academic success has been one of
sight. I pursued art for years and excelled in drawing, still lives and figure
drawing were my favorites, because I could see. I drew what I saw and that is
why I could draw it. I have since chased after history fascinated by people and
what drives or motivates them. The science of history is amazing simply because
it isn't a science despite what many well-to-do historians of the 50’s and 60’s
want to think. And to put it quite simply, and by this point predictably, I see
history. One scholar fights with another over the validity of one text over
another text, in which the one text contradicts the other while negating a
third text, and though it all I see history. I see the disputes of history
played out before me in the disputes of modern scholars. I see the stories, the
bias, the contradictions, the beliefs, the people, and the divine. Then, of course,
there is the series of events that change everything about who I am that began
the day I met Cynthia. A series of events that truly were, despite my spiritual
lackings, a time of unequaled clarity of thought, of will, and of desire.
Lastly, I am obsessed with humor and comedy for me, more often than not, is
simply about seeing. Seeing the simple, everyday situation in a way others
don’t. That in fact is perhaps what I am really trying to say in all of this,
my whole life I have seen in a way that others do not but only recently have I
felt like that original sight, my sight of Christ, has been taken from me. So
each night I approach my bed afraid, afraid I will never see it again and be
left with staring at the shadows surrounding me. Did it have to be taken away
from me for me to see it more clearly or is my sight to be forever exiled to
the realms of simple observations and historical inquiry?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So there it is, Zach from 2004. When I read this yesterday I
winced a little at its overdramatic nature as well as the slightly haughty tone
it seems to have, I still do. Still each
time I read this I can’t help but smile and remember my past fondly. There are
often times I wish I could go back and experience much of it again but there
are rarely times I wish I could go back and be that same person again. I’m glad
I've changed and I’m glad I've “lost” that sight that I had. If nothing else I've
found over these past ten years that not only do I not see was well as I
thought I did but that it’s okay not to “see” everything. <o:p></o:p></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-58675064680449318342013-10-14T11:33:00.000-07:002013-10-15T13:18:45.672-07:00Being a Pastor<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GwL7WMPVghc/Ulw4rP4dD3I/AAAAAAAACfc/5wIld5yimoA/s1600/Pastor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GwL7WMPVghc/Ulw4rP4dD3I/AAAAAAAACfc/5wIld5yimoA/s320/Pastor.jpg" width="299" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I just finished my <a href="http://aliensdinosaursand.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/employed-finally.html"><span style="color: blue;">first week of work</span></a> in over a year. Since I moved to London last November I have spent a majority
of my time filling out forms and going through various avenues in order to get
my marriage visa, which would allow me to work here in the UK. I finally got it
all worked out about 3 months ago and then began searching for work only to just
find a job last week. During this long search it has been hard not to look back
and wonder where I might be if things had gone a little differently. When one
examines my resume, particularly my education it’s easy to see that what I was
really trained to be was a Christian pastor or minister. The truth is getting a
master’s degree in theology from an evangelical seminary really does not
provide you a lot of opportunities for work outside of a church. University level teaching could be a
possibility but to do that I would have to continue in my education and get a
doctorate, which at this time is not possible so currently I’m kind of stuck in
the middle. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I look at the role of a pastor I can’t help but think
that despite that fact that I am no longer a Christian I would still be really good
at the job. I know the bible, I know the proper doctrine/dogma of the church
(multiple ones) and I know what the Christian god(s) wants from his followers.
Further I know I can present these things to congregants in a way to
interest/challenge them. Beyond just Sunday sermons I believe I would be a good
leader, counselor, delegator, budgeter and friend. Perhaps most strangely I think that despite my lack of faith I would still have fun being a pastor and work
always seems to go better when it is something you enjoy doing. Not to mention
I could make quite a bit of money doing it, certainly far more than in any of
the other jobs I seem qualified for at this point in my life.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The teaching a pastor does must be challenging because the
pastor has to teach the congregation the proper doctrines, which they as
believers have already accepted as true and make them seem new or fresh. Of
course this isn't true for all pastors and congregants. Some people like coming
to church both to hear the same things over and over again and to know that
they are hearing the same things over and over again. But most of the newer
evangelical types of churches are led by pastors who are trying to make
Christianity seem new and modern. They are trying to take old doctrines and put
a new spin on them in order to show people how these things can relate to their
modern life. I know this because I did this for most of my life and as I said
before I think I would still be quite good at it. In a way pastors are trying
to make things that most people find boring more interesting. The pastor must
provide the shorthand version of the church’s biblical and theological
teachings and do it in such a way that none of the congregants walk away
questioning why they believe such things. Now don’t get me wrong the
congregants should walk away from a sermon with questions but those questions
should surround how they can change their lives to better match the church’s
teachings not whether those teachings are true. Similarly the congregants
should not walk away with any reason to doubt their beliefs but rather they should
walk away only doubting themselves, their lifestyle and their lack of faith.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the key ways to accomplish all this is through guilt.
The pastor must make their congregants feel guilty so that they can than
provide the “good news” and bring a sense of comfort to their congregation.
This use of guilt provides the pastor a way to hold the listeners’ attention,
to stir their emotions and to peak their interest all while staying within the
tight framework of their doctrine. Also by creating and sustaining a need that
only the church can fill it ensures people will constantly come back for more. Still
a pastor cannot focus solely on the bad or they might lose members of their
church. No, the pastor must balance the good and bad in their message very
carefully and remember that people usually want to feel better in the end.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The pastor must also function like the church’s blanket and
insulate its members from other beliefs that might challenge their own. Now
some pastors are better at this than others. Usually the ones that are better
are the ones who don’t insulate themselves from conflicting beliefs but rather
study things that oppose what they already believe and preach. But those types
of pastors are difficult to find. I think most pastors are like their
congregations in that any time they actually spend in study is used to study
books or ideas that they already agree with, which at best will provide them
new ways to say the same things. Now this is understandable because people only
have so much time in their life and most people want to use it to do things
they already like doing not looking around to see if there is something they
are missing from their life.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I believe most pastors are quite genuine with what they do.
They truly believe what they are teaching and think that they are doing their
god’s will. They are seeking out their god and trying to hear that god’s voice
and teach others what they find. The problem is that they restrict what they
can find from the outset by already deciding what their god can and can’t tell
them. If they hear a voice telling them to study and obey the Qur'an well that
clearly isn't their god whereas if they hear a voice telling them they must
raise money for a new church building than it must be their god or at least it
can be. Granted any voice they hear will likely only tell them things that already fit within their framework of belief since the voice is really coming from their own mind. One of the hardest things for me to realize as I grew up was that when
you limit what you study and where you search for answers you predetermine what you can learn in your spiritual
journey and the journey becomes quite limited even hollow.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, beyond the teaching, the study and the guiding comes
the money. The fact is while most pastors won’t or can’t admit it one of the
most important measures of success for their job, like most other jobs, is the
money. If the coffers are full than they are doing their job well whereas if they
coffers are empty than they are not doing their job well. Now I certainly don’t
think most pastors are in it for the money, I know I wouldn't have been. But
the fact is that they need the money and whether people choose to notice it or
not after every sermon the collection plates are passed around for the
congregation to donate and thus validate the pastor’s message with money. This is
one of the reasons why a pastor must be careful what they preach because even
though it is really their job to say the same things over and over each week
they must not say it in a way that bores their congregation because the money
will stop coming in. Conversely the pastor can’t be too wild or controversial
because they don’t want to push anyone away nor do they want to produce
questions or doubts that may lead to a divergence from their set doctrines and
thus a decrease in church attendance also leading to less money.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So would I be a good pastor? There really is no way to know
but I believe I would be. I'm surprised how often I find myself thinking even dreaming about being a pastor because
it’s a job that involves things I like doing and things that I believe I would
be good at. Also sometimes I just miss being in church and having that
community to share things with. Plus I can’t lie it would be nice to make more
money, which also happens to be tax free. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-38384667700940633502013-09-19T02:18:00.001-07:002013-09-19T02:18:46.200-07:00A Return to Writing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3cuJOBuwhBc/Ujq_tfvxYVI/AAAAAAAACe0/fY_6ki007ms/s1600/return-to-work.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="103" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3cuJOBuwhBc/Ujq_tfvxYVI/AAAAAAAACe0/fY_6ki007ms/s320/return-to-work.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
It has been over two years since my last post. During this
time I have moved from California (Sacramento) to China (Shenzhen) and from
China to the UK (London). I also had a
few stops in Colorado (Denver) while waiting for various visas to clear.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I stopped writing this blog in part because I became busy
with other things as I’m sure anyone who tries to keep up a blog can relate
with. But I also stopped writing because in a way I stopped caring enough about
what I was writing to keep doing it. This blog began as a blog about my time in Korea but soon
morphed into a blog dealing with issues about religion, faith, philosophy and
the like. I wrote from the perspective of a person who used to be a bible
believing, Christ following, Evangelical Christian. I believed almost everything
my churches had taught me and thought it was my mission to carry that message
to the rest of the world. After years of dedicating my entire life to the
Christian faith (one version of it) and seeking ‘God’ everywhere I could,
particularly in the study of history, philosophy and the bible I had to give up
my faith as I discovered the beliefs of my youth simply were not true.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Leaving the church and my faith was difficult. My entire
life had revolved around these things since I was a child and everything I had
done and studied up to that point had been for and about these things. As I left my faith
I found myself drowning in school debts for degrees that prepared me for
nothing except work in the church. I was also lonely as I lost most of my
social life and my Christian friends just couldn't be my friends in the same
way anymore. In many ways I felt I had been robbed of much of my life and so I
began blogging about my experiences hoping to engage with others who had had
similar experiences as well as those who were still Christians in hopes of
“helping” them escape their faith as I had. This led to many interesting blogs
some of which were fairly harsh in criticizing Christianity. But after a year
of writing about these things I became less passionate about what I was writing
and thus found it difficult to keep writing. In a way I think up until now this
blog has served as a source of release and healing for me. It allowed me to
express my frustrations with my past and many of the beliefs I had held. Then
as my frustrations began to wane so too did my desire to write about
Christianity, religion or other faith based topics. In a way I was tired of
“fighting” about these things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But in the past few years I have found that while much of my
anger about my past has dissipated my interest in these topics has not. I still
enjoy reading about religion, church/biblical history, philosophy and modern
science. And while there are times I
still feel a bit annoyed with believers I don’t have the same need to
compete/fight with them over these issues. Now perhaps the one time I still
want to “fight” is when religion crosses paths with politics and those of faith
try and impose their beliefs on others. When that happens I can get quite riled
up again. But for the most part I find I am much more relaxed about these
issues than I was a few years ago.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So I come back to this blog with the intention of once again
writing about issues of religion, faith, history and so on but I hope to write
about them with less hostility than I previously did. Now I’m sure there will
be times when things may get heated with various readers just due to
the personal nature of these topics but for the most part I hope this blog will just be a place to encourage critical thinking, open dialogue and humor. I will
be offering my own thoughts on various topics and share other people’s ideas
that I find worth examining whether I agree with them or not.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I encourage anyone who chooses to read this blog to offer
their own thoughts on anything and everything because I have found that I tend
to learn the most by interacting with other people. I had made some good
friends through this blog as well as some good competitors and hope they will
return. Further I hope many new people will show up and help me once again have a
fun blog about hard issues. <div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-22953099628124182752011-06-03T22:00:00.000-07:002011-06-03T22:00:47.510-07:00Taslima Nasrin - A Simple Truth<div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9GrqWMQuFUw/Tem74_zTuvI/AAAAAAAAA7A/oY8rPECtnzU/s1600/Taslima+Nasrin-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9GrqWMQuFUw/Tem74_zTuvI/AAAAAAAAA7A/oY8rPECtnzU/s320/Taslima+Nasrin-1.jpg" width="235" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">"If any religion allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can't accept that religion.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>-Taslima Nasrin, Bangladeshi Author<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 4.8pt;"></div><div style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt;">I have to agree with Taslima and so I say, “so much for the god of Abraham.” Those are all things that the Abrahamic god both supports and commands. Sometimes I look back and can’t believe how long it took for me to reject Christianity. When one simply steps back and examines the fruit of religion, monotheism in particular, it is just so painfully obvious what a moral pit it is and what a monster the god of Abraham truly is. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Abrahamic god fails almost all tests of reason but it is his huge moral failings that led me to reject him and that I hope will led others to do likewise so that we may focus on making the world a better place here and now for all of us rather than waiting for some person of faith to destroy the world as the god of Abraham so eagerly awaits to do. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br />
</span></div><div style="line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Taslima Nasrin</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>is an author who rose to global fame by the end of the 20th century owing to her feminist views and her criticism of religion in general and of Islam<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in particular. She currently lives in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Sweden<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>after expulsion from<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>India where she was denounced by the Muslim clergy and received<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>death threats<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>from<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Islamic fundamentalists. She works to build support for secular humanism,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>freedom of thought,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>equality for women, and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>human rights<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>by publishing, lecturing, and campaigning. </span><o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-79862411136890432312011-06-03T20:27:00.003-07:002011-06-16T19:15:29.564-07:00Mother Teresa: Not as Good as She Would Have Us Believe - An Excerpt from God and His Demons a book by Michael Parenti<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">This blog is about Mother Teresa and how her image as a saintly woman sacrificing herself for the good of others is not well-rounded and requires a true blindness to all of Mother Teresa's words and actions. Mother Teresa has a much darker side that did not gain the public attention it deserved. This writing is by Michael Parenti and comes straight out of his book "God and His Demons" It can be found in Chapter 8 titled Mother Teresa, John Paul, and the Fast-Track Saints. It provides more examples of the danger of blind faith and how it makes it so easy to <em>not</em> do what is actually best for people here and now in this life and leads to needless pain and suffering. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PfSc_ygs414/Teml_6qMRZI/AAAAAAAAA68/r8sMzS67aWk/s1600/Mother+Teresa-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PfSc_ygs414/Teml_6qMRZI/AAAAAAAAA68/r8sMzS67aWk/s320/Mother+Teresa-1.jpg" width="277" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">Michael Parenti writes the following:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">During his twenty-six year papacy, Pope John Paul II elevated 483 individuals to sainthood, more saints than any previous pope. Just as he packed the College of Cardinals with ultraconservatives, so did he attempt to populate heaven’s pantheon itself.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><b>MUST WE ADORE HER</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">One personage John Paul beatified but did not live long enough to canonize was Mother Teresa, the media-hyped Roman Catholic nun of Albanian origin who was courted by the world’s rich and famous and showered with kudos for her “humanitarian work” with the poor. What usually went unreported were the vast sums she received from sometimes tainted sources, including a million dollars from convicted Wall Street swindler Charles Keating, on whose behalf she sent a personal plea for clemency to the presiding judge. When asked by the prosecutor to return Keating’s gift because it was money he had stolen from small investors and depositors, she never did. (1) Teresa also accepted rich offerings from a Duvalier dictatorship whose wealth was siphoned from the Haitian public treasury. (2)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Her “homes” for the indigent in India and elsewhere, usually described in the media as “hospitals” and “clinics,” were actually hospices in which seriously ill indigents were afforded a place to die. (3) One young doctor, Marcus Fernandes, was taken aback by the substandard conditions. He pointed out that many of the inmates were not dying from fatal diseases but suffering from malnutrition and could be saved if fed a modestly improved diet that included vitamin supplements. But he could not persuade Teresa, who showed no interest in medicine or in treating patients with vitamins. Dr. Fernandes also unhappily discovered that expensive medical equipment donated to Teresa was left to rust, completely unused. (4)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A disillusioned British volunteer at Teresa’s Calcutta center concluded that the “standard of health care was atrocious.” Jack Preger, a Catholic doctor who had worked with Teresa, reported that “needles for injections are simply rinsed in cold water after use and passed from one patient to the next. And patients with TB are not isolated, despite the highly contagious nature of the disease.” (5) Wendy Bainbridge, a British nursing nun who had worked at mainstream hospices, was stunned by the squalor and lack of minimal amenitites at Teresa’s establishment. There were no aids to mobility, no toilet paper. “The toilet was an open gutter running behind the washroom and waste was washed away with a bucket of water.” (6)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">Dr. Robin Fox, later the editor of the prestigious medical journal the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lancet</i>, wrote a sharp criticism of the medical practices at Teresa’s Home for the Dying in Calcutta. He complained that suffering inmates were denied strong analgesics. Nuns and volunteers lacked basic tests to distinguish the curable from the incurable. Their lack of medical training encouraged potentially fatal errors. The failed to provide minimum comforts and did little pain management. They sometimes overmedicated to a dangerous level while missing opportunities to offer simple but effective treatments. (7)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Other visitors testified that Teresa’s hospices were “unsafe” and provided “neither proper nursing nor loving compassion.” Suggestions for improvement regularly went unheeded by Teresa. When one of her nuns was asked, “What do you do for [patients’] pain?” she replied, “We pray for them.” (8)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">On one occasion, when staff members asked Teresa to try saving a teenager on the verge of death, she blessed the boy and said, “Never mind, it’s a lovely day to go to Heaven.” (9) One young volunteer recalls that on the infrequent occasions when surgery actually was performed at the hospice, anesthesia was not provided, it being considered too costly. Instead attendants told patients, “Pain is Christ kissing you.” (10)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">When tending to her own ailments, however, Teresa preferred anesthetics over Christ’s kisses. She checked into some of the costliest hospitals and recovery care units in the world for state-of-the-art treatment, including angioplasties, CT scans, pacemaker implants, a personally designed spinal brace, and lifesaving heart surgery. (11)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">When a Union Carbide plant spewed lethal pesticides over Bhopal, India, in what was history’s worst industrial accident, killing over twenty thousand (at last count) and seriously injuring an additional hundred thousand, Teresa made a brief media-saturated appearance, walking among those who suffered agonizing burns in their eyes and lungs, saying “forgive, forgive.” The luckless victims and their families were being asked to harbor no ill feeling toward the criminally negligent corporation. Teresa then swiftly departed Bhopal, never sending in her order, the Missionaries of Charity, to assist. (12)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Teresa journeyed the globe to wage campaigns against divorce, abortion, and birth control. When visiting Egypt she urged housewives to “have lots and lots of children”—at a time when the Egyptian government was trying to promote family planning to counter the nation’s population explosion. On numerious occasions she said she would never allow families that practiced contraception to adopt any children from her orphanages. (13) At her Nobel award ceremony in 1979, she announced that “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” And she once suggested that AIDS might be a just retribution for improper sexual conduct. (14)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">Her concern for the unborn child was matched only by an indifference toward the living child. What social conditions caused hundreds of thousands of children to die of malnutrition and disease in Asia and elsewhere was a question that failed to win her attention. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><b>BENDING THE BOOKS</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Teresa gave no accounting of the many millions of dollars she gathered from donations across the world. One nun who handled funds in New York estimated that there must have been $50 million in one Manhattan bank account alone. Additional bank deposits were reportedly kept in London and the Vatican. The bulk of her money was believed not to be in India because Indian law required auditing of accounts. (15)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">In 1993 the Co-Workers, an organization of lay helpers who raised substantial sums for her, were required as a registered charity in the United Kingdom to produce accounts of their finances. Teresa suddenly and swiftly closed down the entire organization and announced that all future donations were to be funneled and announced that all future donations were to be funneled directly to her Missionaries of Charity. This decision, she assured everyone, reflected “the will of God for the Co-Workers.” (16)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Teresa produced a continual flow of promotional misinformation about herself. She claimed that her mission in Calcutta fed over a thousand people daily. On other occasions she jumped the number to four thousand, seven thousand, and nine thousand. Actually her soup kitchens fed not more than a hundred and fifty people, six days a week. She said her school in the Calcutta slum contained five thousand children when actually it enrolled fewer than one hundred.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">As one of her devotees explained, “Mother Teresa is among those who least worry about statistics. She has repeatedly expressed that what matters in not how much work is accomplished but how much love is put into that work.” (17) Was Teresa really unworried about statistics? Quite the contrary, she consistently produced numbers that inflated her accomplishments. All her statistical “errors” went in a direction favorable to her.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance and nutritional centers in India, but longtime Calcutta resident Aroup Chatterjee, who did a highly critical investigation of her mission, could not find a single such center. Rather than building new hospitals, orphanages, and schools, or upgrading the ones she had, Teresa spent many millions on convents all over the world and on training priests for missionary work. According to Chatterjee, shiploads of clothing and food donated to Teresa from abroad were often expropriated by the nuns and their families in India or sold off to local merchants for income rather than distributed to the needy. (18)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">Over the years there were numerous floods and cholera epidemics in or near Calcutta, with thousands perishing. Various relief agencies responded to these disasters, but Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity were nowhere in sight except briefly on one occasion. (19)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">When someone asked Teresa how people without money or power can make the world a better place, she replied, “The should smile more.” She herself was rarely seen smiling. During a press conference in Washington, DC, when asked, “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?” she indicated that poverty was a soul-cleansing experience for the poor: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion [suffering] of Christi. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” (20)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Mother Teresa is a paramount example of a “saint” who supposedly assisted the poor but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">without every bothering to ask why they were forced to live as they do</i>. She caressed poverty rather than opposed it. The poor were her pets and her props. She uttered not a critical word against social injustice or against those in power. One of her former nuns describes her as “colluding with wealth.” (21)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">Teresa spent as much as eight months a year traveling abroad, quartering at luxurious accommodations in Europe and the United States, jetting from Rome to London to New York in private planes. (22) While counseling victims to suffer patiently, she herself was known to have been impatient and unforgiving with her staff over petty matters. The two times I saw her on television, she sounded more like a crabby scold than a loving saint. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">When Teresa died in 1997, the denizens of Calcutta did not turn out in any visible numbers to attend her funeral. Her burial procession rolled through empty streets. The impoverished population apparently felt they owed her nothing and most and never even heard of her.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">After Teresa’s demise Pope John Paul II waived the five-year waiting period usually observed before beginning the beatification process leading to sainthood. The five-year delay is intended to ensure a sober evaluation, after which any claims made on behalf of a candidate are subjected to critical challenge by an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">advocatus diabolic</i>, a “devil’s advocate.” John Paul brushed aside this entire procedure. In 2003, in record time Teresa was beatified, the final step before canonization.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 12pt 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;">A few years later, her canonization hit a bump in the firmament when it was disclosed by Catholic authorities who investigated Teresa’s diaries that she had been continually racked with disbelief: “I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist,” she wrote. “People think my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God will fill my heart. If only they knew.” She goes on: “Haven means nothing” and “I am told God loves me—and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul…I have no Faith.” Rome’s popular daily newspaper, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Il Messaggero</i>, commented: “The real Mother Teresa was one who for one year had visions and who for the next fifty had doubts—up until her death.” (23)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><u>Endnotes</u><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Hitchens, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice</i> (London/New York: Verso, 1995), pp. 64-71.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Christopher Hitchens, “Teresa, Bright and Dark,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Newsweek</i>, August 29, 2007.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->For a sharply critical view of Teresa’s hospitals, see Aroup Chatterjee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa: The final Verdict</i> (Kolkata, India: Meteor Books, 2003), pp. 196-97, 224, and passim.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Anne Sebba, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa: Beyond the Image</i> (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997), pp. 59-61.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Both the volunteer and the doctor are quoted in Chatterjee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 188-97.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Sebba, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, p. 142.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 127, 135-36.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 141-42, 148, 152.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Observer</i> (UK), August 26, 1990.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The remark of the student, Ajanta Ghosh, was reported to me by the writer Heather Cottin, October 30, 2007.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Chatterjee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 189, 209. 385.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Washington Post</i>, December 11, 1984; Deepak Goyal, “Bhopal: 20 Years Later, the Misery Continues,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Siliconeer</i>, December 2004.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Sebba, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 227, 231.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Mother Teresa, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1979, <a href="http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html">http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html</a>, and Hitchens, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Missionary Position</i>, pp. 88-89.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Sebba, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 227, 231.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">16.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 106-107<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">17.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Chatterjee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 19-22.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">18.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->All the information in the above paragraph is from Chatterjee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 23, 32-33, 92, 106-107, 157, 170, 179-80.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">19.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Ibid., pp. 332-33<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">20.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Hitchens, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Missionary Position</i>, pp. 11, 95.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">21.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Sebba, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 218<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">22.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Chatterjee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mother Teresa</i>, pp. 2-14, 95.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">23.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Serena Sartini, The Night of Silence,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Inside the Vatican</i>, November 2007; Bruce Johnston, “Mother Teresa’s Diary Reveals Her Crisis of Faith,” <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml</a>; and Hitchens, “Teresa, Bright and Dark.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">24.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><a href="http://www.odan.org/escriva_to_fanco.htm">http://www.odan.org/escriva_to_fanco.htm</a>, and Curtis Bill Pepper, “Opus Dei, Advocatus Papae,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nation</i>, August 3-10, 1992.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">25.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Edmond Paris, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Genocide in Satellite Croatia</i>, 1941-1945 (Chicago: American Institute for Balkan Affairs, 1961), pp. 201-205, passim; also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How the Catholic Church United with Local Nazis to Run Croatia during World War II: The Case of Archbishop Stepinac</i> (Washington, DC: Embassy of the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia, 1947), posted August 2, 2004, <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/stepinac1.htm#11">http://emperors-clothes.com/croatia/stepinac1.htm#11</a>. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">26.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Eamonn McCann, “The Other Side of Miraculous Monk Padre Pio,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Belfast Telegraph</i>, October 25, 2007.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">27.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">28.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Barry Healy, “Pope John Paul II, a Reactionary in Shepherd’s Clothing,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Green left Weekly</i>, April 6, 2005.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">29.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->As reported to me, October 29, 2007, by political scientist James Petras, who interviewed civil war survivors.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">30.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Tracy Wilkinson, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Los Angeles Times</i>, October 29, 2007.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">31.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->RAI report, “Rissa a Roma tra giovani dei centri sociale e fedeli dell’Opus Dei,” October 28, 2007.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">32.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gordon Zahn, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In Solitary Witness, the Life & Death of Franz Jagerstatter</i> (Austin: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">33.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i>, May 14, 2005. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-5788984365729061922011-05-23T12:55:00.000-07:002011-05-23T12:55:25.882-07:00Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Book Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NAhOFWJQJAI/Tdq60TybDSI/AAAAAAAAA64/zmSU0Hea0cE/s1600/Dawkins-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NAhOFWJQJAI/Tdq60TybDSI/AAAAAAAAA64/zmSU0Hea0cE/s320/Dawkins-1.jpg" width="207" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;">I recently finished reading one of Richard Dawkins’ books called “<i>The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.</i>” The book was great for offering a clear presentation of what evolution actually is and the verified position it holds in the realm of scientific knowledge. Before this book the only other book I had read by Richard Dawkins was “<i>The God Delusion</i>.” I was assigned to read “<i>The God Delusion</i>” in a philosophy course I took while at Fuller Theological Seminary. Out of curiosity I looked back and found a short book review I wrote about “The God Delusion” for the class. I wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 130%;">Reading Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” has been of great interest for me. Dawkins writes very clearly and with conviction about his thoughts making his book easy and fun to read. His expertise in biology cannot be ignored and he brought to light many things I had previously misunderstood about natural selection and he uses this knowledge and his experiences to move into analyzing questions outside of the realm of biology and he does well. His use of and understanding of history is for the most part laughable and I admit makes it harder for me to take him seriously but when it comes to science I know I would come across as awkwardly has he does when discussing the humanities. So it is Dawkins arguments from science that I take most seriously.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 130%;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Dawkins addresses Cosmological, Ontological, and Teleological arguments about the existence of God. He spends most of his energy upon the teleological arguments seeing them as truly the only valid ones worth refuting. This is another point where Dawkins spurns chances to gain a wider audience. He so clearly writes off cosmological and ontological arguments that he comes across as if he doesn’t understand them himself. Throughout the book he belittles theists who argue against natural selection or atheism whose arguments prove they lack an understanding of the issue. And when Dawkins speaks of these arguments of the existence of God, in particular the ontological argument, he comes across in exactly the same way. The temptation is then to write off everything he says the way he has clearly done with the numerous philosophers and theologians who have discussed these issues. But this cannot be done for again he offers important insights that must be addressed and valued.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">I would be like to have a meal with Richard Dawkins. I would want to begin by thanking him for explaining the subject of Darwinism, in particular, natural selection to me in a clear and understandable way. I would desire to discuss the specific arguments he makes to better understand his line of thinking. In many cases I agreed with his process and his conclusions. It is his ultimate conclusion that there is no God, which I clearly disagree with. I do not believe it is possible to ‘prove’ the existence of God and if we did find something that we could measure and quantify and point to as God it would no longer be God. Similarly I agree with Dawkins that even if we could ‘prove’ God existed we would have no way of knowing which god existed. I would challenge Dawkins presentation of his material because his condescending tone often distracts from the arguments he is making and he often doesn’t give conflicting arguments the attention they deserve. I would definitely contest Dawkins understanding or lack of understanding of history. His use of history to forward his arguments is shaky at best and for the most part just plain wrong. He often quoted authors who said something that he liked but never legitimates their authority on the subject or demonstrates the complexity of the claims and issues being dealt with. At times the authors don’t even make the point he thinks they do. Unlike with science, the simplest answer is not usually the correct one when it comes to history; people are just too complicated for that. It would be a fun meal from which I would certainly be frustrated, challenged, and confused, but I would be better for having had it. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in; text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 130%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;">I wrote this in January of 2008, which was about a year before I myself stopped believing in God, specifically the Christian version I was raised on so it was interesting for me to see how I was approaching the issue of God’s existence when I read Dawkins book. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;">The significant difference between “The God Delusion” and this book “The Greatest Show on Earth” is that “The God Delusion” focused on issues of philosophy, theology, history and science to deal specifically with the issue of God’s existence whereas this new book is solely a science book meant to introduce the facts of evolution that, sadly, are more often than not unknown or outright denied by a majority a people in America. So Dawkins potential weaknesses as a historian or even a philosopher do not show themselves in this book rather his mastery of biology and understanding of anthropology, geology, physics and astronomy are displayed. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;">Now even back when I was a Christian I came to accept the validity of evolution because the simple fact is it just cannot be denied by any educated person. At this point it is like denying that the earth revolves around the sun or claiming that the earth is the center of the universe. And while experts still debate the particulars of evolution the theory itself is an established fact. But despite my acceptance of evolution I can’t pretend to say that I understood it very well. My understanding of evolution was on par with my “understanding” of Einstein’s theory of relativity or DNA or black holes. I know these things exist and I know they are true but if one asked me to explain them I would not be able to. So too with evolution I have known for a while that it was true without knowing many of the particulars about it. This book was a great introduction into that topic and provided wonderful material for those seeking to better understand what evolution is and how it works. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span>With that said it is sad that this type of book still needs to be written. The facts it presents are things regular high schoolers should be learning in class but many of them, particularly in America, are not. Dawkins gave a great analogy at the beginning of the book to explain what biologists and anthropologist and other scientists have to go through when dealing with deniers of evolution. He compared the biologists fight to prove the validity of evolution before they can actually do their job (teaching or research) to a Latin teacher who faces the constant burden of having to prove the Roman Empire existed before she is allowed to teach or study Latin. Despite all the obvious evidence surrounding these people they continue to deny the existence of the Roman Empire and thus continue to hinder the Latin teacher from actually dealing with important issues in her field. This analogy made Dawkins perspective very clear to me. I could fully understand the frustration and general weariness that would come from continuing to deal with people who remain unwilling to acknowledge the truths of evolution that are so obvious and thus encumbering your actual work. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 130%;">So I would recommend this book to anyone seeking a better understanding of evolution and the process of natural selection. I would of course encourage those who do not accept the fact of evolution to read this book so they at least have a better understanding of what they are rejecting and then perhaps ask themselves why they believe the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun? My guess would be it is because they were taught that. The Copernican revolution took place early in the 14<sup>th</sup> century and yet there were people who denied it for over a hundred years afterwards. Eventually truth wins out and so too in the future evolution will simply be accepted by everyone and taught the way it already should be but that does not make it any easier right now for those of us left dealing with evolution deniers who might as well still claim that the earth is flat. I am grateful that scientists like Dawkins are writing books like this but I do hope they will not need to much longer and that they will be able to devote more of their time to more important issues then “proving” what has already been proven. <o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-75514556807859932162011-04-26T08:53:00.003-07:002011-06-29T08:24:17.077-07:00Can a Good God exist? An Atheist and a Christian Debate the Problem of Evil (4 and Final)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sH5MOtKYYdY/Tbbo6Qe_t8I/AAAAAAAAA6w/iJzZUs1zO5E/s1600/Epicurus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sH5MOtKYYdY/Tbbo6Qe_t8I/AAAAAAAAA6w/iJzZUs1zO5E/s320/Epicurus.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">(click <a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/2011/03/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">here</span></a> for Charger's previous post)</div><div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">(click <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">here</span></a> to see the beginning of this discussion)</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;">This will be my third and final response to the Charger on the Problem of Evil. (I originally introduced the Problem of Evil and I have had three responses to the Charger after that, that’s why the number 4 is listed in the title) Before I had even read the Charger’s most recent piece I had told him that I was going to use this response to wrap up my side of things. This discussion has dominated a lot of my time for the last three months and I have other things I need and desire to work on. Now after reading the Charger’s most recent response I will be making this my last piece for another reason; this discussion is simply not going anywhere. Due to multiple faulty assumptions, clear misunderstandings and basic confusion this dialog has ended up being far less helpful for those interested in exploring the Problem of Evil then I had originally hoped it would be. At the end of this piece I will add a few links to some essays and articles that will give people a much better look into the Problem of Evil than can be found here if they are truly concerned with this topic.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;">Now in my previous response I noted multiple times that the Charger had missed something or skipped something from my first piece. He seemed to just ignore various issues that I brought up. He continued that trend in his most recent blog but I finally understood why due to how the Charger begins his response. After merely two paragraphs the Charger said, “<span style="color: #002060;">since the Worrywart is asserting that the Problem of Evil proves that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on him to prove that his arguments are valid. I don’t have to prove anything—I merely have to rebut his arguments in order for the theistic position to succeed. And if both of his arguments (the logical and evidential problems of evil) are rebutted, my opponent loses this debate, regardless of anything else that occurs in this debate.</span>” The second I read this it was like the light bulb finally went on for me as to why the Charger’s pieces were set up the way they were and why they seemed so incomplete, he didn’t believe he had anything to prove. How or why the Charger has made this mistake I do not know but when discussing the existence of God it is in fact the theist who bears the burden of proof not the atheist. David Eller explains the issue of the burden of proof very well in his book “Natural Atheism”, which helps expose the Charger’s error here. Eller says:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0.3in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;">“It is often mistakenly asserted that Atheists must prove their case; when an Atheist states that he or she does not believe in god, a Theist will respond, ‘Can you prove there is no god?’ Even worse, the occasional sophisticated Theist will meet you with the argument that ‘you cannot prove a negative.’ However logically and rhetorically, the Theist is wrong on both counts. A simple formulation of the burden-of-proof concept is that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the party who makes a claim has the burden to prove or justify that claim, not the party who questions the claim</i>…In the case of a religious argument, it is the Theist who makes the claim about god’s existence or attributes, and therefore it is he or she who must back up that claim. So, when the Theist asks you to prove there is no god, you are under no obligation to do so whatsoever. Further, it is not true that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unnecessary to prove a negative</i>, but if you can, then the case against the claim becomes even stronger, perhaps conclusive. For example, if someone accuses you of a crime (that is, makes a claim of factual truth), you can prove the negative (your innocence) by providing an alibi, producing witnesses who saw the event, or otherwise proving the impossibility or self-contradiction of the accusation. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0.3in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;">In fact, let us pursue this analogy, for the American courtroom is a model of evidence and argument procedures. Let us imagine a prosecutor who asserts a charge, like ‘X did the crime’ or ‘There is a god.’ The charge is the positive claim—a truth claim that the statement embedded in the charge is true. The defense attorney rejects the charge as untrue. In our system of justice, we maintain that one is innocent until proven guilty. So the prosecutor must present his best evidence and argument for the truth of the charge. The defender can and in most cases should refute that evidence and argument as best he or she can and even introduce counterevidence and counterargument if possible. However, it is in the final analysis unnecessary that this be done. The defender could sit with feet up on the table without uttering a word, and ideally if the prosecution does not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant goes free. In other words, the defense (the ‘negative’) has no burden on it—literally, nothing to prove. Notice too that, since guilt naturally means the truth of the initial charge and innocence means its falsity, the presumption of innocence equates to a presumption of falsity: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a claim is false until proven true.</i>” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;">So despite the Charger’s claim it is in fact he who bears the burden of proof. If we use the courtroom analogy than this discussion between the Charger and I that began with me presenting the Problem of Evil would be like beginning a trail in the middle with the defense (atheist) going first presenting what is counterevidence (the Problem of Evil) to the prosecutor’s (theist) accusation (God exists). The fact that we started in the middle does not somehow change who bears the burden of proof when discussing God’s existence and that is the theist. Atheism is in fact obligatory in the absence of any evidence for God.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;">Now by me beginning this discussion it meant we began as if the Charger had already made some sort of rational argument for the existence of God though of course he did not. I accepted that assumption (that the Charger had made some sort of pro-theist argument) when I began this discussion but that did not somehow make belief in God the default position that needed no evidence to support itself. It was never assumed that God existed rather the only shared belief by both parties when this discussion began was the existence of evil/suffering. The Charger was then to prove why it was rational to believe his God existed despite suffering and I was to present my case as to why I felt suffering made it irrational to believe in the Charger’s God (all-good, all-powerful, etc.). The Charger’s mistake here prevented him from actually dealing with most of the issues I raised. He spent the majority of his pieces fighting the logical problem of evil and then trying to apply those deductive arguments to the evidential problem of evil as well. I truly do not understand why the Charger thought he only had to make his God logically possible to “win” this debate? No matter the reason it has made this exercise fairly disappointing. I feel we really missed an opportunity to discuss some of the harder issues theists face when looking at the suffering that exists in the world. Really due to this fact the Charger did not offer much that was new for me to deal with in his last piece. I could in fact say “see my previous piece” in response to most of what the Charger said here. The fact is <span style="line-height: 150%;">the Charger believed he had nothing to prove and so not surprisingly he proved nothing. </span>Still I will go through and reiterate what I previously said and add some more comments.</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">I) Logical Problem of Evil </span></u></b><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">There is little to say in this section of great significance. I maintain that an all-powerful, all-good God who was only capable of creating the world as we know it with the evil and suffering it now contains and the evil and suffering that will be maintained throughout eternity due to the existence of hell should have not created anything at all. It shows a lack of responsibility that would be similar to a couple deciding to have a child knowing that they would not be able to take care of it. The Charger seems to want creation to be the source of some “greater good” that would not have been possible without creation but that is problematic given that his God is supposed to be perfect lacking nothing. If creation and humanity enabled some “greater good” to exist that did not and could not exist when God was alone then God cannot be viewed as perfect goodness. Rather God would have lacked some “goodness” on his own. This of course goes against traditional views of the Abrahamic God who is said to be perfect and complete in and of itself not needing humanity in any way but rather he choose to create us for his own glory. To me God’s decision to create this world merely for his own glory, knowing the evil that would follow and endless suffering awaiting the majority of humanity, displays a fairly self-involved being who was more interested in what creation (humans) would be able to do for him rather then what the consequence would be for that creation (humans).</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">II) The Evidential Problem of Evil</span></u></b><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">In this section the Charger ignores a vast majority of what I said in my previous piece and merely repeats his arguments from his previous blogs, which were arguments that did not actually deal with the evidential problem of evil. There really is not a lot for me to do in this section except remind the readers what I have already said and again point out the Charger’s mistakes. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">In the Charger’s section “How much is too much?” he ignores or does not understand the standard which I gave him and then refuses to offer any possible theistic solutions for the examples of evil and suffering that I provided. The standard remains the same “too much evil” = “pointless/gratuitous evil”. As a theist he does not believe there is any pointless suffering and so YES he must offer proofs for that. What greater good was accomplished by the tsunami that hit Japan? Or the number of Jews, in fact the number of all the people, who died in the Holocaust? Or the multiple rapes committed by </span>Robert Burdick? Those are all places where I see suffering that did not unveil some magic goodness that was not possible without them but I could be wrong if the Charger would simply show me. This is where the weakness of the Charger’s position flares up again and again, he simply refuses to deal with actual examples of suffering and evil. Explain to us what “greater good” came from these events to justify your beliefs. Or at least provide some <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rational</i> reason to believe that these events allowed for some greater good besides just the fact that you want that to be the case. <span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;">The fact remains that the evidential problem of evil does not seek to deal in absolutes (God cannot exist) but rather in probabilities (God does not likely exist). Now at the beginning of the section the Charger actually reminded his readers of this saying, “<span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;">Unlike the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem only tries to prove that God probably doesn’t exist.</span><span style="line-height: 150%;">”<span style="color: #002060;"> </span></span>But then he goes on and seems to simply forget or dismiss this fact. The question in this section is, “is it rational to believe in God?” To answer this question one must deal with actual examples not merely logical propositions. But the Charger continued to harp that, “<span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;">my opponent hasn’t ever proven that there is such a thing as “gratuitous” evil.</span><span style="line-height: 150%;">” He seems determined to simply ignore the proofs I’m giving him saying that it is logically possible that I am wrong. Of course it is logically possible I am wrong it’s also logically possible that he is wrong but we are not talking merely about logically possibilities here we are talking about rational probabilities in this section. Is it more rational to believe some “greater good” came from Robert Burdick’s multiple rapes or that there was suffering that was in fact pointless? Is it more rational to believe that every single person killed, hurt, and affected by the tsunami in Japan is in fact better for having gone through that suffering or that there was in fact suffering that did not produce “greater goods”? The Charger continues to merely assert “greater goods” come from evil but he refuse to offer any rational for that belief or to deal with any of the specific examples of suffering I have provided. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger wants to pretend that my thoughts here are circular, which is of course false. He also accuses me of making an argument from ignorance (true until proven false), which I find funny because it is in fact he who is doing this. This is not fully his fault because theism in fact encourages arguments from ignorance. Instead of rejecting a proposition if it is probably false, the theist accepts it because it is not certainly false. The fact is that a majority of the Charger’s piece is based on arguments from ignorance. One can see that here; he argues that if we cannot know for certain that gratuitous suffering exists and that it remains logically possible that it does not exist then he is rational for assuming that it does not exist no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. But that is not how one arrives at rational beliefs rather that is how one tries to justify irrational beliefs. The Charger cannot rely on deductive arguments here rather he must deal with the evidence. Yes, one can argue that it is logically possible that there was some “greater good” that occurred due to the Holocaust but that does not solve the evidential problem of evil or even deal with it. The question is; is it rational to believe that the Holocaust produced “greater goods,” the lack of which would have created a worse earth than if the Holocaust had never happened? Can one truly account for every person who was killed; every person who was hurt (physically and emotionally); every possession that was destroyed; and every life (animal/plant) that was wiped out? I think one would be hard pressed to do so. Rather I think that it is far more likely to see that yes there was in fact suffering that occurred that did not somehow make the people or situations involved better and no the world would not be a worse place had the Holocaust not occurred. But if the Charger thinks I’m wrong he should have actually tried and explain why offering rational explanations for these events rather than ignoring them and pretending like there wasn’t even a problem.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Until the Charger is willing to leave the safety of the logical problem of evil and come down into the dirty mess of the evidential problem of evil than he cannot pretend to have offered any solution or rebuttal to the evidential problem of evil. The fact is that in all of his responses he has offered no possible answers to the problem besides “I don’t know but neither do you so I must be right” (argument of ignorance) which I find fairly disappointing. </span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">III) Theodicies</span></u></b><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger begins his theodicy section by claiming he has won the argument and thus his theodicy section is not even really necessary. Of course based on the numerous mistakes he made in the previous section on the evidential problem of evil and his overall unwillingness to actually deal with the issues every theist must deal with to prove God’s existence this claim is false. He then asserts that all his theodicies must do to succeed is present a case where his God is logically possible. This remains inaccurate and I just do not understand why the Charger continues to assert this when it is clearly not true. When this whole discussion started we were supposed to discuss both whether the existence of the Charger’s God was logically possible and whether belief in his God was overall rational. The Charger has spent all his time focused on the first issue, his God’s logically possibility, while ignoring the second issue, his God’s rational probability, despite the fact that I said multiple times it was the second issue that I was more concerned with. The Charger can continue to claim his God is logically possible but that does not make belief in his God rational nor does it make belief in his God desirable. <span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Free Will Defense </span></u><span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Free will remains the key to everything the Charger argues in his theodicy section so I will make a few comments here. The biggest issue throughout this section is that the Charger continues to focus on what is logically possible while I focus on what is most probably meaning what is rational. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">God and Free Will</span></u><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">I had previous noted that the libertarian free will that the Charger is so desperate to maintain for humanity is a free will that his God does not actually have. One can look at my previous piece for all my arguments. I will not repeat them because the Charger does not actually deal with them. He simply repeats that it is logically possible for his God to exist and create this world. But the fact remains it is also logically possible for a God to exist that created a better world so rationally speaking if God really is all-good which world would one expect God to make? I would lean towards a better world. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">A large problem for the free will defense is that if there is in fact no logical contradiction involved in saying that God could have made people who always <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">freely</i> chose to do what is right then God in fact should have made that world and the free will defense collapses. Just as in the Logical Problem of Evil the Charger was only responsible for demonstrating a logical possibility for the coexistence of evil and God (all-good, all-powerful) here the atheist need only show the logical possibility of humans who always freely chose to do what is right in order to defeat the free will defense. I addressed this in my previous piece but see this <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/andrea_weisberger/depravity.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">this essay</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 150%;"> by Andrea Weisberger for a great layout of this issue. She deals with the free will defense as presented by Alvin Plantinga and Clem Dore showing the weaknesses of both. