The Antichristian Phenomenon

The most important reason for my atheism is the absence of both evidence and arguments (both sound and valid) for the existence of God. This can be extended for for my rejection of essential passages in the Bible which endeavour to establish the incidence of certain events in world history. These span the creation myth from the book of Genesis to Jesus’ miracles in the Gospel books. But parallel to the empirical criticism of such truth claims, there are also reasons why I reject Christianity as a collection of philosophical doctrines. Never minding whether the truth claims in the Bible actually stack up, I want to criticize some of the more abstract ideas tied into this religion. In this short essay, I want to criticise Christian ethics – or rather lack thereof, which I will explain in full.

It is a common argument by theists that without a god, there are no morals and everything is permitted. In the absence of a god who sets a standard of wrong and right, man is argued to be clueless as to whether, for example, murder is a good thing or not. I will not go very deep into alternative approaches of morality, but simply analyse the abovementioned position and draw conclusions from it. But first I should establish the specific ethical theory that is immanent in Christianity (but which is also true for Islam and Judaism). In these montheistic religions, the god is the giver of the moral law. Because God is said to be benevolent, all-knowing and all-wise, he is the giver of moral laws which are absolute and eternal. This idea of ethics is commonly referred to as Divine Command Theory (DCT). I will focus on two main problems with DCT.

The first one is in the form of a dilemma, originally found in Plato’s dialogues, posed by a philosopher called Euthyphro. It can be adapted to fit a core problem of DCT as found in philosophical theism in the following way:

“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”

This is Euthypro’s Dilemma^[I] . The question is fundamental and must be answered, but both answers pose serious problems for DCT. I will first discuss the second part of the dilemma.

If what is moral is so because it is commanded by God, then that means that anything that God commands is moral by definition. Whatever God commands to be moral is arbitrary, thereby reducing God’s benevolence to meaning absolutely nothing. Gottfried Leibniz wrote^[II] “So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” And that sums the problem up quite nicely – if we choose to answer the problem by saying whatever God commands is moral, we forfeit any rational consideration of morals and allow ourselves to be subjected to the whim of God. If God were to command that the rape of altar boys is an moral imperative, those who accept DCT would have to accept that in that scenario that action is indeed moral, and have to try their very best to make sure as many altar boys are raped as possible. The consequences of accepting DCT are clear: it replaces any moral predispositions one has by the perceived commands of God, without allowing the intellect to evaluate them. I reject this as I perceive it as nothing less than moral self-enslavement.

So what if we were to accept that what is good is commanded by God because it is good? Then we are left with the question: well what is God good for? In this possible response to the dilemma God is the messenger who tells us what is good in itself. However: morality itself is independent of God, as without God the moral laws that God otherwise would communicate to us in his commands would still exist and be in effect. However, there is still a problem with this approach, and the problem is epistemic in nature. The same problem arises for the other approach, but it is of less importance there because of other objections. Here, however, we must deal with how we can know what God commands. A theist might point to scriptures and claim we can find what God commands in there, but in practice this is a futile attempt. Thousands of years of interpreting scriptures has lead to various religious denominations that have decided upon mutually exclusive moral laws based on what is according to them the correct canonical collection.  Furthermore, there are moral problems in the modern world for which no guidance can be found in these scriptures, revealing a moral vacuity.

What is interesting about Christianity is that ethics based on DCT is mostly prevalent in the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, seems to also place importance on a different meta-ethical system which focuses on having certain virtues rather than following certain rules – virtue ethics. This is explicitly expressed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount^[III]. Some virtues that are blessed by Jesus are “poorness in spirit” (“humility”), “meekness”, “righteousness”, “mercy” and  “purity of heart”. Jesus also blesses those who are persecuted, those who are peacemakers and those who mourn. In other passages, Jesus emphasizes on virtues like “love” and “service”. In virtue ethics the emphasis is on the person, who is good if he/she embodies these virtues, rather than the actions of the person. This could partly explain the reluctance of Christian denominations to require abiding the full Mosaic Law, and why these denominations place emphasis on “The Ten Commandments”, rather than all 613 of them^[IV]. Virtue ethics has its own problems, like internal consistency (should one embody benevolence and tell a white lie, or embody truthfulness and tell a hurtful truth?)  and a lack of basis and therefore external inconsistency, a foremost example of which is voiced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche rejected various Christian values (virtues can be understood as are moral values) such as pity and faith, calling these decadent values as they are antagonistic to Nietzsche’s Will to Power and the higher sort of man^[V]. There is no basis for deciding which set of values/virtues are better than another.