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Heaven </span></u><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger maintains that in heaven being in the unfiltered presence of God will keep people from choosing to sin while maintaining their free will. The question of course becomes “why doesn’t God do that now here on earth?” The Charger responded that if God were to allow people into his unfiltered presence on earth, unlike in heaven, he would be forcing himself upon us against our will as in the crime of rape. I gave multiple examples to demonstrate what I see as the weaknesses in his argument. First, I said that God showing his presence to people on earth cannot be compared to rape by the typical theist (Abrahamic God) as there are numerous biblical examples of God showing himself to people like Paul and Moses. With these examples the Charger said that these people sinned after they were no longer in the presence of God whereas in heaven people remain in God’s presence and thus will not sin. Now that is fine but he did not explain why God showing himself to them and changing the direction of their lives here on earth was not equal to rape as he said it would be if God exposed him presence to everyone on earth? These people’s apparent exposure to God greatly affected their lives and led them down the “proper” path God willed for them. So again why doesn’t God merely do the same for all of us? Why would this be considered rape for some and not others? Second, I argued that being in God’s unfiltered presence cannot be thought to be enough to keep people from sinning as people who were in God’s presence still chose to sin. Adam and Eve and Satan were my main examples here. The Charger believes, like Paul and Moses, Adam and Eve only sinned because they were no longer in the presence of God. I find the Adam and Eve story to be a bit more complicated than that since the in theory at the time they were perfect and before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they were actually incapable of knowing that disobeying God was “evil”. Then with the Satan story the Charger is unable to give any reason why Satan and a third of the angels who had always been in God’s presence would suddenly decide to rebel against God the way Christian tradition teaches. The Charger says perhaps the devil had a onetime choice and for some reason God took away his influence for that moment. Why would God do that? Will he do that again in heaven? If he will not remove his influence in heaven to make sure people don’t sin why would he have done it in that moment to allow Satan to sin? Again we are left with a God whose presence, according to the Charger, could “influence” us not to sin without affecting our free will but who for no apparent reason decides not to do that (help us) until a certain time in the future when he will favor a small group of people in heaven over the majority of humans who ever existed who will burn in hell. So my question is; does this God who is “logically possible” equal a God who is rational to believe in? Again I would say no. I would even go further and say that this God is not even desirable considering a different God (also logically possible) could have done better. <span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Hell<i> </i></span></u><span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger claims that people will retain their free will in hell. In fact he says most theist believe that to which I would say he should do some more research, particularly historically, because I have not found that to be the case. Historically hell is a place where one’s freedoms are withdrawn from them and they are forced to suffer in numerous ways for eternity with no ability/freedom to make it stop. He then compares the ability to leave hell to the ability to fly pointing out that the bible says sins will not be forgiven in the age to come. He says, “<span style="color: #002060;">In hell, we no longer have the ability to choose Christ.</span>” So clearly there are choices that are no longer possible due to the fact that God removes those choices so why did God not remove certain choices before all these people were sent to hell to prevent this eternal evil from existing? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Historical Weakness</span></u><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Here I will add that when it comes to the Charger’s free will argument church history is simply not on his side. Numerous parts of scripture and teachers of the church have taught that God’s sovereignty outweighs human freedom. The Westminster Confession states, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” John Calvin said that the damned are damned “by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible judgment.” And Martin Luther says, “The highest degree of faith is to believe He is just, though of His own will He makes us…proper subjects for damnation…If I could by any means understand how this same God…can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith.” The list could obviously be much longer but the point is made. The fact is theists have never agreed among themselves upon the existence or extent of free will and if they cannot come to any sort of consensus how is an outsider observer supposed to understand what kind of God these theists are claiming exists and then decide if that God is rational to believe in? The God the Charger is presenting to me is not the same God many other theists have presented to me. And these other gods remain “logically possible” but many Christians today reject them because it has become more obvious how horrible such “logically possible” gods are. The type of God the theist usually forwards is a type of God that matches up best to the morality and ethics of the time period and culture in which that theist is in. I admit I like the Charger’s God better than some of the gods different theists have forwarded throughout history but at the end of the day his God remains a “logical possibility” (still irrational) that is a moral disappointment and unworthy of actual devotion or worship. <span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Free Will Theodicy</span></u><span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Here the Charger continues to maintain the free will is so highly valuable it outweighs the evil consequences that come from it. Here I continue to simply disagree with the amount of value the Charger places on complete libertarian free will. And then I go on to point out numerous ways God could have made the world better without affecting a person’s libertarian free will at all.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Assorted Examples</span></u><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">In all of my previous pieces I provided examples of how God could have done things differently </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">without affecting any version of a person’s libertarian free will. Basically God could have made a better world. In his second piece the Charger glossed over most of these examples (skin color, language, strength, etc.) both missing the point of them and not providing any answers to the examples themselves. I pointed this out in my last piece and reiterated these examples in order to get the Charger to address them. But in his most recent piece he still did not go back and deal with any of those examples though oddly he seems to think he dealt with them. He said, “<span style="color: #002060;">The Worrywart gives many different examples—for which I provided answers—but he argues correctly that the bigger issue is whether God could/should have created a better world.</span>” I don’t know what answers he thinks he provided but at least in his newest piece we see that he understood the issue behind the examples, which is whether God could make a better world. But sadly he still provides no answers as to why God did not do some of these simple things that would greatly reduce the amount of suffering that has occurred on earth. He merely says, “<span style="color: #002060;">I don’t think God should be blamed for imperfections in the world. If we really do have free will—and this free will was abused through rebellion against God—then it only makes since that perfection would be limited.</span>” Again he just does not seem to be able to understand that each of these examples would not affect humanity’s free will in the slightest. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">One of my main points in this section was that God could have made the world better merely by being a better teacher. This would allow humans to makes educated choices by better understanding the world around us and how it can help or hurt us. I used diseases as one example, though the Charger seems to think God teaching us about diseases was my point rather than an example. The Charger wrote, “<span style="color: #002060;">The Worrywart argues that God should have taught humanity about viruses and diseases. I argued that God gave us a world where we’re responsible for our actions and, as a result, we’re able to better understand that decisions have consequences. The Worrywart responded that there is no connection.</span>” The Charger doesn’t seem to understand that there still isn’t a connection. You can teach your children things about the world while they remain responsible for their actions. In fact most people would say you should teach your kids so that they can make better choices. The Charger further displays his confusion by saying,<span style="color: #002060;"> </span>“<span style="color: #002060;">The point here is that, if we live in a world where there are no diseases or disasters, then we’re like spoiled rich kids who never really understand that our decisions do matter.</span>”<span style="color: #002060;"> </span>I have no idea how the Charger jumped from me saying God should offer us information about how the world around us works (includes viruses and diseases) to that meaning there would be no diseases or natural disasters in the world? Teaching your child to wash their hands after they sneeze does not magically remove the possibility of them getting sick or their personal responsibility to wash their hands themselves but it does give them information that helps them understand why they should make certain choices, in this case to wash their hands. A good God would have to be a good teacher and the Charger’s God is not a good teacher.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger tries to show his God was a good teacher when it comes to diseases and viruses by giving God credit for providing the Jewish dietary laws. First, I pointed out that for a Christian the Jewish dietary laws are of no value since Christians do not keep them and historically they never have. I also noted that these laws were given to fairly small group of people calling into question God’s desire to teach all of humanity. The Charger tries to get around the first part about Christians rejecting the law saying Paul meant the law was simply no longer a way to be spiritually justified. Even if that were true it doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t matter why the church stopped obeying the dietary laws the point is that the church did stop obeying them and they taught people not to follow those laws. So for the Charger to try and use those laws as a way God intended to help teach the world about a healthy diet just does not work from a Christian perspective. To deal with how limited God’s concern for humanity seemed the Charger then proceeded to give God credit for any and all dietary laws or customs from multiple cultures and religions around the world that seemed in any way beneficial to human health. He referenced Islam, Hinduism and Jainism. He says, “<span style="color: #002060;">One could argue that God provided all cultures with a good idea of what actions, foods and laws should be followed.</span>” This argument seems fairly desperate. I am now supposed to think it is rational to believe that anything and everything found in other religions that is beneficial to human health was put there by the Charger’s God? This seeks to give the Charger’s God credit where credit is not due. One would have to ask the individuals of each of those religions and cultures why they have the customs they have and one will find that Hindus, Buddhists and Jains do not give credit to the God of Abraham. Now if the Charger wants to say it was still his God who “inspired” these customs one must again question his God’s ability to communicate and his actual desire to teach since these people seem to have no clue who this God is. And then no matter how valuable any of those customs were to people’s health the Charger’s God remains a bad teacher in that he never taught anyone the actual way diseases function and why one would want to do certain things and not others. A teacher who explains <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">why</i> one should do something along with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what</i> one should do is a far better teacher than the one who only provides <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what</i> one should do. Again disease was merely an example I used to make this point. One could throw in many more examples to question the Charger’s God as a teacher such as why God did not aid humanity in learning how to farm, domesticate animals, write, forge metal, or numerous other things that have helped humanity as they discovered them but which in the overall scope of humanity’s existence have only been discovered/invented very recently.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger says at this point, “<span style="color: #002060;">The Worrywart finally drops into a long litany of anti-Christian comments that have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.</span>” This again displays a misunderstanding on the Chargers part. This entire section in my piece was about God’s willingness and ability (or unwillingness and inability as it were) to teach people and how teaching people more about the world would in no way impede their free will. So my last paragraph in that section continues with this issue discussing God’s desire and effectiveness at teaching humanity by specifically looking at history. I said: </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0.3in;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;">Really few things expose the Christian God’s inability or unwillingness to communicate and teach as clearly as the bible. The fact is humanity (homo sapiens) have existed for 180,000 to 200,000 years but this God remained silent until about 3,000 years ago when he started to give some limited (and mostly inaccurate) information to a few individuals, which were meant to be restricted to a very small group of people. Slowly the various messages (often contradictory) spread as more and more writings got “inspired.” Still over-all God’s form of communication (scripture) was segregated to a very small portion of the world. It seems fairly clear that God simply had no desire to teach anyone in China, Japan, India, Korea, Australia, the Pacific Islands, a majority of Africa, North America or South America. This God still has not gotten his bible to everyone on this planet. Honestly how seriously can anyone take this God’s claim to care about everyone? Beyond this terribly long wait for God to speak one also finds that God is fairly inept when it comes to actually making what he means clear. Wars are constantly waged over the meaning of his words. Numerous books with conflicting messages are written that claim to be inspired by him. Religions split, various sects are formed and numerous denominations are created over God’s obvious lack of clarity. So now this God has left us 3 branches of Judaism, 2 sects in Islam and around 38,000 denominations in Christianity. Truly could anything be clearer then the fact that this God is amazingly unclear about what he wants and what we should know. It really is astonishing that those who believe in the bible thinks it serves as a positive witness to God’s desire to communicate with humanity when it is so painfully obvious that it exposes the exact opposite about their God.</span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">This paragraph is vital to my critic of the Charger’s God who by merely being a better teacher could have reduced the amount of human suffering throughout history. The Charger believes his God has taught things to the world through scripture and so he turns to the bible to argue what his God wills or teaches. But if the bible is God’s word to humanity one must then question how well was it written, how effective has it been in spreading accurate knowledge and how accessible has it been to a majority of humanity? I am calling into question the Christian scripture’s effectiveness, accuracy and accessibility all of which have very obvious connections to my point. And the theists inability to agree on what their God says/teaches along with the numerous scientific errors that fill their scripture only strengths my accusation that their God is either unwilling or unable to teach humanity about the world in which we live and about things that would greatly reduce human suffering the way a good God would desire. <span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">God’s Responsibility</span></u><span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">In this section I continued to argue that God bears part of the responsibility for the poor choices humanity has made with the free will he gave them especially knowing what they would do with it. I mention how no human parent receives the free pass from bearing any responsibility for their children’s mistakes that the Charger is handing to his God. He does not respond to this point rather he merely address one example I gave about parents stopping their kids from running out into the street where he again misses the point of the example. The point is there is a difference between being able to make a decision and actualizing a decision and one can bear the responsibility of making a poor choice even if they were unable to actualize that choice. So God could have maintained our libertarian free will without allowing all the horrors and suffering that have occurred in human history.<span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Value of Free Will</span></u><span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The main issue here is that the Charger and I disagree upon the ultimate value of free will and how free will can be defined. <span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">First I pointed out that not being able to make “evil” choices would not end humanity’s free will rather there would simply be certain choices no longer to be made. Choosing to sin would become like choosing to breathe underwater or fly, one simply would not be able to do it. Again this would not destroy a person’s free will because it would not be taking away all the decision a person could make. The Charger disagrees<span style="color: #002060;"> </span>he says, “<span style="color: #002060;">libertarian free will says that person X always has the ability to choose from multiple alternatives. The idea is that nothing is determined. So in every situation, X has the ability to choose from several options. Obviously, the opposite of libertarian free will is determinism, which asserts that every decision is determined based on something else. Thus, the Worrywart is completely wrong—without free will, every action is predetermined.</span>” The Charger again confuses what I said. I did not say we would not have free will but again that only certain choices would no longer be possible. There would still be multiple alternatives and several options for people to choose from it would just mean certain outcomes would no longer be possible. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Basically the Charger wants a certain type of libertarian (incompatiblism) free will, which is fine and he notes the opposite of that would be determinism but what he does not mention is the fact that those are not the only two choices. Many philosophers, theologians and theists do not believe in incompatiblist theories of free will but rather in compatiblist theories of free will which find more ways to reconcile the conflicts between free will and determinism. The Charger’s asserts that, “<span style="color: #002060;">without free will (as mentioned above), every decision is meaningless to them. You have no real decisions.</span>” And this assertion is simply false and many theists would agree with me on that point.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Also if the Charger wants to maintain his argument then he would need to address the fact that as a Christian theist by believing in scripture and the Christian story he in fact affirms that many things have been predetermined and that no matter how many free choices he makes the overall story of history has already been written, which he cannot affect or change.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">At the end of this section I also said that all people don’t have the same amount of “free will” though I clearly noted that by that I mean freedoms. If a person is illiterate they cannot choose to read a book. If a person is in a cage they cannot choose to go for a walk. If a person lives in ancient Rome they cannot choose to fly on an airplane. And if a person lived before Jesus they could not choose to become Christians. So yes the amount of freedoms a person has and thus the amount of choices they can make does vary from person to person and culture to culture. The Charger’s denial of this does not change the fact that he, like myself, has had far more freedoms and thus choices then a majority of the people who has ever existed on this planet and that his beliefs have been affected as much by when and where he was born as any personal choice he has made. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Jesus’ Death </span></u><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">This section remains pointless I only bring it up for one reason which is to correct an error the Charger made where he claimed I said something that I, in fact did not say. The Charger writes, “<span style="color: #002060;">The Worrywart asserts that this section is theological and that I have never proven that Christ was raised from the dead.</span>” I did say this section was theological but I never said that the Charger hadn’t proven Christ was raised from the dead. I never even said that he had to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead. All I said was that it was premature to get into this topic (resurrection/atonement) at this time. Where the Charger got this idea I do not know but the fact is I didn’t say it and this topic still doesn’t matter.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Animal Suffering and Natural Evils</span></u><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">This section seems to continue to be one the Charger simply cannot get a handle on. The Charger continues to think he can claim human rebellion as the cause of animal suffering and natural disasters. This doesn’t work for two reasons. First there remains no logical or necessary connection between evil moral choices made by humans and animal suffering or natural disasters. Second the natural history of the planet makes that connection impossible. The story of Adam and Eve is obviously a myth not an account of what literally happened on this earth. As I wrote in my last piece, “</span>The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old (not 6,000 years like Genesis says) while modern humans (homo sapiens) are around 180,000 years old. Earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, and all of forms of natural evils were happening long before human beings ever existed. Likewise animals were hurting and killing one another before we ever came along so the story of the Garden provides the theist (Christian theist) nothing for answering these questions.” The point is that animal suffering and natural disasters were occurring long before any human beings existed making any connection between those things and human action impossible. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;">The Charger also makes an odd comment on animal suffering. He says, “<span style="color: #002060; line-height: 150%;">almost all animal suffering is in a category of its own. Think about it—for every deer that’s killed, there’s a very happy mountain lion or wolf. (It’s almost like fans of opposing teams who pray that the other team will lose.) The deer “prays” every night that a nice plant awaits its consumption, while the mountain lion “prays” for a large plump deer. Logically speaking, for every animal that is killed by another animal, there is enough survival made up from the predator that, in the big picture, the equation comes out as zero. </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">”<span style="color: #002060;"> </span>This makes absolutely no sense. The “happiness” of one animal does not negate the suffering of another like some math equation any more than the “happiness” of a rapist negates the suffering of the victim who was raped or the “joy” of a robber negates the suffering of the victim who was robbed. Further there are animals that suffer that provide no “happiness” to some other animal, like a fawn dying in a forest fire or a baby bird falling out of its nest. Suffering in the animal category is no different than in the human category though in Western history we tend to care less about animals then in the East.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Then continuing with the category of natural evil the Charger seems to remain confused. Natural evil is a term that has been used historically just to describe natural events that occur that end up causing suffering. These were events that for a majority of history were directly connected to the hand of God. If an earthquake happened it was because God literally caused it to happen. The question then became why did he cause it to happen? Most people do not look at natural disasters like this anymore, as directly connected to the hand of God. But the issue remains basically the same. If God created the world he either causes or allows these events to happen, which create great damage and suffering so why does he do that? What moral decision that a person makes requires an earthquake as a response? What did Japan do to warrant the tsunami it received? We know now, thanks to science (not God), why these events actually happen and how they have shaped the earth and we know they were happening a long time before humans or any life existed on this earth so once again the Charger’s attempt to connect these events (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc) to human rebellion and the corruption of some sort of perfect earth that God created which did not have these types of events obviously fails. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger just cannot seem to comprehend this and again attempts to say my acceptance of what we scientifically know about the earth and rejection of the biblical account of Genesis creates a straw-man fallacy. I truly don’t think the Charger understands what a straw-man argument actually is based on how he continues to use the term nor does he seem willing to acknowledge how many theistic philosophers accept science over scripture in this case. (<a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2011/02/michael-shermer-genesis-revisited.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Click here</span></a> to read a great essay by Michael Shermer that displays how ridiculous the Genesis account of creation is when taken literally with what we know scientifically</span><span style="line-height: 150%;">)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">This section is obviously one, similar to the section on the evidential problem of evil, where the Charger just has no legitimate answers to the actual problems being presented and thus it remains one of his weakest sections.<span style="color: #002060;"></span></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">IV) Naturalism and Good and Evil</span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Like many of the previous sections this is one where the Charger and I simply disagree. His understanding of naturalism is clearly limited. One does not need a God in order to support morality. In fact it can be argued that theism is in fact the weaker of the two systems when it comes to propagating a good morality.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">I have written about the issue of morality without God and one can read that <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-morality-without-god-possibly.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">here</span></a>.</span><span style="line-height: 150%;"> I have also posted a few other essays by philosophers dealing with that same issue. <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2011/04/elizabeth-anderson-if-god-is-dead-is.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Here</span></a></span> <span style="line-height: 150%;">is one written by Elizabeth Anderson who explores the issue of morality within a naturalist system. She astutely observes that the main objection to naturalism from religious believers is not scientific but rather moral. The fact is that scientifically speaking the evidence for God’s existence is little to non-existent so it is in fact this moral objection that is of utmost value for the theist. If they can prove morality is impossible without God they at least have a reason to continue to believe in their God even if there are no other scientific or rational reasons for their belief. In this essay Anderson addresses this “moralistic argument” by theists and demonstrates its weaknesses particularly given the historical evidence we have. <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2011/04/kai-nielsen-morality-and-will-of-god.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">Here</span></a></span> <span style="line-height: 150%;">is another essay written by philosopher Kai Nielsen who likewise deals with the issue of morality without God. He demonstrates that morality cannot in fact be based in religion. For whether God exists or not an individual’s sense of right and wrong must always logically precede that individual’s religious beliefs. Basically one cannot argue God is good without first already having some standard of what is good by which to make this claim. As Nielsen puts it, “</span><span style="color: black;">A moral understanding must be logically prior to any religious assent.” Nielsen’s essay is fairly long and involved dealing with the multiple rejections to his assertions and should be read on its own to be fully understood and appreciated. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="color: black;">To me the fact is that the theist’s moral objection to naturalism exposes more moral shortcomings of theism than naturalism. What I love about the naturalist system is it allows one to value humanity first and base one’s morality upon human worth. In the theistic system some version of an all-powerful God (yes it’s always changing) is not only the source of morality but apparently the only reason to be moral. The Charger cannot understand why one would not rape a 13 year old girl if God did not exist and I cannot help but wonder why the Charger needs some sort of invisible being to bribe/threaten him in order not to rape a 13 year old girl? (The Charger made a claim that naturalism as a system would view an act of rape as good. This again demonstrates the Charger’s lack of understanding of naturalism as naturalism does not imply, support or call for that action) The fact remains that the theist seems to concede based on their own objections to naturalism that without their God and his bribe of heaven and threat of hell they would chose to harm others without remorse. And history shows us that even with their God (often because of him) they still frequently chose to harm others without remorse. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Moral ambiguity becomes an even bigger problem when one examines one of the Charger’s main claims when dealing with the problem of evil; he argued “there must be some greater good humanity cannot see or understand behind human suffering.” If this statement is true than the Charger cannot even confirm whether we should or should not help those who suffer. Should we aid the victims of the tsunami in Japan? According to the Charger’s assertion the tsunami must be the source of some greater good but that means if we help those who are suffering we could be interfering with that “greater good” and would limit the value of their suffering. One could even argue that we should in fact cause others to suffer as it would have to bring about “greater goods.” The logical possibility of a greater good behind suffering can become nothing more than a reason to be immoral and uncaring. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Another problem with basing morality upon God is that the Charger and every other theist does not and cannot know what the will of their God actually is as history has proven. Thus even if their God were necessary for morality (he isn’t) he would remain useless. The theists only have conflicting scriptures that can be and have been interpreted in thousands of different ways to mean thousands of different things along with their own personal feelings about what God is telling them as individuals all of which leads to conflicting and often immoral messages. History exposes the theist’s God for what he is when it comes being a source of morality; worthless. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">So while the Charger seems not to understand why I care about the suffering of others without his God (basically without being bribed or threatened) I can tell him that I do care and that it is a lot easier to care now that I don’t have to worry about what his God wants rather than about what is right. The theist, unlike the naturalist, must always worry about their God’s will over the actual needs and worth of other people. If their God says kill the theist must kill while the naturalist can decide whether the action is truly right. At some point every theist must decide what is more important to them being a good person or being a good theist (Christian/Muslim/Jew) because the fact is that the two are not always the same and one does not necessarily include the other as history can easily show us. The naturalist has the ability to seek being a good person first and foremost while the theist must seek to be a good theist and then assume (hope) that makes them a good person. The fact is I cannot pretend to respect a God who can and has made any act morally good and cares more about his own self-glorification than the well being of the majority of humans who have every existed. It was not until I rejected God that I gained the freedom to try and do what was actually right in every situation rather than merely what God wanted. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="color: black;">One does not need any sort of God to support or maintain morality. This can be shown true both logically and historically. Nor does one need some invisible and silent deity in order to care about the other people on this planet. The fact is naturalism is by far more rational than theism scientifically speaking and unlike what theists’ claim it is not lacking when it comes to being a foundation for morality. </span><span style="line-height: 150%;">At the end of the day the theist needs someone to tell them to care about other people and if that someone is not there then they by their own arguments admit they would not care and would do nothing more than whatever seemed to serve their own best interest at the moment. </span><span style="color: black;">The theist may not understand why a naturalist chooses to do what is right without God but sadly the naturalist fully understands the reason the theist chose to do what is right (or often wrong), it’s because they believe they were “told” to. </span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="line-height: 150%;">Conclusion</span></u></b><span style="line-height: 150%;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">As I said in the beginning, when looking at the overall path of this dialog between the Charger and I it</span> has not ended up being as helpful a piece for those interested in exploring the Problem of Evil as I had originally hoped. <span style="line-height: 150%;">Far less was actually discussed than I expected when this conversation begun. Due to multiple false assumptions, misunderstood arguments and simple avoidance of the actual problems the Charger and I were unable to cover much ground in our attempt to deal with the Problem of Evil. The Charger began his last conclusion saying “<span style="color: #002060;">I believe that I have answered all of the Worrywart’s objections. His arguments have caused me a lot of thought—and caused me to grow intellectually. However, I believe that the Worrywart’s two arguments have been defeated.</span>” And while I’m glad he said some of what I wrote caused him to think I still have no clue why he feels he answered all my objections or “defeated” my two arguments. First because I had more than two arguments and second because the only argument he actually dealt with directly and fully was the logical problem of evil. He continued to either misunderstand or avoid the evidential problem of evil and never actually dealt with my objections to and the overall weaknesses of his various theodicies. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The Charger’s responses in this discussion have provided no rational reason to believe in his God rather all they have provided are stop-gap arguments (logically possibilities) to protect a preexisting belief in his deity. Further, despite what the Charger claims the Problem of Evil is not merely a rational problem that can be limited to deductive games of logic. Until one is willing to step down out of the clouds and place themselves in the shoes of actual human beings who are going through (or went through) true horrors and pain and listen to their ideas as to why we are here and what the meaning behind suffering is than one cannot pretend to have actually dealt with or even really pondered the Problem of Evil. One must spend a day in the life of a Japanese woman in the Nara period; or as a man in the Sudra caste in 18<sup>th</sup> century India; or as a Jew exiled from England in the 13<sup>th</sup> century or blamed for the Black Death in the 14<sup>th</sup> century; or as a West African riding on a Spanish slave ship across the Atlantic Ocean after being sold into slavery by fellow African dealers before one can offer any answer to the Problem of Evil. One must also deal with the religious and philosophical traditions of other cultures and time periods that address issues of suffering. One must examine Lao Tzu’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tao Teh Ching</i> and his teachings on the perfect individual; or the Upanishads investigation into human consciousness; or Buddhism’s four noble truths, which all deal directly with suffering. The Western theist cannot ignore these systems of thought or the lives of the people who lived in those systems and then pretend to have dealt with the Problem of Evil. If one examines the things these people experienced and likely believed as well as the things that they most certainly did not (and could not) believe and place them next to the Charger’s God I believe one finds a fairly limited God who cannot rationally be described as “all-good.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">The point is the theist ultimately has no answer to the problem of evil beyond what is “logically possible.” They always begin with some sort of rational justification for their beliefs but always end up with a call for faith. “We can’t understand everything so we need to just trust God.” Of course the God they want us to trust is the one who promises to save them while destroying the majority of the rest of us. I guess it makes sense why most theists will not question their God because why question the rationality or morality of a being who promises to give you heaven no matter how many people he sends to hell? In faith the Charger says, <span style="color: #002060;">“I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.” (Job 19:25) </span> This is a faith claim that I once shared and believed and as a faith claim it is certainly not something I can argue against but for me the ultimate problem remains that what he is affirming, and what I used to affirm, is that "<i>his</i>" (previously mine) Redeemer lives. And I cannot ignore what seems to me the inherent selfishness and heartlessness that is built into that statement. At the end of the day the theist is willing to trust that there is a good reason for all the suffering, both temporal and eternal, that people go through because eventually they get compensated for their pains while the rest of us receive endless torment unequal to any crime we could have committed. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">Now theism will always maintain certain advantages over naturalism that no amount of reason can deal with. Humanity’s fear of death remains one of the greatest motivations for being a theist as well as human tendencies to exclusivism but that does not make the Charger’s God a rational probability or a moral necessity. Instead the Charger’s God remains only a logical possibility who prefers illogical faith to rational acceptance and who is obviously filled with moral deficiencies. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">With that said I still want to thank the Charger for taking the time to dialog with me. It certainly forced me to put more time into researching this topic than I had done in the last few years since I walked away from my Christian faith and that introduced me to some great new ideas from both sides of this debate. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="line-height: 150%;">For those interested in better sources dealing with the Problem of Evil here is a <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">link</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 150%;"> that provides access to a website containing multiple essays, articles and debates (both current and historical) concerning the Problem of Evil and various theodicies. I have used some of these essays in my arguments but there are many more sources here that I have yet to read. I have found it to be a great site to find sources written from both perspectives (naturalist and theist) on this topic. This website also has material that deals with issues like Faith vs. Reason, Separation of Church and State, Arguments for the Existence of God, Morality/Ethics and so on. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 12pt 0in;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-22183252771634296092011-04-20T13:48:00.001-07:002011-04-20T13:49:39.447-07:00Kai Nielsen-Morality and the Will of God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0f0D9YBg_vk/Ta8w4LhJ2MI/AAAAAAAAA6s/skQoVD9L2Vc/s1600/Kai+Nielsen-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0f0D9YBg_vk/Ta8w4LhJ2MI/AAAAAAAAA6s/skQoVD9L2Vc/s1600/Kai+Nielsen-1.jpg" /></a>Kai Nielsen is professor emeritus at the University of Calgary. He was educated at Duke University and has taught at New York University, Amherst College, University of Ottawa and Brooklyn College. He has been the editor of the <i>Canadian Journal of Philosophy</i> and has lectured extensively in Europe and Africa. His books include: <i>Reason and Practice</i> (1971); <i>Contemporary Critiques of Religion</i> (1971); <i>Scepticism</i> (1973); and <i>Ethics without God</i> (1973), from which this selection is taken.<br />
<br />
This selection deals directly with the issue of whether religion (the existence of God) is a necessary foundation for morality.<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">1<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">It is the claim of many influential Jewish and Christian theologians (Brunner, Buber, Barth, Niebuhr and Bultmann--to take outstanding examples) that the only genuine basis for morality is in religion. And any old religion is not good enough. The only truly adequate foundation for moral belief is a religion that acknowledges the absolute sovereignty of the Lord found in the prophetic religions.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">These theologians will readily grant what is plainly true, namely, that as a matter of fact many non-religious people behave morally, but they contend that without a belief in God and his law there is no ground or reason for being moral. The sense of moral relativism, skepticism and nihilism rampant in our age is due in large measure to the general weakening of religious belief in an age of science. Without God there can be no objective foundation for our moral beliefs. As Brunner puts it, [endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 115%;">1]</span></span> 'The believer alone clearly perceives that the Good, as it is recognized in faith, is the sole Good, and all that is otherwise called good cannot lay claim to this title, at least in the ultimate sense of the word . . . The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular moment.'<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Moreover, this moral Good can only be attained by our 'unconditional obedience' to God, the ground of our being. Without God life would have no point and morality would have no basis. Without religious belief, without the Living God, there could be no adequate answer to the persistently gnawing questions: What ought we to do? How ought I to live?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Is this frequently repeated claim justified? Are our moral beliefs and conceptions based on or grounded in a belief in the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? In trying to come to grips with this question, we need to ask ourselves three fundamental questions.<o:p></o:p></div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 100.0%;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 5.0%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">1.<o:p></o:p></div></td> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 95.0%;" width="95%"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Is being willed by God the, or even a, <i>fundamental</i> criterion for that which is so willed being morally good or for its being something that ought to be done?<o:p></o:p></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 5.0%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">2.<o:p></o:p></div></td> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 95.0%;" width="95%"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Is being willed by God the <i>only</i> criterion for that which is so willed being morally good or for its being something that ought to be done?<o:p></o:p></div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 5.0%;" valign="top" width="5%"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">3.<o:p></o:p></div></td> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 95.0%;" width="95%"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Is being willed by God the only <i>adequate</i> criterion for that which is so willed being morally good or being something that ought to be done?<o:p></o:p></div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">I shall argue that the fact that God wills something--if indeed that it is a fact--cannot be a fundamental criterion for its being morally good or obligatory and thus it cannot be the only criterion or the only adequate criterion for moral goodness or obligation.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">By way of preliminaries we should first get clear what is meant by a fundamental criterion. When we speak of the criterion for the goodness of an action or attitude we speak of some measure or test by virtue of which we may decide which actions or attitudes are good or desirable, or, at least, are the least undesirable of the alternate actions or attitudes open to us. A moral criterion is the measure we use for determining the value or worth of an action, principle, rule or attitude. We have such a measure or test when we have some generally relevant considerations by which we may decide whether something is whatever it is said to be. A fundamental moral criterion is (<i>a</i>) a test or measure used to judge the legitimacy of moral rules and/or acts or attitudes, and (<i>b</i>) a measure that one would give up last if one were reasoning morally. (In reality, there probably is no single fundamental criterion, although there are fundamental criteria.)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">There is a further preliminary matter we need to consider. In asking about the basis or authority for our moral beliefs we are not asking about how we came to have them. If you ask someone where he got his moral beliefs, he, to be realistic, should answer that he got them from his parents, parent surrogates, teachers. [endnote 2<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> They are beliefs which he has been conditioned to accept. But the validity or soundness of a belief is independent of its origin. When one person naïvely asks another where he got his moral beliefs, most likely he is not asking how he came by them, but rather, (<i>a</i>) on what authority he holds these beliefs, or (<i>b</i>) what good reasons or justification he has for these moral beliefs. He should answer that he does not and cannot hold these beliefs on any authority. It is indeed true that many of us turn to people for moral advice and guidance in moral matters, but if we do what we do simply because it has been authorized, we cannot be reasoning and acting as moral agents; for to respond as a moral agent, one's moral principle must be something which is subscribed to by one's own deliberate commitment, and it must be something for which one is prepared to give reasons.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Keeping these preliminary clarifications in mind, we can return to my claim that the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that God has commanded, willed or ordained something cannot, in the very nature of the case, be a fundamental criterion for claiming that whatever is commanded, willed or ordained <i>ought</i> to be done.<o:p></o:p></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">2<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Some perceptive remarks made by A. C. Ewing will carry us part of the way.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote 3<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> Theologians like Barth and Brunner claim that ethical principles gain their justification because they are God's decrees. But as Ewing points out, if 'being obligatory' means just 'willed by God', it becomes unintelligible to ask why God wills one thing rather than another. In fact, there can be no reason for his willing one thing rather than another for his willing it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eo ipso</i> makes whatever it is he wills good, right or obligatory. 'God wills it because it ought to be done'<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>becomes 'God wills it because God wills it'; but the first sentence, even as used by the most ardent believer, is not a<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>tautology. 'If it were said in reply that God's commands<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>determine what we ought to do but that these commands were<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>only issued because it was good that they should be or because obedience to them did good, this would still make<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>judgments about the good, at least, independent of the will of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>mental ethical concepts in terms of God or made ethics<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>dependent on God.'[endnote 4<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> Furthermore, it becomes senseless to say what the believer very much wants to say, namely, 'I<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>ought always to do what God wills' if 'what I ought to do'<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>and 'what God wills' have the same meaning. And to say I<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>ought to do what God wills because I love God makes the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>independent assumption that I ought to love God and that I<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>ought to do what God wills if I love him.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Suppose we say instead that we ought to do what God<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>wills because God will punish us if we do not obey him. This<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>may indeed be a cogent self-interested or prudential reason for<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>doing what God commands, but it is hardly a morally good<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>reason for doing what he commands since such considerations of self-interest cannot be an adequate basis for morality.<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>A powerful being--an omnipotent and omniscient being—speaking out of the whirlwind cannot by his mere commands<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>create an obligation. Ewing goes on to assert: 'Without a<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>prior conception of God as good or his commands as right,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God would have no more claim on our obedience than Hitler<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>or Stalin except that he would have more power than even<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>they had to make things uncomfortable for those who disobey him.'[endnote 5<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> Unless we assume that God is morally perfect,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>unless we assume the perfect goodness of God, there can be<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>no necessary 'relation between being commanded or willed<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>by God and being obligatory or good'.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span><o:p></o:p>[endnote 6<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">To this it is perfectly correct to reply that as believers we must believe that God is wholly and completely good, the most perfect of all conceivable beings. [endnote 7<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> It is not open for a Jew or a Christian to question the goodness of God. He must start with that assumption. Any man who seriously questions God's goodness or asks why he should obey God's commands shows by this very response that he is not a Jew or a Christian. Believers must claim that God is wholly and utterly good and that what he wills or commands is of necessity good, though this does not entail that the believer is claiming that the necessity here is a logical necessity. For a believer, God is all good; he is the perfect good. This being so, it would seem that the believer is justified in saying that he and we--if his claim concerning God is correct--ought to do what God wills and that our morality is after all grounded in a belief in God. But this claim of his is clearly dependent on his assumption that God is good. Yet I shall argue that even if God is good, indeed, even if God is the perfect good, it does not follow that morality can be based on religion and that we can know what we ought to do simply by knowing what God wishes us to do.</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">3<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">To come to understand the grounds or this last rather elliptical claim, we must consider the logical status of 'God is good.' Is it a non-analytic and in some way substantive claim, or is it analytic? (Can we say that it is neither?) No matter what we say, we get into difficulties.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Let us first try to claim that it is non-analytic, that it is in some way a substantive statement. So understood, God cannot then be by definition good. If the statement is synthetic and substantive, its denial cannot be self-contradictory; that is, it cannot be self-contradictory to assert that X is God but X is not good. It would always in fact be wrong to assert this, for God is the perfect good, but the denial of this claim is not self-contradictory, it is just false or in some way mistaken. The 'is' in 'God is the perfect good' is not the 'is' of identity, perfect goodness is being predicated of God in some<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>logically contingent way. It is the religious experience of the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>believer and the events recorded in the Bible that lead the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>believer to the steadfast conviction that God has a purpose or<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>vocation for him which he can fulfill only by completely submitting to God's will. God shall lead him and guide him in<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>every thought, word and deed. Otherwise he will be like a<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>man shipwrecked, lost in a vast and indifferent universe.<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>Through careful attention to the Bible, he comes to understand that God is a wholly good being who has dealt faithfully with his chosen people. God is not by definition perfectly good or even good, but in reality, though not of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>logical necessity, he never falls short of perfection.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Assuming that 'God is good' is not a truth of language, how,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>then, do we know that God is good? Do we know or have<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>good grounds for believing that the remarks made at the end<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>of the above paragraph are so? The believer can indeed make<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>such a claim, but how do we or how does he know that this<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is so? What grounds have we for believing that God is good?<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>Naïve people, recalling how God spoke to Job out of the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>whirlwind may say that God is good because he is omnipotent<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>and omniscient. But this clearly will not do, for as Hepburn<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>points out, there is nothing logically improper about saying<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>'X is omnipotent and omniscient and morally wicked.'[endnote 8<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> Surely in the world as we know it there is no logical connection between being powerful and knowledgeable and being<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>good. As far as I can see, all that God proved to Job when he<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>spoke to him out of the whirlwind was that God was an<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>immeasurably powerful being; but he did not prove his<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>moral superiority to Job and he did nothing at all even to<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>exhibit his moral goodness. (One might even argue that he<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>exhibited moral wickedness.) We need not assume that<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>omnipotence and omniscience bring with them goodness or<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>even wisdom.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">What other reason could we have for claiming that God is good? We might say that he is good because he tells us to do good in thought, word and deed and to love one another. In short, in his life and in his precepts God exhibits for us his goodness and love. Now one might argue that children's hospitals and concentration camps clearly show that such a claim is false. But let us assume that in some way God does exhibit his goodness to man. Let us assume that if we examine God's works we cannot but affirm but that is good.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote 9<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span> We come to understand that he is not cruel, callous or indifferent. But in order to make such judgments or to gain such an understanding, we must use our own logically independent moral criteria. In taking God's goodness as not being true by definition or as being some kind of conceptual truth, we have, in asserting 'God is good', of necessity made a mortal judgment, a moral appraisal, using a criterion that cannot be based on a knowledge that God exist or that he issues commands. We call God good because we have experienced the goodness of his acts, but in order to do this, in order to know that he is good or to have any grounds for believing that he is good, we must have an independent moral criterion which we use in making this prediction of God. So if 'God id good' is taken to be synthetic and substantive, then morality cannot simply be based on a belief in God. We must of logical necessity have some criterion of goodness that is not derived from any statement asserting that there is a deity.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">4<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Let us alternatively, and more plausibly, take 'God is good' to be a truth of language. Now some truths of language (some analytic statements) are statements of identity, such as 'puppies are young dogs' or 'a father is a male parent.' Such statements are definitions and the 'is' indicates identity. But 'God is good' is clearly not such a statement of identity, for that 'God' does not have the same meaning as 'good' can easily be seen from the following case: Jane says to Betsy, after Betsy helps an old lady across the street, 'That was good of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>you.' 'That was good of you' most certainly does not mean<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>'that was God of you.' And when we say 'conscientiousness<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is good' we do not mean to say 'conscientiousness is God.'<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>To say, as a believer does, that God is good is not to say that<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God is God. This clearly indicates that the word God does not<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>have the same meaning as the word good. When we are<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>talking about God we are not talking simply about morality.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">'God is the perfect good' is somewhat closer to 'a father is<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>a male parent', but even here 'God' and 'the perfect good' are not identical in meaning. “God is the perfect good” in some<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>important respects is like 'a triangle is a trilateral.' Though<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>something is a triangle if and only if it is a trilateral, it does<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>not follow that 'triangle' and 'trilateral' have the same meaning. Similarly, something is God if and only if that something<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is the perfect good, but it does not follow that 'God' and 'the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>perfect good' have the same meaning. When we speak of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God we wish to say other things about him as well, though<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>indeed what is true of God will also be true of the perfect<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>good. Yet what is true of the evening star will also be true of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>the morning star since they both refer to the same object,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>namely Venus, but, as Frege has shown, it does not follow<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that the two terms have the same meaning if they have the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>same referent.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Even if it could be made out that 'God is the perfect good'<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is in some way a statement of identity, (<i>a</i>) it would not make<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>'God is good' a statement of identity, and (<i>b</i>) we could know<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that X is the perfect good only if we already knew how to<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>decide that X is good.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">10]</span></span> So even on the assumption that 'God<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is the perfect good' is a statement of identity, we need an<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>independent way of deciding whether something is good;<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>we must have an independent criterion for goodness.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Surely the alternative presently under consideration is more<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>plausible than the alternative considered in section 3. 'God<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is good' most certainly appears to be analytic in the way 'puppies are young', 'a bachelor is unmarried' or 'unjustified<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>killing is wrong' are analytic. These statements are not statements of identity; they are not definitions, though they all<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>follow from definitions and to deny any of them is self-contradictory.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">In short, it seems to me correct to maintain that 'God is<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>good', 'puppies are young' and 'triangles are three-sided' are all truths of language; the predicates partially define their<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>subjects. That is to say--to adopt for a moment a Platonic<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>sounding idiom--goodness is partially definitive of Godhood,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>as youngness is partially definitive of puppyhood and as three-sidedness is partially definitive of triangularity.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">To accept this is not at all to claim that we can have no<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>understanding of good without an understanding of God;<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>and the truth of the above claim that God is good will not<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>show that God is the, or even a, fundamental criterion for<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>goodness. Let us establish first that and then how the fact of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>such truths of language does not show that we could have no<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>understanding of good without having an understanding of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God. We could not understand the full religious sense of what<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is meant by God without knowing that whatever is denoted<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>by this term is said to be good; but, as 'young' or 'three-sided' are understood without reference to puppies or triangles though the converse cannot be the case, so 'good' is<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>also understood quite independently of any reference to<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God. We can intelligibly say, 'I have a three-sided figure here<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that is most certainly not a triangle' and 'colts are young but<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>they are not puppies.' Similarly, we can well say 'conscientiousness, under most circumstances at least, is good even in a<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>world without God.' Such an utterance is clearly intelligible,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>to believer and non-believer alike. It is a well-formed English<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>sentence with a use in the language. Here we can use the word<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>good without either asserting or assuming the reality of God.<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>Such linguistic evidence clearly shows that good is a concept<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>which can be understood quite independently of any reference to the deity, that morality without religion, without theism,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is quite possible. In fact, just the reverse is the case. Christianity, Judaism and theistic religions of that sort could not<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>exist if people did not have a moral understanding that was,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>logically speaking, quite independent of such religions. We<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>could have no understanding of the truth of 'God is good' or<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>of the concept God unless we had an independent understanding of goodness.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">That this is so can be seen from the following considerations. If we had no understanding of the word young, and<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>if we did not know the criteria for deciding whether a dog<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>was young, we could not know how correctly to apply the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>word puppy. Without such a prior understanding of what<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>it is to be young, we could not understand the sentence<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>'puppies are young.' Similarly, if we had no understanding<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>of the use of the word good, and if we did not know the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>criteria for deciding whether a being (or if you will, a power or<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>a force) was good, we could not know how correctly to<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>apply the word God. Without such a prior understanding of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>goodness, we could not understand the sentence 'God is<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>good.' This clearly shows that out understanding of morality<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>and knowledge of goodness are independently of any knowledge<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that we may or may not have of the divine. Indeed, without a<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>prior and logically independent understanding of good and<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>without some non-religious criterion for judging something<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>to be good, the religious person could have no knowledge<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>of God, for he could not know whether that powerful being<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>who spoke out of the whirlwind and laid the foundations of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>the earth was in fact worthy of worship and perfectly good.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">From my argument we should conclude that we cannot<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>decide whether something is good or whether it ought to be<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>done simply from finding out (assuming that we can find out)<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that God commanded it, willed it, enjoined it. Furthermore,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>whether 'God is good' is synthetic (substantive) or analytic<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>(a truth of language), the concept of good must be understood as something distinct from the concept of God; that is to say, a man could know how to use 'good' properly and still not know how to use 'God'. Conversely, a man could not know how to use 'God' correctly unless he already understood how to use 'good'. An understanding of goodness is logically prior to, and is independent of, any understanding or acknowledgment of God.<o:p></o:p></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">5<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">In attempting to counter my argument for the necessary independence of morality--including a central facet of religious morality--from any beliefs about the existence or powers of the deity, the religious moralist might begin by conceding that (1) there are secular moralities that are logically independent of religion, and (2) that we must understand the meanings of moral terms independently of understanding what it means to speak of God. He might even go so far as to grant that only a man who understood what good and bad were could come to believe in God. 'Good', he might grant, does not mean 'willed by God' or anything like that; and 'there is no God, but human happiness is nonetheless good' is indeed perfectly intelligible as a moral utterance. But granting that, it is still the case that Jew and Christian do and must--on pain of ceasing to be Jew or Christian--take God's will as their final court of appeal in the making of moral appraisals or judgments. Any rule, act or attitude that conflicts with what the believer sincerely believes to be the will of God must be rejected by him. It is indeed true that in making moral judgments the Jew or Christian does not always use God's will as a criterion for what is good or what ought to be done. When he says 'fluoridation is a good thing' or 'the resumption of nuclear testing is a crime', he need not be using God's will as a criterion for his moral judgment. But where any moral judgment or any other moral criterion conflicts with God's ordinances, or with what the person making the judgment honestly takes to be God's ordinances, he must accept those<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>ordinances, or he is no longer a Jew or a Christian. This<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>acceptance is a crucial test of his faith. In this way, God's<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>will is his fundamental moral criterion.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">That the orthodox Jew or Christian would reason in this<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>way is perfectly true, but though he says that God's will is<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>his fundamental criterion, it is still plain that he has a yet more<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>fundamental criterion which he must use in order to employ<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God's will as a moral criterion. Such a religious moralist<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>must believe and thus be prepared to make the moral claim<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that there exists a being whom he deems to be perfectly good<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>or worthy of worship and whose will should always be<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>obeyed. But to do this he must have a moral criterion (a<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>standard for what is morally good) that is independent of<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>God's will or what people believe to be God's will. In fact,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>the believer's moral criterion--'because it is willed by God'—is in logical dependence on some distinct criterion in virtue<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>of which the believer judges that something is perfectly good,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>is worthy of worship. And in making this very crucial judgment he cannot appeal to God's will as a criterion, for, that<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>there is a being worthy of the appellation 'God', depends in<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>part on the above prior moral claim. Only if it is correct,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>can we justifiably say that there is a God.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">It is crucial to keep in mind that 'a wholly good being<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>exists who is worthy of worship' is not analytic, is not a truth<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>of language, though 'God is wholly good' is. The former is<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>rather a substantive moral statement (expressing a moral<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>judgment) and a very fundamental one indeed, for the<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>believer's whole faith rests on it. Drop this and everything<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>goes.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">It is tempting to reply to my above argument in this vein:<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>'but it is blasphemy to judge God; no account of the logical<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>structure of the believer's argument can be correct if it says<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>that the believer must judge that God is good.' Here we must<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>beware of verbal magic and attend very carefully to precisely what it is we are saying. I did not—and could not on pain of contradiction—say that God must be judged worthy of worship. Perfectly good; for God by definition is worthy of worship, perfectly good. I said something quite different, namely that the believer and nonbeliever alike must decide whether there exists or could conceivably exist a force, a being (“ground of being”) that is worthy of worship or perfectly good; and I further said that in deciding this, one makes a moral judgment that can in no way be logically dependent on God’s will. Rather, the moral standard, “because it is willed by God,” is dependent for its validity on the acceptance of the claim that there is a being worthy of worship. And as our little word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">worthy</i> indicates, this is unequivocally a moral judgment for believer and nonbeliever alike.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">There is a rather more baroque objection [endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">11]</span></span> to my argument that (1) nothing could count as the Judaeo-Christian God unless that reality is worthy of worship, and (2) it is our own moral insight that must tell us if anything at all is or every possibly could be worthy of worship or whether there is a being who possesses perfect goodness. My conclusion from (1) and (2) was that rather than morality being based on religion, it can be seen that religion in a very fundamental sense must be based on morality. The counterargument claims that such a conclusion is premature because the judgment that something is worthy of worship is not a moral judgment; it is an evaluative judgment, a religious evaluation, but not a moral judgment. The grounds for this counterclaim are that if the judgment is a moral judgment, as I assumed, then demonolatry—the worship of evil spirits—would be self-contradictory. But although demonolatry is morally and religiously perverse, it is not self-contradictory. Hence my argument must be mistaken.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">However, if we say “Z is worthy of worship” or that, given Judaeo-Christian attitudes, “if Z is what ought to be worshipped then Z must be good,” it does not follow that demonolatry is self-contradictory or incoherent. Not everyone uses language as Jews and Christians do and not everyone shares the convention of those religious groups. To say that nothing can be God, the Judaeo-Christian God, unless it is worthy of worship, and to affirm that the judgment of something as worthy of worship is a moral judgment, is not to deny that some people on some grounds could judge that what they believe to be evil spirits are worthy of worship. By definition, they could not be Jews or Christians—they show by their linguistic behavior that they do not believe in the Judaeo-Christian God who, by definition, is perfectly good. Jews and Christians recognize that believers in demonolatry do not believe in God but in evil spirits whom such Joycean characters judge to be worthy of worship. The Christian and the demonolater make different moral judgments of a very fundamental sort reflecting different views of the world. <o:p></o:p></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 115%;">6<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">The dialectic of our general argument about morality and divine commands should not end here. There are some further considerations which need to be brought to the forefront. Consider the theological claim that there is an infinite self-existent being, upon whom all finite realities depend for their existence, but who in turn depends on nothing. Assuming the intelligibility of the key concepts in this claim and assuming also that we know this claim to be true, it still needs to be asked how we can know, except by the use of our own moral understanding, that this infinite, self-existent being is good or is a being whose commands we ought to obey. Sine he—to talk about this being anthropomorphically by the use of personal pronouns—is powerful enough, we might decide that it would be “the better part of valour” to obey him, but this decision would not at all entail that we <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought</i> to obey him. How do we know that this being is good, except by our own moral discernment? We could not discover that this being is good or just by discovering that he “laid the foundation of the world” or “created man in his image and likeness.” No information about the behavior patterns of this being would of itself tell us that he was good, righteous or just. We ourselves would have to decide that, or, to use the misleading idiom of the ethical intuitionist, we would have to intuit or somehow come to perceive or understand that the unique ethical properties of goodness, righteousness and justness apply to this strange being or “ground of all being” that we somehow discover to exist. Only if we independently knew what we would count as good, righteous, just, would we be in a position to know whether this being is good or whether his commands ought to be obeyed. That most Christians most of the time unquestionably assume that he is good only proves that this judgment is for them a fundamental moral judgment. But this should hardly be news. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">At this point it is natural to reply: “Still, we would not even call this being God unless he was thought to be good. God, whatever else he may or may not be, in a fitting or proper object of worship.” A person arguing thus might continue: “This is really a material mode statement about the use of the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i>; that is to say, we would not call Z God unless that Z were a fitting or proper object of worship or a being that ought to be worshipped. And if we say ‘Z is a fitting object of worship’ or ‘Z ought to be worshipped,’ we must also be prepared to say ‘Z is good.’ Z could not be one without being the other; and if Z is a fitting object of worship, Z necessarily is a being we would call God. Thus, if Z is called God, then Z must also of necessity be called good since in Judaeo-Christian contexts what ought to be worshipped must also be good. (This is a logical remark about the use of the phrase ‘ought to be worshipped’ in Judaeo-Christian contexts.) God, by definition, is good. Though the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> is not equivalent to the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">good</i>, we would not call a being or power <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> unless that being was thought to be good.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">The above point is well taken, but it still remains the case that the believer has not derived a moral claim from a nonmoral religious one. Rather, he has only indicated that the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i>, like the words <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Spirit, Santa Clause, Honky,…</i>is not a purely descriptive term. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i>, like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Saint</i>, and so forth, has an evaluative force; it expresses a pro-attitude on the part of the believer and does not just designate or even describe a necessary being or transcendent power or immanent force. Such a believer—unlike Schopenhauer—means by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> something toward which he has an appropriate pro-attitude; employing this word with its usual evaluative force, he could not say, “God commands it but it is really evil to do it.” If, on the other hand, we simply think of what is purportedly designated or described by the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i>—the descriptive force of the word—we can say, for example, without paradox, “an objective power commands it but it is evil to do it.” By simply considering the reality allegedly denoted by the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i>, we cannot discover whether this “reality” is good. If we simply let Z stand for this reality, we can always ask, “Is it good?” This is never a self-answering question in the way it is if we ask, “Is murder evil?” Take away the evaluative force of the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> and you have no ground for claiming that it must be the case that God is good; to make this claim, with our admittedly fallible moral understanding, we must decide if this Z is good.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">“But”—it will be countered—“you have missed the significance of the very point you have just made. As you say yourself, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> is not just a descriptive word and God-sentences are not by any means used with a purely descriptive aim. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> normally has an evaluative use and God-sentences have a directive force. You cannot begin to understand them if you do not take this into consideration. You cannot just consider what Z designates or purports to designate.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">My reply to this is that we can and must if we are going to attain clarity in these matters. Certain crucial and basic sentences like “God created the Heavens and earth” and “God is in Christ,” are by no means just moral or practical utterances, and they would not have the evaluative force they do if it were not thought that in some strange way they described a mysterious objective power. The religious quest is a quest to find a Z such that Z is worthy of worship. This being the case, the evaluative force of the words and of the utterance is dependent on the descriptive force. How else but by our own moral judgment that Z is a being worthy to be worshipped are we enabled to call this Z “my Lord and my God”? Christians say there is a Z such that Z should be worshipped. Nonbelievers deny this or remain skeptical. Findlay [endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">12]</span></span>, for example, points out that this atheism is in part moral because he does not believe that there can possibly be a Z such that Z is a worthy object of worship. Father Copleston [endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">13]</span></span>, on the other hand, says there is a Z such that Z ought to be worshipped. This Z, Father Copleston claims, is a “necessary being” whose nonexistence is in some important sense inconceivable. But both Findlay and Copleston are using their own moral understanding in making their respective moral judgments. Neither is deriving or deducing his moral judgment from the statement “there is a Z” or from noticing or adverting to the fact—if it is a fact—that Z is “being-itself,” “a reality whose non-existence is unthinkable,” “the ground of being” or the like.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Morality cannot be based on religion. If anything, the opposite is partly true, for nothing can be God unless he or it is an object worthy of worship, and it is our own moral insight that must tell us if anything at all could possibly be worthy of worship.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">It is true that if some Z is God, then, by definition, Z is an object worthy of worship. But this does not entail there is such a Z; that there is such a Z would depend both on what is the case and on what we, as individuals, judge to be worthy of worship. “God is worthy of worship” is—for most uses of God—analytic. To understand this sentence requires no insight at all but only a knowledge of English; but that there is or can be a Z such that Z is worthy of worship depends, in part at least, on the moral insight—or lack thereof—of that fallible creature that begins and ends in dust. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">In her puzzling article, “Modern Moral Philosophy,”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">14]</span></span> Miss Anscombe has made a different sort of objection to the type of approach taken here. Moral uses of obligation statements, she argues, have no reasonable sense outside a divine-law conception of ethics. Without God, such conceptions are without sense. There was once a context, a religious way of life, in which these conceptions had a genuine application. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ought</i> was once equated, in a relevant context, with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">being obliged, bound </i>or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">required</i>. This came about because of the influence of the Torah. Because of the “dominance of Christianity for many centuries the concepts of being bound, permitted or excused became deeply embedded in our language and thought.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">15]</span></span> But since this is no longer so unequivocally the case these conceptions have become rootless. Shorn of this theistic Divine Law, shorn of the Hebrew-Christian tradition, these conceptions can only retain a “mere mesmeric force” and cannot be “inferred from anything whatever.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">16]</span></span> I think Miss Anscombe would say that I have shown nothing more than this in my above arguments. What I have said about the independence of morality from religion is quite correct for this “corrupt” age, where the basic principles of a divine-law conception of ethics appear merely as practical major premises on a par with the principle of utility and the like. In such contexts a moral <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought</i> can only have a psychological force. Without God, it can have no “discernible content,” for the conception of moral obligation “only operates in the context of law.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">17]</span></span> By such moves as I have made above, I have, in effect, indicated how moral obligation <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">now</i> has only a delusive appearance of content. And in claiming that without God these still can be genuine moral obligations, I have manifested “a detestable desire to retain the atmosphere of the term “morally obligatory” where the term itself no longer has a genuine use.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">18]</span></span> “Only if we believe in God as a law-giver can we come to believe that there is anything a man is categorically bound to do on pain of being a bad man.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">19]</span></span> The concept of obligation has, without God, become a Holmesless Watson. In our present context, Miss Anscombe argues, we should, if “psychologically possible,” jettison the concepts of moral obligation, moral duty and the like and approach ethics only after we have developed a philosophical psychology which will enable us to clarify what pleasure is, what a human action is and what constitutes human virtue and distinctively “human flourishing.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>[endnote 20<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="color: black; line-height: 18px;">]</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">I shall not be concerned here with the larger issue raised by Miss Anscombe’s paradoxical, excessively obscure, yet strangely challenging remarks. I agree, of course, that philosophical psychology is important, but I am not convinced that we have not “done” ethics and cannot profitably “do” ethics without such a philosophical psychology. I shall, however, be concerned here only to point out that Miss Anscombe has not shown us that the notion of moral obligation is unintelligible or vacuous without God and his laws.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">We have already seen that if so-and-so is called a divine command or an ordinance of God, then it is obviously something that the person who behave like this it is not because you base morals on religion or on a law ought to obey, for he would not call anything a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">divine</i> command or an ordinance of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> unless he thought he ought to obey it. But we ourselves, by our own moral insight, must judge that such commands or promulgations are worthy of such an appellation. Yet no moral conceptions follow from a command or law as such. And this would be true at any time whatsoever. It is a logical and not a historical consideration. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">Now it is true that if you believe in God in such a way as to accept God as your Lord and Master, and if you believer that something is an ordinance of God, then you ought to try to follow this ordinance. But if you believe like this it is not because you base morals on religion or on a law concept of morality, but because he who can bring himself to say “my God” uses <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i> and cognate words evaluatively. To use such an expression is already to make a moral evaluation; the man expresses a decision, that he is morally bound to do whatever God commands. “I ought to do whatever this Z commands” is an expression of moral obligation. To believe in God, as we have already seen, involves the making of a certain value judgment; that is to say, the believer believers that there is a Z such that Z is worthy of worship. But his value judgment cannot be derived from just examining Z, or from hearing Z’s commands or laws. Without a pro-attitude on the part of the believer toward Z, without a decision by the individual concerned that Z is worthy of worship, nothing of moral kind follows. But no decision of this sort is entailed by discoveries about Z or by finding out what Z commands or wishes. It is finally up to the individual to decide that this Z is worthy of worship. That this Z ought to be worshipped, that this Z ought to be called his Lord and Master. We have here a moral use of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought</i> that is logically prior to any law conception of ethics. The command gains obligatory force because it is judged worthy of obedience. If someone says, “I do not pretend to appraise God’s laws, I just simply accept them because God tells me to,” similar considerations obtain. This person judges that there is a Z that is a proper object of obedience. This expresses his own moral judgment, his own sense of what he is obliged to do. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;">A religious belief depends for its viability on our sense of good and bad—our own sense of worth—and not vice versa. It is crucial to an understanding of morality that this truth about the uses of our language be understood. Morality cannot be based on religion, and I (like Findlay) would even go so far as to deny in the name of morality that any Z whatsoever could be an object or being worthy of worship. But whether or not I am correct in this last judgment, it remains the case that each person with his own finite and fallible moral awareness must make decisions of this sort for himself. This would be so whether he was in a Hebrew-Christian tradition or in a “corrupt” and “shallow” consequentialist tradition or in any tradition whatsoever. A moral understanding must be logically prior to any religious assent. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Endnotes</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt;"></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">1.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Brunner, Emil (1947), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Divine Imperative</i>, translated by Olive Wyon, London: Lutterworth Press, chapter IX.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">2.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Nowell-Smitt, P.H. (1966), “Morality: Religious and Secular” in Ramsey, Ian (ed.), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Christian Ethics and Contemporary Philosophy</i>, London: SCM Press. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">3.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Ewing, A.C. (1961), “The Autonomy of Ethics” in Ramsey, Ian (ed.), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Prospect for Metaphysics</i>, London: Allen and Unwin.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">4.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 39.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">5.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 40.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">6.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 41<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">7.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>See Rees, D.A. (1961), “Metaphysical Schemes and Moral Principles” in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Prospect for Metaphysics</i>, op. cit. p. 23.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">8.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Hepburn, Ronald (1958), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Christianity and Paradox</i>, London: C.A. Watts, p. 132.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">9.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>This is surely to assume a lot.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">10.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Finally we must be quite clear that X’s being good is but a necessary condition for X’s being the perfect good. But what would be a sufficient condition? Do we really know? I think we do not. We do not know how to identify the referent of “the Perfect Good.” Thus in one clear sense we do not understand what such a phrase means.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">11.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>This objection has been made in an unpublished paper by Professor T.P. Brown<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">12.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Findlay, J.N. (1955), “Can God’s Existence be Disproved?” in Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre (eds.), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New Essays in Philosophical Theology</i>, New York: Macmillan Company, pp. 47-56.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">13.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Russell, Bertrand and Copleston, F.C. (1957), “The Existence of God: A Debate” in Bertrand Russell, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Why I am Not a Christian</i>, London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 145-47.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">14.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Anscombe, Elizabeth (January 1958), “Modern Moral Philosophy” in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Philosophy</i>, vol. 33, no. 8.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">15.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 5.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">16.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 8.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">17.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 18.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">18.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 18.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">19.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., p. 6.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 12.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">20.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ibid</i>., pp. 1, 15, 18.<o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-88907670424626265082011-04-18T21:41:00.003-07:002011-04-19T14:45:26.684-07:00An Atheist in Church-My First Unitarian Universalist Visit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r2qVLWVAAeg/Ta0SJnK7-_I/AAAAAAAAA6o/7LyvawOazgc/s1600/Unitarian+Universalist-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r2qVLWVAAeg/Ta0SJnK7-_I/AAAAAAAAA6o/7LyvawOazgc/s1600/Unitarian+Universalist-1.jpg" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Today I decided not to go to church with Angelina and her family choosing rather to test out some other churches to see if I could find one more to my liking. Now there were several churches nearby that if I decided to visit them I knew exactly what I would be getting into once I walked in the door. They were all various evangelical denominations that shared similar theologies to the one I grew up with and thus would offer few surprises and the fact that it was Palm Sunday made it even easier to predict what the sermon would be. Needless to say none of these churches jumped out as an exciting place to visit. But then I discovered there was a Unitarian Universalist church close to the house. It is about 3.5 miles from the house, which equals about an hour of walking and that’s easy enough for me. Now I had never been to a Unitarian church before though I knew at least a little about it due to previous historical and theological studies. Then during the week I studied the church’s website and looked at some information about the denomination in general and was fairly encouraged by what I was reading. With that said it is always a bit scary to walk into a place where you really have no idea what is going to happen. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Getting to the church was easy enough because I didn’t have to walk. Angelina dropped me off on her way to church the only downside to this was that I was there fairly early so I hung out at a McDonalds across the street reading a book until church started. When I walked over to the church I found out that the church is not a free standing building rather it occupies a space within an office park. I arrived about 15 minutes before the service was set to begin. The main room was pretty big and the chairs were already set up when I walked in. I did not count but I would guess there were around a hundred chairs set up in the room. The second I walked into the door I was greeted by one of the church members who then asked if I had been there before even though I think she already knew the answer. When I said no she offered me an envelope that they give to all the visitors, which simply contained information about the church. The also allowed me to make a name tag for myself to make it easier to get to know people. Everyone in the room had name tags on, which I liked because it really helped me focus on talking to people instead of trying to memorize a bunch of new names. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">It did not take long before more and more people came up and introduced themselves to me. Most of the basic questions were covered. I told people I had spent my last year living in Korea teaching English and that I had moved here to be with Angelina and that I grew up in Denver and so on. Now one of the questions that most people asked was where I lived, meaning where in Sacramento did I live? I told them where I was and soon explained that I did not drive but actually would be walking back home. And within 10 minutes of being there I had already been offered a ride home. I couldn’t believe how easy that was and just how comfortable I felt accepting it. Often I feel fairly nervous around new people and I fear awkward situations so usually I do not spend a lot of time, at first, with new groups or people. But almost from the moment I walked into this church I felt quite comfortable and enjoyed each of the people I had a chance to meet and chat with. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Church began with the singing of a few hymns. They sang three hymns but what I found odd was that they only sang the first verse of each hymn. Later on I would discover that the full version of each of the hymns would be sung again at different points in the service and that each of the songs chosen was connected to the part of the service during which it was sung. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">After this one the members of the church got up and read the seven principles the church affirms which were beautifully painted on one of the walls. The principles are:<o:p></o:p></span></div><ul type="square"><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The inherent worth and dignity of every person;<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">After this the congregation was asked to stand up and to say together a short paragraph describing the purpose of their church, it was like a mission statement. They said, “The ministry of our church is to foster open minds, caring hearts, helping hands and growing spirits in a congregation of all ages. By living and sharing Unitarian Universalist values, our spiritual and intentionally diverse community seeks to bring compassion and justice to the world.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Now both this purpose and the principles of the church were things I felt quite encouraged by and made me think this was a place I could actually see myself going to and enjoying. Clearly the value of humanity took precedence over silly or pointless theological statements of faith that were often detrimental to genuine morality, which made me very happy. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">At this time the children in the church were invited to the front of the room. The minister gave a short message for the children and then dismissed them to go to their classrooms for Sunday school. I truly was surprised by how many children were in this church they must have been about half the congregation. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Next there was a time where the floor was opened up for anyone in the congregation to share any joys or sorrows that they were experiencing in their lives or for others. The word prayer was used a few times but some people used phrases like “keep this in your mind or heart” rather than “pray.” There was then a time of silence allowing for prayer or reflection. I really appreciated this time because silence really is vital to genuine thought and it was always in silence were I felt God’s presence when I was a Christian more than in loud services. There had almost never a moment of silence in the Assemblies of God church I had been attending for the last five weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Next they passed the offering plates while a lady read a poem called “Jesus Dies” written by Anne Sexton. Here’s the poem.<span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
<br />
</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">From up here in the crow's nest<br />
I see a small crowd gather.<br />
Why do you gather, my townsmen?<br />
There is no news here.<br />
I am not a trapeze artist.<br />
I am busy with My dying.<br />
Three heads lolling,<br />
bobbing like bladders.<br />
No news.<br />
The soldiers down below<br />
laughing as soldiers have done for centuries.<br />
No news.<br />
We are the same men,<br />
you and I,<br />
the same sort of nostrils,<br />
the same sort of feet.<br />
My bones are oiled with blood<br />
and so are yours.<br />
I want to kiss God on His nose and watch Him sneeze<br />
and so do you.<br />
Not out of disrespect.<br />
Out of pique.<br />
Out of a man-to-man thing.<br />
I want heaven to descend and sit on My dinner plate<br />
and so do you.<br />
I want God to put His steaming arms around Me<br />
and so do you.<br />
Because we need.<br />
Because we are creatures.<br />
My townsmen,<br />
go home now.<br />
I will do nothing extraordinary.<br />
I will not divide in two.<br />
I will not pick out My white eyes.<br />
Go now,<br />
this is a personal matter,<br />
a private affair and God knows<br />
none of your business.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">It was then time for the sermon for which I was fairly excited. I can honestly say this is the first sermon I was excited about in at least a year. And the minister did not disappoint. I discovered that the lady who spoke was not the head minister but she was a wonderful speaker who was engaging and clearly thoughtful. She began by saying that today she was going to preach using Christian themes despite the difficulty that would create for many there. It became clear that the sermons did not always rely on Christian scriptures or lessons but rather drew from other religions and systems of thought as well, which I found very encouraging. It was also clear that many of the people in the church had come to that church to escape from more traditional and evangelical Christian churches. I figured this meant I would most likely be listening to a message that would be considered unorthodox by all of the churches I had grown up in, which excited me and brought me great reassurance about the value of how I was about to spend the next hour of my life. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">On the program the sermon was titled “Darkness before Dawn.” Under the title there was a short paragraph which read, “In the Christian story, the events that precede Easter reflect the darkest depths of the human experience: disappointment, betrayal, torture and execution. UUs (Unitarian Universalists) often avoid thinking about the crucifixion of Jesus and what it represents because of the ways that violence and suffering have been glorified in our Christian dominated culture. Is there more to the story than those damaging messages? Can we deepen our understanding of the Easter myth by confronting what comes first? Come explore the possibilities.” This was her invitation and it is one I’m glad I accepted. Now I did not actually read this part of the program until much later in the day after I had already gotten home but it is a solid introduction to the message shared that day. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The speaker then explained about her personal background and when she stopped being a Christian in the traditional sense, it was only years later that she would become a Unitarian. It was her first year of college and one of the main reasons was in fact the Easter story. She said she could just no longer escape the horrors of the Easter story. The blatant message of child abuse and needless suffering coupled with a blood thirsty God who was unable or unwilling to simply forgive people. Many of these themes and the theology that sprang from them are things that the Unitarian church rejects. Being Unitarian she said she does support the rejection of these doctrines but she then explained that she felt the Unitarian church in its dismissal of the obviously false parts of the Easter story often ends up going too far, sacrificing too much of the Easter story to its own detriment. She explained that there was in fact a difference between the Christian stories of Easter and the traditional Christian interpretations of Easter and she wanted to encourage the church to keep the former while rejecting the later. She encouraged the congregation to look at the Easter story with fresh eyes.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">First she recounted the last week of Jesus life from Palm Sunday up until the crucifixion. She was clearly well read on the historical situation of the time and the various views of modern scholarship surrounding the Easter story rather than merely just what the texts said. She discussed the various expectations held by those in the crowd celebrating when Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Whether it was the expectation of Jesus being a king sent by God to overthrow the Romans and restore Jewish self-rule, or that Jesus was a prophet like those from the scriptures sent by God to call Israel to purify itself and follow the ways of God as described in the law or that Jesus was an apocalyptic messenger sent to warn Israel of God’s imminent judgment of the entire world. All of these expectations would of course be dashed by the crucifixion and death of Jesus. But the failure brought by the crucifixion was not in fact the failure of Jesus but rather of the people themselves and their mistaken expectations of who Jesus was. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">She then spent time examining and contrasting the two trails of Jesus. First the one in front of the Sanhedrin and second the one in front of Pilate and the Roman authorities. She notes that Jesus’ main offense in Jewish eyes is a theological one. Is Jesus the son of God? He confirms that he is. (There is, of course, a lot of discussion about what that phrase means at the time and many scholars do not believe the term “son of God” meant Jesus actually thought he was divine the way later church doctrines would label him) Then with the Romans the main issue concerning Jesus is a political one; is he the king of the Jews? Jesus also confirms this. On a side note she pointed out the problems with this story’s portrayal of the Jewish leaders and the simple likelihood that it was inaccurate. She also showed many of the crimes committed by the church throughout history based on this skewed views of Judaism. For her the story of Jesus before the Sanhedrin was not about Jewish duplicity, as the church would later teach, but rather about how occupying powers divide people groups in order to consolidate their own power. I have spent a great deal of my academic life studying Judaism and I really appreciated her understanding of the built in biases to the gospel stories and that she openly shared them with the congregation. The fact is the Romans would obviously not have liked anyone claiming to be a king of any sort, but the various accounts go to great lengths to make Pilate look as innocent as possible when it comes to Jesus’ crucifixion. This is of course to keep the early church out of trouble with the Roman authorities as much as was possible. The result is the story throws a majority of the blame for Jesus’ death upon the Jewish leaders despite the fact that they had no legitimate authority or power to cause Jesus to be crucified and this is one of the main sources for the horrible anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic beliefs of the church that would cause horrible crimes and suffering to the Jewish people all the way up to the Holocaust. I discuss this story as found in Matthew and all its horrible consequence at greater length in another blog of mine. <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2011/01/matthew-27-jesus-standing-before-pilate.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">See here</span></a>. And again her ability to share both the story as it is written by the individual authors of the gospels and to explain the actual history and meaning behind those stories was quite impressive.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">She notes that in the various stories surrounding the last week of Jesus’ life (Palm Sunday, the Last Supper, the Garden of Gethsemane, the betrayal of Judas, the denial of Peter, the trails before Pilate and the Sanhedrin, and the crucifixion) one sees the depths of suffering and pain that is possible in a human life. The capacity for human suffering goes beyond just our biological selves and what we can feel in a physical sense. The fact is suffering is a part of human existence and the Easter story understands this and tries to deal directly with that issue. Dealing with the issue of suffering the minister said outright that she needs a religion that grapples with human brokenness and the darkness that exists in the human soul rather than one that ignores those facts and this is what the Easter myth is about, human brokenness. Now unlike traditional Christian churches she did not believe any of the suffering found in the Easter story (physical/psychological/spiritual) was necessary for her or anyone one else’s salvation. Rather the crucifixion was merely a consequence of political acts of violence. There was no substitutional atonement to be found in this story and it was clear that she understood the danger of belief in substitutional atonement and all the horrible crimes committed in Western history due to that belief. She asserted that people do not need someone else to suffer for their own salvation in fact people do not need suffering to get salvation. The two are not inseparably linked for Unitarians the way they are for a majority of the Christian church, which for me was quite gratifying to see. But suffering remains real and the Easter story sees the difficulty created by the human problem of suffering and with the resurrection offers that there is a hope beyond it. No matter how much pain one suffers healing is possible. Restoration, community and love remain and they offer a hope amidst our suffering. No matter how much one suffers life will go on, love will go on and people will still come together for peace, justice and love. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I will note that one does not need a bloody atoning sacrifice or a literal resurrection for the Easter story to be valuable. The speaker at this church understood that and offered an encouraging and well as thought-filled sermon showing me that one can be intellectually honest and spiritual deep at the same time. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">After the sermon one of the hymns that we had sung at the beginning was now sung again in its full version. The hymn is called “Wake, Now My Senses” and I found it to be quite moving. The hymn goes as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
Wake, now my senses, and hear the earth call;<br />
feel the deep power of being in all;<br />
keep, with the web of creation your vow,<br />
giving, receiving as love shows us how.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Wake, now my reason, reach out to the new,<br />
join with each pilgrim who quests for the true;<br />
honor the beauty and wisdom of time;<br />
suffer your limit, and praise the sublime.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Wake, now compassion, give heed to the cry;<br />
voices of suffering fill the wide sky;<br />
take as your neighbor both stranger and friend,<br />
praying and striving their hardship to end.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Wake, now my conscience, with justice your guide;<br />
join with all people whose rights are denied;<br />
take not for granted a privileged place;<br />
God's love embraces the whole human race.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;">Wake, now my vision of ministry clear;<br />
brighten my pathway with radiance here;<br />
mingle my calling with all who will share;<br />
work toward a planet transformed by our care. </span><i><span style="color: black; font-size: 7pt; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Overall it was nice to be a part of a service that encouraged a person to think as much as it encouraged a person to feel. It was clear that my reason was meant to be stimulated as much as my heart. I did not feel like I was being manipulated, either intentionally or not, by the speaker. She was quite open about when she was sharing her opinion and always encouraged the audience to study these things on their own to see what they might find. She felt no need to create some sort of artificial authority for her ideas by saying God spoke to her or that she understood the “true” meaning of the bible. She did not even assert that the bible was an unquestionable source of truth. It was clear that the search for truth superseded the search for higher membership totals or a belief in limited membership in heaven. For the first time in years I can honestly say I enjoyed church on Sunday. </span><o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-6624908694380960352011-04-14T08:10:00.000-07:002011-04-14T08:10:06.792-07:00Elizabeth Anderson-If God is Dead is Everything Permitted?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: left;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TjM1mE5O5OI/TacOEk5va1I/AAAAAAAAA6k/ItQPJjtUmRQ/s1600/Anderson%252C+Elizabeth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TjM1mE5O5OI/TacOEk5va1I/AAAAAAAAA6k/ItQPJjtUmRQ/s1600/Anderson%252C+Elizabeth.jpg" /></a>Here is a great essay by Elizabeth Anderson dealing with the issue of ethics and morality without God. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px;">Elizabeth Anderson is the Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan. She teaches courses in ethics, social and political philosophy, philosophy of the social sciences, and feminist theory. Her research has focused on democratic theory, equality in political philosophy and American law, racial integration, the ethical limits of markets, theories of value and rational choice (alternatives to consequentialism and economic theories of rational choice), the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and John Dewey, and feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. For more information about her and her publications click <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/">here</a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u>If God is Dead is Everything Permitted?</u></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><u><br />
</u></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">At the Institute for Creation Research Museum in Santee, California, visitors begin their tour by viewing a plaque displaying the "tree of evolutionism," which, it is said (following Matt. 7:18), "bears only corrupt fruits." The "evil tree" of evolution is a stock metaphor among proponents of the literal truth of the biblical story of creation. In different versions, it represents evolutionary theory as leading to abortion, suicide, homosexuality, the drug culture, hard <i>rock, </i>alcohol, "dirty books," sex education, alcoholism, crime, government regulation, inflation, racism, Nazism, communism, terrorism, socialism, moral relativism, secularism, feminism, and humanism, among other phenomena regarded as evil. The roots of the evil tree grow in the soil of "unbelief," which "nourishes the tree with "sin." The base of its trunk represents "no God"—that is, atheism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The evil tree vividly displays two important ideas. First, the fundamental religious objection to the theory of evolution is not scientific but moral. Evolutionary theory must be opposed because it leads to rampant immorality, on both the personal and political scales. Second, the basic cause of this immorality is atheism. Evolutionary theory bears corrupt fruit because it is rooted in denial of the existence of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Most forms of theism today are reconciled to the truth of evolutionary theory. But the idea of the evil tree still accurately depicts a core objection to atheism. Few people of religious faith object to atheism because they think the evidence for the existence of God is compelling to any rational inquirer. Most of the faithful haven't considered the evidence for the existence of God in a spirit of rational inquiry—that is, with openness to the possibility that the evidence goes against their faith. Rather, I believe that people object to atheism because they think that without God, morality is impossible. In the famous words (mis)attributed to Dostoyevsky, "If God is dead, then everything is permitted.” Or, in the less-famous words of Senator Joe Lieberman, we must not suppose "that morality can be maintained without religion."<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Why think that religion is necessary for morality? It might be thought that<i> </i>people wouldn't <i>know </i>the difference between right and wrong if God did not reveal it to them. But that can't be right. Every society whether or not it is<i> </i>founded on theism, has acknowledged the basic principles of morality, excluding religious observance which are laid down in the Ten Commandments. Every stable society punishes murder, theft, and bearing false witness; teaches children to honor their parents; and condemns envy of one's neighbor's possessions, at least when such envy leads one to treat one's neighbors badly. People figured out these rules long before they were exposed to any of the major monotheistic religions. This fact suggests that moral knowledge springs not from revelation but from people's experiences in living together, in which they have learned that they must adjust their own conduct in light of others' claims.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Perhaps, then, the idea that religion is necessary for morality means that people wouldn't <i>care </i>about the difference between right and wrong if God did not promise salvation for good behavior and threaten damnation for bad behavior. On this view, people must be goaded into behaving morally through divine sanction. But this can't be right, either. People have many motives, such as love, a sense of honor, and respect for others, that motivate moral behavior. Pagan societies have not been noticeably more immoral than theistic ones. In any event, most theistic doctrines repudiate the divine sanction theory of the motive to be moral. Judaism places little emphasis on hell. Christianity today is dominated by two rival doctrines of salvation. One says that the belief that Jesus is one's savior is the one thing necessary for salvation. The other says that salvation is a free gift from God that cannot be earned by anything a person may do or believe. Both doctrines are inconsistent with the use of heaven and hell as incentives to morality.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A better interpretation of the claim that religion is necessary for morality is that <i>there wouldn't be a difference between right and wrong </i>if God did not make it so. Nothing would really be morally required or prohibited, so everything would be permitted. William Lane Craig, one of the leading popular defenders of Christianity, advances this view. Think of it in terms of the authority of moral rules. Suppose a person or group proposes a moral rule—say, against murder. What would give this rule authority over those who disagree with it? Craig argues that, in the absence of God, nothing would. Without God, moral disputes reduce to mere disputes over subjective preferences. There would be no right or wrong answer. Since no individual has any inherent authority over another, each would be free to act on his or her own preference. To get authoritative moral rules, we need an authoritative commander. Only God fills that role. So the moral rules get their authority, their capacity to obligate us, from the fact that God commands them.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Sophisticates will tell you that this moralistic reasoning against atheism is illogical. They say that whether God exists depends wholly on the factual evidence, not on the moral implications of God's existence. Do not believe them. We know the basic moral rules—that it is wrong to engage in murder, plunder, rape, and torture, to brutally punish people for the wrongs of others or for blameless error, to enslave others, to engage in ethnic cleansing and genocide—with greater confidence than we know any conclusions drawn from elaborate factual or logical reasoning. If you find a train of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that everything, or even just these things, is permitted, this <i>is </i>a good reason for you to reject it. Call this "the moralistic argument." So, if it is true that atheism entails that everything is permitted, this is a strong reason to reject atheism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">While I accept the general form of the moralistic argument, I think it applies more forcefully to theism than to atheism. This objection is as old as philosophy. Plato, the first systematic philosopher, raised it against divine command theories of morality in the fifth century BCE. He asked divine-command moralists: are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right? If the latter is true, then actions are right independent of whether God commands them, and God is not needed to underwrite the authority of morality. But if the former is true, then God could make any action right simply by willing it or by ordering others to do it. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, <i>in principle, </i>anything is permitted.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This argument is not decisive against theism, considered as a purely philosophical idea. Theists reply that because God is necessarily good, He would never do anything morally reprehensible Himself, nor command us to perform heinous acts. The argument is better applied to the purported <i>evidence </i>for theism. I shall argue that if we take the evidence for theism with <i>utmost seriousness, </i>we will find ourselves committed to the proposition that the most heinous acts are permitted. Since we know that these acts are not morally permitted, we must therefore doubt the evidence for theism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Now "theism" is a pretty big idea, and the lines of evidence taken to support one or another form of it are various. So I need to say more about theism and the evidence for it. By "theism" I mean belief in the God of Scripture. This is the God of the Old and New Testaments and the Koran—the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is also the God of any other religion that accepts one or more of these texts as containing divine revelation, such as the Mormon Church, the Unification Church, and Jehovah's Witnesses. God, as represented in Scripture, has plans for human beings and intervenes in history to realize those plans. God has a moral relationship to human beings and tells humans how to live. By focusing on theism in the Scriptural sense, I narrow my focus in two ways. First, my argument doesn't immediately address polytheism or paganism, as is found, for example, in the religions of Zeus and Baal, Hinduism or Wicca. (I'll argue later that, since the evidence for polytheism is on a par with the evidence for theism, any argument that undermines the latter undermines the former.) Second, my argument doesn't immediately address deism, the philosophical idea of God as a first cause of the universe, who lays down the laws of nature and then lets them run like clockwork, indifferent to the fate of the people subject to them.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">What, then, is the evidence for theism? It is Scripture, plus any historical or contemporary evidence of the same kind as presented in Scripture: testimonies of miracles, revelations in dreams, or what people take to be direct encounters with God: experiences of divine presence, and prophecies that have been subject to test. Call these things "extraordinary evidence," for short. Other arguments for the existence of God offer cold comfort to theists. Purely theoretical arguments such as for the necessity of a first cause of the universe can at most support deism. They do nothing to show that the deity in question cares about human beings or has any moral significance. I would say the same about attempts to trace some intelligent design in the evolution of life. Let us suppose, contrary to the scientific evidence, that life is the product of design. Then the<i> </i>prevalence of gratuitous violence, pain and suffering, predation, parasitism, disease, and imperfect human organs strongly supports the view that the designer is indifferent to us.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The core evidence for theism, then, is Scripture. What if we accept Scripture as offering evidence of a God who has a moral character and plans for human beings, who intervenes in history and tells us how to live? What conclusions should we draw from Scripture about God's moral character and about how we ought to behave? Let us begin with the position of the fundamentalist, of one who takes Scripture with utmost seriousness, as the inerrant source of knowledge about God and morality. It we accept biblical inerrancy, I'll argue, we must conclude that much of what we take to be morally evil is in fact morally permissible and even required.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Consider first God's moral character, as revealed in the Bible. He routinely punishes people for the sins of others. He punishes all mothers by condemning them to painful childbirth, for Eve's sin. He punishes all human beings by condemning them to labor, for Adam's sin (Gen. 3:16-18). He regrets His creation and in a fit of pique, commits genocide and ecocide by flooding the earth (Gen. 6:7). He hardens Pharaoh's heart against freeing the Israelites (Ex. 7:3), so as to provide the occasion for visiting plagues upon the Egyptians, who, as helpless subjects of a tyrant, had no part in Pharaoh's decision. (So much for respecting free will - the standard justification for the existence of evil in the world?) He kills all the firstborn sons, even of slave girls who had no part in oppressing the Israelites (Ex. 11:5). He punishes the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great great-grandchildren of those who worship any other god (Ex. 20:3-5). He sets a plague upon the Israelites, killing 24,000, because some of them had sex with the Baal-worshiping Midianites (Num. 25:1-9). He lays a three-year famine on David's people for <i>Saul's </i>slaughter of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1). He orders David to take a census of his men, and then sends a plague on Israel, killing seventy thousand for David's sin in taking the census (2 Sam. 24:10-15). He sends two bears out of the woods to tear forty-two children to pieces, because they called the prophet Elisha a bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24). He condemns the Samarians, telling them that their <i>children </i>will be "dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). This is but a small sample of the evils celebrated in the Bible.