Any system of ethics which does not rely on rational analysis of its precepts, but rather on obedience and authority, is inherently prone to abuse, and should therefore be rejected. We are all moral people, and I am saddened when I see people defend the tyrannical actions of the Old Testament god. I not only believe that I am more moral than that god, I also believe that people who are defending this god are more moral than it. It is exactly as Steven Weinberg said^[VI]:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. “

Footnotes

1. Sometimes also called Euthypro’s Problem [↩]
2. Discourse on Metaphysics (1686) [↩]
3. Matthew 5:3-12 [↩]
4. The 613 Mitzvot [↩]
5. The Antichrist (1888) [↩]
6. Conference on Cosmic Design, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. in April 1999 [↩]

In response to the controversial blasphemy laws added to the constitution of Ireland, a few artists came together and made blasphemous art, collected and displayed in a new exhibition in Dublin. The exhibition opened on Good Friday, the day Christians celebrate (?) the crucifiction crucifixion.

Agnosticism seems very popular at the moment. I think it is mostly so for the wrong reasons. I get the feeling that a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics are doing so only to take a kind of moral high ground that, to them, equivocates with a neutral position on the issue at hand. I have seen many agnostics say something like this:

You can’t prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist, therefore both theism and atheism are wrong and you should be agnostic

I find three things at fault with this position,  which I will elaborate on in the following paragraphs. I will sometimes refer to above position as “popular agnosticism” to distinguish it from actual agnosticism. I will end with what a proper application of agnosticism might be, but also argue why I think it’s pretty useless all-round.

• Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of God

It seems that agnosticism has been snuck in to form a trilemma on the issue of God’s existence. To many people, the possible positions on this issue are either atheism, theism, or agnosticism. This is a false trilemma for two reasons. Firstly, because no ground is left over for agnosticism. You either believe God exists (theism), or you don’t (a-theism – I emphasize on purpose). So what is left over? Nothing! This has to do with the second reason that it is a false trilemma, namely the untrue notion that agnosticism even is a position on the existence of God. It simply isn’t, as it is a position on what knowledge is attainable. Going a little bit into etymology, “gnosis” means “knowledge” which means that “agnosticism” can be roughly translated to the position that something is not knowable. Agnosticism can be compatible with both atheism and theism – I don’t accept theism but I don’t claim to know that theism is false: I am an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism isn’t somewhere in the middle on the spectrum between atheism and theism. I would even argue that there isn’t a spectrum at all on this level of the issue. There is a simple proposition: “God exists”, and you can either agree (theism) or not (atheism). There are no other positions, by virtue of the logical principle of the excluded middle. Both theism and atheism are positions that one can have, and it doesn’t matter how good or bad the reasons are for you having them.

• Popular agnosticism is used for dodging the question

So now that we have established that agnosticism isn’t even a tenable position in regards to the existence of God, it will become increasingly difficult to critique the position because the original paraphrase I gave is making less and less sense. At the moment, we can substitute the definition of agnosticism into the citation and read:

You can’t prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist, therefore both theism and atheism are wrong and you should have the position that it is unknowable whether God exists or not

But that shows another flaw, because (a)theism isn’t necessarily the belief that God’s existence is (dis)proven. It thus misrepresents the positions of theism and atheism, and shows perhaps a reluctance to commit to either theism or atheism. I do not believe anyone can be exactly on the fence between the two possible positions. Even if it is just a gut feeling, you can choose between the two. It is childish to say “no, I won’t choose either of the possibilities”. And of course there is no proof, as I have previously written and explained that proofs only exist in formal systems. Personally, I think a lot of people who identify themselves as agnostics because they are reluctant to bear the stigma of the atheist. Though I understand this, I still think it is a form of cowardice.

• Popular agnosticism is special pleading

Popular agnosticism is also a form of special pleading, as it is only used with reference to the issue of God’s existence. You don’t hear about faerie agnostics, or Santa Clause agnostics. Popular agnosticism is used uniquely for the God-question. But why is it so? There are no grounds on which the question “Does God exist?” is different from the question “Does Santa Clause exist?” other than the subject of the inquiry. You can’t prove Santa Clause exists, or that he doesn’t exist any more than it is the case with God. Why then still reserve this for God? It is blatantly a case of special pleading.

Proper agnosticism

So when is it useful to have a position of agnosticism? First of all, we have to have a decent definition of when something is considered knowledge - before we can say whether something is possible to be an item in what we consider knowledge. What is knowledge is is a question home to the philosophical field of epistemology, and very briefly I can ambiguously suggest that knowledge is the product of empirical investigation and rational discourse of the empirical results. Knowledge doesn’t even have to be complete – as long the knowledge fits whatever observations have been made so far, and are reasonably not the antithesis of other knowledge that is “better established” – and it can even turn out after more observation that prior knowledge is false and that it requires to be superseded with new knowledge: a new set of ideas, rules, or paradigm (knowledge isn’t necessarily true). It is perhaps shortest to say that knowledge is produced by science, the best application of the aforementioned methodology.