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Can all this cruelty and injustice be excused on the ground that God may do what humans may not? Look, then, at what God commands humans to do. He commands us to put to death adulterers (Lev. 20:10), homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), and people who work on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2). He commands us to cast into exile people who eat blood (Lev. 7:27), who have skin diseases (Lev. 13:46), and who have sex with their wives while they are menstruating (Lev. 20:18). Blasphemers must be stoned (Lev. 24:16), and prostitutes whose fathers are priests must be burned to death (Lev. 21:9). That's just the tip of the iceberg. God repeatedly directs the Israelites to commit ethnic cleansing (Ex. 34:11-14, Lev. 26:7-9) and genocide against numerous cities and tribes: the city of Hormah (Num. 21:2-3), the land of Bashan (Num. 21:33-35), the land of Heshbon (Deut. 2:26-35), the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, and Jebusites (Josh. 1-12). He commands them to show their victims "no mercy" (Deut. 7:2), to "not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deut. 20:16). In order to ensure their complete extermination, he thwarts the free will of the victims by hardening their hearts (Deut. 2:30, Josh. 11:20) so that they do not sue for peace. These genocides are, of course, instrumental to the wholesale theft of their land (Josh. 1:1-6) and the rest of their property (Deut. 20:14, Josh. 11:14). He tells eleven tribes of Israel to nearly exterminate the twelfth tribe, the Benjamites, because a few of them raped and killed a Levite's concubine. The resulting bloodbath takes the lives of 40,000 Israelites and 25,100 Benjamites (Judg. 20:21,25,35). He helps Abijiah kill half a million Israelites (2 Chron. 13:15-20) and helps Asa kill a million Cushites, so his men can plunder all their property (2 Chron. 14:8-13).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Consider also what the Bible <i>permits. </i>Slavery is allowed (Lev. 25:44-46, Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22). Fathers may sell their daughters into slavery (Ex. 21:7). Slaves may be beaten, as long as they survive for two days after (Ex. 21:20—21, Luke 12:45-48). Female captives from a foreign war may be raped or seized as wives (Deut. 21:10-14). Disobedient children should be beaten with rods (Prov. 13:24, 23:13). In the Old Testament, men may take as many wives and concubines as they like because adultery for men consists only in having sex with a woman who is married (Lev. 18:20) or engaged to someone else (Deut. 22:23). Prisoners of war may be tossed off a cliff (2 Chron. 24:12). Children may be sacrificed to God in return for His aid in battle (2 Kings 3:26-27, Judg. n), or to persuade Him to end a famine (2 Sam. 21).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Christian apologists would observe that most of these transgressions occur in the Old Testament. Isn't the Old Testament God a stern and angry God, while Jesus of the New Testament is all-loving? We should examine, then, the quality of the love that Jesus promises to bring to humans. It is not only Jehovah who is jealous. Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt. 10:35-37). He promises salvation to those who abandon their wives and children for him (Matt. 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30). Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26). The rod is not enough for children who curse their parents; they must be killed (Matt. 15:4-7, Mark 7:9-10, following Lev. 20:9). These are Jesus' "family values." Peter and Paul add to these family values the despotic rule of husbands over their silenced wives, who must obey their husbands as gods (1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:1).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">To be sure, genocide, God-sent plagues, and torture do not occur in the times chronicled by the New Testament. But they are prophesied there, as they are repeatedly in the Old Testament (for instance, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, and Zepheniah). At the second coming, any city that does not accept Jesus will be destroyed, and the people will suffer even more than they did when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:14-15, Luke 10:12). God will flood the Earth as in Noah's time (Matt. 24:37). Or perhaps He will set the Earth on fire instead, to destroy the unbelievers (2 Pet. 3:7, 10) - but not before God sends Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the Earth "by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts" (Rev. 6:8). Apparently, it is not enough to kill people once; they have to be killed more than once to satisfy the genocidal mathematics of the New Testament. For we are also told that an angel will burn up one third of the Earth (8:7), another will poison a third of its water (8:10-11), four angels will kill another third of humanity by plagues of fire, smoke, and sulfur (9:13, 17-18), two of God's witnesses will visit plagues on the Earth as much as they like (11:6), and there will be assorted deaths by earthquakes (11:13, 16:18-19) and hailstones (16:21). Death is not bad enough for unbelievers, however; they must be tortured first. Locusts will sting them like scorpions until they want to die, but they will be denied the relief of death (9:3-6). Seven angels will pour seven bowls of God's wrath, delivering plagues of painful sores, seas and rivers of blood, burns from solar flares, darkness and tongue-biting (16:2-10).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">That's just what's in store for people while they inhabit the Earth. Eternal damnation awaits most people upon their deaths (Matt. 7:13-14). They will be cast into a fiery furnace (Matt. 13:42, 25:41), an unquenchable fire (Luke 3:17). But, for what reason? The New Testament is not consistent on this point. Paul preaches the doctrine of predestination, according to which salvation is granted as an arbitrary gift from God, wholly unaffected by any choice humans may make (Eph. 1: 4-9). This implies that the rest are cast into the eternal torments of hell on God's whim. Sometimes salvation is promised to those who abandon their families to follow Christ (Matt. 19:27-30, Mark 10:28-30, Luke 9:59-62). This conditions salvation on a shocking indifference to family members. More often, the Synoptic Gospels promise salvation on the basis of good works, especially righteousness and helping the poor (for example, Matt. 16:27, 19:16-17; Mark 10:17-25; Luke 18:18-22, 19:8-9). This at least has the form of justice, since it is based on considerations of desert. But it metes out rewards and punishments grossly disproportional to the deeds people commit in their lifetimes. Finite sins cannot justify eternal punishment. Since the Reformation, Christian thought has tended to favor either predestination or justification by faith. In the latter view, the saved are all and only those who believe that Jesus is their savior. Everyone else is damned. This is the view of the Gospel of John (John 3:15-16, 18, 36; 6:47; 11:25-26). It follows that infants and anyone who never had the opportunity to hear about Christ are damned, through no fault of their own. Moreover, it is not clear that even those who hear about Christ have a fair chance to assess the merits of the tales about him. God not only thwarts our free will so as to visit harsher punishments upon us than we would have received had we been free to choose. He also messes with our heads. He sends people "powerful delusions" so they will not believe what is needed for salvation, to make sure that they are condemned (2 Thess. 2:11-12). Faith itself may be a gift of God rather than a product of rational assessment under our control and for which we could be held responsible. If so, then justification by faith reduces to God's arbitrary whim, as Paul held (Eph. 2:8-9). This at least has the merit of acknowledging that the evidence offered in favor of Christianity is far from sufficient to rationally justify belief in it. Granting this fact, those who do not believe are blameless and cannot be justly punished, even if Jesus really did die for our sins.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">And what are we to make of the thought that Jesus died for our sins (Rom. 5:8-9, 15-18; 1 John 2:2; Rev. 1:5)? This core religious teaching of Christianity takes Jesus to be a scapegoat for humanity. The practice of scapegoating contradicts the whole moral principle of personal responsibility. It also contradicts any moral idea of God. If God is merciful and loving, why doesn't He forgive humanity for its sins straightaway, rather than demanding His 150 pounds of flesh, in the form of His own son? How could any loving father do that to his son?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I find it hard to resist the conclusion that the God of the Bible is cruel and unjust and commands and permits us to be cruel and unjust to others. Here are religious doctrines that on their face claim that it is all right to mercilessly punish people for the wrongs of others and for blameless error, that license or even command murder, plunder, rape, torture, slavery, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. We know such actions are wrong. So we should reject the doctrines that represent them as right.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Of course, thoughtful Christians and Jews have struggled with this difficulty for centuries. Nothing I have said would come as a surprise to any reflective person of faith. Nor are theists without options for dealing with these moral embarrassments. Let us consider them.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">One option is to bite the bullet. This is the only option open to hard-core fundamentalists, who accept the inerrancy of the Bible. In this view, the fact that God performed, commanded, or permitted these actions demonstrates that they are morally right. This view concedes my objection to theism, that it promotes terrible acts of genocide, slavery, and so forth. But it denies the moral force of this objection. We know where this option has led: to holy war, the systematic extirpation of heretics, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, witch-hunts, the cultural genocide of Mayan civilization, the brutal conquest of the Aztecs and the Inca, religious support for genocidal ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, slavery of Africans in the Americas, colonialist tyranny across the globe, confinement of the Jews to ghettos, and periodic pogroms against them, ultimately preparing the way for the Holocaust. In other words, it has led to centuries steeped in bloodshed, cruelty, and hatred without limit across continents.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Since this is clearly reprehensible, one might try a stopgap measure. One could deny that the dangerous principles in the Bible have any application after biblical times. For example, one might hold that, while it is in principle perfectly all right to slaughter whoever God tells us to, in fact, God has stopped speaking to us. This argument runs into the difficulty that many people even today claim that God has spoken to them. It is hard to identify any reason to be comprehensively skeptical about current claims to have heard divine revelation that does not apply equally to the past. But to apply such skepticism to the past is to toss out revelation and hence the core evidence for God.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Another option is to try to soften the moral implications of embarrassing biblical episodes by filling in unmentioned details that make them seem less bad. There is a tradition of thinking about "hard sayings" that tries to do this. It imagines some elaborate context in which, for instance, it would be all right for God to command Abraham to sacrifice his son, or for God to inflict unspeakable suffering on His blameless servant Job, and then insists that that was the context in which God actually acted. I have found such excuses for God's depravity to be invariably lame. To take a typical example, it is said of David's seemingly innocent census of his army that he sinned by counting what was not his, but God's. Even if we were to grant this, it still does not excuse God for slaughtering seventy thousand of David's men, rather than focusing His wrath on David alone. I also find such casuistic exercises to be morally dangerous. To devote one's moral reflections to constructing elaborate rationales for past genocides, human sacrifices, and the like is to invite applications of similar reasoning to future actions.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I conclude that there is no way to cabin off or soft-pedal the reprehensible moral implications of these biblical passages. They must be categorically rejected as false and depraved moral teachings. Morally decent theists have always done so in practice. Nevertheless, they insist that there is much worthy moral teaching that can be salvaged from the Bible. They would complain that the sample of biblical moral lessons I cited above is biased. I hasten to agree. There are many admirable moral teachings in the Bible, even beyond the obvious moral rules—against murder, stealing, lying, and the like—that are acknowledged by all societies. "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, James 2:8) concisely encapsulates the moral point of view. The Bible courageously extends this teaching to the downtrodden, demanding not just decency and charity to the poor and disabled (Ex. 23:6, 23:11; Lev. 19:10,23:22; Deut. 15:7-8,24:14-15; Prov. 22:22; Eph. 4:28; James 2:15-16), but provisions in the structure of property rights to liberate people from landlessness and oppressive debts (Deut. 15, Lev. 25:10-28). Although the details of these provisions make little economic sense (for instance, canceling debts every seven years prevents people from taking out loans for a longer term), their general idea, that property rights should be structured so as to enable everyone to avoid oppression, is sound. Such teachings were not only morally advanced for their day but would dramatically improve the world if practiced today.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So, the Bible contains both good and evil teachings. This fact bears upon the standing of Scripture, both as a source of evidence for moral claims, and as a source of evidence for theism. Consider first the use of Scripture as a source of evidence for moral claims. We have seen that the Bible is morally inconsistent. If we try to draw moral lessons from a contradictory source, we must pick and choose which ones to accept. This requires that we use our own independent moral judgment, founded on some source other than revelation or the supposed authority of God, to decide which biblical passages to accept. In fact, once we recognize the moral inconsistencies in the Bible, it's clear that the hardcore fundamentalists who today preach hatred toward gay people and the subordination of women, and who at other times and places have, with biblical support, claimed God's authority for slavery, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, have been picking and choosing all along. What distinguishes them from other believers is precisely their attraction to the cruel and despotic passages in the Bible. Far from being a truly independent guide to moral conduct, the Bible is more like a Rorschach test: which passages people choose to emphasize reflects as much as it shapes their moral character and interests.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Moral considerations, then, should draw theists inexorably away from fundamentalism and toward liberal theology—that is, toward forms of theism that deny the literal truth of the Bible and that attribute much of its content to ancient confusion, credulity, and cruelty. Only by moving toward liberal theology can theists avoid refutation at the hands of the moralistic argument that is thought to undermine atheism. Only in this way can theists affirm that the heinous acts supposedly committed or commanded by God and reported in the Bible are just plain morally wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant took this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion for morality. He considered the case of an inquisitor who claims divine authority for executing unbelievers. That the Bible commends such acts is undeniable (see Ex. 22:20, 2 Chron. 15:13, Luke 19:27, Acts 3:23). But how do we know that the Bible accurately records God's revealed word? Kant said:</span></div><blockquote><span style="color: black; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">That it is wrong to deprive a man of his life because of his religious faith is certain, unless ... a Divine Will, made known in extraordinary fashion, has ordered it otherwise. But that God has ever ordered this terrible injunction can be asserted only on the basis of historical documents and is never apodictically certain. After all, the revelation has reached the inquisitor only through men and has been interpreted by men, and even did it appear to have come from God Himself (like the command delivered to Abraham to slaughter his own son like a sheep) it is at least possible that in this instance a mistake has prevailed. But if this is so, the inquisitor would risk the danger of doing what would be wrong in the highest degree; and in this very act he is behaving un-conscientiously.</span></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Kant advances a moral criterion for judging the authenticity of any supposed revelation. If you hear a voice or some testimony purportedly revealing God's word and it tells you to do something you know is wrong, don't believe that it's really <i>God </i>telling you to do these things.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I believe that Kant correctly identified the maximum permissible moral limits of belief in extraordinary evidence concerning God. These limits require that we reject the literal truth of the Bible. My colleague Jamie Tappenden argues that such a liberal approach to faith is theologically incoherent. Perhaps it is. Still, given a choice between grave moral error and theological muddle, I recommend theological muddle every time.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But these are not our only alternatives. We must further ask whether we should accept <i>any </i>part of the Bible as offering evidence about the existence and nature of God. Once we have mustered enough doubt in the Bible to reject its inerrancy, is there any stable position short of rejecting altogether its claims to extraordinary evidence about God? And once we reject its claims, would this not undermine all the extra-biblical extraordinary evidence for God that is of the same kind alleged by believers in the Bible? Here we have a body of purported evidence for theism, consisting of what seem to be experiences of divine presence, revelation, and miracles, testimonies of the same, and prophecies. We have seen that such experiences, testimonies, and prophecies are at least as likely to assert grave moral errors as they are to assert moral truths. This shows that these sources of extraordinary evidence are deeply unreliable. <i>They can't be trusted. </i>So not only should we think that they offer no independent support for m<i>oral </i>claims, but we should not think they offer independent support for <i>theological </i>claims.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Against this, defenders of liberal theology need to argue that the claims derived from these extraordinary sources fall into two radically distinct groups. In one group, there are the purported revelations that assert moral error, which should not be accepted as having come from God and offer no independent support for any claim about God. In the other group there are the genuine revelations that assert moral truths or some morally neutral proposition (for example, claims about historical events and prophecies of the future), as well as testimonies of miracles and experiences of divine presence, which should be accepted as having come from God and do provide evidence for the existence and nature of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I think this fallback position should be rejected for two reasons. First, it does not explain why these extraordinary types of evidence should be thought to fall into two radically distinct groups. Why should they <i>ever </i>have generated grave moral errors? Second, it does not explain why all religions, whether monotheistic, polytheistic or non-theistic, appear to have access to the same sources of evidence. Believers in any one religion can offer no independent criteria for accepting their own revelations, miracles, and religious experiences while rejecting the revelations, miracles, and religious experiences that appear to support contradictory religious claims. I believe that the best explanation for both of these phenomena—that the extraordinary sources of evidence generate grave moral error as well as moral truth and that they offer equal support for contradictory religious claims—undermines the credibility of these extraordinary sources of evidence altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So first, why were the ancient biblical peoples as ready to ascribe evil as good deeds to God? Why did they think God was so angry that He chronically unleashed tides of brutal destruction on humanity? The answer is that they took it for granted that <i>all </i>events bearing on human well-being are willed by some agent for the purpose of affecting humans for good or ill. If no human was observed to have caused the event, or if the event was of a kind (e.g., a plague, drought, or good weather) that no human would have the power to cause, then they assumed that some unseen, more-powerful agent had to have willed it, precisely for its good or bad effects on humans. So, if the event was good for people, they assumed that God willed it out of love for them; if it was bad, they assumed that God willed it out of anger at them. This mode of explanation is universally observed among people who lack scientific understanding of natural events. It appears to be a deeply rooted cognitive dissonance and bias of humans to reject the thought of meaningless suffering. If we are suffering, someone <i>must </i>be responsible for it!<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Why did these representations of God as cruel and unjust not make God repugnant to the authors of Scripture and their followers? They were too busy trembling in their sandals to question what they took to be God's will. The seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes observed that people honor raw<i> </i>power irrespective of its moral justification:</span></div><blockquote><span style="color: black; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nor does it alter the case of honour, whether an action (so it be great and difficult, and consequently a sign of much power) be just or unjust: for honour consisteth only in the opinion of power. Therefore the ancient heathen did not think they dishonoured, but greatly honoured the Gods, when they introduced them in their poems, committing rapes, thefts, and other great, but unjust, or unclean acts: insomuch as nothing is so much celebrated in Jupiter, as his adulteries; nor in Mercury, as his frauds, and thefts: of whose praises, in a hymn of Homer, the greatest is this, that being born in the morning, he had invented music at noon, and before night, stolen away the cattle of Apollo, from his herdsmen.</span></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hobbes's psychological explanation applies even more emphatically to the<b> </b>authors Scripture, the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians, whose God commits deeds several orders of magnitude more terrible than anything the Greek gods did.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ancient social conditions also made God's injustice less obvious to the early Jews and Christians. Norms of honor and revenge deeply structure the social order of tribal societies. These norms treat whole clans and tribes, rather than individuals, as the basic units of responsibility. A wrong committed by a member of a tribe could therefore be avenged by an injury inflicted on any other member of that tribe, including descendents of the wrongdoer. Given that people in these societies habitually visited the iniquities of the fathers on the sons, it did not strike the early Hebrews and Christians as strange that God would do so as well, although on a far grander scale.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So the tendency, in the absence of scientific knowledge, to ascribe events having good <i>and bad </i>consequences for human beings to corresponding benevolent <i>and malevolent </i>intentions of unseen spirits, whether these be gods, angels, ancestors, demons, or human beings who deploy magical powers borrowed from some spirit world, explains the belief in a divine spirit as well as its (im)moral character. This explanatory tendency is pan-cultural. The spiritual world everywhere reflects the hopes and fears, loves and hatreds, aspirations and depravities of those who believe in it. This is just as we would expect if beliefs in the supernatural are, like Rorschach tests, projections of the mental states of believers, rather than based on independent evidence. The same cognitive bias that leads pagans to believe in witches and multiple gods leads theists to believe in God. Indeed, once the explanatory principle—to ascribe worldly events that bear on human well-being to the intentions and powers of unseen spirits, when no actual person is observed to have caused them—is admitted, it is hard to deny that the evidence for polytheism and spiritualism of all heretical varieties is <i>exactly on a par </i>with the evidence for theism. Every year in my town, Ann Arbor, Michigan, there is a summer art fair. Not just artists, but political and religious groups, set up booths to promote their wares, be these artworks or ideas. Along one street one finds booths of Catholics, Baptists, Calvinists, Christian Orthodox, other denominational and nondenominational Christians of all sons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'i, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews for Jesus, Wiccans, Scientologists, New Age believers—representatives of nearly every religion that has a significant presence in the United States. The believers in each booth offer evidence of exactly the same kind to advance their religion. Every faith points to its own holy texts and oral traditions, its spiritual experiences, miracles and prophets, its testimonies of wayward lives turned around by conversion, rebirth of faith, or return to the church.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Each religion takes these experiences and reports them as conclusive evidence for <i>its </i>peculiar set of beliefs. Here we have purported sources of evidence for higher, unseen spirits or divinity, which systematically point to <i>contradictory </i>beliefs. Is there one God, or many? Was Jesus God, the son of God, God's prophet, or just a man? Was the last prophet Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or the Rev. Sun Myung Moon?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Consider how this scene looks to someone like me, who was raised outside of any faith. My father is nominally a Lutheran and in practice religiously indifferent. My mother is culturally Jewish but not practicing. Having been rejected by both the local Lutheran minister and the local rabbi (in both cases, for being in a mixed marriage), but thinking that some kind of religious education would be good for their children, my parents helped found the local Unitarian church in the town where I grew up. Unitarianism is a church without a creed; there are no doctrinal requirements of membership. (Although Bertrand Russell once quipped that Unitarianism stands for the proposition that there is <i>at most </i>one God and these days pagans are as welcome as all others.) It was a pretty good fit for us, until New Age spiritualists started to take over the church. That was too loopy for my father's rationalistic outlook, so we left. Thus, religious doctrines never had a chance to insinuate themselves into my head as a child. So I have none by default or habit.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Surveying the religious booths every year at the Ann Arbor art fair, I am always struck by the fact that they are staffed by people who are convinced of their own revelations and miracles, while most so readily disparage the revelations and miracles of other faiths. To a mainstream Christian, Jew, or Muslim, nothing is more obvious than that founders and prophets of other religions, such as Joseph Smith, the Rev. Moon, Mary Baker Eddy, and L. Ron Hubbard, are either frauds or delusional, their purported miracles or cures are tricks played upon a credulous audience (or worse, exercises of black magic), their prophecies false, their metaphysics absurd. To me, nothing is more obvious than that the evidence cited on behalf of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is of exactly the same type and qualify as that cited on behalf of such despised religions. Indeed, it is on a par with the evidence for Zeus, Baal, Thor, and other long-abandoned gods, who are now considered ridiculous by nearly everyone.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The perfect symmetry of evidence for all faiths persuades me that the <i>types </i>of extraordinary evidence to which they appeal are not credible. The sources of evidence for theism—revelations, miracles, religious experiences, and prophecies, nearly all known only by testimony transmitted through uncertain chains of long-lost original sources—systematically generate contradictory beliefs, many of which are known to be morally abhorrent or otherwise false. Of course, ordinary sources of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony of ordinary events, also often lead to conflicting beliefs. But in the latter case, we have independent ways to test the credibility of the evidence—for instance, by looking for corroborating physical evidence. In the former cases, the tests advanced by believers tend to be circular: don't believe that other religion's testimonies of miracles or revelations, since they come from those who teach a false religion (Deut. 13:1-5). It is equally useless to appeal to the certainty in one's heart of some experience of divine presence. For exactly the same certainty has been felt by those who think they've seen ghosts, spoken to dead relatives, been kidnapped by aliens, or been possessed by Dionysus or Apollo. Furthermore, where independent tests exist, they either disconfirm or fail to confirm the extraordinary evidence. There is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood, no archaeological evidence that Pharaoh's army drowned in the Red Sea after Moses parted it to enable the Israelites to escape. Jesus' central prophecy, that oppressive regimes would be destroyed in an apocalypse, and the Kingdom of God established <i>on Earth, within the lifetime of those witnessing his preaching </i>(Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:24-27, 30), did not come to pass. If any instance of these extraordinary sources of evidence is what it purports to be, it is like the proverbial needle in the haystack—except that there is no way to tell the difference between it and the hay. I conclude that none of the evidence for theism—that is, for the God of Scripture—is credible. Since exactly the same types of evidence are the basis for belief in pagan Gods, I reject pagan religions too.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It follows that we cannot appeal to God to underwrite the authority of morality. How, then, can I answer the moralistic challenge to atheism, that without God moral rules lack any authority? I say: the authority of moral rules lies not with God, but with each of us. We each have moral authority with respect to one another. This authority is, of course, not absolute. No one has the authority to order anyone else to blind obedience. Rather, each of us has the authority to make claims on others, to call upon people to heed our interests and concerns. Whenever we lodge a complaint, or otherwise lay a claim on others' attention and conduct, we <i>presuppose </i>our own authority to give others reasons for action that are not dependent on appealing to the desires and preferences they already have. But whatever grounds we have for assuming our own authority to make claims is equally well possessed by anyone who we expect to heed our own claims. For, in addressing others as people to whom our claims are justified, we acknowledge <i>them </i>as judges of claims, and hence as moral authorities. Moral rules spring from our practices of reciprocal claim making, in which we work out together the kinds of considerations that count as reasons that all of us must heed, and thereby devise rules for living together peacefully and cooperatively, on a basis of mutual accountability.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">What of someone who refuses to accept such accountability? Doesn't this possibility vindicate Craig's worry, that without some kind of higher authority external to humans, moral claims amount to nothing more than assertions of personal preference, backed up by power? No. We deal with people who refuse accountability by restraining and deterring their objectionable behavior. Such people have no proper complaint against this treatment. For, in the very act of lodging a complaint, they address others as judges of their claims, and thereby step into the very system of moral adjudication that demands their accountability.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I am arguing that morality, understood as a system of reciprocal claim making, in which everyone is accountable to everyone else, does not need its authority underwritten by some higher, external authority. It is underwritten by the authority we all have to make claims on one another. Far from bolstering the authority of morality, appeals to divine authority can undermine it. For divine command theories of morality may make believers feel entitled to look only to their idea of God to determine what they are justified in doing. It is all too easy under such a system to ignore the complaints of those injured by one's actions, since they are not acknowledged as moral authorities in their own right. But to ignore the complaints of others is to deprive oneself of the main source of information one needs to improve one's conduct. Appealing to God, rather than those affected by one's actions, amounts to an attempt to escape accountability to one's fellow human beings.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is not an indictment of the conduct of theists in general. Theistic moralities, like secular ones, have historically inspired both highly moral and highly immoral action. For every bloodthirsty holy warrior we can find an equally violent communist or fascist, enthusiastically butchering and enslaving others in the name of some dogmatically held ideal. Such observations are irrelevant to my argument. For my argument has not been about the <i>causal consequences </i>of belief for action. It has been about the <i>logical implications </i>of accepting or rejecting the core evidence for theism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I have argued that if we take with utmost seriousness the core evidence for theism, which is the testimonies of revelations, miracles, religious experiences, and prophecies found in Scripture then we are committed to the view that the most heinous acts are morally right, because Scripture tells us that God performs or commands them. Since we know that such acts are morally wrong, we cannot take at face value the extraordinary evidence for theism recorded in Scripture. We must at least reject that part of the evidence that supports morally repugnant actions. Once we have stepped this far toward liberal theological approaches to the evidence for God, however, we open ourselves up to two further challenges to this evidence. First, the best explanation of extraordinary evidence—the only explanation that accounts for its tendency to commend heinous acts as well as good acts—shows it to reflect either our own hopes and feelings, whether these be loving or hateful, just or merciless, or else the stubborn and systematically erroneous cognitive bias of representing all events of consequence to our welfare as <i>intended </i>by some agent who cares about us, for good or for ill. Extraordinary evidence, in other words, is a projection of our own wishes, fears, and fantasies onto an imaginary deity. Second, all religions claim the same sorts of extraordinary evidence on their behalf. The perfect symmetry of this type of evidence for completely contradictory theological systems, and the absence of any independent ordinary evidence that corroborates one system more than another, strongly supports the view that such types of evidence are not credible at all. And once we reject such evidence altogether, there is nothing left that supports theism (or polytheism, either). The moralistic argument, far from threatening atheism, is a critical wedge that should open morally sensitive theists to the evidence against the existence of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-71466144204221955192011-04-09T11:26:00.001-07:002011-04-09T11:27:43.452-07:00An Atheist in Church-The Devil<div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RK1LfVSRhGY/TaCkaX2TsjI/AAAAAAAAA6g/JHQ_PPFTa28/s1600/The+Devil-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RK1LfVSRhGY/TaCkaX2TsjI/AAAAAAAAA6g/JHQ_PPFTa28/s320/The+Devil-1.jpg" width="186" /></a>For those who do not know since returning to the United States I have now been going to a church for five weeks. The church is an Assemblies of God church. Click <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2011/03/atheist-goes-to-church-beginning.html">here</a> to see a previous blog explaining why I have gone back to church and my initial reactions to it. I have to admit going back to church has been a bit harder than I expected though that is in large part due to the style of the church I am now attending. I find the services focus far more on emotive responses than intellectual ones. I find the sermons can be quite repetitive involving more times of jumping around and singing then actually teaching. The sermon is littered with “repeat after me…” and “tell your neighbor this…” and “tell your other neighbor…(exact same thing).” It’s just a hard service for me to get through as I find very little of it to be intellectually stimulating. Due to this fact there have been no big messages for me to respond to rather I have merely noticed little things, like one phrase or various actions that trigger thoughts and thus ideas for blogs.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In this blog the issue I want to discuss is the devil. Now the devil has not played a central role in any of the sermons that I have listen to yet there has not been a service where the devil has not been mentioned or referenced. Each time the devil is referred to it disappoints me because it really deflates whatever point the pastor was making and makes it very difficult for me to take him seriously. There are few beliefs in the Christian faith that are harder for me to respect then the belief in the devil, especially the way in which Christians use him to explain away such complex issues such as evil or suffering. Now the devil is a helpful belief for the church in that it can be used in whatever way best suits the church for any given situation so in that sense I understand why the church has taught Christians to believe in the devil. First the devil serves as spiritual scapegoat to get God off the hook for any potential responsibility for the bad things that happen in the world. Overall that’s a pretty poorly put together belief and crumbs fairly quickly under the acceptance of other Christian doctrines such as God’s omnipotence. Then, historically the devil was often projected onto other people so as to justify the church’s oppression and abuse of various people groups. Today the devil is still projected onto other people creating constant war metaphors the church uses when talking about non-Christians and their overall view of those outside of their faith. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This church has used many war metaphors during prayer and the sermon that I find very repulsive. In one sermon the pastor was talking about the Israelites conquest of Canaan and described the “home of the Canaanites” as the “home of the devil” which had to be conquered and cleansed. The second he said this I lost all respect for what the pastor had said that day. He seemed completely happy to describe these people, the Canaanites, who were real human beings as nothing more than demons. This of course made it easy to explain why God commanded their complete genocide and freed his congregants from having to question the morality of the God they were choosing to worship. It was literally sickening to me how receptive the congregation was to this message as they clapped and cheered for their pastor’s hateful ideas. It made the church members appear completely heartless or more likely completely conditioned to demonize the Canaanites and other peoples that God commanded slaughtered. It was this conditioning that produced a type of dangerous mindlessness, which resulted in the heartlessness of the pastor’s widely accepted message. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Each week the devil is also referred to in connection with any personal suffering or troubles the people may be having. Whether during worship, prayer, the sermon or the alter call the devil makes an appearance as the congregation is told that the devil no longer has any power over them if they are under the blood of Jesus and for those who are not all they must do is accept Jesus to be freed from the devil. The oddity to me of these statements is that they seem to demonstrate the exact opposite of what they say. The pastor’s constant mention of the devil’s powerlessness over them seems to displays that this devil continues to have amazing power over them. The devil appears to have taken over their imagination and grown into a giant of sorts given credit for numerous events and happenings both globally and individually among the church members. He’s gained such a great amount of power that the church has to be reminded weekly that God has conquered the devil and as Christians they are free of this devil. The devil becomes this odd character who is both powerful enough to cause destruction and suffering on the earth and to the individual but is also powerless and impotent when it comes to anything that actually upsets God’s ultimate plan. Again this allows the congregates to credit God with all that is good and blame the devil for all that is bad without really thinking those ideas through. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I have studied the history and development of the Satan character during my time in school. I have enjoyed seeing where he came from and how he was shaped and changed by the various cultures and time periods he spanned. The fact is that Satan did not exist in a majority of the Hebrew bible and then by the time he comes along he is actually a good angel working for God. He is then slowly morphed into an evil being that serves as the main opposition to God. As Satan becomes stronger and more evil he is projected backwards into biblical stories he never existed in, like the Garden of Eden, and he is used to explain things (existence of evil, suffering), which even if he were real he ultimately cannot explain.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When I was a Christian I believed that the devil existed but he never played a large part in my faith certainly not to the extent he plays in this church’s faith. He was merely a being who had rebelled against God and failed. For me he served more as a warning for those who would do likewise rather than an active being that had to be fought against. So even if I had been in this church back when I was a Christian I am sure I would still be tired of the constant references to Satan but now as a non-Christian they are particularly annoying. At their best these mentions of the devil are laughable but at their worst they are covers for a hateful “us vs. the world” and “we’re better than everyone else” mentality that is diluted just enough to become a part of those listening to it without them even realizing it. This message usually lays dormant not affecting the Christian who is carrying it but given the right circumstances this foul message will rear its ugly head often with horrible consequences. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sadly the devil has become part of my weekly life due to this church. The power they give this literary character truly amazes me even as they claim he is powerless. Whether they admit it or not their view of the devil does affect them and he does so for the worst. Christianity does have many good messages and ideas to offer but Satan is not one of them. I can only hope that at least some of the people in the audience come to see these based on reason and the genuine concern for other people. <o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-7972549676048002952011-03-30T09:08:00.001-07:002011-08-30T10:58:36.109-07:00An Atheist in Church-The Beginning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--yz8GzP5Za4/TZNVZS4m92I/AAAAAAAAA6I/jxZevarx2ws/s1600/Atheist+Church+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--yz8GzP5Za4/TZNVZS4m92I/AAAAAAAAA6I/jxZevarx2ws/s320/Atheist+Church+2.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So I am officially living in the United States again. The past month and a half has been very busy getting everything done that I needed to in order to be able to leave Korea and move back home without any problems. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Now a lot of things went into my decision to leave Korea rather than continuing to teach there but the main thing that led me to come back was my girlfriend. I wanted to give our relationship a real chance and I knew that wasn’t going to happen if I stayed in Korea so I moved to California so I could be with her. Her family offered me a room to stay in so that I could actually afford to come back since I wouldn’t have a job when I got here, which was just over a month ago, and I accepted. Now this room didn’t quite come free of charge the fact is that in order to stay here I had to agree to go to church every Sunday. As a freethinker (includes atheism but not just atheism) this was a fairly hard thing to accept. The family knew this about me so they knew what they were asking of me. Now I was told that I could go to church anywhere I wanted, I didn’t have to go with them to their church but due to the fact that I don’t particularly care about church anymore I figured I would just go with them as it would be the easiest option. I also thought it would offer a lot more opportunities for interesting conversations if we were all listening to the same sermons. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I have now been to three services and before I went to the first one I felt this could turn into great material for my blog. So I’m attempting to begin a series in my blog that will document my experiences as an atheist in church. Of course the fact that I used to be a Christian and went to seminary allows me to feel relatively comfortable in church and know enough to be able to fit in and not create problems…unless of course I want to. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Since this is my first entry I wanted to provide some basic information about the church I am now attending so as to give people the opportunity to better understand the type of information I will be hearing and thus responding to. The church is part of the Assemblies of God denomination. For those who don’t know the Assemblies of God denomination is firmly in what is called the Pentecostal movement, originating in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century. Each church functions autonomously from all other Assemblies of God churches but they are united by certain shared beliefs. Most Pentecostal denominations are best known for their emphasis on the “gifts of the Spirit” which often include speaking in tongues and diving healing. Like all Protestant denominations the bible remains central as the source of authority in all theological and practical matters. Now again since each church functions independently of each other none of them will be exactly the same. Like most Evangelical Protestant churches the church is greatly shaped by the pastor or minister who is in charged as he/she is the one who directs what is taught and thus believed in each church. I grew up in an Evangelical church myself but it was an Evangelical Presbyterian church. Now I have been to many different types of churches and participated in multiple inter-denominational services so I had a pretty good idea of what I was about to get into before I ever stepped into this church. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">My first Sunday I got to the church early due to the fact that Angelina (my girlfriend) helps with the multimedia stuff and has to be there to set up all the necessary things for the service to work. Now the media/sound room was over on the side of the stage near the corner, which brought me immediate joy as I saw I would be able to distance myself from the action in the middle of the congregation. As people began to filter in I noticed the church was pretty ethnically diverse. As I met people I found the term “God bless you” was used as a form of hello particularly by the older congregants. I of course did not return the blessing saying “hello” or “nice to meet you” instead. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The service began with the worship leader praying. I was fairly used to the style of prayer. It was meant to sound very spontaneous as if it were being led by the Spirit. The word “God” or “Jesus” was used quite often and basically functioned as a filler word like the word “um”. Then the worship began. I knew most of the songs that were played though they played a few of them a bit more up tempo then I was used to. The worship was very active. One man utilized dancing flags, tambourines and a shofar (ram’s horn) that he chose to blow at various times during the worship. There was a lot of clapping and the raising of hands. The phrase “yes Lord” was repeated numerous times. It was a lot of “follow the leader” type of worship. By that I mean the worship leader would say something like “praise Jesus” and then the congregation would repeat the phrase. This type of listen and repeat style was placed into every song.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">After the worship one of the members of the congregation performed what they called a “human video.” Basically the man dressed up and acted out a scene (silently) based on a song that was playing during his performance. The song was sung from the perspective of Simon the Cyrene, the man who the Synoptic Gospels say carried Jesus’ cross. (this differs from the Gospel of John, which says that Jesus carried the cross all by himself the entire way to where he was crucified-John 19:17) There was a lot of reaction from the audience during the performance, which swelled till the end when everyone broke out cheering and applauding for the performer. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It was then time for the offering. The lady who took the stage told everyone to stand up because people don’t give when they are comfortable. Needless to say I decided to stay comfortable and did not stand. The woman then used war metaphors, which I found fairly repulsive to describe people’s offerings and why they must give to God (meaning of course her church). She then went on to explain how it is not enough only to give to God but one must give for the right reasons. “There is a difference between people who give because they must and those who give because they want to,” she said. I found it a bit funny that this came after her discussion of why they <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">must</i> give to God. She then prayed for everyone’s blessing, particularly their financial blessing and then the offerings were taken while a song that had been previously sung was repeated. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">It was then time for the sermon, which was the time I had been both dreading and anticipating the most because it was the time I felt I would be the most engaged both good and bad by what was happening. The pastor continued a series he had been doing that focused on the theme of “climbing mountains” by looking at various stories in Genesis (Abraham, Moses, etc.). Now instead of really getting into the topic of the day I want to simply discuss the preaching style of this pastor. I admit it was a style I was not overly used to. During the sermon the preacher relied heavily on repetition for his points. He constantly repeated various sentences getting louder and louder with each repetition. He constantly moved around on the stage, utilizing his movement (constantly stomping on stage) to emphasize his points. Similar to the worship leader he often called for the congregation to repeat various things he said. It was hard not to feel like members of the church merely became parrots during the sermon repeating whatever they were told to repeat rather than actually thinking about it and weighing it against their own studies. The sermon really did not feel like a time of teaching rather it reminded me more of a motivational speech relying on emotional tricks to gain the desired response from the audience. I know it was the type of a sermon that I would not have enjoyed even back when I was a Christian because after almost 35 or 40 minutes of the pastor talking I felt I had not learned anything about the actual passage he was supposed to be discussing. Now in many ways this sermon was not that different than most sermons one will hear in any church in that it was focused completely upon a devotional view of the scripture and did not present the congregation with any true critical analysis of the text. People didn’t walk away with any new knowledge about the text rather they walked away with new feelings about the text, if anything. Again in that aspect the pastor was no different than the vast majority of ministers and pastors in this country. But with that said I felt this pastor did not even pretend to teach his congregation new information about the text but rather merely played on their emotions to illicit certain responses from them. I have now sat through three “sermons” and nothing has changed. It has honestly felt like the last three weeks has just been the exact same sermon over and over. In reality he has not provide much information for me to even react to and it is getting fairly boring.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">After the sermon finally came to an end the pastor moved right into the alter call where he asked people to come forward to accept Jesus or to renew their relationship with God or to seek God’s blessing. The sermon was really meant to get as many people to come forward as possible. I felt the alter call was needlessly elongated as he kept trying to get more and more people to come down. He kept finding new reasons for people to come down (renew relationship with God, fix broken relationships, your job, money issues, family issues, etc.) Again if felt more like a time of manipulation then genuine spirituality. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So I have now been to three services and I have still not quite figured out how I am going to organize the entries in this series or if this will even be able to work as a series. Here I merely tried to give an over-all picture of what the church service is like by describing each part (Prayer, Worship, Offering, Sermon and Alter Call) but I will not do that every week since the parts of the service don’t really change. I will likely spend most of my time sharing my reactions to various parts of the service. I have found as I’ve sat there that many, many different ideas have been sparked for me but they have not all fallen into some nice pattern that would make one good piece in fact they often have not really connected to what was actually happening in the service, instead someone would say something and it would make me go off on a tangent in my head while they continued on a different track. So moving forward I really have no idea what this will turn into so we will just see what happens.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-14568726173649963292011-03-11T13:35:00.006-08:002011-04-26T09:08:33.325-07:00Can a Good God exist? An Atheist and a Christian Debate the Problem of Evil (3)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RZuC1xmlD_s/TXqWCW-2ABI/AAAAAAAAA5o/tlazqzBqD_4/s1600/Epicurus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" q6="true" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RZuC1xmlD_s/TXqWCW-2ABI/AAAAAAAAA5o/tlazqzBqD_4/s1600/Epicurus.jpg" /></a></div><br />
(click <a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">here</a> for Charger's previous post)<br />
(click <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">here</a> to see the beginning of this discussion)<br />
<br />
So the debate continues.<br />
<br />
As I start this piece I want to say that I did not address every single thing in the Charger’s previous response and I will not be pushing forward on certain arguments that I had been previously making which I believe are less important ones. I am doing this because the responses are getting very long and I know the Charger has a lot of work to deal with as do I. Still with that said if there is anything that I do not address from the previous piece that the Charger wants me to address or anyone who happens to be reading this wants me to address just ask in the comments section and I will tell you what I think. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>I) Logical Problem of Evil</u></span><br />
<br />
Now unlike the Charger I do not believe the logical problem of evil belongs in the dustbin of history unless it is accompanied by a fair amount of Christian theology. Still I do agree with him when he said we can spend the majority of our time on the evidential problem of evil. But before I do that I want to address one of his responses to one of my sections concerning the logical problem of evil. <br />
<br />
The issue I want to address is the question of why did God create the world. As I said before any theist who believes God will always act to eliminate any evil that does not prevent some greater good must explain why God created anything at all because if God is the greatest possible good then the fact is that if he had not created anything there would be nothing but the greatest possible good and thus he should not have created us at all. <br />
<br />
The Charger attempts to address this issue by saying: "The atheist has to assume that one can say that it is better not to create at all—which is impossible, because one would have to prove that X (no creation at all) would have more value than Y (creation). But it would seem meaningless to suggest that X can have any value since it is nothing (and since nothingness has no properties, it cannot have any property of value). Thus it cannot be “more valuable” than Y. But even if it could have value, how can one say that it would have more value without actually being able to experience it? Of course, one cannot experience nothingness, so it cannot be “more valuable.”" This attempted answer fails because the fact is that the Charger leaves out the most important part of the <span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">comparison</span>, which is God himself. The Charger makes X represent no creation (nothing) while Y represents creation (something) but that is an error. The fact is that X represents no creation (no evil) plus God while Y represents creation (some evil) plus God. So one is not comparing nothingness to something rather one is comparing something (only God, who is perfect goodness) to something else (God and creation, which means some evil). So it is clear that the greater good is God and no creation and thus what God should have done to maintain the greatest possible good is not create. <br />
<br />
Now concerning Stephen Law’s reverse theodicies there is nothing the Charger says that Law’s essay cannot itself address so one can simply read his essay (<a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/04/evil-god.html">link</a>) for those ideas. <br />
<br />
But let’s move on to the evidential problem of evil.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>II) Evidential Problem of Evil</u></span><br />
<br />
So the Charger begins this section labeled “How much evil is too much” by immediately avoiding the question and pointing it back at me. He says, “The Worrywart is making a value statement—that there is too much evil and that this “too much” evil is evidence against God. When anyone claims that there is too much of anything, it’s fair to ask “how much is too little” or “what amount makes up a perfect equilibrium?” So the Charger is seeking for me to designate some sort of standard before he will answer the question. He then uses examples such as the amount of deaths in the Holocaust or the price of a hamburger to try and show the absurdity of saying there is “too much” of something without some sort of standard. <br />
<br />
Now while I found this a very clever way of dodging the issue it was inaccurate and again missed the point. First, it was inaccurate because I never said there was “too much” evil rather what I said was that the Charger must, “explain how all the seemingly obvious pointless and gratuitous suffering in the world is compatible with their conception of God as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good” So one can see that what I said about the suffering in the world is a lot of it is seemingly gratuitous. I never made a claim that there was too much evil but rather that much of it seems pointless. Second, he seemed to miss the point because while a lot of the power of the evidential argument does lie in the great amount of evil that exists the actual point is not about the quantity of evil but rather about the value or usefulness of the evil that exists. The theist must demonstrate that there is absolutely NO pointless or gratuitous suffering. It doesn’t matter how much or how little evil actually exists in the world, even though it is clearly a lot, what matters for the theist is being able to properly account for all of the evil/suffering that does exist in the world. For if there is even one pointless act of evil, one needless experience of pain or one senseless occurrence of suffering in the world then their all-good God has failed to be all-good and thus goes up in smoke. So the standard that the Charger is looking for can be simply put as “too much evil” = “any pointless or gratuitous suffering”<br />
<br />
Again to be clear the actual quantity of evil does not matter. Even if in the entire history of humanity only two people committed evil acts or a only few people experienced pain if either of those acts of evil or any of those experiences of pain did not serve a greater good or prevent a greater evil then the theist fails because their God can no longer be called all-good. With that said the quantity of evil in the world is significant because it provides the power to the evidential argument in that it again seems fairly obvious that there is pointless suffering and pain in this world. As the amount of evil and suffering increases so too does the likelihood that some of that evil and suffering is gratuitous and the theist’s job becomes more difficult for the theist has the massive job of accounting for the entirety of it. It is in fact the theist’s job to explain why 6 million Jews had to die in the Holocaust instead of 5,999,999 because based on their belief if only 5,999,999 had died a greater good would have been prevented or a greater evil would have occurred. So the theist must tell us what was that greater good that came from 6 million Jewish deaths as opposed to 4 million? Going back to one of the pervious examples I’ve used the theist must explain what greater good was accomplished by each rape committed by Robert Burdick, a 40 year old man accused of 12 rapes and convicted of multiple ones. Why did there have to be 12 rapes instead of 6 rapes or 20 rapes or God forbid none? What greater good was served by exact amount of 12 rapes? Of course the theist cannot actually answer these questions and thus has to find ways to avoid the issue or say “I don’t know” which is what the Charger does next.<br />
<br />
The Charger moves on to the subsection labeled “CORNEA” in which his main point is that humanity lacks the perspective necessary to make such broad statements as there is “too much” evil in the world. He says, “if you’re not in a good position to judge the veracity of a statement, you shouldn’t make one. For example, if you’re blind, you shouldn’t try to explain what a flower looks like. The same is true for humans who have only existed for a very short time and who cannot possibly make normative statements about the history of good and evil. The above principle is known as the “nonseeum assumption.” Professor Nick Trakakis simplifies this by claiming: “If, for instance, I am looking through the window of my twentieth-floor office to the garden below and I fail to see any caterpillars on the flowers, that would hardly entitle me to infer that there are in fact no caterpillars there…the person making the inference does not have what it takes to discern the sorts of things in question.” Unfortunately while there is certainly truth to the fact that our lives are quite limited the fact is that those limitations exist for both sides of this argument. Just as he tells me I can’t infer that there are no caterpillars in the garden merely because I can’t see them neither can he infer that there are caterpillars in the garden despite the fact that we can’t see them. If we are too limited to make judgments upon the quantity and usefulness of evil then likewise we are too limited to make judgments concerning the existence of some ultimate good behind those evils. Both sides are making inferences based on our limitations so pointing that out doesn’t harm the naturalist’s point of view in the slightest. Human beings are limited but that should not stop us from making inferences based on the best information that we have available at the time. The fact is that the while the person on the 20th floor doesn’t know if there are caterpillars in the garden the fact that she does not see them or any other evidence for them (butterflies) provides her a far better reason for her inference then the person who says there are caterpillars there just because she wants them to be there. This section was just a fancy way of saying “I don’t know but you should still believe me.” <br />
<br />
So we see that the entirety of the Charger’s piece on the evidential problem of evil again never actually addresses the problem from the theist’s perspective. Instead he merely avoids the issue and then finds a clever way of saying “I don’t know.” <br />
<br />
The fact is that the theist has no answer to the evidential problem of evil rather all they have is an answer to the logical problem of evil that they believe works and then a call for faith. Basically if there is any way that it is logically possible, no matter how twisted, that an all-good God could have produced a greater good or prevented a greater evil by “allowing” some great atrocity to happen then the theist believes that that is exactly what has happened. The theist has no good reason to believe what she believes at this point rather what she has is faith and a desire for it to be true. As a former Christian I know the difficulty of trying to explain how God could be all-good while allowing (commanding) so many heinous crimes and I know that what it ultimately comes down to is some philosophical gymnastics to make it seem plausible and faith, though in reality the faith comes first and one then just tries to find anyway possible to justify what one already believes, reason has nothing to do with it.<br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">Theodicies</span></u><br />
<br />
In this section there are three issues to be addressed; free will, Jesus’ death and animal suffering/natural evil. I will deal with them in the same order that the Charger did though I will juggle around the subsections in the free will section. As I said at the beginning I will not deal with every single issue brought up in these sections in order to reduce the length of this piece and so as to better focus on the more important parts of the discussion. <br />
<br />
<u>1) Free Will Defense</u> <br />
<br />
The free will defense is the defense the Charger spends the most time on and really it is the defense that his entire argument is dependent on so of course I will spend the most time dealing with it. He spoke at great length concerning it both at the beginning of his response (section on Logical Problem of evil) and then again in the middle (section on Theodicies) so I will try to address what he said concerning it in both parts of his piece. <br />
<br />
In my previous piece I pointed out that God himself does not have logical free will (the ability to sin) thus to say it is of ultimate value is obviously wrong since it is a quality God himself does not have. It then seems clear that God could have made a world were humans had sufficient freedom (just has he has) and yet never sinned. The Charger had multiple responses to this. It should be noted that all of these responses were in the section on the logical problem of evil so the Charger was only trying to, “provide a logically possible (non-contradictory) account of how God and evil can exist to avoid the logical problem of evil.” But I will address them here to show these are arguments designed to protect a preexisting belief (God is good) rather than reasonable assertions that should make one change their mind. Even if one accepts the Charger’s claim that it is logical possible for God and suffering to co-exist it is not hard to see that the world did not have to exist the way it does since God could in fact have done things differently and so being truly good I would argue that clearly he should have done them differently.<br />
<br />
The Charger’s first response was to try and draw a distinction between created and uncreated beings and say that it is logically consistent to say that an uncreated being is wholly free yet does only what is good while it is logically impossible for this uncreated being (God) to create contingent beings that are also wholly free yet also always do what is good. I looked at this argument for quite awhile and admit I just don’t see any logically contradiction in God as an uncreated being also being able to create contingent beings wholly free who always do what is good just as he does. The Charger himself says, “It should be noted here that there is nothing logically contradictory in saying that all people could always be doing good freely—since they could always choose to do so of their own free will.” But he then quickly adds, “it is logically contradictory to say that God, being external of them, could cause all of their actions to be good and that the people would remain free.” The fact is that there was nothing in my original idea that said that after God created these beings he would “cause” all of their actions to be good rather it was the opposite they would freely chose, with the same freedom as God, to always do what was right. So while I kind of appreciate the clearness of the argument it really just boils down to an attempt to deal with the logical problem of evil without explaining why a God who could have logically made a world with contingent beings who always did what is right did not in fact create that world. <br />
<br />
The Charger’s second response relies on demonstrating that God as a necessary being cannot create other necessary beings. Thus God being omnipotent cannot create another being that is omnipotent; basically God cannot create another God. Now this idea is fine but then the Charger attempts to make the trait of a perfect free will (a free will that chooses to do only what is right) a trait that only a necessary being can have and not a contingent being. This again has the same problem as the previous argument in that this trait that the Charger labels a “perfect free will” cannot be shown to be a trait of only a necessary being particularly once one takes into account theistic views of immortality and heaven, where it is believed people will not sin (whether by choice or not is up for debate) and assuming that it is by choice it is clear that they have not somehow become necessary beings yet their freedom is not impeded and they chose only what is right.<br />
<br />
The Charger’s third and final response to this issue describes God’s “morality” as a virtue rather then a duty. Relying on William Lane Craig the Charger states, “God’s goodness is a virtue rather than a moral duty. Instead of claiming that God is all-good, in the sense that He has a duty of always being good (stated another way that He commands Himself to do good), one could say that God does good because it is His virtue to do so. Which would mean that God’s goodness no longer commands Him to act in a certain way—rather it is His virtue that causes Him to act. For it would be impossible for an omnipotent being to command itself to act.” To me this seems to just lead to Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma; is something good because God does is or does God do it because it is good? Basically saying God’s virtue causes him to act good is like saying what God does is good by definition because God is the one who does it. This leads to all sorts of problems in that God’s virtue becomes fairly meaningless in that only the actor (God) matters not the actions themselves. In short God can do whatever he wants and it is good simply because it is being done by him. <br />
<br />
Another issue created by each of these responses is that they make a necessary connection between freedom and evil, meaning one (freedom) must always lead to the other (evil). And if there is in fact no world were a person can freely chose to do what is right all the time then by definition everyone is determined to sin at some point and thus true libertarian free will really does not exist despite the Charger’s claim that that is exactly why we have the world that we have. So either way the Charger fails. <br />
<br />
So moving on I will look at different issues the Charger raised concerning free will in his Theodicies section. <br />
<br />
<u>Heaven</u><br />
<br />
So I previous posed the question about whether free will existed in heaven or not? Either way the theist faces a problem. If yes then clearly God could have made a world with no evil in it while maintaining free will if not then obviously free will is not valuable enough to keep and thus cannot justify the way the earth currently exists with all its evil. The Charger tries to deal with this by proposing, “that our desires in heaven will be “overwhelmed” by our desire to be perfect like God due to our own proximity to God—we will no longer have any desire to sin of ourselves. This would effectively mean that we’re free but that we will not sin because our sinful desire is no longer predominant.” This argument obviously fails because all God had to do was “overwhelm” us here on earth rather then wait until heaven. The Charger tries to argue against this saying that, “If God had “overwhelmed” us on earth, we would have no choice in the matter. It would be a lot like a man raping any woman he “loved.” There would be no significant difference between God “overwhelming” us and physical, emotional and spiritual rape. Of course, God cannot rape us and be all-good—thus He didn’t force himself on us.” I have to admit this made absolutely no sense to me and the Charger would need to explain what he means. How is God allowing us in his presence on earth equal to rape while God allowing us into his presence in heaven not rape? <br />
<br />
A further problem for any Christian theist who tries to use this argument is that they must explain why Adam and Eve and also Satan chose to sin against God since they all were in God’s unfiltered presence. Adam and Eve were with God in the garden and it didn’t stop them from eating the fruit. And Satan according to later tradition (post-biblical) was one of God’s archangels yet decided to rebel and fight against God. Clearly God’s presence is not enough to keep people from leaving it. Then on the flip side one can note that God exposed himself to people like Moses and Paul here on earth to cause them to follow him, so was that equal to rape? If not why can he not do the same for all of us? <br />
<br />
So clearly heaven still remains a problem for the free will argument. <br />
<br />
<u>Hell</u><br />
<br />
The issue of hell is closely connected to the issue of heaven as far as the problems it creates for theists. The theist must not only explain whether there is free will in heaven but must also explain if there is free will in hell? If there is then it seems clear that after some period of time, no matter how long or short, everyone will eventually decide to leave hell and go to heaven but this contradicts the traditional Christian doctrine of hell. If free will does not exist in hell then again one must question what ultimate value it ever held? If in the end God was going to end up removing your free will and forcing you to exist somewhere why, if he is all-good, would he simply not “force” you to be with him in heaven rather then force you against your will to be in hell? <br />
<br />
The Charger later argues that without our free will we would not even exist so if he believes there is no free will in hell he would then have to explain how people can even exist in hell. <br />
<br />
<u>Assorted Examples</u><br />
<br />
So while I was talking about free will I gave multiple examples of things God could have done differently, which would have reduced the amount of evil in the world without having any affect whatsoever on our free will. These examples included God creating people with the same skin color, the same language and the same amount of strength (men and women). He could have also removed our need for food and sex. And he could have simply taught humans more about the world around them. The Charger never actually deals with the point of the examples, which is that God could have done things differently to reduce suffering rather he dismisses these ideas without providing any real reasons as to why he dismisses them. Instead he merely states why things are the way they are never explaining why his God who could have done things differently didn’t do them differently. Concerning food and sex he said, “most humans find great pleasure in sex and food—so these two examples probably should be withdrawn.” Why should they be withdrawn? The fact that people enjoy those things is not a reason to withdraw them. People would probably also enjoy not starving to death. God could have allowed us to eat food without us needing it to live. Sex is fun but does that fun out weigh the pain and suffering that would be avoided if we didn’t have sexual impulses? And I would have to ask does the Charger think people will be having sex in heaven or need food to survive there? Christian tradition say no so why have them here? Concerning skin color he says, “there are good survival reasons for our differing skin colors. Darker-skinned people are better adapted to more sun exposure and lighter-skinned people are more adapted to higher climates. And I don’t think that we can blame God for racism.” So here he merely explains why people have different skin colors. Yes I know why people have evolved to have different skin colors but if the Charger’s God is who he says he is then we didn’t have to have those skin colors so why have them? So even if one believes God is not directly accountable for racism the simple fact is that God could have prevented it just by making us all the same color. Concerning the strength of the genders he says, “I think the strength issue is a side issue—more related to childbearing and socially assigned roles.” Why is it a side issue? Of course we know why men and women actually are the way they due to our biological roles and evolution. But again that doesn’t explain why the Charger’s God didn’t make things different because if that God is real then clearly things didn’t have to be this way. Finally concerning different languages the Charger says, “I think different languages provide incredible beauty. And, as a poet, I’ve discovered the “untranslatable” beauty of words can be an ocean of beauty.” Different languages can be beautiful, I agree but so what? How many poems is a person’s life worth? If one wants to keep all the languages God could have still allowed the development of every language and just enabled us to understand every language. So why not do that? And going back to heaven, does that Charger believe there will be different languages in heaven? Really the better question is does he believe that people will be able understand one another in heaven or will there still be communication problems? If he thinks people will be able to understand one another in heaven then again why not have it that way on earth? <br />
<br />
Telling us why things are the way they are or pointing out some of the benefits of things being the way they are does not change the fact that things did not have to be this way if the Charger’s God was real because far greater evils could have been prevented without having any affect whatsoever on humanity’s free will.<br />
<br />
The Charger then addressed my claim that God could have and should have taught humanity more about the world. In this specific instance I mentioned God teaching people about viruses and bacteria so that people could understand how and why they got sick and thus reduce the amount sickness they experienced. The Charger first turns to Swinburne saying, “that God created a world where responsibility was a big deal—where every action meant something.” I see absolutely no connection between this idea and mine. It is far easier to be responsible when one is taught about the world around them and knows what one should do or should not do. The teacher must teach otherwise don’t be surprised when the student fails. It seems that God holds humanity to a higher level of responsibility then he himself is willing to bear.<br />
<br />
To deal with the specific example of diseases the Charger turns to various dietary laws in the Pentateuch. It should be noted that there are few parts of scriptures that Christians enjoy cherry-picking from as much as Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If it serves their purpose then the verses still apply if they don’t then they explain them away using Christ’s life and death as a fulfillment of the law. But every single section of scripture the Charger cited here are sections that Christians have never followed and were in fact instructed not to follow. Paul himself taught throughout Romans (1-3) and Galatians that followers of Jesus are not supposed to keep the law except insofar as “loving your neighbor as yourself.” All of the precepts and requirements such as circumcision, dietary laws, observing the Sabbath, etc were not necessary for salvation and in fact anyone who thought or acted otherwise was in danger of losing their salvation. So at least for the Christian theist these verses are worthless as examples of God trying to teach people about diseases and bacteria and such. Beyond that the simple fact is God never explains the purpose or significance of any of these rules so you can not call any of that actual teaching. And finally these ideas were only provided to a tiny group of people 2,500 to 3,000 years ago ignoring the great majority of humanity throughout history. So clearly this God cannot be called a teacher of humanity on any level.<br />
<br />
The Charger also tries to get his God off the hook by merely saying that even if God had told people what to do there is no guarantee that they would do it. That is of course true but what can be guaranteed is that if you don’t tell people what to do, not do and most importantly why then they will certainly not know those things. Pointing to the story of the flood the Charger goes so far so to say, “Most people also didn’t listen when God warned them before the flood. If they didn’t listen to Him than, why would they listen to Him now?” So basically it seems that the Charger feels the sins of one generation should forever be held over all others. That seems to make his whole free will argument fairly worthless because apparently God has already decided it was not worth teaching us since some people didn’t listen to him before. That one idea right there is enough for me to dismiss the rationality of the belief in an all-good God (in this case it would be more accurate to say all-Christian God). <br />
<br />
Really few things expose the Christian God’s inability or unwillingness to communicate and teach as clearly as the bible. The fact is humanity (homo sapiens) have existed for 180,000 to 200,000 years but this God remained silent until about 3,000 years ago when he started to give some limited (and mostly inaccurate) information to a few individuals, which were meant to be restricted to a very small group of people. Slowly the various messages (often contradictory) spread as more and more writings got “inspired.” Still over-all God’s form of communication (scripture) was segregated to a very small portion of the world. It seems fairly clear that God simply had no desire to teach anyone in China, Japan, India, Korea, Australia, the Pacific Islands, a majority of Africa, North America or South America. This God still has not gotten his bible to everyone on this planet. Honestly how seriously can anyone take this God’s claim to care about everyone? Beyond this terribly long wait for God to speak one also finds that God is fairly inept when it comes to actually making what he means clear. Wars are constantly waged over the meaning of his words. Numerous books with conflicting messages are written that claim to be inspired by him. Religions split, various sects are formed and numerous denominations are created over God’s obvious lack of clarity. So now this God has left us 3 branches of Judaism, 2 sects in Islam and around 38,000 denominations in Christianity. Truly could anything be clearer then the fact that this God is amazingly unclear about what he wants and what we should know. It really is astonishing that those who believe in the bible thinks it serves as a positive witness to God’s desire to communicate with humanity when it is so painfully obvious that it exposes the exact opposite about their God. <br />
<br />
<u>God's Responsibility</u><br />
<br />
I point out that God as the one who gave humanity it’s free will bears part of the responsibility for what humanity has done with its free will especially knowing what we would do with it. The Charger believes this confuses the issue. He says, “Man didn’t have to abuse free will—he did so of his own free will. Thus, God cannot be blamed for it.” First this statement seems to contradict an earlier point of the Charger’s. If one goes back to the Charger’s (Plantagia’s) argument about it being impossible for God to create humans with free will who would not at some point sin then clearly humanity did, in a sense, have to abuse his free will. But moving on I used the example of parents bearing a level of responsibility for their children. The Charger did not accept this comparison though I’m not fully sure why. He says, “this example fails because it assumes that we have no cognitive ability to decide what is wrong or right.” That is simply wrong. The example does not assume that we have no cognitive ability to decide it merely assumes that God also has some, just as a parent does. The parent does not bear the full responsibility for the decisions their children make but they do bear some. The theist wants God to bear absolutely no responsibility for his children even though this is not a free pass they would offer to any human parent.<br />
<br />
While thinking of the example of parents this would be a good place to point out that free will and the ability to enact one’s choices are not necessarily connected. God could allow humanity to have free will allowing us to make any choice we want but keep us from being able to actualize our evil choices. Just like when a parent tells their child not to play in the street, the child can disobey the parent but if the parent sees the child going towards the street they will go and stop the child. The child’s freedom to choose was not impeded merely the evil act itself was impeded and as they grow up they learn not to run out into the street so that the parent no longer needs to impede the child’s action. God could do the same thing with us especially with evil actions that would cause great harm to others and ourselves. If God did this obviously suffering would be greatly reduced because murders, thefts, rapes, etc would not actually happen. And just like any parent, God could still punish us for making a wrong choice even if the action itself was never realized. A person making the wrong choice would remain responsible but no one else would suffer as a result. In fact the God of the bible does this kind of thing (prevent obvious consequences or create impossible results of human actions) all the time with various miracles so for anyone who accepts scripture this idea cannot merely be philosophically explained away. <br />
<br />
<u>The Value of Free Will</u><br />
<br />
This section is important because so much of the free will argument relies on the Charger’s claim that free will is so valuable that it warrants all the pain, suffering and evil that exists in the world. Now I argued that many if not most people in history would be quite fine sacrificing what little free will they actually had to be rid of all of their suffering and pain. The Charger disagrees but in an odd way. First he says, “I think this statement is rather meaningless because, in essence, he is saying that he would no longer be an atheist (he would electronically do what God wanted him to do). By extension, we also wouldn’t be debating this or any issue.” I guess I have to return the favor and say his statement seems fairly meaningless. Of course I wouldn’t be an atheist if the world were the way that an all-good and all-powerful God could make it that’s the point, but the world isn’t that way because no all-good God exists to make it that way. And it’s important to understand that not having free will as the Charger defines it would not make me or anyone else some sort of electronic robot. So really I don’t understand the Charger’s point here.<br />
<br />
He goes on to say that without free will people would forfeit their feelings going so far as to say that we would actually no longer exist. Again I am confused as this makes absolutely no sense. He says, “I think most people think a deterministic world is one where they are paralyzed and that God merely controls their motor actions—this is not the way it would be because you would have no consciousness (since you stopped being anything). In our western culture, our actions make us who we are. Thus, it would seem that we should value our free will as much as we value ourselves.” One thing I will quickly note is that I’m glad the Charger said our “western culture” since clearly the tradition in the east is far different and this entire debate we are having is fairly meaningless there, which serves as a pretty big strike against the Charger’s God in the first place. Now a deterministic world (one without evil and suffering) would not be a world where people are paralyzed or where God would control their motor actions. Certain “freedoms” would be lost (assuming you believe we have those freedoms in the first place) but that would not make one a robot controlled by God. You could still make plenty of free choices, which God would have no affect on (go where you want, eat what you want, sleep when you want, be with who you want, talk to who you want, play when you want, etc) there simply would be no evil acts to make. <br />
<br />
I also have to greatly disagree with the Charger’s assertion that our actions make us who we are. Far more then are actions make us who we are. Our culture, environment and upbringing have as much to do with who we are and what we believe as anything else. And modern science is finding out more and more about how a great part of who we are and what we do is connected to our genes. So clearly our actions don’t make us who we are in fact one could say that our actions are merely a product of who we are not the other way around. And again a world created by an all-good God with no evil would not be a world where people were unable to act on there own so the Charger’s complaints seem hollow. <br />
<br />
And I have to once again return to the idea of heaven since the Charger has failed to properly address that. Clearly the Christian theist believes there will be a time when there is some sort of perfect existence free of pain and suffering so where is the Charger’s type of free will then? If our free will changes or is revoked does one merely cease to exist in heaven? Or better yet how about hell? Do you have free will in hell? Can you leave? If not then by the Charger’s logic one would merely cease to exist and thus hell does not exist, which conflicts with traditional Christian doctrine.<br />
<br />
Basically this is a topic the Charger and I simply disagree on. I just don’t believe free will as defined by the Charger is valuable enough to warrant this world we live in whereas he does. Further the Charger never addressed the fact that we really don’t have very much free will to begin with and some people have far more then others. So how does that play into the whole system? What choices are offered to the girl born in China or the slave living in the Persian Empire or one of Solomon’s 700 concubines compared to a person born in a modern democratic society? The fact is that the Charger has far more free will (freedom to do and think as he pleases) then most of the people who have ever lived in history. And I would say the beliefs he has “chosen” are merely a product of that fact.<br />
<br />
Ultimately the free will argument remains faulty as it can only address certain issues relating to the problem of evil and even with those issues it’s problematic. The Charger has failed to explain why God couldn’t maintain humanity’s free will while also creating a better world with less or no suffering. Neither has he proven that free will is truly valuable enough to justify the world we live in. There has been no reconciliation between the concepts of heaven and hell with the Charger’s version of free will. Nor does free will explain why God bears no responsibility for state of the world as it is currently constructed. <br />
<br />
Really the free will argument remains valuable only for certain moral issues and for trying to address the logical problem of evil. Despite the Charger’s claims to the opposite the free will argument is of very little value when it comes to dealing with the evidential problem of evil, which again is where the theist must demonstrate that each and every single act of pain and suffering that has occurred serves some greater purpose and cannot be labeled as gratuitous. And of course the free will argument remains worthless when dealing with animal suffering and natural evil as I will soon expand on. <br />
<br />
<u>II) Jesus' Death</u> <br />
<br />
The Charger then moves back to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which still has nothing to do with the problem of evil so I’m going to simply ignore this section. The whole point of this discussion was for the theist to prove that it is rational to believe an all-powerful and all-good God exists despite all the evil and suffering in the world. So one cannot talk about the death of Jesus or the theory of atonement before one has even proved that God exists. The atonement is a completely different subject, which serves no purpose here.<br />
<br />
<u>III) Animal Suffering and Natural Evil</u><br />
<br />
In two separate sections the Charger again attempts to address animal suffering and natural evils and once again he offers nothing that can actually deal with those real problems. The Charger tries to show how free will solves the problem of animal suffering and natural evil. He again turns to Swinburne who tries to connect these two things (animal suffering and natural evils) to human responsibility. The Charger states, “if we can do whatever we want without any ramifications, we’ve lost all responsibility. We would be like rich kids who never knew that our world really mattered and that the decisions about our lives mattered.” This seems fine yet really has nothing to do with natural evils or animal suffering. There is no logical or necessary connection between human beings making wrong moral choices and animals suffering or the occurrence of natural evils (most). The Charger seems to imply that if animals didn’t suffer and the earth wasn’t filled with natural evils like hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes then humanity would be getting off scot free with our poor moral choices but that simply is not the case. Telling a lie or stealing a car has natural consequences that come with it but explain how a tornado is one of them? Or how a deer burning to death in a forest fire is one of them? Honestly has anyone felt morally responsible watching a lion eat an antelope? When a shark kills a seal does it make you think you have done something wrong? If the Charger says yes and wants to connect animal suffering to human responsibility then all theists who accept his argument must be vegetarians and God should want us to be vegetarian as well. Those relying on scripture would now have to explain why God never commands people to be vegetarians if in fact animals were never intended to be eaten. Going back to the Garden of Eden story there is absolutely no reason for Adam and Eve’s sin to suddenly change numerous animal species into carnivores. God could have just kept them all herbivores and could have kept them from feeling any pain since they did nothing wrong. Nor should Adam and Eve’s sin suddenly create natural evils like earthquakes or floods. <br />
<br />
Beyond there being no connection between human responsibility and animal suffering or natural evil the fact is that everything the Charger is selling here relies on the reader to accept the historicity of the myth of the Garden of Eden. The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old (not 6,000 years like Genesis says) while modern humans (homo sapiens) are around 180,000 years old. Earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, and all of forms of natural evils were happening long before human beings ever existed. Likewise animals were hurting and killing one another before we ever came along so the story of the Garden provides the theist (Christian theist) nothing for answering these questions. <br />
<br />
Before moving on I will just note that in this section the Charger said, “The Worrywart says that this book and reality are contradictory—and he attempts to prove that it is false by claiming that certain parts of the book (i.e. God and thus Christianity) are false. But one must take the whole book into account before it can be defeated. I don’t need to prove that creation happened, that the Garden of Eden was real or that Satan is real; my opponent must assume that it is true in order to argue that Christianity is contradictory.” I have to admit that once again I have no idea what the Charger means here. I do not have to accept all of Christianity as true to argue against it. That makes no sense whatsoever. The fact is that not even all theists accept Christianity as true or accept the Garden of Eden story as valid or the majority of scripture for that matter. So the atheist is not alone there. If the Garden of Eden story did not literally happen then yes the Charger’s attempt to somehow connect animal suffering and natural evil to human actions fails. And honestly if you take the Garden of Eden story literally then you’ve pretty much already defeated yourself in trying to demonstrate that your beliefs are rational. We know how old the earth is; we know what kind of natural events occurred on the earth throughout it’s history and the affect they have had on making our planet the way it is; we know when animals first evolved on this planet and how they fed off one another; we know that large groups of animals have gone extinct over the life of the planet some due to massive global catastrophes; and we know that all of these things happened before human beings ever existed. Sorry the Garden of Eden story is worthless when it comes to explaining animal suffering or natural evils. <br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">The Problem of Good and Evil for Naturalists</span></u><br />
<br />
To end his response the Charger once again tries to turn the Problem of Evil back upon the atheist/naturalist. I will address his points but again this is a waste of time and misses the whole point of the argument. <br />
<br />
First the Charger claims that I must explain how there can be such as thing as suffering in the naturalistic worldview. He says, “I cannot see how a naturalist can explain suffering. For suffering to exist, there must be something better—but there is no hope or good in naturalism, thus the naturalist must explain where the idea for the existence of suffering comes from.” Again this is simply wrong. Suffering is merely a fact. It is not something that can be denied. If I poke you in the eye it hurts or if I shoot you in the leg you feel pain end of story. Suffering equals pain so less pain is obviously better then more pain. As I said before he merely confuses the existence of natural evil (pain/suffering…not earthquakes/floods/hurricanes) with ethical evils (what is morally wrong). Instead of natural evil I should have said evil as a natural phenomenon because that clearly confused the issue. The Charger says, “If one must assume that God exists for suffering to exist, then how can one deny God’s existence?” Well the fact is that one doesn’t have to assume that God exists for suffering to exist. This is so painfully obvious that I really don’t understand why it is being talked about. Again he just seems to confuse the issue of “how can atheists define morality without God” with “the problem of evil,” they are NOT the same issue.<br />
<br />
In his second objection the Charger claims that other arguments, which provide positive evidence for God’s existence can be used to outweigh the evidence against God’s existence created by the Problem of Evil. The Charger then seems to think that this means I must be able to explain the role of evil in the world. Again this seems clearly false. In fact it seems to concede the fact that the theist has no answer to the Problem of Evil. The Charger says, “one can say that if X probably does not exist based on evidence Y, then one could say that evidence U, T, and Z outweighs Y.” He is correct but what this example is admitting is that the evidence Y is accurate. If Y is meant to stand for the problem of evil then what the theist is saying is that yes by itself the problem of evil seems to show there is no God so they must bring in other evidence to try and out weight the problem of evil. But bringing in other evidence (other arguments) to outweigh the problem of evil does nothing to solve the problem of evil. So really this argument helps prove my point concerning the topic of the problem of evil, which is that the theist has no answer to it. <br />
<br />
In his third response he says, “it’s illogical to say that evil only applies to one side of the issue. If evil applies to both sides equally, one cannot tout it as evidence against only one side of the issue. As Dr. Terry L. Miethe argues: “The atheist is constantly raising the problem of evil but never gives a solution. It is high time the theist called: ‘Foul!’ I defy the atheist to give an answer to the problem of evil.” Again the answer is simple wrong. Evil (suffering/pain) is not a problem for atheist/naturalist the way it is for theists who champion a belief in an all-good and all-powerful God. Pain is a fact of the world and the naturalist accepts that and moves forward trying to deal with the fact and make the world better. It is the theists based on their worldview that have to be able to explain how the suffering came into existence in the first place and why an all-good God seems to do nothing about it. The Charger just seems to keep missing the obvious point of the Problem of Evil, it is a problem if and only if there is an all-good and all-powerful God. So it seems the red herring remains, which is unfortunate because I’m just not a big fan of fish. <br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">Conclusion</span></u><br />
<br />
So taken in whole the Charger’s piece once again offers very little in dealing with the evidential problem of evil rather he just seems to continue to propose a limited free will defense whose greatest power is found in addressing the logical problem of evil and even then it does not do so without fault. Beyond this he spends a great deal of time trying to demonstrate that the problem of evil is a larger problem for atheists/naturalists and therefore theists (he) need not answer it until the atheists (I) do. Clearly I disagree with the Charger’s belief that the problem of evil as here constructed presents a problem for atheists/naturalists but even if one believes he is right one should not ignore the fact that he has still failed to offer any viable answers for the problem from the point of view of the theists. <br />
<br />
I think the problem of evil may seem like something the theist can deal with as long as the problem is kept theoretical but once actual examples and real life events are examined it becomes abundantly clear that the theist has no rational answers to offer for the problem of evil. The Charger can discuss philosophical ideas that allow for God and evil to co-exist but until the Charger offers a rational explanation for why Wes Leonard, a 16 year old boy from Michigan collapsed 30 seconds after hitting a game winning shot to cap a perfect season for his high school basketball team and died hours later due to an enlarged heart (<a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/highschool/news/story?id=6180469">link</a>) then one cannot say that he has provided a rational response to the problem of evil. Or until the Charger explains to me exactly why his God allowed/wanted hundreds (the confirmed number is still climbing) of people to die and thousands to suffer from injury and the destruction of their homes in Japan due to a horrible tsunami created by an earthquake (<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_earthquake">link</a>) then he can’t pretend to have offered any answer to the problem of evil. Truly, all the theist can provide in instances like this is a call for faith, which proves nothing rather it simply allows one to maintain whatever preexisting belief one had about their version of God.<br />
<br />
As I said before being a former Christian I know the difficulty of trying to explain how God could be all-good and all-powerful while allowing (commanding) so many heinous crimes and I spent a great deal of my time both personally and academically searching for some answers to the problem of evil that actually worked. And I found many answers, like free-will, that successfully assuaged my doubts for a time but eventually I could not deny that they all fell short in the face of the continued pain and suffering experienced by so many in this world. The only “answer” that actually worked was faith, which really just means ignoring the problem. But I grew tired of making excuses for God and trying to conjure up new tricks for explaining how/why God let something horrible happen (usually to others not myself) when it was so painfully obvious that it didn’t have to happen the way it did. <br />
<br />
Now I can’t deny that the atheist/naturalist cannot offer people what the theist can offer, which is the promise of rewards (heaven) and the threat of punishment (hell). Theists will always have the advantage of being able to play upon a person’s selfish side in a way that an atheist cannot. But at the end of the day none of those reasons for believing in God provide a rational reason for believing in God and so I choose not to believe in any version of God the typical theist has to offer. It is hard to explain particularly to Christians the great amount of freedom and joy that sprung into my life by leaving behind the cage that is the Christian god. I do not need God to have hope and I certainly don’t need God to be good but it seems that it not true for everyone. Perhaps I should be grateful that some people are theists if, like Dostoevsky implies, that is the only thing keeping them from being cannibals. Thankfully I don’t need a god to tell me not to kill and eat another person. <br />
<br />
So I turn it back to the Charger to see if he can offer any answers that actually deal with the evidential problem of evil, natural evils or animal suffering because as of yet none have been provided.<br />
<br />
(Click <a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/2011/03/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">here</span></a> for Charger's response)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-48964189530709368892011-02-07T21:55:00.002-08:002011-02-13T23:21:49.771-08:00Michael Shermer - Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TVDZV05tVQI/AAAAAAAAA4E/j7qJWwNRMGY/s1600/Shermer%252C+Michael.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" h5="true" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TVDZV05tVQI/AAAAAAAAA4E/j7qJWwNRMGY/s320/Shermer%252C+Michael.bmp" width="320" /></a></div><br />
This is a short piece written by Dr. Michael Shermer. In this piece he exposes the great shortcomings of the Genesis creation account in view of all we know about the universe. He does this in a fun way by rewriting the Genesis account of creation to make it fit with what we know scientifically about the earth and the universe. One quickly sees how ridiculous the story in Genesis is if it is taken literally. The story is a myth, a valuable one yes but the fact that people still accept this myth as presenting historical facts and scientific information is just shameful and ultimately harmful to the pursuit of truth (scientific and moral).<br />
<br />
I actually got to meet Dr. Shermer once. He came to one of my advanced philosophy classes at Fuller Theological Seminary and shared his personal story particularly of how he became an atheist and then allowed the students (me included) to ask him any questions we wanted. Now the class was tiny only about 10 of us so I felt like I really got to hear from him personally. Now at the time I was still a Christian and I had never read any of his books or his magazine (Skeptic) but I was certainly at a place were I was more openly questioning my faith and he provided a calm voice and a good sense of humor that encouraged me to keep learning and go wherever the evidence might take me.<br />
<br />
He is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University. <br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/">here</a> for his website<br />
<br />
<u>Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story-by Michael Shermer</u><br />
Originally published in Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, selected and edited by Philip Appleman (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001), 625-626<br />
<br />
To convey the logical absurdity of trying to squeeze the round peg of science into the square hole of religion, I penned the following scientific revision of the Genesis creation story. It is not intended as a sacrilege of the poetic beauty of Genesis; rather, it is a mere extension of what the creationists have already done to Genesis in their insistence that it be read not as mythic saga but as scientific prose. If Genesis were written in the language of modern science, it would read something like this.<br />
<br />
In the beginning—specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon—out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created from Quarks) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing, so he created Earth. And the evening and the morning were the first day.<br />
<br />
And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 B.C. This was confusion, so God created tired light, and the creation story was preserved. And created He many wondrous splendors such as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.<br />
<br />
And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different from their relatives on the continents, so that still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants created by adaptive radiation. And the evening and the morning were the third day.<br />
<br />
And saw that the land was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.C. that were similar to but different from living creatures. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.<br />
<br />
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, the fishes. And God created great whales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals he would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. And God said, Natura non facit saltum—Nature shall not make leaps. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.<br />
<br />
And God created the pongidids and hominids with 98 percent genetic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, in one chapter He said he created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said He created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.<br />
<br />
And in the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One chosen as his special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. And God realized this too was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.<br />
<br />
Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of the creation God realized that Adam’s immediate descendants would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so he created creation myths. But there were so many creation stories throughout the world God realized this too was confusing, so created He anthropologists and mythologists.<br />
<br />
By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrunneth with skepticism, so God became angry, so angry that God lost His temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). But the humans took God literally and now there are six billion of them. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.<br />
<br />
By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, “Thank me it’s Friday,” and He made the weekend. It was a good idea.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-52572113518734108352011-02-06T16:12:00.000-08:002011-02-06T16:12:32.819-08:00Super Bowl-Super Bummed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TU84voWxphI/AAAAAAAAA4A/cfjw0wva2VY/s1600/Super+Bowl+1.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" h5="true" height="212" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TU84voWxphI/AAAAAAAAA4A/cfjw0wva2VY/s320/Super+Bowl+1.bmp" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;">Well it’s the first day of school after winter break finished and as always on Mondays I do not have a class first period. Now I really can’t complain about not having a class but right this second the Super Bowl is being played in <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Dallas</place></city> between the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburg Steelers. Now neither of these teams really matter to me but it is just strangle not to be somewhere watching the game with someone. Rather I am just sitting here watching the scoreboard on the ESPN website as I wait for my first class to begin. I just cannot help but feel a little homesick right now as the game is being played and the ridiculous beer commercials are being aired. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;">Go Packers!...no it doesn't really matter to me but it's more fun if you pick a team to root for. </span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-3085515154049157712011-01-19T02:33:00.000-08:002011-01-19T02:33:06.659-08:00Robert G. Ingersoll - Heretics and Heresies (1874)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTa9GshNVgI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/qUMRBSqBjN4/s1600/Robert+G+Ingersoll.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTa9GshNVgI/AAAAAAAAA1Y/qUMRBSqBjN4/s320/Robert+G+Ingersoll.jpg" width="230" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span class="apple-style-span"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span class="apple-style-span">Robert G. Ingersoll was known in his day as The Great Agnostic. He was considered one of the greatest orators of his day and many of his speeches and writings dealt with the issue of religion in particular its faults and dangers. For a fuller introduction to Ingersoll’s life read this <a href="http://www.atheists.org/Robert_G._Ingersoll_">essay</a></span> <span class="apple-style-span">by </span><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; font-weight: normal; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;">Madalyn Murray O'Hai</span><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;">r</span>. She offers a fairly balanced view of who Ingersoll was all his faults included.<span class="apple-style-span"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span class="apple-style-span">One quote I particularly enjoy of Ingersoll’s come when he wrote of his birth: "That which has happened to all, happened to me. I was born, and this event which has never for a moment ceased to influence my life, took place, according to an entry found in one bible, on the 12th day of August in the year of grace 1833, according to another entry in another bible, on the 11th of August in the same year. So you will see, that a contradiction was about the first thing I found in the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em style="border-bottom-color: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-top-color: initial;"><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">bible</span></em><span class="apple-style-span">, and I have continued to find contradictions in the 'Sacred Volume' all my life."</span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span class="apple-style-span"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span class="apple-style-span">This essay is one I enjoyed. It shows both Ingersoll’s<span style="color: #0f1d34;"> s</span>kills as a writer with a sense of humor and some wonderful thoughts concerning religion.</span><span class="apple-style-span"><u><span style="font-size: 16pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><u><span style="font-size: 16pt;">Heretics and Heresies</span></u></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size: 16pt;"> by Robert G. Ingersoll (1874)</span></span><span style="font-size: 16pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-size: 16pt;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal">WHOEVER has an opinion of his own, and honestly expresses it, will be guilty of heresy. Heresy is what the minority believe; it is the name given by the powerful to the doctrine of the weak. This word was born of the hatred, arrogance and cruelty of those who love their enemies, and who, when smitten on one cheek, turn the other. This word was born of intellectual slavery in the feudal ages of thought. It was an epithet used in the place of argument. From the commencement of the Christian era, every art has been exhausted and every conceivable punishment inflicted to force all people to hold the same religious opinions. This effort was born of the idea that a certain belief was necessary to the salvation of the soul. Christ taught, and the church still teaches. that unbelief is the blackest of crimes. God is supposed to hate with an infinite and implacable hatred, every heretic upon the earth, and the heretics who have died are supposed at this moment to be suffering the agonies of the damned. The church persecutes the living and her God burns the dead.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is claimed that God wrote a book called the Bible, and it is generally admitted that this book is somewhat difficult to understand. As long as the church had all the copies of this book, and the people were not allowed to read it, there was comparatively little heresy in the world; but when it was printed and read, people began honestly to differ as to its meaning. A few were independent and brave enough to give the world their real thoughts, and for the extermination of these men the church used all her power. Protestants and Catholics vied with each other in the work of enslaving the human mind. For ages they were rivals in the infamous effort to rid the earth of honest people. They infested every country, every city, town, hamlet and family. They appealed to the worst passions of the human heart. They sowed the seeds of discord and hatred in every land. Brother denounced brother, wives informed against their husbands, mothers accused their children, dungeons were crowded with the innocent; the flesh of the good and true rotted in the clasp of chains; the flames devoured the heroic, and in the name of the most merciful God, his children were exterminated with famine, sword, and fire. Over the wild waves of battle rose and fell the banner of Jesus Christ. for sixteen hundred years the robes of the church were red with innocent blood. The ingenuity of Christians was exhausted in devising punishment severe enough to be inflicted upon other Christians who honestly and sincerely differed with them upon any point whatever.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Give any orthodox church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the church. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let it be remembered that all churches have persecuted heretics to the extent of their power. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the church has diminished. From Augustine until now the spirit of the Christians has remained the same. There has been the same intolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves, and the same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge inconsistent with an ignorant creed.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Every church pretends that it has a revelation from God, and that this revelation must be given to the people through the church; that the church acts through its priests, and that ordinary mortals must be content with a revelation -- not from God -- but from the church. Had the people submitted to this preposterous claim, of course there could have been but one church, and that church never could have advanced. It might have retrograded, because it is not necessary to think or investigate in order to forget. Without heresy there could have been no progress.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The highest type of the orthodox Christian does not forget; neither does he learn. He neither advances nor recedes. He is a living fossil embedded in that rock called faith. He makes no effort to better his condition, because all his strength is exhausted in keeping other people from improving theirs. The supreme desire of his heart is to force all others to adopt his creed, and in order to accomplish this object he denounces free thinking as a crime, and this crime he calls heresy. When he had power, heresy was the most terrible and formidable of words. It meant confiscation, exile, imprisonment, torture, and death.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across the open Bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical -- indicted, as it were, their dust -- to the end that the church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was, that this ought to be done so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">No wonder that Jesus Christ said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword."</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Every priest regarded himself as the agent of God. He answered all questions by authority, and to treat him with disrespect was an insult offered to God. No one was asked to think, but all were commanded to obey.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">In 1208 the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting, as they believed, or pretended to believe, under the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world -- hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception, -- these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them with their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries and groans; ravished their wives; robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Millions upon millions were sacrificed upon the altars of bigotry. The Catholic burned the Lutheran, the Lutheran burned the Catholic, the Episcopalian tortured the Presbyterian. the Presbyterian tortured the Episcopalian. Every denomination killed all it could of every other; and each Christian felt in duty bound to exterminate every other Christian who denied the smallest fraction of his creed.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In the reign of Henry VIII. -- that pious and moral founder of the apostolic Episcopal Church. -- there was passed by the parliament of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region> an act entitled "An act for abolishing of diversity of opinion." And in this act was set forth what a good Christian was obliged to believe:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>First</i>, That in the sacrament was the real body and blood of Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Second</i>, That the body and blood of Jesus Christ was in the bread, and the blood and body of Jesus Christ was in the wine.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Third</i>, That priests should not marry.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Fourth</i>, That vows of chastity were of perpetual obligation.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Fifth</i>, That private masses ought to be continued; and,<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sixth</i>, That auricular confession to a priest must be maintained.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This creed was made by law, in order that all men might know just what to believe by simply reading the statute. The church hated to see the people wearing out their brains in thinking upon these subjects. It was thought far better that a creed should be made by parliament, so that whatever might be lacking in evidence might be made up in force. The punishment for denying the first article was death by fire. For the denial of any other article, imprisonment, and for the second offence -- death.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Your attention is called to these six articles, established during the reign of Henry VIII., and by the Church of England, simply because not one of these articles is believed by that church to-day. If the law then made by the church could be enforced now, every Episcopalian would be burned at the stake.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Similar laws were passed in most Christian countries, as all orthodox churches firmly believed that mankind could be legislated into heaven. According to the creed of every church, slavery leads to heaven, liberty leads to hell. It was claimed that God had founded the church, and that to deny the authority of the church was to be a traitor to God, and consequently an ally of the devil. To torture and destroy one of the soldiers of Satan was a duty no good Christian cared to neglect. Nothing can be sweeter than to earn the gratitude of God by killing your own enemies. Such a mingling of profit and revenge, of heaven for yourself and damnation for those you dislike, is a temptation that your ordinary Christian never resists.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">According to the theologians, God, the Father of us all, wrote a letter to his children. The children have always differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. In consequence of these honest differences, these brothers began to cut out each other's hearts. In every land, where this letter from God has been read, the children to whom and for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children of each other. In the name of God every possible crime has been committed, every conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For more than fifty generations the church has carried the black flag. Her vengeance has been measured only by her power. During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated; with the clutch of avarice she has grasped; with the jaws of a dragon she has devoured; pitiless as famine, merciless as fire, with the conscience of a serpent: such is the history of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Church</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">God</st1:placename></st1:place>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I do not say, and I do not believe, that Christians are as bad as their creeds. In spite of church and dogma, there have been millions and millions of men and women true to the loftiest and most generous promptings of the human heart. They have been true to their convictions, and, with a self-denial and fortitude excelled by none, have labored and suffered for the salvation of men. Imbued with the spirit of self-sacrifice, believing that by personal effort they could rescue at least a few souls from the infinite shadow of hell, they have cheerfully endured every hardship and scorned every danger. And yet, notwithstanding all this, they believed that honest error was a crime. They knew that the Bible so declared, and they believed that all unbelievers would be eternally lost. They believed that religion was of God, and all heresy of the devil. They killed heretics in defence of their own souls and the souls of their children. They killed them because, according to their idea, they were the enemies of God, and because the Bible teaches that the blood of the unbeliever is a most acceptable sacrifice to heaven.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Nature never prompted a loving mother to throw her child into the <st1:place w:st="on">Ganges</st1:place>. Nature never prompted men to exterminate each other for a difference of opinion concerning the baptism of infants. These crimes have been produced by religions filled with all that is illogical, cruel and hideous. These religions were produced for the most part by ignorance, tyranny and hypocrisy. Under the impression that the infinite ruler and creator of the universe had commanded the destruction of heretics and infidels, the church perpetrated all these crimes.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Men and women have been burned for thinking there is but one God; that there was none; that the Holy Ghost is younger than God; that God was somewhat older than his son; for insisting that good works will save a man without faith; that faith will do without good works; for declaring that a sweet babe will not be burned eternally, because its parents failed to have its head wet by a priest; for speaking of God as though he had a nose; for denying that Christ was his own father; for contending that three persons, rightly added together, make more than one; for believing in purgatory; for denying the reality of hell; for pretending that priests can forgive sins; for preaching that God is an essence; for denying that witches rode through the air on sticks; for doubting the total depravity of the human heart; for laughing at irresistible grace, predestination and particular redemption; for denying that good bread could be made of the body of a dead man; for pretending that the pope was not managing this world for God, and in the place of God; for disputing the efficacy of a vicarious atonement; for thinking the Virgin Mary was born like other people; for thinking that a man's rib was hardly sufficient to make a good-sized woman; for denying that God used his finger for a pen; for asserting that prayers are not answered, that diseases are not sent to punish unbelief; for denying the authority of the Bible; for having a Bible in their possession; for attending mass, and for refusing to attend; for wearing a surplice; for carrying a cross, and for refusing; for being a Catholic, and for being a Protestant; for being an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, and for being a Quaker. In short, every virtue has been a crime, and every crime a virtue. The church has burned honesty and rewarded hypocrisy. And all this, because it was commanded by a book -- a book that men had been taught implicitly to believe, long before they knew one word that was in it. They had been taught that to doubt the truth of this book -- to examine it, even -- was a crime of such enormity that it could not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Bible was the real persecutor. The Bible burned heretics, built dungeons, founded the Inquisition, and trampled upon all the liberties of men.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">How long, O how long will mankind worship a book? How long will they grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past? How long, O how long will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper than death?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately for the world, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, a man by the name of Gerard Chauvin was married to Jeanne Lefranc, and still more unfortunately for the world, the fruit of this marriage was a son, called John Chauvin, who afterwards became famous as John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This man forged five fetters for the brain. These fetters he called points. That is to say, predestination, particular redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. About the neck of each follower he put a collar bristling with these live iron points. The presence of all these points on the collar is still the test of orthodoxy in the church he founded. This man, when in the flush of youth, was elected to the office of preacher in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city>. He at once, in union with Farel, drew up a condensed statement of the Presbyterian doctrine, and all the citizens of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city>, on pain of banishment, were compelled to take an oath that they believed this statement. Of this proceeding Calvin very innocently remarked that it produced great satisfaction. A man named Caroli had the audacity to dispute with Calvin. For this outrage he was banished.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">To show you what great subjects occupied the attention of Calvin, it is only necessary to state that he furiously discussed the question as to whether the sacramental bread should be leavened or unleavened. He drew up laws regulating the cut of the citizens' clothes, and prescribing their diet, and all those whose garments were not in the Calvin fashion were refused the sacrament. At last, the people becoming tired of this petty theological tyranny, banished Calvin. In a few years, however, he was recalled and received with great enthusiasm. After this he was supreme, and the will of Calvin became the law of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Under his benign administration, James Gruet was beheaded because he had written some profane verses. The slightest word against Calvin or his absurd doctrines was punished as a crime.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In 1553 a man was tried at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Vienna</st1:place></st1:city> by the Catholic Church for heresy. He was convicted and sentenced to death by burning. It was apparently his good fortune to escape. Pursued by the sleuth hounds of intolerance he fled to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city> for protection. A dove flying from hawks, sought safety in the nest of a vulture. This fugitive from the cruelty of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> asked shelter from John Calvin, who had written a book in favor of religious toleration. Servetus had forgotten that this book was written by Calvin when in the minority; that it was written in weakness to be forgotten in power; that it was produced by fear instead of principle. He did not know that Calvin had caused his arrest at Vienne, in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and had sent a copy of his work, which was claimed to be blasphemous, to the archbishop. He did not then know that the Protestant Calvin was acting as one of the detectives of the Catholic Church, and had been instrumental in procuring his conviction for heresy. Ignorant of all this unspeakable infamy, he put himself in the power of this very Calvin. The maker of the Presbyterian creed caused the fugitive Servetus to be arrested for blasphemy. He was tried. Calvin was his accuser. He was convicted and condemned to death by fire. On the morning of the fatal day, Calvin saw him, and Servetus, the victim, asked forgiveness of Calvin, the murderer. Servetus was bound to the stake, and the fagots were lighted. The wind carried the flames somewhat away from his body, so that he slowly roasted for hours. Vainly he implored a speedy death. At last the flames climbed round his form; through smoke and fire his murderers saw a white heroic face. And there they watched until a man became a charred and shriveled mass.