This is different from the stricter requirement in the original paraphrase, which demanded proof and not mere evidence. If we were to say that knowledge needs proof to be established, then we are agnostic about everything outside of formal systems. To me, such a requirement of knowledge renders agnosticism as a useless term that communicates nothing because it can be applied to (almost) everything. So if we were to take my understanding of knowledge, we can say that agnosticism can apply only to things that fall outside of the scope of science: outside of empirical investigation. If we can not empirically pursue a question then we can’t produce knowledge about it: we are agnostic about it.

An example of proper agnosticism is when “God” is defined as something that would prohibit scientific inquiry. If God is a being who is omnipotent, it is immediately outside the scope of science, because this God can play with the empirical evidence all it wants. Anything and nothing can be indicative of the existence of such a being. Hence, we are inherently agnostic about it. Parallel to agnosticism about this, I have never heard any argument that would make such a being logically necessary to exist, hence I am also atheistic towards it. But when you would suggest that “God” is a bearded man living on clouds in the sky, it is open to scientific inquiry. There has never been seen such a man, thus I am a gnostic atheist about this particular concept.

I often come across statements like the following: “Prove x” or “Prove not x” – most often in the form “Prove God exists” or “Prove God doesn’t exist” (I will be using this example throughout the article). I get a bit tired about this because people do not seem to understand when something can be proven, when it can’t be, what the restrictions of evidence are and when something is a scientific question or not.

Proof yields certainty within a formal system

There is no such thing as proof in the context of every-day life. A proof is something by which we can say something is definitely so, or definitely not so. This means 100% certainty. So how does one get 100% certainty? The history of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, seems to indicate that such a thing is impossible with one exception (See Descartes’ meditations) and that in all other cases there is always room for doubt. If that is the case, how can proofs exist, as they should be things by which we attain absolute certainty?

Proofs do exist, but you have to keep in mind that these proofs are derived in the context of a certain framework. Such a framework assumes basic rules and basic truths, from which more truths are derived. We call this framework a formal system (or a logic(al) system). More formally, we say that a formal system has a deductive system, consisting of the basic truths (axioms) and the basic rules (rules of inference). The formal system also has a formal language.

Mathematics as an example of a formal system

This may sound vague, so let’s just take the best example: mathematics. Mathematics is a formal system. Mathematics has a language: it has symbols (e.g. x), numbers (e.g. 1), and operators (e.g. +) and grammar in which these components can occur (e.g. 1+2=3, but not =12+=). Note that 1+4=6 is a mathematical statement, even though it is untrue (which can be proven!) – analogous to this is that “I eat ideas until I am born.” is a grammatically correct sentence, even though a non-sensical one. Mathematics also has a deductive system. This deductive system has axioms (ground truths) such as Peano’s axioms, which describe the ground truths for arithmetic. The deductive system also has inference rules; rules by which other truths can be derived from the ground truths. Note that the ground truths are assumed to be true; they can not be proven within the formal system.

Chess as an example of a formal system

A different and perhaps more appreciable example of a formal system is a game like chess. Chess has a language: these are not symbols like in mathematics, but the chess pieces themselves, and the playing board. The axioms correspond to the starting positions of the pieces. It also has rules for what movements are allowed for what pieces. A configuration of chess pieces can be said to be “grammatically correct” if it can be reached using the movement rules for the various chess pieces. If a configuration is found that can not be reached using the rules for chess, you can say that it is not a chess configuration, just like we can say that =12+= is not a mathematical statement. In this regard chess puzzles are completely equivalent to mathematical problems. Chess being a formal system is the reason a chess game can be described with a string of coded chess notations, and the reason why computers can play chess.

Back to the weird statements people make. When you read that somebody has “proven that God (does not) exist(s)”, you should immediately think the following things:

1. This person is talking about proof, so this person is using a formal system.
2. In this formal system, “God” is a formally defined concept
3. In this formal system, “existence” is a formally defined concept or attribute for formally defined concepts
4. Using the deductive system of the formal system, this person has shown that “God” has the attribute “existence”

But of course, that is never the case. These people confuse the context of the formal system with the context every-day life: e.g. the “God” concept within the formal system with something that exists outside of that formal system. When you are not talking mathematics or logic, chances are small your use of the word ‘proof’ is correct. That also means that somebody who is trying to convince you that God exists, you must not ask him to “prove it”