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><st1:city w:st="on">Liberty</st1:city> was banished from <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city>, and nothing but Presbyterianism was left. Honor, justice, mercy, reason and charity were all exiled; but the five points of predestination, particular redemption, irresistible grace, total depravity, and the certain perseverance of the saints remained instead.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Calvin founded a little theocracy, modeled after the Old Testament, and succeeded in erecting the most detestable government that ever existed, except the one from which it was copied.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Against all this intolerance, one man, a minister, raised his voice. The name of this man should never be forgotten. It was Castalio. This brave man had the goodness and the courage to declare the innocence of honest error. He was the first of the so-called reformers to take this noble ground. I wish I had the genius to pay a fitting tribute to his memory. Perhaps it would be impossible to pay him a grander compliment than to say. Castalio was in all things the opposite of Calvin. To plead for the right of individual judgment was considered a crime, and Castalio was driven from <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city> by John Calvin. By him he was denounced as a child of the devil, as a dog of Satan, as a beast from hell, and as one who, by this horrid blasphemy of the innocence of honest error, crucified Christ afresh, and by him he was pursued until rescued by the hand of death.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Upon the name of Castalio, Calvin heaped every epithet, until his malice was nearly satisfied and his imagination entirely exhausted. It is impossible to conceive how human nature can become so frightfully perverted as to pursue a fellow-man with the malignity of a fiend, simply because he is good, just, and generous.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable, gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, heartless, and infamous. He was a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious charity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice. In other words, he was as near like the God of the Old Testament as his health permitted.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The best thing, however, about the Presbyterians of Geneva was, that they denied the power of the Pope, and the best thing about the Pope was, that he was not a Presbyterian.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The doctrines of Calvin spread rapidly, and were eagerly accepted by multitudes on the continent; but <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region>, in a few years, became the real fortress of Presbyterianism. The Scotch succeeded in establishing the same kind of theocracy that flourished in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:city>. The clergy took possession and control of everybody and everything. It is impossible to exaggerate the mental degradation, the abject superstition of the people of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> during the reign of Presbyterianism. Heretics were hunted and devoured as though they had been wild beasts. The gloomy insanity of Presbyterianism took possession of a great majority of the people. They regarded their ministers as the Jews did Moses and Aaron. They believed that they were the especial agents of God, and that whatsoever they bound in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> would be bound in heaven. There was not one particle of intellectual freedom. No man was allowed to differ with the church, or to even contradict a priest. Had Presbyterianism maintained its ascendancy, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Scotland</st1:place></st1:country-region> would have been peopled by savages to-day.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The revengeful spirit of Calvin took possession of the Puritans, and caused them to redden the soil of the <st1:place w:st="on">New World</st1:place> with the brave blood of honest men. Clinging to the five points of Calvin, they too established governments in accordance with the teachings of the Old Testament. They too attached the penalty of death to the expression of honest thought. They too believed their church supreme, and exerted all their power to curse this continent with a spiritual despotism as infamous as it was absurd. They believed with Luther that universal toleration is universal error, and universal error is universal hell. Toleration was denounced as a crime.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Fortunately for us, civilization has had a softening effect even upon the Presbyterian Church. To the ennobling influence of the arts and sciences the savage spirit of Calvinism has, in some slight degree, succumbed. True, the old creed remains substantially as it was written, but by a kind of tacit understanding it has come to be regarded as a relic of the past. The cry of "heresy" has been growing fainter and fainter, and, as a consequence, the ministers of that denomination have ventured, now and then, to express doubts as to the damnation of infants, and the doctrine of total depravity. The fact is, the old ideas became a little monotonous to the people. The fall of man, the scheme of redemption and irresistible grace, began to have a familiar sound. The preachers told the old stories while the congregations slept. Some of the ministers became tired of these stories themselves. The five points grew dull, and they felt that nothing short of irresistible grace could bear this endless repetition. The outside world was full of progress, and in every direction men advanced, while this church, anchored to a creed, idly rotted at the shore. Other denominations, imbued some little with the spirit of investigation, were springing up on every side, while the old Presbyterian ark rested on the Ararat of the past, filled with the theological monsters of another age.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Lured by the splendors of the outer world, tempted by the achievements of science, longing to feel the throb and beat of the mighty march of the human race, a few of the ministers of this conservative denomination were compelled, by irresistible sense, to say a few words in harmony with the splendid ideas of to-day.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">These utterances have upon several occasions so nearly wakened some of the members that, rubbing their eyes, they have feebly inquired whether these grand ideas were not somewhat heretical. These ministers found that just in the proportion that their orthodoxy decreased, their congregations increased. Those who dealt in the pure unadulterated article found themselves demonstrating the five points to a less number of hearers than they had points. Stung to madness by this bitter truth this galling contrast, this harassing fact, the really orthodox have raised the cry of heresy, and expect with this cry to seal the lips of honest men. One of the Presbyterian ministers, and one who has been enjoying the luxury of a little honest thought, and the real rapture of expressing it, has already been indicted, and is about to be tried by the Presbyter of Illinois. He is charged --<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>First</i>. With having neglected to preach that most comforting and consoling truth, the eternal damnation of the soul.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Surely, that man must be a monster who could wish to blot this blessed doctrine out and rob earth's wretched children of this blissful hope!<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Who can estimate the misery that has been caused by this most infamous doctrine of eternal punishment? Think of the lives it has blighted -- of the tears it has caused -- of the agony it has produced. Think of the millions who have been driven to insanity by this most terrible of dogmas. This doctrine renders God the basest and most cruel being in the universe. Compared with him, the most frightful deities of the most barbarous and degraded tribes are miracles of goodness and mercy. There is nothing more degrading than to worship such a god. Lower than this the soul can never sink. If the doctrine of eternal damnation is true, let me share the fate of the unconverted; let me have my portion in hell, rather than in heaven with a god infamous enough to inflict eternal misery upon any of the sons of men.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Second</i>. With having spoken a few kind words of Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I have the honor of a slight acquaintance with Robert Collyer. I have read with pleasure some of his exquisite productions. He has a brain full of the dawn, the head of a philosopher, the imagination of a poet and the sincere heart of a child.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Is a minister to be silenced because he speaks fairly of a noble and candid adversary? Is it a crime to compliment a lover of justice, an advocate of liberty; one who devotes his life to the elevation of man, the discovery of truth, and the promulgation of what he believes to be right?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Can that tongue be palsied by a presbyter that praises a self-denying and heroic life? Is it a sin to speak a charitable word over the grave of John Stuart Mill? Is it heretical to pay a just and graceful tribute to departed worth? Must the true Presbyterian violate the sanctity of the tomb, dig open the grave and ask his God to curse the silent dust? Is Presbyterianism so narrow that it conceives of no excellence, of no purity of intention, of no spiritual and moral grandeur outside of its barbaric creed? Does it still retain within its stony heart all the malice of its founder? Is it still warming its fleshless hands at the flames that consumed Servetus? Does it still glory in the damnation of infants, and does it still persist in emptying the cradle in order that perdition may be filled? Is it still starving the soul and famishing the heart? Is it still trembling and shivering, crouching and crawling before its ignorant Confession of Faith?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Had such men as Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill been present at the burning of Servetus, they would have extinguished the flames with their tears. Had the presbyter of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chicago</st1:place></st1:city> been there, they would have quietly turned their backs, solemnly divided their coat tails, and warmed themselves.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Third</i>. With having spoken disparagingly of the doctrine of predestination.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If there is any dogma that ought to be protected by law, predestination is that doctrine. Surely it is a cheerful, joyous thing, to one who is laboring, struggling, and suffering in this weary world, to think that before he existed; before the earth was; before a star had glittered in the heavens; before a ray of light had left the quiver of the sun, his destiny had been irrevocably fixed, and that for an eternity before his birth he had been doomed to bear eternal pain.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Fourth</i>. With failing to preach the efficacy of a "vicarious sacrifice."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Suppose a man had been convicted of murder, and was about to be hanged -- the governor acting as the executioner; and suppose that just as the doomed man was about to suffer death some one in the crowd should step forward and say, "I am willing to die in the place of that murderer. He has a family, and I have none." And suppose further, that the governor should reply, "Come forward, young man, your offer is accepted. A murder has been committed and somebody must be hung, and your death will satisfy the law just as well as the death of the murderer." What would you then think of the doctrine of "vicarious sacrifice"?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">This doctrine is the consummation of two outrages -- forgiving one crime and committing another.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Fifth</i>. With having inculcated a phase of the doctrine commonly known as "evolution," or "development."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">The church believes and teaches the exact opposite of this doctrine. According to the philosophy of theology, man has continued to degenerate for six thousand years. To teach that there is that in nature which impels to higher forms and grander ends, is heresy, of course. The Deity will damn Spencer and his "Evolution," Darwin and his "Origin of Species," Huxley and his "Protoplasm," Tyndall and his "Prayer Gauge," and will save those, and those only, who declare that the universe has been cursed, from the smallest atom to the grandest star; that everything tends to evil and to that only, and that the only perfect thing in nature is the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Sixth</i>. With having intimated that the reception of Socrates and Penelope at heaven's gate was, to say the least, a trifle more cordial than that of Catharine II.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Penelope, waiting patiently and trustfully for Her lord's return, delaying her suitors, while sadly weaving and unweaving the shroud of Laertes, is the most perfect type of wife and woman produced by the civilization of Greece.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Socrates, whose life was above reproach and whose death was beyond all praise, stands to-day, in the estimation of every thoughtful man, at least the peer of Christ.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Catharine II. assassinated her husband. Stepping upon his corpse, she mounted the throne. She was the murderess of Prince Iwan, grand nephew of Peter the Great, who was imprisoned for eighteen years, and who during all that time saw the sky but once. Taken all in all, Catharine was probably one of the most intellectual beasts that ever wore a crown.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Catharine, however, was the head of the Greek Church, Socrates was a heretic and Penelope lived and died without having once heard of "particular redemption" or of "irresistible grace."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Seventh</i>. With repudiating the idea of a "call" to the ministry, and pretending that men were "called" to preach as they were to the other avocations of life.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If this doctrine is true, God, to say the least of it, is an exceedingly poor judge of human nature. It is more than a century since a man of true genius has been found in an orthodox pulpit. Every minister is heretical just to the extent that his intellect is above the average. The Lord seems to be satisfied with mediocrity; but the people are not.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">An old deacon, wishing to get rid of an unpopular preacher, advised him to give up the ministry and turn his attention to something else. The preacher replied that he could not conscientiously desert the pulpit, as he had a "call" to the ministry. To which the deacon replied, "That may be so, but it's very unfortunate for you, that when God called you to preach, he forgot to call anybody to hear you."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There is nothing more stupidly egotistic than the claim of the clergy that they are, in some divine sense set apart to the service of the Lord; that they have been chosen, and sanctified; that there is an infinite difference between them and persons employed in secular affairs. They teach us that all other professions must take care of themselves; that God allows anybody to be a doctor, a lawyer, statesman, soldier, or artist; that the Motts and Coopers -- the Mansfields and Marshalls -- the Wilberforces and Sumners -- the Angelos and Raphaels, were never honored by a "call." They chose their professions and won their laurels without the assistance of the Lord. All these men were left free to follow their own inclinations, while God was busily engaged selecting and "calling" priests, rectors, elders, ministers and exhorters.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Eighth. With having doubted that God was the author of the 109th Psalm.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The portion of that psalm which carries with it the clearest and most satisfactory evidences of inspiration, and which has afforded almost unspeakable consolation to the Presbyterian Church, is as follows:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div align="center"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in; width: 70.0%;"><tbody>
<tr> <td style="padding: 0in 0in 0in 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal">Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand.</div><div class="MsoNormal">When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let his days be few; and let another take his office.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the stranger spoil his labor.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let his posterity be cut off: and in the generation following let there name be blotted out.</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * *</div><div class="MsoNormal">But do thou for me, O God the Lord, for Thy name's sake; because; Thy mercy is good, deliver Thou me. * *</div><div class="MsoNormal">I will greatly praise the Lord with my <i>mouth</i>.</div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Think of a God wicked and malicious enough to inspire this prayer. Think of one infamous enough to answer it.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Had this inspired psalm been found in some temple erected for the worship of snakes, or in the possession of some cannibal king, written with blood upon the dried skins of babes, there would have been a perfect harmony between its surroundings and its sentiments.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">No wonder that the author of this inspired psalm coldly received Socrates and Penelope, and reserved his sweetest smiles for Catharine the Second.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Ninth</i>. With having said that the battles in which the Israelites engaged, with the approval and command of Jehovah, surpassed in cruelty those of Julius Caesar.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Was it Julius Caesar who said, "And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain"?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Did Julius Caesar send the following report to the Roman senate? "And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, three-score cities, all the region of Argob, the <st1:placetype w:st="on">kingdom</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Og</st1:placename> in <st1:place w:st="on">Bashan</st1:place>. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon, king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Did Caesar take the city of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jericho</st1:place></st1:city> "and utterly destroy all that was in the city, both men and women, young and old"? Did he smite "all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings, and leave none remaining that breathed, as the Lord God had commanded"?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Search the records of the whole world, find out the history of every barbarous tribe, and you can find no crime that touched a lower depth of infamy than those the Bible's God commanded and approved. For such a God I have no words to express my loathing and contempt, and all the words in all the languages of man would scarcely be sufficient. Away with such a God! Give me Jupiter rather, with Io and Europa, or even Siva with his skulls and snakes.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Tenth</i>. With having repudiated the doctrine of "total depravity."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What a precious doctrine is that of the total depravity of the human heart! How sweet it is to believe that the lives of all the good and great were continual sins and perpetual crimes; that the love a mother bears her child is, in the sight of God, a sin; that the gratitude of the natural heart is simple meanness; that the tears of pity are impure; that for the unconverted to live and labor for others is an offence to heaven; that the noblest aspirations of the soul are low and groveling in the sight of God; that man should fall upon his knees and ask forgiveness, simply for loving his wife and child, and that even the act of asking forgiveness is in fact a crime!<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">Surely it is a kind of bliss to feel that every woman and child in the wide world, with the exception of those who believe the five points, or some other equally cruel creed, and such children as have been baptized, ought at this very moment to be dashed down to the lowest glowing gulf of hell.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Take from the Christian the history of his own church -- leave that entirely out of the question -- and he has no argument left with which to substantiate the total depravity of man.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Eleventh</i>. With having doubted the "perseverance of the saints."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I suppose the real meaning of this doctrine is, that Presbyterians are just as sure of going to heaven as all other folks are of going to hell. The real idea being, that it all depends upon the will of God, and not upon the character of the person to be damned or saved; that God has the weakness to send Presbyterians to Paradise, and the justice to doom the rest of mankind to eternal fire.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is admitted that no unconverted brain can see the least particle of sense in this doctrine; that it is abhorrent to all who have not been the recipients of a "new heart;" that only the perfectly good can justify the perfectly infamous.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is contended that the saints do not persevere of their own free will -- that they are entitled to no credit for persevering; but that God forces them to persevere, while on the other hand, every crime is committed in accordance with the secret will of God, who does all things for his own glory.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Compared with this doctrine, there is no other idea, that has ever been believed by man, that can properly be called absurd.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Twelfth</i>. With having spoken and written somewhat lightly of the idea of converting the heathen with doctrinal sermons.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Of all the failures of which we have any history or knowledge, the missionary effort is the most conspicuous. The whole question has been decided here, in our own country, and conclusively settled, We have nearly exterminated the Indians, but we have converted none. From the days of John Eliot to the execution of the last Modoc, not one Indian has been the subject of irresistible grace or particular redemption. The few red men who roam the western wilderness have no thought or care concerning the five points of Calvin. They are utterly oblivious to the great and vital truths contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Saybrook platform, and the resolutions of the Evangelical Alliance. No Indian has ever scalped another on account of his religious belief. This of itself shows conclusively that the missionaries have had no effect.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Why should we convert the heathen of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> and kill our own? Why should we send missionaries across the seas, and soldiers over the plains? Why should we send Bibles to the east and muskets to the west? If it is impossible to convert Indians who have no religion of their own; no prejudice for or against the "eternal procession of the Holy Ghost," how can we expect to convert a heathen who has a religion; who has plenty of gods and Bibles and prophets and Christs, and who has a religious literature far grander than our own? Can we hope with the story of Daniel in the lions' den to rival the stupendous miracles of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>? Is there anything in our Bible as lofty and loving as the prayer of the Buddhist? Compare your "Confession of Faith" with the following: "Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation -- never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Until all are delivered, never will I leave the world of sin, sorrow, and struggle, but will remain where I am."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Think of sending an average Presbyterian to convert a man who daily offers this tender, this infinitely generous, this incomparable prayer. Think of reading the 109th Psalm to a heathen who has a Bible of his own in which is found this passage. "Blessed is that man and beloved of all the gods, who is afraid of no man, and of whom no man is afraid."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Why should you read even the New Testament to a Hindu, when his own Chrishna has said, "If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him again"? Why send a Presbyterian to a Sufi, who says, "Better one moment of silent contemplation and inward love, than seventy thousand years of outward worship"? "Who would carelessly tread one worm that crawls on earth, that heartless one is darkly alienated from God; but he that, living, embraceth all things in his love, to live with him God bursts all bounds above, below."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Compare this prayer with the curses and cruelties of the Old Testament -- with the infamies commanded and approved by the being whom we are taught to worship as a God -- and with the following tender product of Presbyterianism: "It may seem absurd to human wisdom that God should harden, blind, and deliver up some men to a reprobate sense; that he should first deliver them over to evil, and then condemn them for that evil; but the believing spiritual man sees no absurdity in all this, knowing that God would be never a whit less good even though he should destroy all men."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Of all the religions that have been produced by the egotism, the malice, the ignorance and ambition of man, Presbyterianism is the most hideous.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But what shall I say more, for the time would fail me to tell of Sabellianism, of a "Modal Trinity," and the "Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost"?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Upon these charges, a minister is to be tried, here in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chicago</st1:place></st1:city>; in this city of pluck and progress -- this marvel of energy -- this miracle of nerve. The cry of "heresy," here, sounds like a wail from the Dark Ages -- a shriek from the Inquisition, or a groan from the grave of Calvin.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Another effort is being made to enslave a man.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is claimed that every member of the church has solemnly agreed never to outgrow the creed; that he has pledged himself to remain an intellectual dwarf. Upon this condition the church agrees to save his soul, and he hands over his brains to bind the bargain. Should a fact be found inconsistent with the creed, he binds himself to deny the fact and curse the finder. With scraps of dogmas and crumbs of doctrine, he agrees that his soul shall be satisfied forever. What an intellectual feast the Confession of Faith must be! It reminds one of the dinner described by Sydney Smith, where everything was cold except the water, and everything sour except the vinegar.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Every member of a church promises to remain orthodox, that is to say -- stationary. Growth is heresy. Orthodox ideas are the feathers that have been molted by the eagle of progress. They are the dead leaves under the majestic palm, while heresy is the bud and blossom at the top.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Imagine a vine that grows at one end and decays at the other. The end that grows is heresy, the end that rots is orthodox. The dead are orthodox, and your cemetery is the most perfect type of a well regulated church. No thought, no progress, no heresy there. Slowly and silently, side by side, the satisfied members peacefully decay. There is only this difference -- the dead do not persecute.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And what does a trial for heresy mean? It means that the church says to a heretic, "Believe as I do, or I will withdraw my support. I will not employ you. I will pursue you until your garments are rags; until your children cry for bread; until your cheeks are furrowed with tears. I will hunt you to the very portals of the tomb, and then my God will do the rest. I will not imprison you. I will not burn you. The law prevents my doing that. I helped make the law, not however to protect you, nor to deprive me of the right to exterminate you, but in order to keep other churches from exterminating me."<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A trial for heresy means that the spirit of persecution still lingers in the church; that it still denies the right of private judgement; that it still thinks more of creed than truth, and that it is still determined to prevent the intellectual growth of man. It means that churches are shambles in which are bought and sold the souls of men. It means that the church is still guilty of the barbarity of opposing thought with force. It means that if it had the power, the mental horizon would be bounded by a creed; that it would bring again the whips and chains and dungeon keys, the rack and fagot of the past.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But let me tell the church it lacks the power. There have been, and still are, too many men who own themselves -- too much thought, too much knowledge for the church to grasp again the sword of power. The church must abdicate. For the Eglon of superstition Science has a message from Truth.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The heretics have not thought and suffered and died in vain. Every heretic has been, and is, a ray of light. Not in vain did Voltaire, that great man, point from the foot of the Alps the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>. Not in vain were the splendid utterances of the infidels, while beyond all price are the discoveries of science.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The church has impeded, but it has not and it cannot stop the onward march of the human race. Heresy cannot be burned, nor imprisoned, nor starved. It laughs at presbyters and synods, at ecumenical councils and the impotent thunders of Sinai. Heresy is the eternal dawn, the morning star, the glittering herald of the day. Heresy is the last and best thought. It is the perpetual <st1:place w:st="on">New World</st1:place>, the unknown sea, toward which the brave all sail. It is the eternal horizon of progress.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Heresy extends the hospitalities of the brain to a new thought.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy, a coffin.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Why should man be afraid to think, and why should he fear to express his thoughts?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Is it possible that an infinite Deity is unwilling that a man should investigate the phenomena by which he is surrounded? Is it possible that a god delights in threatening and terrifying men? What glory, what honor and renown a god must win on such a field! The ocean raving at a drop; a star envious of a candle; the sun jealous of a fire-fly.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Go on, presbyters and synods, go on! Thrust the heretics out of the church -- that is to say, throw away your brains, -- put out your eyes. The infidels will thank you. They are willing to adopt your exiles. Every deserter from your camp is a recruit for the army of progress. Cling to the ignorant dogmas of the past; read the 109th Psalm; gloat over the slaughter of mothers and babes; thank God for total depravity; shower your honors upon hypocrites, and silence every minister who is touched with that heresy called genius.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Be true to your history. Turn out the astronomers, the geologists, the naturalists, the chemists, and all the honest scientists. With a whip of scorpions, drive them all out. We want them all. Keep the ignorant, the superstitious, the bigoted, and the writers of charges and specifications. Keep them, and keep them all. Repeat your pious platitudes in the drowsy ears of the faithful, and read your Bible to heretics, as kings read some forgotten riot-act to stop and stay the waves of revolution. You are too weak to excite anger. We forgive your efforts as the sun forgives a cloud -- as the air forgives the breath you waste.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">How long, O how long, will man listen to the threats of God, and shut his eyes to the splendid possibilities of Nature? How long, O how long will man remain the cringing slave of a false and cruel creed?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">By this time the whole world should know that the real Bible has not yet been written, but is being written, and that it will never be finished until the race begins its downward march, or ceases to exist.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, nor prophets, nor apostles, nor evangelists, nor of Christs. Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies of its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with its every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower, confirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-83470835365543568062011-01-18T03:46:00.006-08:002011-03-27T23:26:51.880-07:00Matthew 27-Jesus Standing Before Pilate and the Historical Horrors that Followed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTV7t7FfuGI/AAAAAAAAA1U/H6QiIfTvRYE/s1600/Jesus+before+Pilate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTV7t7FfuGI/AAAAAAAAA1U/H6QiIfTvRYE/s320/Jesus+before+Pilate.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
Examining the Gospel of Matthew and the story of Jesus being brought before Pilate in chapter 27 I cannot help but wonder if any section of scripture has caused as much suffering, created as much hatred and produced as much death in Western history as this passage?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">During undergraduate school I slowly became drawn into Jewish studies. It began with one Jewish history class and then blossomed into my degree. As a Christian I was originally drawn in because Jewish history begins with biblical studies and I knew my bible, at least I knew from a certain point of view. So the class was fascinating because I began to learn more about the bible, the book that I loved and that defined me, then I had ever known. But as Jewish history moved from the bible into the rest of western history I began to learn about church history from a very different perspective then I knew it and it was a perspective in which the church came out looking quite bad even evil at times. As I went further into my studies I soon found myself in classes that were quite small where the students were all Jewish. I was sitting there a single Christian learning about the evils of Christian conduct towards the Jews and Judaism. It was in these classes that for the first time in my life I truly felt embarrassed to be a Christian. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Looking at the story of Pilate in the gospel of Matthew it begins with the chief priests taking Jesus before Pilate so they can bring about his death. Pilate questions Jesus and finds him to be innocent realizing that the chief priests are seeking Jesus death merely out of jealousy. Still Pilate presents the Jewish crowd the choice between freeing Barabbas, a notorious prisoner and Jesus. The story makes it clear that Pilate believes Jesus is the one who should be released. But the priests and elders had gone around in the crowd to persuading everyone to pick Barabbas rather then Jesus. After the crowd demands the release of Barabbas Pilate asks what he is to do with Jesus to which the crowd yells “crucify him.” Pilate seeks to understand why the crowd wanted this asking them to explain what crime Jesus had committed but the crowd only shouted all the louder for Jesus’ death. So despite his best efforts Pilate saw there was nothing he could do but give in to the crowd to prevent a riot. And in the verses that would haunt the rest of history Pilate “took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.’ Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and our children!’” (Matt. 27:24b-25 NRSV) These verses became the foundation for Christianity’s Anti-Jewish doctrines and policies causing the deaths of millions of Jews all the way up through the Holocaust. Christian theologian <span class="apple-style-span">Hans Küng</span> admits that, <span class="apple-style-span">"Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..." While I don’t believe the Nazis were as godless (non-Christian) as Küng claims they were he is certainly correct that it is in fact Christianity the laid the foundation for their crimes and it all starts with the story of Pilate. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">After the destruction of the <st1:city w:st="on">Temple</st1:city> in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city> (70 CE) the gap between Jewish and pagan (non-Jewish) believers in Jesus increased as more and more pagans converted to Christianity. The works of Paul and various other scriptures detail some of the issues that were created early on. Roman persecution hardened this separation as it differentiated between the two groups. Then as the Roman persecution of Christians waned and Christianity actually began to gain power in the empire the Anti-Jewish attitudes that had become a part of the teachings of the church became very clear. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="apple-style-span"></span>The anti-Jewish spirit of Christianity formalized itself both in the political and theological realms. The Church fathers responsible for laying out the core beliefs and doctrines of the church emphasized the errors of Judaism as well as the Jewish people themselves and the story of Pilate found in all four gospels was key in their attacks both theologically and politically upon the Jewish people.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="yshortcuts"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="yshortcuts">Justin Martyr was an early Christian apologist in his</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Dialogue with Trypho (written between 138-161 CE) he said,</span></strong></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"> “</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your</span></em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="yshortcuts"><span id="lw_1295433240_7" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; cursor: pointer; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial;">Sabbath days</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.</span></em></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><span class="yshortcuts"><span id="lw_1295433240_8" style="outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial;">Jerusalem</span></span></st1:place></st1:city><em><span style="font-style: normal;">. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observance of the sabbath as a mark.”</span></em></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><strong style="outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span></strong></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><strong style="outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE) was an ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed greatly to the early formation of Christian doctrines. He said,</span></strong> “<em><span style="font-style: normal;">We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.”</span></em></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></em></span>St. John Chrysotom (349–407 CE) was the Patriarch of Constantinople and known as the Bishop with the Golden Tongue. He wrote a work called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Orations Against the Jews</i>, in which he said, "The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, rapacious, greedy. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them.” He went on saying, "The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan. They are worse than wild beasts. The Synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition. The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to a level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen. The Synagogue is a curse, obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or hear, she has deliberately perverted her judgment; she has extinguished with herself the light of the Holy Spirit."</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Look <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html">here</a> to read 8 homilies St John Chrysostom<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>(c.347-407) wrote against the Jews.<br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">Augustine (354-430) the most important theologian for the Western tradition until Thomas Aquinas openly opposed Judaism. Writing in his Tractatus Adversus Judæo he said, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"</i></span><em><span style="font-style: normal;">The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.</span></em><span class="apple-style-span"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"</i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In his Confession Augustine wrote, “</span><em><span style="font-style: normal;">How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!</span>”</em></div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><span class="apple-style-span">St. Jerome</span></st1:place></st1:city><span class="apple-style-span"> (347-420) was probably the friendliest Christian leader towards the Jews as he worked to create the Vulgate translation of the Bible translating directly from the Hebrew, which Augustine opposed. Still he wrote of a synagogue: "</span><em>If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.</em><span class="apple-style-span">"<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">Looking specifically at the political changes beginning with <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Constantine</st1:place></st1:city> one sees a continual fall of the status of the Jews. Beginning in 315 <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Constantine</st1:place></st1:city> published the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Edict of Milan</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">which extended religious tolerance to Christians while Jews lost many of their rights. They were no longer permitted to live in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city>, or to proselytize.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 306 at the church</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Synod of Elvira</em><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="apple-style-span">banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 325 The</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Council of Nicea</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "</span><em>For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.</em><span class="apple-style-span">"</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In 337 <span class="apple-style-span">Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 339 Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">Between 379-395 Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In 415 <span class="apple-style-span">The Bishop of <st1:city w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:city>, <st1:place w:st="on">St.</st1:place> Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In 528 <span class="apple-style-span">Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 538 The</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>3rd and 4th Councils of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Orleans</st1:place></st1:city></em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that "<i>From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians.</i>"</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 694 The 17th Church</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Council of Toledo</em><span class="apple-style-span">, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Spain</st1:place></st1:country-region> defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other Church Fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their alleged responsibility for the execution of Jesus.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="apple-style-span"></span>During the middle ages the Jews lost more and more of their rights to the point that kings could arbitrarily take whatever they wanted whenever they wanted and the writings of theologians and teachers of the church became even more vile.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="yshortcuts"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="yshortcuts">Peter the Venerable (</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="apple-style-span">1092-1156</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;">)</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">who is often seen as an unofficial saint and who was known as "the meekest of men, a model of Christian charity" said of the Jews, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“</i></span></strong></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the</span></em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><span class="yshortcuts"><i><span id="lw_1295433240_12" style="cursor: pointer; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial;">Son of God</span></i></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.”</span></em></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 14.4pt;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><span class="apple-style-span"><br />
</span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 14.4pt;"><span class="apple-style-span"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><span class="apple-style-span">In 1205 Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><em>the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free...</em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal;"><span class="apple-style-span">"</span></span></span></div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 1215 The</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Fourth Lateran Council</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">approved canon laws requiring that "</span><em>Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress.</em><span class="apple-style-span">" They also had to wear a badge in the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 1227 The</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Synod of Narbonne</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">required Jews to wear an oval badge. This requirement was reinstalled during the 1930's by Hitler, who changed the oval badge to a Star of David.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">The Spanish Inquisition starts in the 1230s and the Church authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 1290 Jews are exiled from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region>. About 16,000 left the country. Then in 1298 Jews were persecuted in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Austria</st1:country-region>, <st1:state w:st="on">Bavaria</st1:state> and <st1:place w:st="on">Franconia</st1:place>. 140 Jewish communities were destroyed; more than 100,000 Jews were killed over a 6 month period.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">One of the worst episodes of Jewish persecution came as a result of the plague in the 1340s labeled the Black Death. It is unclear exactly were the Black Death originated but it was somewhere in the <st1:place w:st="on">Far East</st1:place>. <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Mongolia</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>, central Asia, and southern <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Russia</st1:place></st1:country-region> have all been suggested as the source.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">Rats initially carried the Black Death; their fleas spread the disease from the rats to humans. As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five years, the death toll had reached 25 million. In <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region>, two centuries passed before its population levels recovered from the plague. People searched for someone to blame. They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the disease. This was in part due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws, which had been preserved from Old Testament times but also because the Jews had an overall better understanding of disease and medical practice. </span>Further in the Middle Ages medicine was restricted by the Christian Church. The church taught that it was irreligious to seek a natural cure from a physician when one could obtain supernatural help from a priest. Some church leaders criticized medical schools because they taught that diseases and disorders came from natural means and not from the evil efforts of Satan. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Soon r<span class="apple-style-span">umors circulated that Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder and burn the Jews. </span><em><span style="font-style: normal;">In <st1:state w:st="on">Bavaria</st1:state>...12,000 Jews...perished; in the small town of <st1:city w:st="on">Erfurt</st1:city>...3,000; near <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tours</st1:place></st1:city>, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood and in a single day 160 Jews were burned.</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><span class="apple-style-span">In Strausberg 2,000 Jews were burned. In Maintz 6,000 were killed, in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Worms</st1:place></st1:city> 400. In 1354 12,000 Jews were executed in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Toledo</st1:place></st1:city>. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">See <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers4.htm">here</a>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: windowtext;"><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers4.htm"></a></span>Even after the plague had ended the Church’s maintained its negative attitude towards medicine and Jewish physicians. Pope Eugene IV, Nicholas V and Calixtus III forbade Christians from using the services of a Jewish physician. The<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Trullanean Council</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in the 8th century;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Beziers Council & Alby Council</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in the 13th century;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Avignon council & Salamanca Council</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in the 14th century, the <em>Synod of Bamberg</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in the 15th century; the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Council of Avignon</em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in the 16th century, etc. also ordered Christians to not seek healing from Jewish physicians and surgeons. This continued even into the 17th century when the city of <st1:city w:st="on">Hall</st1:city> in Wïrtemberg (in what is now <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>) granted some privileges to a Jewish physician "<em>on account of his admirable experience and skill.</em>" The clergy of Hall complained that "<em>it were better to die with Christ than to be cured by a Jew doctor aided by the devil.</em>”</div><br />
Spanish Jews had been heavily persecuted from the 14th century. Many had converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was set up by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions. Laws were passed that prohibited the descendants of Jews or Muslims from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions. In 1492 Jews were given the choice of being baptized as Christians or be banished from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Spain</st1:place></st1:country-region>. 300,000 left <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Spain</st1:place></st1:country-region> penniless. Many migrated to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Turkey</st1:place></st1:country-region>, where they found tolerance among the Muslims. Others converted to Christianity but often continued to practice Judaism in secret. In 1497 Jews were banished from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Portugal</st1:place></st1:country-region>. 20,000 left the country rather than be baptized as Christians.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 1555 A Roman Catholic Papal bull, "</span><em>Cum nimis absurdum</em><span class="apple-style-span">," required Jews to wear badges, and live in ghettos. They were not allowed to own property outside the ghetto. Living conditions were dreadful: over 3,000 people were forced to live in about 8 acres of land. Women had to wear a yellow veil or scarf; men had to wear a piece of yellow cloth on their hat.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">The Reformation did little to change the fortune of the Jews. Martin Luther often considered the father of the Reformation believed early on that the Jews would now become Christians due to his “re-discovery” of the true Christianity but this did not happen and led to a growing hostility for Luther towards the Jews. In his 20s in 1514 he wrote in a letter to Rev. Spalatin, </span>“I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted....For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for every one who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction.” </div><div class="MsoNormal">See <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1514luther.html"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1514luther.html</span></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">In 1543, he wrote </span><em>On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras</em><span class="apple-style-span"> in which he said of the Jews, “eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!</span><em><span style="font-style: normal;">...What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire,..</span></em><i> </i><em><span style="font-style: normal;">Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed... They ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies. Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...</span></em><i> </i><em><span style="font-style: normal;">Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews...</span></em><i> </i><em><span style="font-style: normal;">Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safe keeping...</span></em><i> </i><em><span style="font-style: normal;">Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses as in enjoined upon Adam's children...</span></em><span class="apple-style-span"><i> </i></span><em><span style="font-style: normal;">To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews.</span></em><span class="apple-style-span">"<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span">Luther’s writings are some of the most detestable and hateful ideas that can be found in the history of the church. He truly helped pave the way for the anti-Semitism of the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> centuries and the Holocaust itself. For a larger sample of Luther’s writings about the Jews read <a href="http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm">here</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="apple-style-span"></span>John Calvin followed Luther in his hatred of the Jews. <span class="apple-style-span">In <i>Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio</i></span> he wrote,<span class="yiv2124619599yiv1722368880googqs-tidbitgoogqs-tidbit-0"> “Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
The list could go on and on. But even as the Middle Ages gave way to modernity and the Church’s authority gave way to the Enlightenment hatred for the Jews did not die rather the anti-Jewish views of the church were simply transformed into the Anti-Semitic views of various philosophers, politicians and whole populations. Theological reasons for hating the Jews were replaced with “scientific” reasons for hating the Jews, no longer focused on Jews as the killers of Christ but rather as a race of people racially deficient and dangerous to those who were “better” then them.<br />
<br />
And as I sat through class after class earning my degree in Jewish history I was never able to look at the story of Pilate, particularly as describe in Matthew 27, the same way again. The stories were shaped specifically to exonerate the Romans from any capability for Jesus death not because they were actually true but so as to protect the early church from being persecuted itself. Forever after whenever I heard preachers talk about that passage or participated in bible studies that came upon it I always flinched not just because I knew it was a historical fabrication but more sadly because of the horrible consequences (pain, suffering, segregation, subjugation and death) that I knew those verses unleashed into history. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-39484230805133933712011-01-17T17:29:00.001-08:002011-01-17T17:31:30.506-08:00Emma Goldman-The Philosophy of Atheism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTTr2zWZ_AI/AAAAAAAAA1Q/vXKLn6EKk8Q/s1600/Emma+Goldman.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" n4="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTTr2zWZ_AI/AAAAAAAAA1Q/vXKLn6EKk8Q/s320/Emma+Goldman.bmp" width="241" /></a></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;">Emma Goldman (1869-1940) was a major figure in the history of American radicalism and feminism. Goldman was well known during her life, described as—among other things—“the most dangerous woman in <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">America</place></country-region>” but her fame has greatly faded. During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking “rebel woman” by admirers and derided by critics as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution. Her writing and lectures spanned a wide variety of issues including atheism, freedom of speech, militarism, prisons, capitalism, marriage, free love and homosexuality. Her criticism of mandatory conscription of young men into the military during World War I led to a two year imprisonment followed by her deportation in 1919. For the rest of her life until her death in 1940, she continued to participate in the social and political movements of the age, from the Russian Revolution to the Spanish Civil War.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-font-kerning: 0pt;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I have found Goldman to be an amazing treasure from the past who was truly generations ahead of her time. Her wonderful views of homosexuality have still yet to be reached in America who as always remains one of the least progressive and poorly educated countries of the developed world.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">This is an essay concerning atheism that I find enjoyable. Her high hopes for the fading of religion have not been reached but it is encouraging to read things like this and know how many people in the past saw the flaws of theism and the dangers those flaws presented both to true morality and society as a whole. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong><u>The Philosophy of Atheism</u></strong> by Emma Goldman</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: x-small;">First published in February 1916 in the Mother Earth journal</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">To give an adequate exposition of the Philosophy of Atheism, it would be necessary to go into the historical changes of the belief in a Deity, from its earliest beginning to the present day. But that is not within the scope of the present paper. However, it is not out of place to mention, in passing, that the concept God, Supernatural Power, Spirit, Deity, or in whatever other term the essence of Theism may have found expression, has become more indefinite and obscure in the course of time and progress. In other words, the God idea is growing more impersonal and nebulous in proportion as the human mind is learning to understand natural phenomena and in the degree that science progressively correlates human and social events.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">God, today, no longer represents the same forces as in the beginning of His existence; neither does He direct human destiny with the same Iron hand as of yore. Rather does the God idea express a sort of spiritualistic stimalus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness. In the course of human development the God idea has been forced to adapt itself to every phase of human affairs, which is perfectly consistent with the origin of the idea itself.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The conception of gods originated in fear and curiosity. Primitive man, unable to understand the phenomena of nature and harassed by them, saw in every terrifying manifestation some sinister force expressly directed against him; and as ignorance and fear are the parents of all superstition, the troubled fancy of primitive man wove the God idea.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Very aptly, the world-renowned atheist and anarchist, Michael Bakunin, says in his great work God and the State: "All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties. Consequently, the religious heaven is nothing but the mirage in which man, exalted by ignorance and faith, discovered his own image, but enlarged and reversed – that is divinised. The history of religions, of the birth, grandeur, and the decline of the gods who had succeeded one another in human belief, is nothing, therefore, but the development of the collective intelligence and conscience of mankind. As fast as they discovered, in the course of their historically progressive advance, either in themselves or in external nature, a quality, or even any great defect whatever, they attributed it to their gods, after having exaggerated and enlarged it beyond measure, after the manner of children, by an act of their religious fancy. . . .With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians or poets: the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Thus the God idea, revived, readjusted, and enlarged or narrowed, according to the necessity of the time, has dominated humanity and will continue to do so until man will raise his head to the sunlit day, unafraid and with an awakened will to himself. In proportion as man learns to realize himself and mold his own destiny theism becomes superfluous. How far man will be able to find his relation to his fellows will depend entirely upon how much he can outgrow his dependence upon God.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Already there are indications that theism, which is the theory of speculation, is being replaced by Atheism, the science of demonstration; the one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The decline of theism is a most interesting spectacle, especially as manifested in the anxiety of the theists, whatever their particular brand. They realize, much to their distress, that the masses are growing daily more atheistic, more anti-religious; that they are quite willing to leave the Great Beyond and its heavenly domain to the angels and sparrows; because more and more the masses are becoming engrossed in the problems of their immediate existence.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">How to bring the masses back to the God idea, the spirit, the First Cause, etc. – that is the most pressing question to all theists. Metaphysical as all these questions seem to be, they yet have a very marked physical background. Inasmuch as religion, "Divine Truth," rewards and punishments are the trade-marks of the largest, the most corrupt and pernicious, the most powerful and lucrative industry in the world, not excepting the industry of manufacturing guns and munitions. It is the industry of befogging the human mind and stifling the human heart. Necessity knows no law; hence the majority of theists are compelled to take up every subject, even if it has no bearing upon a deity or revelation or the Great Beyond. Perhaps they sense the fact that humanity is growing weary of the hundred and one brands of God.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">How to raise this dead level of theistic belief is really a matter of life and death for all denominations. Therefore their tolerance; but it is a tolerance not of understanding; but of weakness. Perhaps that explains the efforts fostered in all religious publications to combine variegated religious philosophies and conflicting theistic theories into one denominational trust. More and more, the various concepts "of the only tree God, the only pure spirit, -the only true religion" are tolerantly glossed over in the frantic effort to establish a common ground to rescue the modern mass from the "pernicious" influence of atheistic ideas.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It is characteristic of theistic "tolerance" that no one really cares what the people believe in, just so they believe or pretend to believe. To accomplish this end, the crudest and vulgarest methods are being used. Religious endeavor meetings and revivals with Billy Sunday as their champion -methods which must outrage every refined sense, and which in their effect upon the ignorant and curious often tend to create a mild state of insanity not infrequently coupled with eroto-mania. All these frantic efforts find approval and support from the earthly powers; from the Russian despot to the American President; from Rockefeller and Wanamaker down to the pettiest business man. They blow that capital invested in Billy Sunday, the Y.M.C.A., Christian Science, and various other religious institutions will return enormous profits from the subdued, tamed, and dull masses.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils, heaven and hell; reward and punishnient, a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment. The truth is that theism would have lost its footing long before this but for the combined support of Mammon and power. How thoroughly bankrupt it really is, is being demonstrated in the trenches and battlefields of Europe today.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Have not all theists painted their Deity as the god of love and goodness? Yet after thousands of years of such preachments the gods remain deaf to the agony of the human race. Confucius cares not for the poverty, squalor and misery of people of China. Buddha remains undisturbed in his philosophical indifference to the famine and starvation of outraged Hindoos; Jahve continues deaf to the bitter cry of Israel; while Jesus refuses to rise from the dead against his Christians who are butchering each other.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The burden of all song and praise "unto the Highest" has been that God stands for justice and mercy. Yet injustice among men is ever on the increase; the outrages committed against the masses in this country alone would seem enough to overflow the very heavens. But where are the gods to make an end to all these horrors, these wrongs, this inhumanity to man? No, not the gods, but MAN must rise in his mighty wrath. He, deceived by all the deities, betrayed by their emissaries, he, himself, must undertake to usher in justice upon the earth.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The philosophy of Atheism expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind. The philosophy of theism, if we can call it philosophy, is static and fixed. Even the mere attempt to pierce these mysteries represents, from the theistic point of view, non-belief in the all-embracing omnipotence, and even a denial of the wisdom of the divine powers outside of man. Fortunately, however, the human mind never was, and never can be, bound by fixities. Hence it is forging ahead in its restless march towards knowledge and life. The human mind is realizing "that the universe is not the result of a creative fiat by some divine intelligence, out of nothing, producing a masterpiece chaotic in perfect operation," but that it is the product of chaotic forces operating through eons of time, of clashes and cataclysms, of repulsion and attraction crystallizing through the principle of selection into what the theists call, "the universe guided into order and beauty." As Joseph McCabe well points out in his Existence of God: "a law of nature is not a formula drawn up by a legislator, but a mere summary of the observed facts – a 'bundle of facts.' Things do not act in a particular way because there is a law, but we state the 'law' because they act in that way."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It may seem a wild paradox, and yet it is pathetically true, that this real, visible world and our life should have been so long under the influence of metaphysical speculation, rather than of physical demonstrable forces. Under the lash of the theistic idea, this earth has served no other purpose than as a temporary station to test man's capacity for immolation to the will of God. But the moment man attempted to ascertain the nature of that will, he was told that it was utterly futile for "finite human intelligence" to get beyond the all-powerful infinite will. Under the terrific weight of this omnipotence, man has been bowed into the dust – a will-less creature, broken and sweating in the dark. The triumph of the philosophy of Atheism is to free man from the nightmare of gods; it means the dissolution of the phantoms of the beyond. Again and again the light of reason has dispelled the theistic nightmare, but poverty, misery and fear have recreated the phantoms – though whether old or new, whatever their external form, they differed little in their essence. Atheism, on the other hand, in its philosophic aspect refuses allegiance not merely to a definite concept of God, but it refuses all servitude to the God idea, and opposes the theistic principle as such. Gods in their individual function are not half as pernicious as the principle of theism which represents the belief in a supernatural, or even omnipotent, power to rule the earth and man upon it. It is the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralyzing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The philosophy of Atheism has its root in the earth, in this life; its aim is the emancipation of the human race from all God-heads, be they Judaic, Christian, Mohammedan, Buddhistic, Brahministic, or what not. Mankind has been punished long and heavily for having created its gods; nothing but pain and persecution have been man's lot since gods began. There is but one way out of this blunder: Man must break his fetters which have chained him to the gates of heaven and hell, so that he can begin to fashion out of his reawakened and illumined consciousness a new world upon earth.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Only after the triumph of the Atheistic philosophy in the minds and hearts of man will freedom and beauty be realized. Beauty as a gift from heaven has proved useless. It will, however, become the essence and impetus of life when man learns to see in the earth the only heaven fit for man. Atheism is already helping to free man from his dependence upon punishment and reward as the heavenly bargain-counter for the poor in spirit.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Do not all theists insist that there can be no morality, no justice, honesty or fidelity without the belief in a Divine Power? Based upon fear and hope, such morality has always been a vile product, imbued partly with self-righteousness, partly with hypocrisy. As to truth, justice, and fidelity, who have been their brave exponents and daring proclaimers? Nearly always the godless ones: the Atheists; they lived, fought, and died for them. They knew that justice, truth, and fidelity are not, conditioned in heaven, but that they are related to and interwoven with the tremendous changes going on in the social and material life of the human race; not fixed and eternal, but fluctuating, even as life itself. To what heights the philosophy of Atheism may yet attain, no one can prophesy. But this much can already be predicted: only by its regenerating fire will human relations be purged from the horrors of the past.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Thoughtful people are beginning to realize that moral precepts, imposed upon humanity through religious terror, have become stereotyped and have therefore lost all vitality. A glance at life today, at its disintegrating character, its conflicting interests with their hatreds, crimes, and greed, suffices to prove the sterility of theistic morality.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Man must get back to himself before he can learn his relation to his fellows. Prometheus chained to the Rock of Ages is doomed to remain the prey of the vultures of darkness. Unbind Prometheus, and you dispel the night and its horrors.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Atheism in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-86618803800875255302011-01-16T20:52:00.008-08:002011-01-30T01:19:53.928-08:00Can a Good God exist? An Atheist and a Christian Debate the Problem of Evil (2)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTPtYedbIRI/AAAAAAAAA1M/Tj4w3afpsAY/s1600/Epicurus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TTPtYedbIRI/AAAAAAAAA1M/Tj4w3afpsAY/s320/Epicurus.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Just as the Charger did with my piece I will seek to move through his responses and address them in order to show their failure to solve the problem of evil. <br />