Evidence never yields certainty, but does not require a formal system

Evidence is very different from proof. Whereas proof gives you certainty about something within a formal system, evidence can never give you any certainty. It only assigns more certainty of the truth to that which it is evidence of. If there is a lot of evidence in favour of a particular idea, and little or no evidence to suggest the opposite, we should assign a large certainty that that idea is true. David Hume communicates this idea concisely in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding when he writes “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

Scientific evidence

In a pursuit of understanding the universe, we are quickly moved toward scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence for a scientific concept, and which is in accordance with scientific requirement. Eyewitness testimony is considered important evidence in court, but it is of no value in the scientific community, for reasons of possible bias and the shortcomings of human perception. Therefore, eyewitness testimony is not scientific evidence. This is largely understood, but that it can only pertain to a scientific concept is often forgotten. How often have you heard atheists demand for scientific evidence for God? I even asked for this myself, until I better understood the concepts I am trying to explain in this article.

“Scientific evidence for God” implies that “God” is a scientific concept. This is certainly possible, but depends entirely on what “God” means. I have never seen a clear definition of God, but I do often encounter attributes of this “God”. One of these attributes is omnipotence: the ability to do everything. There are various degrees of omnipotence that are argued over by theologians, but I’ll overlook this for the sake of clarity. I ask you: if God can do anything, what then can count as scientific evidence of God? The answer is either everything or nothing. In both cases, we can learn nothing at all. Omnipotence is an attribute that the domain of science can not deal with. If God has this attribute, then there can exist no scientific evidence for God, and it is therefore ignorant to ask for it.

Recommendations

So what to do? In short, this article argues that if people want to prove God’s existence, they must first define what “God” and “existence” are within a particular formal system. You can safely disregard any so-called proofs that do not explicitly offer this information. I have also argued that there can exist no scientific evidence for any being that is omnipotent. You can safely disregard any so-called scientific evidence for omnipotent beings. What are we left with? That is something for theists to solve. It seems that “God” is such an obscure concept that, if it possibly exists, it bears little to no resemblance to the entities described in various holy books. Until new information is released, I shall remain an unimpressed non-theist.

Aristotle was one of the first philosophers to really try and tackle the field of causality. In Metaphysics, Aristotle proposes four different causes. These are the causa materialis, the material cause; causa formalis, the formal cause; causa efficiens, the efficient cause and the causa finalis, the final cause. For this essay, it is not important to go into the first two. Also note that our current, every-day use of the word “cause” is only one of these four, namely the efficient cause, which denotes the agent that brings something about. If A necessarily leads to B, A is the efficient cause of B. The remaining cause which is of importance in this essay is the final cause, which denotes the purpose or intended end of a certain action. If A is a necessary step to achieve B, B is the final cause for A.

It may be apparent that these causes are different, yet related. The most important aspect is the directionality these causes imply. It is this directional property that I will be focusing on a lot. One could say that the efficient cause looks from the past towards the present, whereas the final cause looks from the present towards the future. You could say that the efficient cause is the answer to the question “how”, and that the final cause is the answer to the question “why”. Another important aspect in which these two causes are different is intentionality. In case of the efficient cause, no goal is necessarily implied, whereas in the case of the final cause there is. A conscious entity is required for a final cause, as actions result from being a necessary step towards a goal.

Having said that, I assume bells have already started ringing. This description of two particular Aristotelian categories of causality will remind many of how the relationship between science and religion is often perceived: science answers the “how” questions whilst religions answers the “why” questions. In other words: science provides efficient causes, whilst religion provides final causes. The way science provides these answers is through the scientific inquiry: a method applied to a domain in which causal homogeneity and methodological naturalism are assumed. Therefore we find a directionality from past to future in science, as well as an absence of intentionality. This is why God can never scientifically be said to be a cause of anything, because an agent with a mind does not necessarily behave the same way the next time (this is also why creationism is inherently unscientific). Science is constrained, but progressive; assuming that the accumulation of information is higher than the loss of data, and assuming that there are people with novel ideas once in a while, we can expect more accurate models of reality emerge from science over time. In other words: For more accuracy, look later in the scientific archives.

Religion is different; as it (though not exclusively) provides answers to questions concerning final causes. The idea that religion is closely connected to this category of cause are supported by often invoked sayings such as “God has a plan for us all” or “God works in mysterious ways”; but also by concepts of “the greater good” and “God’s will”. The intentions of a deity for the future are the most important factor for providing an answer to the “why” of the events that occur in the present. Therefore we find a directionality from future to present in religion, as well as a clear presence of intentionality. The method that religion uses for discerning the answers it provides are wholly contingent upon interpretation of the “revealed truths” contained within “sacred books”. This means there is no epistemological basis for answers stemming from religions: they are wholly contingent upon an assumption of authority. Unlike science, religion is not progressive, but static. The prevailing method for one who wants to analyse religious answers is to look at the original texts. The earliest manuscripts are more authoritative than later ones, because these might contain alterations introduced by scribes. In other words: For more accuracy, look earlier in the religious archives.