<br />
(click <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">here</a> to see the beginning of this discussion on my blog)<br />
(click <a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">here </a>to see the Charger’s post that I am now responding to)<br />
<br />
I want to actually begin with the end of the Charger’s response in order to prevent needless rabbit trails and expose one of the most obvious weaknesses in the Charger’s piece. The last section the Charger includes he labels as “The problem of good and evil for naturalism” He then goes on to describe what he believes are problems for atheists or naturalists when talking about evil like the idea that without God they have no objective basis for arguing that there is any evil in the world. And he does this in an attempt to show that atheists have even bigger problems then theists and thus can’t, or at least shouldn’t use the problem of evil to deny the existence of God. This entire section serves to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what the problem of evil really is. The Charger says outright that, “the problem of evil also exists for the atheist.” But that is simply not true. The problem of evil does not exist for the atheist rather it is an internal problem to the theistic worldview. Even if the entire planet were Christians the problem of evil would still exist. The Charger either does not understand that or seems to ignore it, which exposes as well as explains many of the problems with his response.<br />
<br />
The way the Charger makes his confusion visible in this section is the way he uses the word “evil.” In this section he uses the word evil only as a moral category trying to demonstrate that atheists are unable to define that category without God. But the word evil as used in the problem of evil is not meant merely as a moral term defining a wrong action rather and more importantly it is intended to describe the fact that there is suffering in the world, which is undeniable and whether that suffering undermines the theists’ system of belief and therefore makes belief in their God unreasonable. So the problem for the theist is to resolve the seemingly obvious existence of senseless suffering in the world with their belief in God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and most importantly all-good.<br />
<br />
This problem of evil (suffering) does not exist for the atheist because once you take the theist’s God out of the equation suffering is no longer a logical problem to be solved but rather it is just a fact to be observed. Atheists and Naturalists do have problems in their systems of belief that have to be addressed but the problem of evil is not one of them. If one reads Christian theologians who address the problem of evil like Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga one will see that. They understand that what’s at stake with the problem of evil is the internal consistency of theism. So the fact that I’m an atheist, while it looks good in the title of this blog, is completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing. Discussing issues facing atheists such as morality without God (look <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-morality-without-god-possibly.html">here</a> for a previous post where I discuss that issue) and ethical standards for naturalists is important but it truly has nothing to do with the topic that was agreed to be discuss in this blog, which again was the problem of evil. <br />
<br />
What this section amounts to is a fallacy known as a red herring, which serves only to avoid the issue, similar to what I said most Christians do when confronted with the problem of evil. For those who aren’t familiar with the term, a red herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention away from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading people away from the current argument and to another topic and this is what the Charger does in this section as well as in part of his section concerning the evidential problem of evil. <br />
<br />
I have to add that it is of little surprise that it is only in this last section in which the Charger even mentions the specific examples of evil (suffering) I gave during my discussion of the evidential problem of evil (Jose Stable who slashed the throat of his 12 year old autistic son Ulysses and left him naked in their bathtub; Sixteen men indicted for the use and maintenance of a protected Internet forum about child pornography, which includes thousands of images and videos as well as advice on how to beguile children into participating in sexual activity; and Robert Burdick a 40 year old man who has was accused of raping at least 12 different women in the last 14 years and has since been convicted of multiple rapes.) because it is only in this section that he could avoid dealing with them. <br />
<br />
So moving forward I would just remind the Charger and those reading this that the issue meant to be addressed was the problem of evil, a problem specific to theists, especially the Christian theists. When talking about evil we are dealing with suffering and pain not merely ethical definitions and whether or not those evils make belief in the traditional monotheistic God unreasonable or not. And again we are not just talking about suffering in abstract terms rather we are talking about the type of suffering that is gut wrenching and horrid happening to real individuals with names. The theist cannot escape this problem whether I’m here or not. <br />
<br />
<u>The Logical Problem of Evil</u><br />
<br />
So beginning again with the logical problem of evil I initially used the lay out given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy;<br />
<br />
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.<br />
<br />
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.<br />
<br />
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.<br />
<br />
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.<br />
<br />
5. Evil exists.<br />
<br />
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.<br />
<br />
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.<br />
<br />
The Charger’s issue was with point number six for two reasons. First because, “it assumes that God has to act right now—a good being does not necessarily have to “always” eliminate evil as far as it can right now. This makes even more sense when you consider that God is not in space and time.” And second because, “if there is a greater good served by His inaction than this argument is defeated. Alvin Plantinga has suggested that free will is this greater good.” <br />
<br />
Both statements work together so that the Charger seems to be saying that God will act to eliminate evil at the best time, which is when it will produce the greatest amount of good and/or prevent the greatest amount of evil. Alvin Plantinga, who the Charger cites, offers a similar idea saying that, “an omnipotent, omniscient person is wholly good only if he eliminates every evil, which is such that for every good that entails it, there is a greater good that does not entail it.” This seems to make sense but the problem this idea produces is the issue of creation itself; if evil was inevitable with creation why did God create anything? <br />
<br />
Richard La Croix provides a different version of the logical problem of evil that demonstrates the new problem theists must face if they accept Plantinga’s statement. <br />
<br />
1. There is a God who created everything.<br />
<br />
2. Before God created there was nothing but God.<br />
<br />
3. After God created, everything is causally dependent on God.<br />
<br />
4. God had the choice of whether or not to create the world.<br />
<br />
5. In one possible scenario, God could have chosen not to create anything at all.<br />
<br />
6. If this choice were actualized, God would not have created a world in which evil existed.<br />
<br />
7. Since God is perfectly good, if God had not created anything, all that would exist would be perfect goodness.<br />
<br />
So the theist who believes with Plantinga that God will always act to eliminate any evil that does not prevent some greater good must now explain why God created anything at all? For if God is morally perfect and desires to eliminate all evil at the time when it will produce the greatest amount of good and/or prevent a greater amount of evil then he should have simply never created us to begin with. The Charger himself said when arguing against my original set up of the logical problem of evil that if a greater good is served by God’s inaction then God will not act. If that is true then God should have remained inactive never creating us in the first place. La Croix puts it this way, “If God is the greatest possible good then if God had not created anything there would be nothing but the greatest possible good. And since God didn’t need to create at all, then the fact that he did create produced less than the greatest possible good…Perhaps God could not, for some perfectly plausible reason, create a world without evil, but then it would seem that he ought not to have created at all…Prior to creation God knew that if he created there would be evil, so being wholly good he ought not to have created.” (see “The Impossibility of God” eds. Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier)<br />
<br />
According to traditional theistic belief God didn’t need us but chose to create us but by making that choice and knowing all the evil that would come from it God was choosing to make a state of existence with evil rather then one without it. So Plantinga’s answer to the logical problem of evil fails at the very moment of creation. And to those who would say that God desired to create us because he wanted us to love and know him all that seems to show is a God who cares more about getting something he wants (doesn’t need) then in what is actually good. It demonstrates that God was willing to create a world filled with suffering and pain as well as a place of eternal suffering (hell) where the majority of those he created would go just so he could be praised, adored and obeyed by the minority of people who would end up “choosing” him. There is nothing sacrificial or selfless in this creative act. God chose to make things worse then they had to be to get something he apparently wanted. <br />
<br />
Perhaps my favorite way to expose the weaknesses of the theists’ response to the logical problem of evil is to point out the fact that almost all the answers they can provide to explain how it is logically possible for an all-good God (also all-powerful, all-knowing) to exist given the evil in this world can also be reversed and likewise used to explain how an all-evil God (also all-powerful, all-knowing) exists given the good in this world. See Stephen Law’s essay (<a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/04/evil-god.html">link</a>). This serves to show that the theists’ responses are basically word games to justify a belief that is inherently unreasonable given the world we live in.<br />
<br />
And let me restate I don’t believe the logical problem of evil is as important as the evidential problem of evil so even if one still finds the Charger’s or any other theistic responses to the logical problem of evil compelling one still has a long way to go to solve the entire problem of evil.<br />
<br />
<u>The Evidential Problem of Evil</u><br />
<br />
Concerning this section of the Charger’s response there is not much I can say because for the most part he avoids the issue. I said in my first piece, “The evidential problem of evil is the problem that I just don’t see any theistic answer to, the best they can do is side-step the issue or simply throw up their hands and say ‘I don’t know but I still believe.” The Charger even quotes this in his own piece and then funny enough he goes right on and confirms it. In his first section titled, “How much evil is too much evil?” he either intentionally or unintentionally avoids the real problem of evil facing the theist (to explain how all the seemingly obvious pointless and gratuitous suffering in the world is compatible with their conception of God as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good) by changing the topic to issues facing atheists when dealing with definitions of good and evil as well as moral/ethical absolutes. This again all goes back to my initial critic of the fallacy of the red herring. <br />
<br />
Then in his second section entitled “God may have a greater good by allowing things to go as they are” he merely restates his idea for solving the logical problem of evil, even weakening it a little by adding the word "may”. He then assumes it is true (God has a good reason for allowing the evil he allows) and then offers two possibilities (free-will and heaven) as to what could be “good enough” to make up for all the evil in this world. Both possibilities are mentioned very briefly without any real reason to accept them and no actual, specific examples of evil are dealt with. The section ends up amounting to little more then a few sentences that fail to actually deal with the evidential problem of evil. <br />
<br />
So the Charger basically completely side stepped the evidential problem of evil pointing the reader in different directions and then offering a few brief theodicies (he expands on free will later) that could only address the logical problem of evil. So the problem I said theists’ can’t answer, the evidential problem of evil, is the problem the Charger failed to actually address.<br />
<br />
<u>The Charger’s Theodicies</u><br />
<br />
Now let us address the theodicies the Charger offered.<br />
<br />
<u>The free will argument</u><br />
<br />
The free will defense is the argument that dominates the Charger’s attempts to explain evil so it is the one I will spend the most time addressing. <br />
<br />
Now for the free will argument to offer any type of solution to the problem of evil one must first accept the assumption that free will is a human trait of such supreme value that without it humanity would be worse off then with the evil that currently exists. This is an assumption I will later challenge. But even if we accept that assumption the free will argument must also demonstrate that having free will is necessarily connected to evil in the world such that free willed humans beings could not exist without evil and further that evil must abound to the great extent it has in our current world (no gratuitous suffering).<br />
<br />
Beginning with the second issue I say the free will argument fails because there is no obvious impossibility, logical or otherwise, in the existence of human beings with free will and humans who have the inability to deliberately sin, or at least the inability to commit heinous crimes. The Charger again referenced Plantinga who deals with this issue at great length and argues that, “it was not within God’s power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil.” In order to explain this Plantinga created the idea of “transworld depravity” meaning that in any world were a person is significantly free, that person would on some occasion, act morally wrong. The key is defining what it means for people to be “significantly free”. For Plantinga significantly free persons must have three types of freedom; external freedom, internal freedom and logical freedom. Quentin Smith lays these out perfectly: <br />
<br />
<em>A person is <strong>externally free</strong> with respect to an action A if and only if nothing other than (external to) herself determines either that she perform A or refrain from performing A.</em><br />
<br />
<em>A person is <strong>internally free</strong> with respect to an action A if and only if it is false that his past physical and psychological states, in conjunction with causal laws, determine either that he perform A or refrain from performing A.</em><br />
<br />
<em> </em><em>A person is <strong>logically free</strong> with respect to an action A if and only if there is some possible world in which he performs A and there is another possible world in which he does not perform A. A person is logically free with respect to a wholly good life (a life in which every morally relevant action performed by the person is a good action) if and only if there is some possible world in which he lives this life and another possible world in which he does not.</em> [Smith, “A Sound Logical Argument from Evil” in Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 149] <br />
<br />
So Plantinga and other theists are arguing that these types of freedoms are of such intrinsic value that they explain why there was no world God could create that did not in some way contain evil. The problem with this idea is the third type of freedom, logical freedom because this is a type of freedom that God himself does not have. The fact that God by definition is all-good makes logical freedom impossible for him. There is no world in which God could commit a wrong act or make a wrong choice. Therefore logical freedom is not a trait that is metaphysically valuable or else God would have it. Consequently the theist is now creating a double standard saying that logical freedom is trait of such great value and goodness for humans that God allows evil and yet it is not a trait that God in his supreme goodness needs or shares. So one can argue (and Quentin Smith does) God could have created necessarily good (thus logically unfree) but internally and externally free beings, like himself, and therefore need not and would not have created a world in which moral evil exists. So the Charger’s claim that it would be logically contradictory for God to “create free-willed beings and only allow them to do what is right” fails because God himself is that kind of being. So too the Charger’s example of the person with 5 dollars whom God allows to spend it only on what is good fails to demonstrate a logical contradiction since by definition God himself cannot spend those 5 dollars on anything except what is good. (Now whether an action is good because God does it or God does it because it is good is another issue but either way the problem for the theist remains)<br />
<br />
Moving on it is clear that the free will defense is only able to try and address the logical problem of evil not the evidential problem. Even if one accepts the theists’ arguments that some evil must exist it is unable to explain why there is such a great quantity of evil permitted by this all-good God. This is because free will only addresses moral evils therefore all natural evils (earthquakes, floods, birth defects, etc) remain outside the grasp of the free will argument. The Charger attempts to apply free will to the problem of natural evils by noting Richard Swinburne but based on what was presented I did not see any answer for how free will deals with natural evil. The Charger said, “Swinburne has suggested that natural evils would be the expected result from a fallen world.” But then the Charger does not elaborate on this point so I have no real understanding of why Swinburne believes that. I see no necessary connection between the fall of humanity and the natural evils (earthquakes, floods, tornados, tsunamis, etc) that exist in the world. And also free will does not do anything to explain animal suffering.<br />
<br />
It is clear that the free will argument simply fails to properly deal with the evidential problem of evil because it’s not difficult to think of numerous ways God could have reduced the amount of evil and suffering in the world without restricting or changing our current amount of free will. God could have created all people with one skin color, ridding history of the massive amount of killing, oppression, segregation and inequality due to ideas based upon racial differences. God could have made us all speak the same language. How many problems could have been averted if people could just speak with one another and understand what the other person was saying? (yes I know the story of the Tower of Babel) God could have created us to have uncomfortable or painful physically responses to immoral actions. I have the freedom to eat my own feces but I don’t because it is physically nauseating and as such mentally disgusting. God could have given us this same sort of nauseating feeling at the idea of killing another person or raping someone or even lying. It would not take away people’s freedom to do those actions but few people would do them just like few people eat their own feces. God could have made people not need food to survive or at least not so much food and thus reduce the pain and suffering due to hunger and starvation and if God could not do that he could have increased the amount of food on the earth. Why not make oranges sprout like dandelions or make wheat grow like grass? God could have made women as physically strong as men thus enabling them to better protect themselves from men who would try to rape, abuse or assault them. God could have simply made us self-reproducing so that sex was not an issue. How much pain and suffering and crime would disappear if sex did not exist? Again none of these things would affect people’s free will. And perhaps the simplest thing that God could have done to reduce suffering and pain and retain our free will is education. All God had to do was teach humanity more about the world and the natural system he supposedly created. In an attempt to get God off the hook concerning natural disasters the Charger says, “Even in cases of natural disaster, such as the Black Death humans cannot get an out-of- jail free card. If people during the fourteenth century had actually cleaned their cities, then they have avoided most of the deaths.” He’s right that if people had cleaned their cities and themselves more often the amount of viruses and diseases would have been reduced (certainly not avoided) but what he ignores is the fact that they did not know that at the time and God never told them. All God had to do was tell people what viruses were and how they spread and then tell them the things they should do to help avoid becoming sick. That would not have affected anyone’s free will rather it would simply give people more accurate information to base their choices on and it would have reduced the amount of suffering that has occurred in history and yet God did not do that. Instead most people believed demons were responsible for their sickness and that witches could cast spells on them or curse them and that the solution was to pray, carry holy charms or icons, cast out the demons and kill the witches. God could have taught people about democracy and equality (gender; racial; sexuality; etc) but rather he himself displayed and demanded hieratical systems of government (monarchy/dictatorship) where obedience was the key virtue and individual rights were completely unknown. Really the list could go on the point is there are so many things God could have done to reduce suffering without impinging on anyone’s free will that it is hard to understand how anyone thinks free will solves the problem of evil. <br />
<br />
Further when using the free will argument on the problem of evil one must also address what responsibility God would have in making sure we do not abuse or misuse the free will he gave us. The fact is that if free will is a gift provided by God and he knew exactly what we would “choose” to do with it then as the giver of the gift he does bear part of the blame for the evils that have been committed due to the use of our free will. Pierre Bayle observes that, “It is in the essence of a benefactor to refrain from giving any gift which he knows would be the ruin of the recipient…Free agency is not a good gift after all, for it has caused the ruin of the human race in Adam’s sin, the eternal damnation for the greater part of his descendants, and created a world of a dreadful deluge of moral and physical evils.” <br />
<br />
The fact is that good parents do not give their children more freedom then they can be responsible for. If a parent gives their toddler a bat or a knife the parent is accountable for anything that child does with that bat or knife. When children abuse the freedom bestowed upon them by their parents the parents tend to discipline them by taking away some of those freedoms for a time until their children learn how to be more responsible. Shouldn’t we expect God to at least act like a good parent? Further most parents go to great lengths to protect their children from bearing all the consequences of their mistakes. If a child disobeyed their parents’ instructions not to play in the street those parents will not simply wait and watch while a car comes down the road and hits their child. Instead they will grab their child out of the street and save her despite her poor choice. The parents will then try to explain to the child why she should not be in the street (give knowledge) and likely restrict her freedom for a time by sending her inside or into the backyard. But with God he waits and watches us eat one piece of fruit and then gives us (theists would say allows) earthquakes, holocausts, crusades, floods, diseases and so on. It’s also fun to note that the piece of fruit Adam and Eve were not supposed to eat was the fruit of the “knowledge of good and evil” meaning that before they ate it they could not know what was good (obey God) and what was evil (disobey God). God again withholds knowledge so really what did he expect? (I’ve had fun with that story in my blog before see <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/09/genesis-3-serpent-was-right.html">here</a>)<br />
<br />
Now a lot of the Charger’s response revolves around the idea that at some point in the future God will finally take care of all the evil (suffering) in the world and it will no longer exist making up for the current state of evil. So when using the free will argument to explain why evil exists now one must then figure out what changes in the future? Christians believe that after their death (or at some point in the future) they will go to heaven where there is no “death, or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4) and they will have bodies that cannot be corrupted. (I Cor. 15:30) So one must ask is there free will in heaven? If the answer is yes then it seems it is possible for humans to have free will as well as no pain/suffering/evil. So if that is possible why didn’t God just start there in the first place? If the answer is no and free will does not exist in heaven then clearly it is not as valuable as theists claim it is. And one must then ask why it was so valuable to have free will on earth? Either way a good God should have simply created the world/heaven the way theists believe it will be, whether that means free will and no evil or no free will and no evil or he should not have created anything at all. <br />
<br />
Going back to the beginning of this section I said that for the free will argument to have any merit one must first assume that free will is of such great value that it is worth any amount of evil and suffering which results from it. And that is what theists do that when they make the free will argument they simply assume everyone would prefer to keep the world as it is filled with suffering and pain to maintain their free will (to some degree) over any type of world free of suffering and pain without that free will. The Charger does this when he is trying to determine why God might allow so much evil in the world. He says, “it would be a direct violation of free will for God to stop suffering and evil—to me, this would be a much greater evil than letting evil go on unabated, since it would entail the destruction of the world as we know it. I think if you asked most people if they would rather have evil and the world, or a world where they don’t have a choice they would prefer the first option”. The part the Charger fails to mention is that with the second option you get a life free of pain and suffering where you wouldn’t have missed free will because you wouldn’t have known anything different. It seems like a detail worth mentioning because unlike him I would guess the exact opposite that if you go throughout history and offer people the world as is with all the pain and suffering they experience but their free will intact verses a world with no pain and suffering but only the illusion of free will a majority of people will take the later. I would. <br />
<br />
I say that because the fact is that people don’t have as much free will as they think. We are limited by so many factors like our gender, race, age, nationality, genetics, place of birth, time in history, class in society, education level and so on all of which limit the amount of “free” choices we can make. As a white, American male adult from a middle class background with a college degree I have significantly more choices then an Chinese girl belonging to a poor family, or a boy starving in Africa, or a female concubine in ancient Babylon, or a slave in ancient Rome or Egypt. If you were to ask that girl in China, or that boy starving in Africa, or that female concubine in ancient Babylon, or that slave in ancient Rome or Egypt if they were willing to give up their free will in favor of a life without pain and suffering what do think they would say? I think they would say yes. How valuable is a free will that can’t be used anyway? (I don’t even think most of them would understand the concept of free will in the first place)<br />
<br />
It is also worth noting that the free will argument is a fairly new argument historically speaking and has little to no scripturally support. For most of history God’s sovereignty has always taken precedence of any concept of human freedom. Even currently there are many branches of Christianity that do not accept the idea of libertarian free will, where it is actually possible for human beings to choose whether or not to do something as opposed to more clear forms of determinism.<br />
<br />
<u>God suffered the same evil as us</u><br />
<br />
In this section the Charger offers more theology then philosophy as he himself admits. So the problem is this section offers little to nothing to the unbiased observer trying to make a rational choice about God’s existence based on the problem of evil. Instead Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and his resurrection are faith claims, which one can believe or not believe. <br />
<br />
But even for Christians who accept these claims I believe they don’t really solve the problem of evil as the Charger tries to make them. Jesus’ suffering doesn’t erases other people’s suffering rather it merely increases the amount of suffering that has occurred. The idea that a friend of mine suffered through some sort of pain with me does not take away the pain that I myself suffered it merely means they suffered as well. <br />
<br />
Another issue I would note here is that suffering is not solved by the promise of things being better in the future. Even if Jesus’ death made some sort of perfect future possible for some or all people it does not change or make up for the suffering of the past. If someone suffers from cancer and must endure all the pain (physical and psychological) that comes from it the promise that one day they will no longer have cancer does not make-up for the pain that was suffered. Pain is not a simple debt that one can erase by offering a lack of pain later. <br />
<br />
Then of course there is the issue of hell. If hell is a place of eternal suffering as traditional Christian doctrine claims then the real problem of evil never actually gets solved it merely gets segregated so that while some people are enjoying the perfect heaven that God for some reason was unable to create originally the majority of humanity is suffering endless torment. Jesus’ death was clearly limited in its effectiveness. One must again question why God created humanity at all knowing only a small fraction of them would end up “choosing” to follow/obey/love him while the rest of us burned? It again makes God look fairly self-serving. <br />
<br />
Finally Jesus’ suffering and death also did nothing to address natural evils or animal suffering. It is merely a theological answer to the problem of moral evil. <br />
<br />
<u>Animal Suffering</u><br />
<br />
In this section the Charger offered three answers to address animal suffering. First he claims, “There are good reasons to believe that the animals in the Garden of Eden were herbivores…then man, as the free moral creature, ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and took away the perfect world.” So the Charger says there are good reasons to believe all animals used to be herbivores but then he doesn’t provide any. So the most obvious question is what are these good reasons to believe that? Beyond just animals being herbivores what about the existence of dangerous plants? Did some plants suddenly just turn poisonous? I recently read about a parasite called toxoplasma gondii, which can live inside many mammals but needs to get inside a cat’s stomach to reproduce. So it often infects rats or mice and has the property of being able to interfere with their nervous systems making them hyperactive and relatively fearless greatly increasing their chance of being in the vicinity of a cat. And when the cat eats the rat or mouse the toxoplasma gondii gets into the stomach, reproduces gets pooped out and starts the whole process over again. Where did these parasites come from? Did they suddenly come into existence the second Adam and Eve ate the fruit? And why did God make them at all? They don’t affect humans rather they only cause problems for animals that may be eaten by cats. Basically even if all animals suddenly starting eating plants that would still not solve all the problems associate with animal suffering caused by the natural world.<br />
<br />
Now the big problem with this response besides the lack of reasons given for actually believing it is the fact that it requires one to accept the Garden of Eden story as historical rather then mythical and that simply does not work rationally. Animals were suffering, killing and eating one another long before human beings ever existed. Any potential fall of humanity could have only occurred millions of years after animals already existed. Similarly natural evils (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc) are events that occurred long before human beings ever showed up on the planet and animals suffered as a result of those events. So while the fall is a helpful story to explain the theology of the church and the need for Jesus it does not work to explain why animals suffer. <br />
<br />
Second the Charger cites C.S. Leiws saying maybe it was Satan’s fault that animals suffer. Again no reasons are provided for believing that and one would have to accept the idea of Satan as real, who as a non-human agent of evil creates even more problems for theists trying to argue that evil exists as a by product of the existence of humanity.<br />
<br />
Lastly the Charger argues that animals will be herbivores again in heaven. Similar to above the fact that something becomes good in the future does not erase the fact that there is suffering in the present. The idea that animals may one day stop experiencing pain does not resolve the fact that they currently do experience pain and have for their entire existence. <br />
<br />
The Charger’s attempts to address animal suffering clearly fail and so he is still left with resolving the problem of animal suffering. <br />
<br />
<u>Conclusion</u><br />
<br />
When looking at the Charger’s piece as a whole I think one finds basically what I described in my first piece. The Charger deals mostly with the logical (deductive) problem of evil rather then the evidential problem (inductive), then provides some theodicies none of which can address the problem of evil in its entirety and some of which offer almost no help at all and finally goes so far as to change the subject and introduce irrelevant topics seemingly in hopes diverting attention away from his inability to solve the problem of evil.<br />
<br />
So moving forward there would be numerous issues the Charger needs to address. With the Logical Problem of evil he must first explain why God, who always acts (or doesn’t act) to produce the greatest good created humanity in the first place knowing evil was the inevitable outcome and thus destroying the greatest possible good. If he can do that he must then explain why God was not able to create us as beings that were significantly free yet could not sin since God himself is such a being. What is so valuable about a freedom that allows evil if that is a freedom God does not have? And if he can do that he must then turn right around and explain what changes to enable the existence of a perfect heaven (for some) where people will not/cannot sin or suffer, which was for some reason previously impossible for God to create. With the evidential problem of evil the Charger must actually deal with it since it was all but ignored in his first piece. Even if one accepts that God should have created humans and that for humans to be significantly free humans must be able to (and would) sin then one must explain why God allows humans to sin to such a great extent. Why did God not make a world that maintained the same freedom humanity currently holds yet reduce the amount of suffering? Finally one must explain natural evil and animal suffering since neither of those topics was resolved.<br />
<br />
So I turn the floor back over to the Charger. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts particularly concerning the evidential problem of evil.<br />
<br />
[Click <a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">here</a> for the Charger's response]Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-4595303657693258282010-12-28T04:35:00.002-08:002011-05-26T11:28:14.603-07:00Martin Gardner-The Wandering Jew and the Second Coming<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TRnZI_lPaYI/AAAAAAAAA1I/E3OoGljxjOg/s1600/Wandering+Jew.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TRnZI_lPaYI/AAAAAAAAA1I/E3OoGljxjOg/s320/Wandering+Jew.jpg" width="238" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">When it comes to the bible and biblical interpretation a large portion of scripture is fairly flexible and can be reinterpreted to fit the social needs and beliefs at any given time. But there are those parts of the bible that are fairly black and white in their meaning and given the passage of time they have clearly exposed themselves as errors both with facts and moral values. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">One example is when Jesus foretold that his return would occur within the lifetime of some of those people who were listening to him speak. That of course did not happen so Christians have had to come up with ways to explain this obvious error. This is an essay written by Martin Gardner concerning the legend of the wandering Jew. This legend developed in an attempt to address this mistake of Jesus’ and is a wonderful example of how far people are willing to go to maintain their beliefs inspite of any and all evidence to the contrary, in particular their belief in the inerrancy of scripture and infallibility of Jesus</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u>The Wandering Jew and the Second Coming by Martin Gardner</u></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The legend of a wandering Jew, unable to die until the Second Coming, is surely the strangest of all myths intended to combat the notion that Jesus was mistaken when he said he would return within the lifetime of someone then living. I have summarized its sad, colorful history in an essay that appeared in Free Inquiry (Summer 1995)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As the year 2000 approaches, it would not surprise me to see a picture of the Wandering Jew on the front page of one of the supermarket tabloids. Some intrepid photographer will spot him trudging a dusty road, with his sturdy walking stick and long white beard, and perhaps obtain an interview about his sufferings over the past two millennia</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“For the son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you. There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming his kingdom.” Matthew <time hour="16" minute="27" o:ls="trans" w:st="on">16:27</time>-28</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The statement of Jesus quoted above from Matthew, and repeated in similar words by Mark (<time hour="8" minute="38" o:ls="trans" w:st="on">8:38</time>, <time hour="9" minute="1" o:ls="trans" w:st="on">9:1</time>) and Luke (<time hour="9" minute="26" o:ls="trans" w:st="on">9:26</time>-27) is for Bible fundamentalists one of the most troublesome of all New Testament passages.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is possible, of course, that Jesus never spoke those sentences, but all scholars agree that the first-century Christians expected the Second Coming in their lifetimes. In Matthew 24, after describing dramatic signs of his imminent return, such as the falling of stars and the darkening of the moon and sun, Jesus added: “Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Until about 1933 Seventh-Day Adventists had a clever way of rationalizing this prophecy. They argued that a spectacular meteor shower of 1833 was the falling of the stars, and that there was a mysterious darkening of sun and moon in the <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">United States</place></country-region> in 1870. Jesus meant that a future generation witnessing these celestial events would be the one to experience his Second Coming.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For almost a hundred years Adventist preachers and writers of books assured the world that Jesus would return within the lifetimes of some who had seen the great meteor shower of 1833. After 1933 passed, the church gradually abandoned this interpretation of Christ’s words. Few of today’s faithful are even aware that their church once trumpeted such a view. Although Adventists still believe Jesus will return very soon, they no longer set conditions for an approximate date.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">How do they explain the statements of Jesus quoted in the epigraph? Following the lead of <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Saint Augustine</place></city> and other early Christian commentators, they take the promise to refer to Christ’s Transfiguration. Ellen White, the prophetess who with her husband founded Seventh-day Adventism, said it this way in her life of Christ, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Desire of Ages</i>: “The Savior’s promise to the disciples was now fulfilled. Upon the mount the future kingdom of glory was represented in miniature…” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Hundreds of Adventist sects since the time of Jesus, starting with the Montanists of the second century, have all interpreted Christ’s prophetic statements about his return to refer to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">their</i> generation. Apocalyptic excitement surged as the year 1000 approached. Similar excitement is now gathering momentum as the year 2000 draws near. Expectation of the Second Coming is not confined to Adventist sects. Fundamentalists in mainstream Protestant denominations are increasingly stressing the imminence of Jesus’ return. Baptist Billy Graham, for example. Regularly warns of the approaching battle of Armageddon and the appearance of the Anti-Christ. He likes to emphasize the Bible’s assertion that the Second Coming will occur after the gospel is preached to all the nations. This could not take place, Graham insists, until the rise of radio and television.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Preacher Jerry Falwell is so convinced that he will soon be raptured—caught up in the air to meet the return of Jesus—that he once said he has no plans for a burial plot. Austin Miles, who once worked for Pat Robertson, reveals in his book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Don’t Call Me Brother</i> (1989) that Pat once seriously considered plans to televise the Lord’s appearance in the skies! Today’s top native drumbeater for a soon Second Coming is Hal Lindsey. His many books on the topic, starting with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Late Great Planet Earth</i>, have sold by the millions. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For the past two thousand years individuals and sects have been setting dates for the Second Coming. When the Lord fails to show, there is often no recognition of total failure. Instead, errors are found in the calculations and new dates set. In <place w:st="on"><city w:st="on">New Harmony</city>, <state w:st="on">Indiana</state></place>, an Adventist sect called the Rappites was established by George Rapp. When he became ill he said that were he not absolutely certain the Lord intended him and his flock to witness the return of Jesus, he would think this was his last hour. So saying, he died. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Catholic Church, following Augustine, long ago moved the Second Coming far into the future at some unspecified date. Liberal Protestants have tended to take the Second Coming as little more than a metaphor for the gradual establishment of peace and justice on earth. Julia Ward Howe, a Unitarian minister, had this interpretation in mind when she began her famous <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Battle Hymn of the Republic</i> with “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord…” Protestant fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe that Jesus described actual historical events that would precede his literal return to earth to banish Satan and judge the quick and the dead. They also find it unthinkable that the Lord could have blundered about the time of his Second Coming.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The difficulty in interpreting Christ’s statement about some of his listeners not tasting of death until he returned is that he described the event in exactly the same phrases he used in Matthew 24. He clearly was not there referring to his transfiguration, or perhaps (as another “out” has it) to the fact that his kingdom would soon be established by the formation of the early church. Assuming that Jesus meant exactly what he said, and that he was not mistaken, how can his promise be unambiguously justified? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">During the Middle Ages several wonderful legends arose to preserve the accuracy of Christ’s prophecies. Some were based on John 21. When Jesus said to Peter “Follow me,” Peter noticed John walking behind him and asked, “Lord, what shall this man do?” The Lord’s enigmatic answer was, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We are told that this led to a rumor that John would not die. However, the writer of the fourth gospel adds: “Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” Theologians in the Middle Ages speculated that perhaps John did not die. He was either wandering about the earth, or perhaps he ascended bodily into heaven. A more popular legend was that John had been buried in a state of suspended animation, his heart faintly throbbing. To remain in an unknown grave until Jesus returns. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">These speculations about John rapidly faded as a new and more powerful legend slowly took shape. Perhaps Jesus was not referring to John when he said he could ask someone to tarry, but to someone else. This would also explain the remarks quoted in the epigraph. Someone not mentioned in the gospels, alive in Jesus’s day, was somehow cursed to remain alive for centuries until judgment day, wandering over the earth and longing for death.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Who was this Wandering Jew? Some said it was Malchus, whose ear Peter sliced off. Others thought it might be the impenitent thief who was crucified beside Jesus. Maybe it was Pilate, or one of Pilate’s servants. The version that became dominant identified the Wandering Jew as a shopkeeper—his name varied—who watched Jesus go by his doorstep, staggering under the weight of the cross he carried. Seeing how slowly and painfully the Lord walked, the man struck Jesus on the back, urging him to go faster. “I go,” Jesus replied, “but you will tarry until I return.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As punishment for his rudeness, the shopkeeper’s doom is to wander the earth, longing desperately to die but unable to do so. In some versions of the legend, he stays the same age. In others, he repeatedly reaches old age only to be restored over and over again to his youth. The legend seems to have first been recorded in <country-region w:st="on">England</country-region> in the thirteenth century before it rapidly spread throughout <place w:st="on">Europe</place>. It received an enormous boost in the early seventeenth century when a pamphlet appeared in <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Germany</place></country-region> about a Jewish shoemaker named Ahasuerus who claimed to be the Wanderer. The pamphlet was endlessly reprinted in <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Germany</place></country-region> and translated into other languages. The result was a mania comparable to today’s obsessions with UFO’s, Abominable Snowmen, and Elvis Presley. Scores of persons claiming to be the Wandering Jew turned up in cities all over <country-region w:st="on">England</country-region> and <place w:st="on">Europe</place> during the next two centuries. In the <country-region w:st="on">U.S.</country-region> as late as 1868 a Wandering Jew popped up in <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Salt Lake City</place></city>, home of the Mormon Adventist sect. It is impossible now to decide in individual cases whether these were rumors, hoaxes by imposters, or cases of self-deceived psychotics.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Wandering Jew became a favorite topic for hundreds of poems, novels, and plays, especially in <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Germany</place></country-region> where such works continue to proliferate to this day. Even Goethe intended to write an epic about the Wanderer, but only finished a few fragments. It is not hard to understand how anti-Semites in <country-region w:st="on">Germany</country-region> and elsewhere would see the cobbler as representing all of <place w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on">Israel</country-region></place>, its people under God’s condemnation for having rejected his Son as their Messiah. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Gustave Dore produced twelve remarkable woodcuts depicting episodes in the Wanderer’s life. They were first published in <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Paris</place></city> in 1856 to accompany a poem by Pierre Dupont. English editions followed with translations of the verse.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">By far the best known novel about the Wanderer is Eugene Sue’s French work <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Le Juif Errant</i> (The Wandering Jew), first serialized in <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Paris</place></city> in 1844-1845 and published in ten volumes. George Croly’s three-volume <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Salathiel</i> (1827), later retitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tarry Thou Till I Come</i>, was an enourmously popular earlier novel. (In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Don Juan</i>, Canto 11, Stanza 57, Byron calls the author Reverend Roley-Poley.) In Lew Wallace’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Prince of India</i> (1893), the Wanderer is a wealthy Oriental potentate. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">George Macdonald’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Thomas Wingfold, Curate</i> (1876) introduces the Wandering Jew as an Anglican minister. Having witnessed the Crucifixion, and in constant agony over his sin, Wingfold is powerless to overcome a strange compulsion. Whenever he passes a roadside cross, or even a cross on top of a church, he has an irresistible impulse to climb on the cross, warp his arms and legs around it, and cling there until he drops to the ground unconscious! He falls in love, but realizing that his beloved will age and die while he remains young, he tries to kill himself by walking into an active volcano. His beloved follows, and is incinerated by the molten lava. There is a surprisingly happy ending. Jesus appears, forgives the Wanderer, and leads him off to <place w:st="on">Paradise</place> to reunite with the woman who died for him. The novel is not among the best of this Scottish writer’s many admired fantasies.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">My First Two Thousand Years</i>, by George Sylvester Viereck and Paul Eldridge (1928) purports to be the erotic autobiography of the Wandering Jew. The same two authors, in 1930, wrote <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Salome, the Wandering Jewess</i>, an equally erotic novel covering her two thousand years of lovemaking. The most recent novel about the Wanderer is by German ex-Communist Stefan Heym, a pseudonym for Hellmuth Flieg. In his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Wandering Jew</i>, published in <country-region w:st="on">West Germany</country-region> in 1981 and in a <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">U.S.</place></country-region> edition three years later, the Wanderer is a hunchback who tramps the roads with Lucifer as his companion. The fantasy ends with the Second Coming, Armageddon, and the Wanderer’s forgiveness.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sue’s famous novel is worth a quick further comment. The Wanderer is Ahasuerus, a cobbler. His sister Herodias, the wife of King Herod, becomes the Wandering Jewess. The siblings are minor characters in a complex plot. Ahasuerus is tall, with a single black eyebrow stretching over both eyes like a Mark of Cain. Seven nails on the soles of his iron boots produce crosses when he walks across snow. Wherever he goes an outbreak of cholera follows. Eventually the two siblings are pardoned and allowed “the happiness of eternal sleep.” Sue was a French socialist. His Wanderer is a symbol of exploited labor, Herodias a symbol of exploited women. Indeed, the novel is an angry blast at Catholicism, capitalism, and greed.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Wandering Jew appears in several recent science fiction novels, notable Walter Miller’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Canticle for Leibowitz</i> (1960), and Wilson Tucker’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Planet King</i> (1959) where he becomes the last man alive on earth. At least two movies have dealt with the legend, the most recent a 1948 Italian film starring Vittorio Gassman. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rafts of poems by British and <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">U.S.</place></country-region> authors have retold the legend. The American John Saxe, best known for his verse about the blind men and the elephant, wrote a seventeen-stanza poem about the Wanderer. British poet Caroline Elizabeth Sarah Norton’s forgettable “Undying One” runs to more than a hundred pages. Oliver Herford, an American writer of light verse, in “Overheard in a Garden” turns the Wanderer into a traveling salesman peddling a book about himself. “The Wandering Jew” (1920) by Edwin Arlington Robinson, is surely the best of such poems by an American writer.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Charles Timothy Brooks (1813-1883) was a New England Unitarian minister as well as a prolific versifier and translator of Goethe and other German poets. His “Wandering Jew,” based on a German poem whose author I do not know, was reprinted in dozens of pre-1900 American anthologies. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><em>The Wandering Jew once said to me,</em><i><br />
<em>I passed through a city in the cool of the year;</em><br />
<em>A man in the grader plucked fruit from a tree.</em><br />
<em>I asked: "How long has the city been here?"</em><br />
<em>And he answered me, as he plucked away -</em><br />
<em>"It always stood where it stands to-day,</em><br />
<em>And here it will stand forever and aye."</em><br />
<em>Five hundred years rolled by, and then</em><br />
<em>I traveled the self-same road again.</em><br />
<br />
<em>No trace of the city there I found:</em><br />
<em>A shepherd sat blowing his pipe alone;</em><br />
<em>His flock went quietly nibbling round.</em><br />
<em>I asked: "How long has the city been gone?"</em><br />
<em>And he answered me, and he piped away -</em><br />
<em>"The new ones bloom and the old decay,</em><br />
<em>This is my pasture ground for aye."</em><br />
<em>Five hundred years rolled by, and then</em><br />
<em>I traveled the self-same road again.</em><br />
<br />
<em>And I came to the sea, and the waves did roar,</em><br />
<em>And a fisherman threw his net out clear,</em><br />
<em>And when heavy laden he dragged it ashore.</em><br />
<em>I asked "How long has the sea been here?"</em><br />
<em>And he laughed, and he said, and he laugher away -</em><br />
<em>"As long as you billows have tossed their spray</em><br />
<em>They've fished and they've fished in this self-same bay."</em><br />
<em>Five hundred years rolled by, and then</em><br />
<em>I traveled the self-same road again.</em><br />
<br />
<em>And I came to the forest, vast and free,</em><br />
<em>And a woodman stood in the thicket near -</em><br />
<em>His axe he laid at the foot of a tree.</em><br />
<em>I asked, "How long have the woods been here?"</em><br />
<em>And he answered "These woods are a covert for aye;</em><br />
<em>My ancestors dwelt here alway,</em><br />
<em>And the trees have been here since creation's day."</em><br />
<em>Five hundred years rolled by, and then</em><br />
<em>I traveled the self-same road again.</em><br />
<br />
<em>And I found there a city, and far and near</em><br />
<em>Resounded the hum of toil and glee,</em><br />
<em>and I asked, "How long has the city been here?</em><br />
<em>and where is the pipe, and the woods and the sea?"</em><br />
<em>And they answered me, as they went their way,</em><br />
<em>"Things always have stood as they stand to-day,</em><br />
<em>And so they will stand forever and aye."</em><br />
<em>I'll wait five hundred years, and then</em><br />