There is also something else going on, because religious answers do not have to be constrained. Ideas spawned from religion do not even have to be consistent with logic. Such examples are abundant in theistic religions. Take for example the position of Descartes about the omnipotence paradox (“Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?”): he posits that God has absolute omnipotence, being above logic and able to do even that which is logically self-contradictory. The other attributes the Abrahamic god is often accredited with also result in logical paradoxes. These are the coexistence of God’s omniscience and free will, and the problem of evil (the coexistence of God’s omnibenevolence and suffering). Luckily, not all theologians are as drunk on God as Descartes was. They acknowledge logic as a constraint on God, as well as on the answers religion provide. As such, there exists room for debate, which is wholly absent with those who side with Descartes.

One has to wonder, though: if God is constrained by logic, is he then not also constrained by the natural laws that humans discovered through the application of logic and the epistemological toolbox we call the scientific method? And if that is so, why not recognize the basis to religious answers is logically fallacious to start with? This is one of the important questions in examining the relationship between religion and science. Though both give answers to different Aristotelian causes in principle, religion often moves beyond it’s turf. This may be evident in religiously inspired pseudo-science, such as creationism; but also in writings by philosophers who drank the God poison. On the other hand, science has been conquering land from religion on the battlefield of ideas. Questions that were previously unanswerable by science were answered by religion. In the light of the ever-improving scientific models of reality, ancient religious doctrine is approaching the absurd. Where the constrained light of science does not shine, religion stands rooted in it’s usual method: mere guesswork.

In an editorial column, guest columnist Byron R. McCane explored why the ‘new atheism’ in America has not taken off as people might have suspected. The important and famous new atheist books like The God Delusion (Dawkins), raman amplifierGod is Not Great (Hitchens) and Breaking the Spell (Dennett) have fallen from the charts, and no new new atheism books are out there at the moment. McCane thinks the new atheism failed because even though 15% of Americans are not religiously affiliated, they are still spiritual or ‘between religions’, as surveys have shown. He makes a few points that I would like to address.

First of all, McCane assumes that the goal of these new atheist books is to convince Americans to there is no God. As far as I’m concerned, only Dawkins’ book does that. Dawkins argues that there the idea that a God exists is not supported by evidence at all, and that therefore this belief is a delusion. Hitchens writes about religion and not god in particular; he argues that religion has bad influence on the world. Where he does mention God is mostly to criticize this God’s behaviour as being immoral (this is particularly true for the Old Testament God.) Dennett did not write about God at all in his book, and simply argued that religion should be studied in a scientific framework, as opposed to it being off-limits to science.

And even though Dawkins does argue against the existence of a supernatural creator, I think he is well aware he is no going to convince anybody who is firmly rooted in the belief that this being does exist. The title of his book suggests an entirely different audience – people who have serious doubts about this particular belief, or are already atheists but who have never examined this belief philosophically or scientifically. Or perhaps it was written to provide those closet atheists who live in a community of theists some ammunition to come out. Nor should one see Dawkins’ book merely as a reason why one should not believe in a god, but also why one would not believe in a god.

Secondly, McCane suggests the new atheism failed because Americans will not be swayed about religion by logic and science. He cites that a survey showed that only 2% of people say logic and science play a role in their choice of religion. He says Americans are pragmatic about their religion, as most go through a series of religious affiliations in a lifetime as spiritual seekers. There is a duality I feel about this percentage. Two important aspects about religion is that it provides a moral code and that it provides ideas about the universe. On one side, I think it is sad that only two percent of people care enough about logic, science and reason to use it in determining what religion offers the most accurate ideas about the universe. On the other side, I am glad that only two percent thinks their religion is supported by logic, science and reason, because I feel they often oppose these religious ideas.

More importantly, it is important to realize that you can’t convince somebody who doesn’t accept the epistemic value of logic (and indirectly, science) about anything. It is the same as talking to a brick wall. No argument and no fact bears any weight any more. There is a symmetry here with “us atheists” who are confronted by theists who will make claims based on their particular holy book. Because we do not accept these books as infallible, we must investigate those claims on more than their souce. The difference is that people who still use logic, have more to go on than the inerrant authority of whichever book or person. People who do not believe in an afterlife can not be scared into submission by threats of hell, and people who do not accept logic can not be persuaded by any argument, no matter how sound the argument is. In the mindset of those 98%, any book that disputes their particular religious beliefs is best ignored. No wonder it doesn’t work for them.

Thirdly the new atheism failure is said to be due to it being intolerant of religion, which clashes with the now widely held value of religious tolerance. I am willing to concede the point that the new atheism is perceived that way, but I dispute the fact that it is really as intolerant as people might think. Religion, like politics, is one of those subjects people have decided talking about during dinner is not done. Not only is it a subject that people might disagree over fervently without getting anywhere (remember the 98%), it is also considered sacred or holy. Vocal and written opposition to deeply held religious beliefs can easily be hurtful, especially when the conclusion to such opposition is that you are delusional. On the other hand, these conclusions were not reached as a goal to attack religious people. These are conclusions reached through arguments, and remembering the poll, only 2% of all religious people have reason to be offended by such conclusions in the first place.

The new atheism is more about bringing atheism out of the closet as an acceptable position, and to bring religion down from it’s uncritiqueable pedestal and into serious inquiry -  which is the only thing Dennett is arguing for. Toes will be stepped on, and people will be offended – not only by words as delusional, but by secular and atheist ideas in itself alone – but that should not stand in the way of intellectual discourse. In conclusion: I do not think the new atheism has failed at all.  By putting arguments for atheism and against religion out there, in it has helped making atheism and scepticism a valid position. The books are interesting in themselves for their ideas and arguments, and make up for a modern addition to a historical plethora of written material on the subject of religion.

When I opened my inbox this morning I saw an e-mail that was sent to this website’s contact address. Like usual, whenever we receive e-mail or answer questions directed at us in a collaboration post. This post may be updated with the added comments of a different ACP member.

Greetings,

My name is [...]. I’m a 23 year old Christian from Arkansas, and I would like to go ahead and get it out on the table that this letter holds no hostility to whoever reads it or your movement. It’s simply a question that I would like to have your opinion on…

I understand that many horrible things are carried out supposedly in God’s name. I agree with you that it’s wrong. However, every religious group has its “bad apples”. In my opinion, there is no room for extremists in any religion, Christian or other. My question to you is why direct your entire organization towards Christians or any other Abraham based religions?

Waldheri: Allow me to dive right into it. The people who actively participate in this group all come from countries in which Christianity is the predominant religion. It is part of our daily lives, whether we want to or not. Even though a lot of a things we write about are applicable to other religions, is it that surprising that it is mostly centered on Christianity when you realize it is the religion that we come most into contact with? I do not think Christianity is worse than the other Abrahamic religions, if that is what you’re actually trying to ask.

Anath: I generally do not direct my efforts towards extremists but rather towards the good ol’ average Joe churchgoer.  The extremists are entrenched too deeply in their own delusions to be swayed either way, but when someone is a reasonable person, they are more open to seeing from another person’s point of view.  Also, the moderates quietly support the extremists by their sheer presence, and the fact that they do NOT decry the behavior publicly or otherwise.  There are more moderates attending  and funding the megachurches than extremists!  There are more moderates quietly going along with extremist organiztions such as NOM, putting their votes in to legislate their beliefs by attempting to ban gay marriage,  abortion, teach intelligent design and abstinence-only education in schools, and so on.  THIS is deplorable.  It is the moderates, who nod their heads and baa contentedly that we need to shake awake.  Extremists will always be extremists, but the moderates have the ability to either support or condemn their actions.

In this nation, we all have a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Waldheri: Your right to freedom of religion is certainly extant, and I would never try to take away that freedom. However, being a secularist, I will do my best to pry religion apart from governance. In itself, I do not think religion is a valid reason for passing or obstructing legislation.

Anath: And WE have that right as well.  As I stated above, the attempt to legislate BELIEF is one thing I stand firmly against.  I am an American as well, and I do not want the Church dictating what me or my (potential, future) children do with their bodies, mind, or how our tax money gets spent.  Don’t think this is happening?  Watch more closely, it is.  There’s a saying out there: “Freedom of religion means ALL religion”… including secularism.

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t extremist Christian groups that would lash out, sometimes even violently, against your group or any other like it. That’s a cold hard fact, and it’s gravely unfortunate. But my concern is that you’re attacking the foundation of life as we know it against mostly everyday good people. There are going to be conflicts between groups like ours, and that’s inevitable. However instead of going for the throat, we should be trying to calmly discuss our differences. Most Christians (and all true Christians) don’t believe in hating anyone for any reason. We hate the sin, not the sinner. You also hold a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but with that does it also mean that there is no such thing as common decency between our fellow people anymore? If both of our missions are to promote peace and harmony between all people, than why are we being so ruthless towards one another?