<em>I'll travel the self-same road again.</em></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">In <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">England</place></country-region>, Shelly was the most famous poet to become fascinated by the legend. In his lengthy poem “<a href="http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=chadwyck_ep/uvaGenText/tei/chep_P10011.xml">The Wandering Jew</a>,”</span></em><em><span style="font-style: normal;"> written or partly written when he was seventeen, the Wanderer is called Paulo. A fiery cross on his forehead is kept concealed under a cloth band. In the third Canto, after sixteen centuries of wandering, Paulo recounts the origin of his suffering to Rosa, a woman he loves:</span></em><em><span style="font-style: normal;"></span></em></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span class="apple-style-span"><i>“<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" name="1"></a> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>How</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>can</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>I</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>paint</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>that</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>dreadful</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><span class="subhit"><i>day</i></span><span class="apple-style-span"><i> ,</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">That time of terror and dismay,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">When, for our sins, a Saviour died,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">And the meek Lamb was crucified!</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span class="apple-style-span"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">As dread that day, when borne along</i></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">To slaughter by the insulting throng,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">Infuriate for Deicide,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">I mocked our Saviour, and I cried,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">Go, go, ‘Ah! I will go,’ said he,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">‘Where scenes of endless bliss invite;</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">To the blest regions of the light</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">I go, but thou shalt here remain—</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span">Thou diest not till I come again’</span><span class="apple-converted-space"></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Wandering Jew is also featured in Shelley’s short poem “The Wandering Jew’s Soliloquy,” and in two much longer works, “<place w:st="on">Hellas</place>” and “Queen Mab.” In “Queen Mab,” as a ghost whose body casts no shadow, Ahasuerus bitterly denounces God as an evil tyrant. In a lengthy note about this Shelley quotes from a fragment of a German work “whose title I have vainly endeavored to discover. I picked it up, dirty and torn, some years ago…”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In this fragment the Wanderer describes his endless efforts to kill himself. He tries vainly to drown. He leaps into an erupting <place w:st="on">Mount Etna</place> where he suffers intense heat for ten months before the volcano belches him out. <place w:st="on">Forest</place> fires fail to consume him. He tries to get killed in wars but arrows, spears, clubs, swords, bullets, mines, and trampling elephants have no effect on him. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">(end)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u>The Worrywart</u></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The simple fact is that Jesus, according to the Gospel writers, made some clear prophecies about himself, which failed to come true and so Christians have been left scrambling to figure out a way to fix Jesus’ error. I enjoy this legend because it demonstrates that people throughout history have understood the problem presented by Jesus’ clear mistake and they have sought to fix it. But the way Christians in the Middle Ages into the modern period chose to fix it, through the story of the wandering Jew, is a way that most Christians today would reject. Rather they would offer new interpretations to explain what Jesus “actually” meant all the while refusing to just acknowledge the simplest and most obvious answer; Jesus was wrong. And what I find funny about this is that their new interpretations usually require a far more complex twisting of Jesus’ words then the legend of the wandering Jew, which at least accepted Jesus’ words to be as clear and straightforward as they were. So while most people can now see this legend for what it is, a legend when they then examine the issue for which the legend was meant to address, Jesus’ prophecy, they once again become blind to the obvious truth; he got it wrong. Truly, few things show the fallibility of humanity as greatly as their belief in the infallibility of the divine. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-77602154513820532812010-12-20T20:19:00.004-08:002011-06-28T11:35:56.869-07:00Can a Good God exist? An Atheist and a Christian Debate the Problem of Evil<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TRAp6wSvXaI/AAAAAAAAA1A/-872hDoTv0U/s1600/Evil+5.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" n4="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TRAp6wSvXaI/AAAAAAAAA1A/-872hDoTv0U/s400/Evil+5.bmp" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><span lang="EN-US">This piece serves to begin a dialog with a fellow blogger concerning the question: does the existence of evil disprove the existence of God traditionally defined in the West as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good? As the atheist I will be arguing that it does, or at least that it makes the existence of such a God so implausible that it is irrational to believe such a thing. My fellow blogger as the Christian theist will offer his solutions to the problem of evil (theodicies) to demonstrate not only that this God could exist but that it is rational to believe that he does. Each of us will be posting on our own blogs so that after reading this piece one would need then go to his blog (<a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: purple;">http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/</span></a>) to read his response then back to mine and so on. As each response gets written I will add the links to my pages to make it easier to get back and forth. For my part I will likely only be responding to this dialog once or twice a month due to the amount of time that needs to be put into such an important topic and of course due to other obligations in my life and work. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">As we begin I seek simply to lay out what the problem of evil is and then allow my dialog partner to offer his responses and we will see where it goes from there. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">I believe the problem of evil truly is the strongest proof against the existence of the traditional concept of God and it was the number one reason that led me after years of struggle to reject my Christian faith. Dr. James F. Sennett a Christian philosophy professor has said, “By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil-the alleged incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.” I agree and I can tell you I have lost a lot of sleep over this problem.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">The problem is fairly easy to lie out. David Hume described it by saying: “Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, X) Basically if God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing then why the heck is there evil in the world and why is there so much of it? An all-good God would desire to eliminate evil; an all-powerful God would be capable of eliminating evil; and an all-knowing God would know how to make it happen. So the fact that evil exists suggests that there is something wrong (lacking) with God’s goodness, power, knowledge or that he simply does not exist. The last one is by far the simplest answer and thus I would say the most reasonable.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Now the problem of evil can be separated into two parts the logical (deductive) problem of evil and the evidential (inductive) problem of evil. I will look at each separately to show how both make belief in this God unreasonable though I will focus more on the evidential problem. One must also understand that there are different categories of evil. There is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moral</i> evil resulting from the choices of moral agents (people) such as rape, murder, bombings, molestation and so on. There is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">natural</i> evil, which is suffering resulting from natural physical phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, diseases, birth defects and so on. And there is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">non-moral</i> category of evil resulting from unintentional accidents due to human inaction or neglect such as a car accident. All of these categories of evil must be addressed by theists in order to prove there is any rational reason to believe in their God.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">The logical problem of evil seeks to demonstrate that there is a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the existence of God. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lays it out as follows;</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"></span><br />
<ol style="line-height: 22px;"><li><span lang="EN-US">If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US">If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US">If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US">If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US">Evil exists.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US">If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US">Therefore, God doesn't exist.</span></li>
</ol></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;">That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><em>reductio</em></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;">argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion — (7) — is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7). <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/">(link)</a></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US">The argument is that simple. It should also be noted that the amount of evil in the world is not relevant to the logical problem of evil because the argument is that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> evil at all. Now this basic outline can be combated by theists and there are different versions offered by atheists but this simple version gives a good starting point for discussing the logical problem of evil.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Now while the logical problem of evil did cause me a lot of headaches as a believer it was never a deal breaker because even though I never found a suitable theistic response to the logical problem of evil I was not willing to reject my personal relationship with God for what at times felt like a word game being played by philosophers. As an atheist I think the ultimate weakness of the logical problem of evil is that while it has a way of engaging people’s minds it doesn’t seem to shake their hearts because it keeps the problem of evil abstract and thus very impersonal. It allows those discussing evil to keep it at an arm's length and avoid the true horrors of moral and natural evil and as such I think it is easier for theists to simply dismiss it. Where the real weight of the problem of evil can be felt is in the evidential problem of evil. It is the evidential problem of evil that made me toss and turn in my bed and ultimately walk away from God. The evidential problem of evil is the problem that I just don’t see any theistic answer to, the best they can do is side-step the issue or simply throw up their hands and say “I don’t know but I still believe.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">The evidential problem of evil moves away from the logical problem of evil, which was questioning God’s existence due to the existence of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> evil in the world to now questioning God’s existence given the existence of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">so much</i> evil in the world? So even if we grant that it is logically possible for both God and evil to exist the sheer amount of evil in the world serves as evidence against the rationality of such a belief. The question theists must now answer is not how God could let any evil exist but how could God let such a great amount of evil exist? Richard Swinburne, an important Christian theologian notes the danger of the evidential problem of evil saying it is, “the crux of the problem of evil…It is not the fact of evil or the kinds of evil which are a threat to theism; it is the quantity of evil—both the number of people (and animals) who suffer and the amount which they suffer.” So when dealing with the evidential problem of evil it’s not enough for theists to offer good reasons for how some evil can exist in the world rather they must demonstrate that there are good reasons for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> the evil that exists in the world both past and present. No evil can be left unaccounted for because if any suffering can be shown to be superfluous or unnecessary then the all-good God himself becomes superfluous and unnecessary. And I believe the vast amount of evil plaguing the world both currently and historically makes it fairly clear that meaningless and gratuitous evil exists and thus God does not.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">William L. Rowe lays out the evidential problem clearly. Rowe says (1) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (2) An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (3) Therefore there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 20pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Now a theist can claim that no one can prove proposition number 1 with absolute certainty, which states pointless suffering exists and while that may be technically true one can easily demonstrate that there are rational grounds for believing that such meaningless evil exists. I would go further and say not only is it rational to believe meaningless evil exists, it is quite irrational to deny it. So if this first proposition is true taken with the second proposition you are led to the simple conclusion that God does not exist. All one has to due to assert that meaningless evil exists is to assert that there has been at least one earthquake that could have been prevented, one life that could have been spared, one rape that could have been stopped or even one cold that could have not been caught without preventing some greater good or avoiding a greater evil. Theists must deny all those possibilities to protect their beliefs. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">Evil (suffering) is real. Histories pages are filled with suffering. Around 75 million people died in Europe during the pandemic called the Black Death which was between 30% – 60% of <place w:st="on">Europe</place>'s population at the time. 300,000 Jews were stripped of their positions and forced out of <place w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on">Spain</country-region></place> in 1492 while those who remain were forced to convert to Catholicism. The Great Lisbon earthquake (1755) killed near 100,000 people. By 1860 there were almost 4 million slaves in the <place w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on">United States</country-region></place>. 6 million Jews were murdered in the holocaust a quarter of them being children and including all the other people, who weren’t Jewish, at least 11 million people were killed during Hitler’s reign. Conservative estimates of today’s children’s slave trade counts 250 million children enslaved worldwide.</span></span><strong><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal;"> Nearly 40,000 people, mostly children, die of starvation every day. Almost 33 million people have AIDS. </span></strong><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">Timothy McVeigh</span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US">’s bombing </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">killed 168 people and injured 450 (1995). And 15 people were killed in the Columbine shootings (1999). </span></span></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><strong><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal;">And least the impersonal numbers dull one’s feelings a man named Jose Stable slashed the throat of his 12 year old autistic son Ulysses and left him naked in their bathtub. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231472,00.html">(link)</a> </span></strong><span lang="EN-US"> Sixteen men have been indicted for the use and maintenance of a protected Internet forum about child pornography, which includes thousands of images and videos as well as advice on how to beguile children into participating in sexual activity. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-child-porn-20101215,0,1938371.story?track=rss">(link)</a> Robert Burdick is a 40 year old man who has been convicted of multiple rapes in multiple cases. He was accused of raping at least 12 different women in the last 14 years. <span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.wsmv.com/news/23542371/detail.html">(link)</a> </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">So please don’t forget that we are talking about real people not numbers when we are discussing evil and suffering.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Again a theist when presented with these evils must maintain that they all serve some greater purpose, whether producing greater good or preventing greater evils, for to admit to any evil that does not serve a higher purpose is to admit in the existence of meaningless suffering an idea that is completely at odds with Christian theism. One must believe that <strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jose Stable’s son Ulysses could not have been spared</span></strong> or that there could not have been even one less child molested and photographed for that Internet forum or that Robert Burdick could not have raped one less woman without somehow ruining some greater good in the world. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">Perhaps the easiest example of pointless evil that no theodicy seems able to address is the existence of animal suffering. What greater good is served by animals suffering? Animals existed millions of years before humans and were hunting and killing one another long before we showed up due to the fact that some of them desired the flesh of other animals to eat. Why didn’t God just make all animals herbivores? What purpose does a carnivore have in expanding goodness or preventing greater evil in the world? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US">So that is the problem of evil and I lay it out there so as to begin a dialog with a fellow thinker who maintains the rationality of belief in the existence of God. I look forward to hearing his thoughts and hope others will take the time to see where this conversation might take us. And no matter what side one ends up on let’s keep in mind what we have in common, which is the problem itself. Both sides see evil and suffering as a real problem because we both understand and share the belief that all people genuinely<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span>matter in and of themselves and suffering should be limited as much as <em>humanly</em> possible. </span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://wolfhartscharger.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">Click here for the Charger's response</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-72939744181556747692010-12-14T05:14:00.002-08:002010-12-14T05:18:44.510-08:00The Separation of Church and State-A Wall Still Waiting to be Finished<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQdtUt4MCbI/AAAAAAAAA0s/qLBKJ8zjHzY/s1600/Church+and+State+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQdtUt4MCbI/AAAAAAAAA0s/qLBKJ8zjHzY/s1600/Church+and+State+2.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When looking at the history of the United States and the issue of the separation of church and state one can see that the debate over what role religion should or should not play in the government has existed since the beginning. (1)<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Today religious conservatives complain that religion has become too far removed from politics and that we must get back to the “original values” (Christian) this country was built on. More liberal and secular citizens claim that the founding fathers established a complete separation of church and state and thus religion should play no part in politics. Now there are no quick and simple answers but by looking at the past I believe we can gain a greater confidence both about what was originally intended for the relationship between the church and the state and more importantly how we should approach that relationship today.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When looking at the history of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> the fact is that there has never been a complete separation of church and state. The wall of separation that most secularists speak of is an ideal that has never been fully realized. The line of separation was created early but it was less of a wall and more like a fence with holes in it allowing for the kids on one side (religion) to play in their neighbors’ yard (state). The Christian religion has played a massive role in our history, both good and bad, and that cannot be ignored nor should it be. But I will argue that while it was never achieved or codified those who are considered the founding fathers of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> desired to point the country towards a future where the church and the state would be completely separated. Further looking at the modern world I will argue that the complete separation of church and state is the most rational and best way to ensure the continuation of liberty and protection of human rights for everyone both in this country and the rest of the world. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">To determine what ideals or values this country was founded on or what the original intent for the relationship between the church and the state was one must first decide whose opinions are being given the most authority to answer that question. Usually when people discuss this issue they tend to focus on the ideas and opinions of the men who were leaders in the Revolution and the framers of the Constitution and refer to them as the founding fathers. So while their opinions are not the only ones of value and should not be the only ones examined in the history of this issue for the sake of this piece I will inspect their ideas the most closely. With that said I contend that the majority of these men hoped for a complete separation between church and state even though it was never accomplished. To demonstrate this I will examine a few important political works of the time, the actions of the early presidents and the religious context of the day. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now the relationship between the church and the state was a significant issue during the Revolutionary era even before the war began but it became particularly important after the war as the individual states began drafting their own constitutions. There were many people who desired for the church to maintain a role in the government just as it had in <st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region> and every other European nation since the time of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Constantine</st1:city></st1:place>. But there were two groups that came together to try and establish for the first time ever a true break between the church and the state. What’s amazing is the fact that the two groups that banded together were the two furthest apart on the religious spectrum. It was the Enlightenment rationalists and the Evangelical Christian denominations who first wanted to draw a line between government and religion. Now both groups had very different motives for wanting this separation. The rationalists fought for separation to guard the government against the often negative influence of religion while the Evangelicals fought for separation to ensure that the government and other denominations did not interfere with their churches. So while both groups were vital to beginning the process of separating the church from state the men who are considered the founding fathers tended to fall into the first group of the Enlightenment rationalists who desired to protect the government from the church as much as protect the church from the government. And while they never fully succeeded in creating a hard separation between church and state they were able to at least aim the country towards that goal with their political writings and deeds.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The first issue that must be examined to understand the complex nature of the relationship between church and state is the difference between the state governments and the federal government during this time period. The federal government was not the dominate force that it is today rather it was the individual states that held the power to determine what the relationship between the government and religion would be for their particular state. Each state was established separately and most had some form of religious rules built into their laws as well as a state sponsored church. After the revolution the states began to draw up their own constitutions and the issue of what role religion should play in the government was dealt with differently in each state. This is one reason it is difficult to say what relationship between church and state was “originally intended” because it varied depending on what state you were in. In each state those who fought the hardest against the idea of separating the church from the state were the members of the state sponsored churches who wanted to maintain their existing privileges most importantly receiving state taxes. These people used a lot of rhetoric about how Christianity (their form) was a necessary part of any form of good government but when one examines it closely one finds that the main issue was that these people wanted to keep their churches’ coffers full. So in each state it was the more secular groups and the smaller, less powerful churches, many of which tended to be evangelical that banded together and fought for the separation of church and state. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">To get a glimpse of this I want to look at what occurred in the state of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place>. Before the end of the war Thomas Jefferson proposed a bill for the state of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place> in 1779 that would guarantee complete legal equality for citizens of all religions, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and of no religion</i>. <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place> made it very clear that his bill was, “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, The Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the infidel of every denomination.” (Mahometan=Muslim and Hindoo=Hindu) This was the first call for separation between religion and government in any of the 13 states and it was an extreme one. <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place> did not hide behind religious language but rather called for a complete and total separation of church and state. What followed was a fierce debate that would last seven years before a revised version of <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>’s bill was enacted. It was in 1786 that Virginia passed the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom and this bill was truly innovate in the history of politics and it was the model used for drafting the federal Constitution.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place> it was the Episcopal Church (the denomination that broke off from the Church of England) that was the official religion of the state. Its members fought hard to maintain their status as the official church of the state. During the debates various “compromises” were offered trying to soften <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>’s bill. Then in 1784 Patrick Henry introduced a new bill that he thought would better serve the state and make more people happy. The bill would tax all citizens for the support of “teachers of the Christian religion.” What this meant is that the bill would simply give more denominations the right to the state’s taxes. So instead of the Episcopal Church being the single church receiving tax money there would now be multiple denominations receiving tax money. This idea pleased many people because it seemed to allow for a certain a level of religious freedom while also affirming that the government should support Christianity and its churches and most importantly it meant money for more churches. So many people who originally supported <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>’s idea of a complete separation of church and state switched sides once they saw they could get their hands on the state’s tax money. But the fight was not over. Along with Jefferson James Madison was strongly against this calling instead for a complete separation between church and state. In his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” he noted that historically religion has mainly had a negative effect on government and it has never aided in maintaining people’s liberty. He said, “If Religion be not within cognizance of Civil government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it [liberty], needs them not.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Jefferson and Madison valued reason above all other virtues and saw it as the tool to establishing a just government. They believed that the God that existed had created man to use reason, not faith, to structure life, both politically and socially. So while their ideas clearly appealed to other secularists and freethinkers they also influenced many nonconformist and Evangelical Protestant groups (Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Quakers) to join the fight against mixing religion and government. These groups began to believe that the separation between the church and the state was the system that would best allow them to live out their beliefs and increase their numbers. Most Evangelicals believed that there should be no mediator (Church or State, Priest or King) between the individual and God and thus any interference from the civil government would serve only as an obstacle between them and their God. Perhaps even more importantly Evangelicals wanted the freedom to be able to proselytize and spread their beliefs without worrying about oppressive laws or systems being set up against them and they certainly didn’t want to pay taxes to other denominations who they believed did not properly follow God’s laws or understand his will. So again despite their differing motivations the Enlightenment rationalists and the more evangelical branches of Protestantism agreed that the separation of church and state was the best way to go. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This combination worked well so that by the time of the General Assembly in 1785-86 Patrick Henry’s bill was rejected and <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>’s bill was again taken up. Jefferson’s bill did not make it through the assembly untouched rather it was revised in certain areas to lessen the overtly secular language of <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>. In the original bill <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place> praised reason before God saying, “Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free…” The bill was then revised to minimize <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place>’s praise of reason and place God first reading instead, “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free…” Despite this change the assembly did overwhelmingly rejected the attempt by some to name Jesus Christ in the bill verses a nonsectarian deity. <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place> would later say that the rejection of mentioning Jesus proved that the law was meant to protect believers of any religion and nonbelievers alike not simply Christians. And despite the mention of God no person had to affirm any religious belief to run for public office in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place>. The bill made itself quite clear saying, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities…” This fact, that one did not have to affirm any religion, doctrine or creed to run for office was truly ground-breaking in the history of politics and was extremely influential both to the other states and ultimately to the very lay out and language of the Constitution. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">On a side note perhaps my favorite part of the bill is when the members of the assembly acknowledged that people in the future would have the right to change the bill but that if they did and thus minimized or revoked the freedom of conscience enabled by the bill they would be wrong. They wrote, “And though we will know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be infringement of natural right.” This bill was a clear example of what Jefferson, <st1:city w:st="on">Madison</st1:city> and other major founders (Adams, Monroe, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Franklin</st1:city></st1:place>) desired for the relationship between the church and state both on a federal and state level. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">To see how revolutionary <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place>’s bill was one need only look around at the other states and their slow development towards any separation of church and state. <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:place></st1:state>’ constitution (1780) only extended equal protection of the laws and the right to hold office to Christians. Catholics were only allowed to hold office if they took a special oath renouncing papal authority in any matter, “civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual.” The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">New York</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype></st1:place> constitution gave political equality to Jews but not to Catholics. Catholics were not allowed to hold public office until 1806. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Maryland</st1:state></st1:place> gave equal rights to Protestants and Catholics but not to Jews, freethinkers or deists. In <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Delaware</st1:state></st1:place> officeholders had to take an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Jefferson had a right to be very proud of Virginia and during his travels in Europe Jefferson he wrote, “it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles, and it is honorable for us, to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare, that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions.” <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place> was clear men did not need God’s (any version) direct involvement to form a proper and just government rather they only needed human reason. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The battle in the individual states raged for years but if we look at the development of the federal Constitution one sees that it is the bill from Virginia, not any of the other states that served as the model for the Constitution and helped instill in it an openly secular tone that should not be ignored. Now just as in Virginia there was a debate over the issue of what role religion should or should not play in the federal government but compared to other issues like slavery and protecting states with smaller populations from those with larger ones religion was not the most pressing issue at the time so the debate was not as fierce as it had been in Virginia itself. Now most people know the first amendment and most people view the amendment as a way to protect religion from any government interference and often the discussion ends there. Far fewer see it or the rest of the Constitution as also trying to protect the government from religion. Yet the overall tone of the Constitution seems to be calling for both. Article 6, section 3 follows the lead of Virginia and states that federal officials, elected or appointed, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Again to people today this might not sound like much but for the time period it was significant and carried great weight. Almost all public offices at the time required religious oaths or tests. By doing away with these tests the Constitution was showing that it never intended religion to affect one’s ability to hold public office or what one did once they got into that office. No one should be swearing on a bible or swearing to God instead the door was open to any and all comers regardless of their beliefs. Public office was not meant to be limited only to men from certain Protestant denominations although in actual practice it has been for most of history. To best understand what this clause meant at the time one only need look at those who opposed its inclusion in the Constitution. At the <st1:state w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:state> convention one man argued that if the President was not required to take a religious oath, “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>.” (And God knows that you can’t be a good leader of a democracy intended to protect people’s human rights if you don’t believe that most of them are going to burn in hell for all of eternity) </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Beyond article 6 perhaps the most telling and obvious thing that proves the Constitution’s secular nature and its authors’ intentions to make it such is the fact that no where in the entire document is the word “God” ever used. There is no mention of God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, a Creator or even <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Providence</st1:city></st1:place>. Even <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place>’s bill had included reference to a nonsectarian deity but not the Constitution. Many people today argue that this is because God was such an obvious part of the founders’ beliefs and motives in writing the Constitution that they didn’t even have to write it, it was just assumed. That is of course ridiculous just by the fact that some reference to a God or Creator had been placed in all the other political documents of the time period. Further if one doubts the magnitude of leaving God out of the Constitution one must again only listen to the opponents of the Constitution. Reverend John M. Mason said the exclusion of God from the Constitution was, “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate,” and if Americans became as “irreligious” as the Constitution then, “we will have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundation the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck.” The writers of the Constitution knew the implications of what they were doing when they left God out of the Constitution. It wasn’t an accident it was an obvious statement that God (any version) was not needed and did not belong there. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Eventually the other states took notice of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place>’s bill and the federal Constitution and began to follow suit separating the church from the state. <st1:state w:st="on">South Carolina</st1:state> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Georgia</st1:country-region></st1:place> removed all religious barriers to equal rights between 1789 and 1792. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Delaware</st1:state></st1:place> stopped requiring its officeholders to take an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Pennsylvania</st1:state></st1:place> changed its constitution to allow Jews (but not atheists) to hold office. Still most of the states took a long time to change. <st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state> didn’t disestablish the <st1:placename w:st="on">Congregationalist</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Church</st1:placetype> until 1818 and did not provide equal rights to Jews until 1844 while <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:state></st1:place> did not remove all religious restrictions from the law until 1833. Before these changes <st1:place w:st="on">Jefferson</st1:place> had said that these two states were, “the last retreat of Monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other states a century ahead of them. They still seemed to be exactly where their forefathers were…and to consider, as dangerous heresies, all innovations good or bad.” Jefferson did not live to see <st1:state w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:state> finally change but did write happily to John Adam after <st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state> disestablished the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Congregationalist</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Church</st1:placetype></st1:place>, “this den of the priesthood is at last broken up, and that a protestant popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now while changes in the laws were extremely slow all the states did move towards creating some sort of real separation between church and state so that a person’s religion at least did not affect the protection of one’s political rights (being able to vote, hold office, etc) serving as proof of the direction the founding fathers had desired the country to go. So while the fight over where that line should be drawn, especially concerning moral issues has never been resolved when it comes to the views of those men we have built monuments to and placed on our money and called our founding fathers it is clear that they placed reason above religion and pointed the nation towards the ideal of a total separation of church and state. Still it must be noted that the Constitution and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Virginia</st1:state></st1:place>’s bill of religious freedom were not all encompassing rather they could only serve as examples to the other states of what they should do and what direction the country should move towards in the future. The complete separation of church and state was never forced upon all the states rather it has been a long and slow process growing towards that ultimate goal that our founders desired. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Moving beyond the political documents of the time the actions and words of the early presidents serve as further proof that the founding fathers ultimately envisioned a complete separation of the church and state. In a letter written to the Jews of Rhode Island in 1790 George Washington wrote, “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be non to make him afraid.” This was said years before most states even gave Jews equal rights with other Christian citizens (43 before <st1:state w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:state> and 54 years before <st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state>) and yet <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state> is clear that the government was meant to protect the complete freedom of conscience for all men. This meant that no religion can be permitted to control the government.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">Of the first five presidents John Adams, the second president, was the closest to what modern conservative Christians would consider a Christian. He was a Unitarian. Unitarians are most commonly associated with rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. Concerning their other doctrines they have changed over time but by the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> century Unitarians (sometimes called rationalist Unitarians) had questioned more and more of the traditional doctrines and ultimately rejected the inspiration of the bible, miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection. Many even became universalists. During his presidency <st1:place w:st="on">Adams</st1:place> signed the Treaty of Tripoli (1797). The treaty was signed with the country of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Tripoli</st1:city></st1:place> which was a Muslim nation. Article 11 of the treaty said outright, “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” So, “the government of the United State is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” that is about as explicit a statement as one can make to demonstrate that the intended foundation of the United States was never meant to be Christian and interestingly enough it is found in a treaty written with a Muslim country. This treaty is fairly short, easy to understand and was read aloud to the Senate and it was unanimously approved without objection. Afterward the treaty was even printed and distributed with Article 11, which demonstrates that there was a fair level of acceptance of the idea that the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> was not a “Christian” nation. But opinions did change. This treaty expired after eight years and article 11 was dropped in the new treaty. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The secular nature of the Constitution and of many of the founding fathers themselves often gets swallowed up due to the strong backlash against rationalist and secularist thought at the turn of the 19<sup>th</sup> century. Two powerful factors in this change are the French Revolution and the Second Great Awakening. While these topics are books unto themselves they are worth noting. News of the French Revolution was at first celebrated by most Americans. The storming of the Bastille and the publication of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man were seen as victories for the spread of liberty. But as the French Revolution became more and more violent people’s opinions began to change. Many religious leaders blamed the violence in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region> on the secular and anti-religious thoughts swirling around the Revolution. Basically they argued that the terror in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region> was an example of what would happen to any government that removed God too far from its center. The Second Great Awakening was more a social movement then a political one as numerous spiritual revivals spread throughout the country. It was characterized by massive gatherings that featured preaching about the second coming of Christ, individual salvation (anti-Calvinist), and living godly (biblical) lives. The services also included prayer meetings, worship services and faith healings. Church memberships soared especially in the more evangelical churches. These events affected the attitudes of people towards the constitution and what the separation of church and state meant or at least what it should mean. While rationalists and Evangelicals maintained their political alliance for a little while longer, both helped to get Jefferson elected, they soon parted ways setting up the dichotomy people are more familiar with today; Evangelicals on one side demanding noninterference from the government with their religion while maintaining their right and duty to try and enact religious laws over the whole country and secularist/rationalists on the other side trying to finally achieve the full separation of church and state begun by the founding fathers meant to protect the government from the church’s interference and thereby protect the rights of those who dissent from the religious conservatives and their efforts to turn their beliefs into laws. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A further hindrance to fully understanding the founding fathers opinions about religion and God is that what they said in public and what they thought in private did not always match up. This is due to certain elitist attitudes associated with the Enlightenment thought both in Europe and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> as well as their lives as politicians reliant on the votes of the wider public. Despite their ideas about natural rights and liberty for all most of the founding fathers felt that the philosophical and religious issues that they discussed with each other were above the heads of the common man and even dangerous in their hands. Men who were more open about their deist views (few were openly atheist though many were accused of that) were shunned by both the higher and lower classes. Thomas Paine is a great example of this. Benjamin Franklin, himself a deist, warned against the circulation of cheap pamphlets accessible to the common person dealing with divisive (dangerous) topics like religion. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Franklin</st1:city></st1:place> told a young correspondent who had pamphlets with arguments against the existence of God, “not to attempt unchaining the Tyger [Tiger], but to burn the Piece before it is seen by any other Person.” Basically free thought was okay for those, like Franklin who could handle it but the lower classes with less education could be dangerous if given such information. And beyond this potential “danger” these men ran for public office and they needed public support so they kept certain ideas to themselves and avoided certain issues that might cost them votes and honestly some of them just didn’t care that much about religion, especially about the personal, biblical God of the Evangelicals.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But to truly appreciate and understand the secular nature of the documents and writings of the founding fathers one must understand the religious context of the day and the vital issue of conflicting vocabularies. The fact of the matter is that the God of most of the founding fathers is not the same God as that of modern religious conservatives. When modern religious conservatives and Evangelicals read the word God written by the founders (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Monroe, Adams, etc) in the 18<sup>th</sup> century they immediately think of their God and all the baggage that God brings with it. They think of Jesus Christ, original sin, the Trinity, atonement, divine revelation through scripture, the virgin birth, miracles, the resurrection and so on but that is not the God the authors of those documents were thinking about when they used the word. Most of them were some form of deists, Unitarians or more liberal versions of mainline churches and their God served chiefly as the Creator. He created man gave him the gift of reason and then stepped back. God did not intervene with history or give divine commands that must be followed. Man had to use his reason, not revelation, to determine what was moral and good both in society and in government. The God of the bible was not their God so people today who see the word God used by the founding fathers and believe that it refers to Jesus Christ and the God of scripture are mistaken therefore the idea that the founding fathers would now support various conservative Christian agendas to control social behavior along biblical lines are simply wrong. The bible should not be codified into laws in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> for that by definition infringes on the religious freedom of those who do not accept the bible as some divine manual for life. <span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The other word that people often misconstrue when they read it is the word Christian. Just like with the word God people today read the word Christian and believe it refers to whatever version of Christianity that they accept or are most familiar with. Most people simply have no concept of the history of Protestantism and the vicious battles that were fought among the denominations. The separation between Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, and so on have been greatly diminished. People used to die over the differences in these churches’ creeds and now many people don’t even know what the distinctions between them are. Why did Presbyterians used to kill Baptists? Most people simply don’t know. And perhaps this complete lack of knowledge about the historical differences between most Protestant denominations really serves as proof to the positive influence of secularism upon the church. Yet it also serves to cloud modern Christians’ understanding of how essential the idea of the separation of church and state was during the Revolutionary period. In the past each denomination knew what happened when other churches controlled the government it meant persecution and oppression for themselves. There were no “Christian” states or governments rather there were Anglican governments and Lutheran ones and Presbyterian ones and Catholic ones. So separation was not only important to secularist who believed freedom of conscience was a vital part for maintaining true liberty but also to all the smaller churches of the Revolutionary Period (mostly evangelical ones) who believed it was vital for protecting themselves from other denominations and allowing them to live their lives according to their God’s will. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Lastly I will point out that one of the best things about the American system of government is that it was made to be adaptive and correctable. The founding fathers were not perfect, not even close, though most Americans treat them as such. So while it is important to look back and try and understand their ideas and where they were coming from the fact is that just because they thought or wanted something in the 18<sup>th</sup> century does not make it right or applicable to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> in the 21<sup>st</sup> century. So even if one could prove that the founding fathers envisioned <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> as a Christian nation to be governed by the religious tenants of some version of the Christianity, though I think it’s clear they cannot, that does not make that idea right or good for <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> today. The fact that throughout American history God/gods have always pushed their way into politics doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to stay there. Rather we should continue the fight to fully separate religion from our government, like the founding fathers hoped for, so that we don’t just protect religion from the government but also protect the government from the negative influence of religion. John F. Kennedy (He was a Catholic and the first/only non-Protestant president) understood this and believed in a clear and hard separation between the church and the state. In an address given to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960 he said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Chruches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace of the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all” One can only wonder what <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> would look like today if Kennedy had not been assassinated?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sadly Kennedy’s rational view and clear understanding of the need for the full separation the church from the state has been largely ignored due to the growing power of the religious right and the political leaders they have been able to elect. George H. W. Bush had no qualms about allowing religion into the government as he said, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” This quote demonstrates both Bush’s comfort with the idea of allowing the church to control the government and also his ignorance of history not only of the ideas of the founding fathers but also just the simple history of the pledge of allegiance whose author Francis Bellamy never wrote the line “one nation under God” rather it was inserted over 50 years later in 1954s <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/09/god-doesnt-belong-in-pledge-of.html">(see here)</a>. But like with much of the past Evangelicals have found ways to rewrite history and make it appear as if their religious views have always been vital in politics and supported by important leaders of the past. But it’s time to grow up and see Evangelical politics for what they are organized attempts to codify their religious beliefs into laws and force them upon others, which funny enough they have been doing ever since they first fought for the separation of Church and state to ensure their own religious freedom. It seems the conflict cannot be avoided because most Evangelicals’ refuse to limit their interpretation of God’s will to their own lives but must also place it over everyone else’s. Their God says he must be your God too. So whether it’s fighting for Sabbath laws, temperance, placing the 10 commandments in public school, fighting against the teaching of evolution, opposing sex education and contraception, or legislating against the natural rights of gay and lesbian Americans these religiously motivated agendas should not be supported and forcefully shoved upon those who do not bow in submission to the same all powerful (small-minded, insecure and hateful) God as the modern Evangelical Christians do. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There has never been a complete separation between the church and the state in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> but that does not mean the founding fathers did not want one and it certainly doesn’t mean there should not be one. And while I am just an atheist and as such I apparently cannot be a patriot and should not even be allowed to be a citizen I am also a student of history and agree with James Madison’s statement, “What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it [liberty], needs them not.” So let the wall of separation between church and state be fully completed and respected so we can protect the government from religion as much as we protect religion from the government. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">(1) I’ve studied American history and more importantly American religious history both for my undergraduate degree in history and my master’s in theology but I’m by no means an expert so fell free to take that into account when judging this piece. Also I acknowledge that this piece suffers from a lack of proper research. One of the worst parts about living here in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Korea</st1:country-region> is the fact that a majority of my books remain at home in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>. This means my resources for this piece were far more limited then I would like and while I feel quite confident in all my points the piece would greatly benefit from more direct source material. I used online versions of the Constitution and Treaty of Tripoli. Most of the material concerning the state of Virginia, the points on the federal Constitution and the individual states’ constitutions came from Susan Jacoby’s book “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism” </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-17428920068694472152010-12-13T03:13:00.001-08:002011-01-03T21:35:10.550-08:00God-The Ideal Father?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQX_IV0yWhI/AAAAAAAAA0k/ZTcJ7KEWSd0/s1600/Good+Parent+Blog+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQX_IV0yWhI/AAAAAAAAA0k/ZTcJ7KEWSd0/s320/Good+Parent+Blog+1.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">When I look at the model of what most people consider a good father I see someone who is there for his kids, spends time with them, takes care of them, plays with them, teaches them, helps them grow up to no longer need his constant help and he makes sure that his kids <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">know</i> that he loves them. But I find it amazing that the God of scripture who is considered the ideal father shares almost none of these qualities. Instead the God of scripture hides himself behind mystery, he uses his power to justify any of his actions, he doesn’t speak directly to his children rather he only does it through a long game of telephone that extends through centuries (the bible), he never intends to teach his children enough to grow up and he chooses to place the majority of the responsibility for maintaining a good relationship upon the shoulders of the child instead of himself. And perhaps worst of all he never takes any blame for the shortcomings of his kids. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m not a parent but if I ever am one I hope I’m nothing like the Abrahamic God but rather like my parents. My parents have always been there for me. They have told me they loved me. They have never intentionally concealed themselves from me but have openly talked with me and have let me see them. They didn’t hide behind their power but rather sought to always explain themselves to me so that I could understand why things happened the way they did and why they made the choices they made. And they taught how to be on my own and make good choices without their help. The fact is I don’t have faith in my parents or their love for me rather I have knowledge in my parents and in their love for me. Put simply I don’t <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">believe</i> in my parents I <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">know</i> my parents. Faith is not needed in our relationship and if I’m a father I will do everything I can to make sure it is not needed by my child. Why make your child believe or hope that you’re a good parent and not be around when you can simply let them know you are a good parent by being open and honest and participating in their lives with them? </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If the God of scripture is the ideal father I hope I fall far short of that ideal so that I can instead be a good father.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-60455580695134550792010-12-13T02:29:00.002-08:002010-12-20T21:09:02.349-08:00An Atheist Obsessed with God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQX0uIgDYoI/AAAAAAAAA0c/0GcA_KRCZx0/s1600/Thinking+of+God+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="206" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQX0uIgDYoI/AAAAAAAAA0c/0GcA_KRCZx0/s320/Thinking+of+God+3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">Even though I no longer believe in God’s existence (Abrahamic God) I often find myself still thinking about things I would say to him if he ever spoke to me, showed himself to me or at least sent me a talking donkey like Balaam (Num. 22:28-30) and Shrek. And one of the funny things is the fact that if I stood before God ready to be judged I could honestly say to him that while I no longer had faith in him I was, in a way still dedicated to him and that despite my rejection of him my entire life has been devoted to him, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael and Jacob.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">My whole life has revolved around God (evangelical Christian version). It began in the 5<sup>th</sup> grade when I chose to become a Christian (not that there were any other choices). Then in 8<sup>th</sup> grade was when I first read through the entire bible. In high school I spent all my time bouncing around from bible studies to prayer meetings to outreach events all in the name of God. In college I majored in Jewish history because of the biblical studies it entailed and its religious focus. Then I went to seminary to study theology and in my first year I began researching various monastic orders hoping to become a monk. My beliefs and focus changed greatly during these times but I can honestly say I’ve poured every ounce of myself into the study of God and religion beginning as a passionate believer to then becoming a doubt-filled Christian to now being a fairly content atheist. And while I am now an atheist I still spend most of my time reading, writing and thinking about God and religion. There have been times I’ve looked back on my religious life and had regrets thinking that I’ve wasted most of my life on something that’s not even ontological real (God) but most of time I’m glad of the journey I’ve taken and still enjoy pondering about spiritual things. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And yet despite all my devotion, passion and effort to understand God and religion (mine and others), based upon orthodox Christian doctrine I would be sent to hell for no longer believing the right dogmas or being part of the Church. I’ve noticed that as an elementary school teacher I value the wrong answer of the child who thought about the problem and tried hard to understand the material over the right answer of some kid who just guessed or looked at their neighbor’s paper because they’re the ones who actually gain insight and skills in the topics being studied but sadly this God does not share my standards as he values conformity over knowledge and obedience over inquiry.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Still I remain the oddity of being an atheist obsessed with God. I will continue to ponder religious and spiritual issues and if one day I stand in front of God discovering that Christianity was true and he asks me to give an account for myself I will tell him that truly he has always had my devotion both with and without my faith but that I am extremely disappointed to discover that he is real and that Christianity was the best he could do for it will simply confirm what I feared that he is not worthy of my love, worship or even attention. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQX1Iiy-zWI/AAAAAAAAA0g/yxDxlM1CObg/s1600/Atheist+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="301" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TQX1Iiy-zWI/AAAAAAAAA0g/yxDxlM1CObg/s320/Atheist+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="MsoNormal">If one reads the comments to this post one finds that another blogger and I decided to begin a discussion on the problem of evil. If one is interested in that discussion <a href="http://theworrywart-zachdills.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-good-god-exist-atheist-and.html">look here </a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935639699252343081.post-28363339829968251242010-12-05T02:13:00.004-08:002011-01-20T19:52:58.876-08:00Worshiping Without God-It's Still Fun<div class="MsoNormal"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TPtmQN8Y0NI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/W5W39ddzoAc/s1600/Worship+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gp6J06tVO3w/TPtmQN8Y0NI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/W5W39ddzoAc/s320/Worship+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Over the past couple of weeks I have been going through my I-Tunes library. It’s amazing to see that no matter how many songs one owns, I’m at almost 6,000, at the end of the day you end up listening to the same set of songs over and over again. For me it’s between 500 or 600 hundred songs that are always on my I-Pod. There is of course turn over. The 500 or 600 hundred songs I listen to the most now are certainly the not the same as they once were, obviously in part because I've collected new songs but also because my tastes have changed. Still at the end of the day well over 80 to 90 percent of the songs I own sit idle in my library rarely even looked at. So I've started to go back to listen to some of my old favorite songs again and I found out something that kind of surprised me, I still love most of them. This might not sound odd but the surprise comes from the fact that most of them, nearly all of them are Christian worship songs, some more overtly then others. So myself having forsaken belief in God or as I prefer to say having discovered God’s nonexistence and the freedom that comes with that discovery I am a bit surprised to find how much I still enjoy singing worship songs, especially the more transparent ones.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Many nights recently I have just been sitting around singing old songs from my past praising God for his goodness, thanking Jesus for his sacrifice and praying to God for his help and forgiveness. I’ve found that the music is still a part of who I am and I can appreciate it for the feelings it provides me despite the lack of literal truth behind the words. I don’t believe God is good or that Jesus died for me or had any need to or that I require God’s forgiveness or help because I simply do not believe in that God and yet I still enjoy singing about those things. So it would seem, a little to my surprise that the act of worship does not require an object of worship to be of value. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A large part of it I believe goes to the fact that when I sing those songs it reminds me of the community I once belonged to when I had a much larger network of friends who shared similar beliefs, interests and concerns as me. In a way as silly as it sounds when I sing these songs it feels like I have friends again. One of the hardest things about leaving the church behind has been the loss of credibility I have suffered with those people who used to be my friends. Before when I still shared the label Christian with these people my ideas even if they were different or outright unorthodox were still acknowledged but once the label was taken away so too seemed to be my right to be listened to because I could no longer be trusted. I mean if I could be wrong about something as important as the existence of God how could anything else I said have any value? But when I sing these songs that sense of rejection is forgotten for a time and I remember the past when I was still sharing my life with other people who were interested in it even if it was only because my beliefs matched theirs at the time. One thing I can never take away from the church is that it does tend to be a great place for community still it saddens me to see how many shortcomings people are willing to overlook (theologically, doctrinally, philosophically, morally, politically, etc) as long as they have friends. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m sure some will read this and think “ah ha” clearly God is real and is still moving inside of me I just don’t realize it or I’m not willing to recognize it whereas I would simply turn the tables and point to the fact that the warmth and comfort they gain from worshiping God simply fulfills the same psychological needs and produces the same good feelings for them as it does for me despite them not realizing there is no real object (God) there that is listening to them. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So for now I will continue to sing my worship songs to a nonexistent being for the pleasure they bring, the memories they stir and the simple fact that it’s still fun.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow; </div><div class="MsoNormal">Praise Him, all creatures here below; </div><div class="MsoNormal">Praise Him above, ye Heavenly Host; </div><div class="MsoNormal">Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4