Waldheri: I’m not sure what you mean by the “foundation of life as we know it”, but it is important to remember that people simply might not agree with you on those foundations. To me, the freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have. My ideas may sound controversial or even offensive to Christians, but frankly that’s not my problem. I don’t think I’ve ever directly attacked Christians as persons in my posts (and if I have, I apologize) – I have always attacked Christianity. I think its metaphysical ideas (souls, heaven, hell) are ridiculous, its moral character (Old Testament divinely sanctioned bloodshed) deeply dubious, some of its virtues (faith, piety) naive and worthless and its god a spiteful, arrogant tyrant that I would not want to serve even if I did believe he existed. I am honest in my posts and I realize it may offend Christians, but they can’t expect me to simply shut up. Must I keep my deeply held beliefs locked up so that others’ deeply held beliefs can roam free without dissidence? Furthermore, you must understand that some of Christian beliefs are deeply offensive to me. Examples are the idea that when we are born, we already bear the guilt of some crime committed by our forebears; the idea that we are worthless and inherently bad (“sinful”) and need saving; the idea that our actions in a finite time frame are enough to judge us to a fate of infinite timespan.

Anath: I’m going to assume that by “the foundation of life as we know it”, you mean the basic tenents of Christianity; the existence God, the divinity of Jesus, a “plan” for us all, an after life, etc.  Let me turn this around–Christianity is attacking the foundation of life as WE know it.   By that  “attacking that foundation”, I mean inserting causation where none can be proved, denying the reality of evolution  and what it entails, attempting to undermine science on the basis of a 6000 year old book written by patriarchal desert nomads, claiming we have “freedom of choice”–then defining that “freedom” as “choose God or GO TO HELL!”, claiming that we are condemned before we were born for the sins of our greatest ancestors… that there is a strict, black and white dichotomy of “good” and “evil”, and every single action, motivation, person, and so on in this world can be judged by that dichotomy… and so on.  Your belief system attacks the foundation of my reality.  By insisting that your belief system is the only correct one, and asserting the “God or Hell / Good and Evil” dichotomies, you assert that I am Evil and Hellbound.  If that is not an attack, I don’t know what is.  Think about it from the other side of the fence for a while.  You may “hate the sin, not the sinner”, but that doesn’t change where we stand in your worldview.  You dont’ have to “hate” us to condemn us.

Based on your “freedom of speech” bit, I question whether you actually engaged the CONTENT of this site, or became squeamish based on our name alone.  Read some of the articles, we are not overtly hostile and “going for the throat”.  My recent debate with Aelnathan demonstrates that we are willing to be patient and engage Christians and Christian thought.  Our recent “10 Answers from an Antichristian” posts demonstrate what we DO believe, and why we do not follow Christianity, in a very approachable way.  Cleric’s recent “Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Christians” demonstrates that we ARE willing to engage Christians as long as they are reasonable, Lea and Waldheri’s recent posts engage Christian thought and bring up important questions and observations about Christianity in the modern world.  I fail to see how we are “going for the throat”, but if you can bring up a specific example to back up this statement, we will explain the intent, and how you may have potentially misunderstood the content.

Like I said before, I don’t mean any of this offensively, it just had been on my heart. I don’t expect you to censor any of your authors or anything like that. This is just a simple conversation between anyone in your group interested and myself. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[...]

Waldheri: Nor is my opinion meant to be offensive, but it can be. You need not apologize.

Do you remember Ray Comfort? Ray Comfort is a man who likes to make claims about atheists, especially if it helps his own agenda. He is one of those Christians who try to defend their beliefs by attacking what they perceives as its opposite. To a person like Ray Comfort, the only logical step following “not atheist” is “Christian”. And that is what he does – or tries to do. He has written publications with impressive (and sometimes ironic) sounding titles such as “Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin“, “How to know God Exists: Scientific Proof of God” and “Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Grownups“.

But wait a minute. Ray Comfort… Wasn’t he the one who proposed a banana as the object of an atheist’s worst nightmare? Yes he is. In a televised ABC Nightline Faceoff debate with Kirk Cameran versus two members of the Rational Response Squad on the existence of God, he claimed to be able to prove the existence of God without resorting to faith. You can watch it here. In the debate, Comfort’s buddy Cameron attacked evolution by claiming evolutionary biologists are looking for things like the (now infamous) Crocoduck and the Bullfrog. Cameron and Comfort further demonstrate their ignorance regarding evolution by the most basic error of using it in a cosmological evaluation of the world, while evolution only deals with explaining the diversity of life. It is true, ignorance is a common basis for arguments that Cameron and Comfort put forward.

And so is Comfort’s new toy, Pull the plug on Atheism. This time Comfort proposes ‘atheism’s biggest secret’:

мебели пловдив

An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it’s an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I don’t believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened.

First of all, Comfort got the definition of atheism wrong. An atheist is somebody who does not believe in any gods. Even if this first sentence wasn’t meant as a definition, it is factually wrong because Comfort makes the mistake of all atheists share more than just a disbelief in gods. In his assessment I think he is referring to the big bang, but his wording is off. Nothing “made” everything. The big bang model of the the universe started to expand from a hot and dense state 13.7 billion years ago. It makes no assessment on what was there before the ‘primeval atom’ or how it came there. This is a question for the future generation of scientists, and to put the God lid on this vat full of exciting questions is to revert to the god of the gaps, which does nothing but kill off our inquiry into the nature of reality. Third of all Ray Comfort keeps going back on his old arguments of supposed design in the universe. These have been addressed by a plethora of philosophers and scientists, but I fear somebody so much blinded by his own convictions will not yield to reason.

I’ve said that ignorance is a common basis for arguments by Comfort and his ilk, and I don’t mean that as an accusation. We are all born ignorant, but we can learn. I do accuse these people of not wanting to learn. They will ignore everything if it means defending their earlier conceived notions of reality. It is of course a freedom they have, but to bother other people who are trying to unlock the secrets of the universe is wholly detestable. And even though they might be happy living their lives in hiding from reasoned and empirically substantiative answers, I fear that if they would have their way in the politics of education, the God lid would be placed on all intellectual pursuit. “God” will be graffitid over the equations derived by Newton, Einstein, Kepler and consorts. Books on science would be replaced by a leaflet featuring Michelangelo’s The Creation of the Sun and Moon. Science labs would be emptied of microscopes and Bunsen burners, to be replaced by Bibles. This will be the result if we surrender to the will of men who live their lives according to one old book. It is why it important we don’t let these people kick the scientific legs from under modern society and let them spread nonsense unopposed

Gay Jesus t-shirt from T-shirt hell

The Netherlands is one of the most progressive countries in the world. This small European country was the first in the world that allowed gay people to marry (since April 1st 2001), after having introduced registered partnership in 1998. Women have been allowed to get abortions in certified clinics and hospitals since 1981. In addition to these examples of liberal politics it is worth mentioning the legality of prostitution and drug use (under certain conditions). With these liberal politics in mind and the continuing decline of religious adherence in the Netherlands, one would not expect that there are still serious traces of religious infection found in Dutch jurisprudence. Only yesterday a majority of the government voted for the removal of the blasphemy law.

The blasphemy law is as follows (Article 147, translated to the best of my abilities):

Punishable by at most 3 months jail time or a fine of the second category is:
1. he who publicly, orally or in writing or depiction, expresses himself offensive to religious feelings by scornful blasphemy
2. he who ridicules a practitioner of religion in his permitted practice
3. he who abuses the objects dedicated to religious service where and when the practice of that service is permitted

This removal of this law was voted for to permit more room to free speech, which is always a good thing. It is not surprising that the only parties who voted against were all religious (and particularly Christian) in nature: The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), the Christian Union (CU) and the Reformed Political Party (RPP). These governmental fractions value the extra protection it gives religious people – extra protection the non-religious do not have and should not want. The minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin (who is a CDA member) is rooting for a circumnavigation of this decision by introducing an addendum to another law against discrimination. Luckily, most political parties are not amused by this, and I agree. We must not pamper everybody and provide them with a protective shell against anything that might be unpleasant. We live in a varied society and instead of hiding behind laws we must confront each other with our differences. We might actually progress and, God forbid, learn something.

These blasphemy laws are entirely unncessecary. In the last seventy years there have been only three cases of judges finding someone guilty of blasphemy, the last one being in 1965. It is absolutely ridiculous to prosecute somebody over hurting the feelings of others. Other than an unwanted reflection of reality for the easily provoked religious, blasphemy is an entirely victimless crime. So even if you do think there is merit to this law, it is entirely useless, which is another reason to abolish it.

The abolishment is a symbol for the progression of secularism, which has yet to rise to its full height. The public defacing and ridicule of religion is something to be welcomed after millennia of oppression. In this golden age of science snakes and burning bushes that talk, ressurections and boats that contain all animal species should be a thing of the past – a bad case of mental fleas that is shook off without too much trouble by common sense and rational inquiry. Yesterday, reason triumphed in the Netherlands.

I never liked Bill Maher; A comedian who laughs about his own jokes is nothing more than irritating. Nevertheless, I found myself watching Religulous over the holidays season to kill some spare time. After having watched it, I still didn’t like Bill Maher, even though he argued for “our” side, that is to say, the nonreligious one. Religulous is categorized as a comedy/documentary film, but instead of keeping the documentary and comedy parts separated, he blends them together in a nasty mix which dissolved the aspects of both. To me, this was neither comedy nor a documentary.

If it was a documentary, it was as much as documentary as like categorized spawns from the beast that is Michael Moore – a one-way road into a dark abbyss. The only different between Maher and Moore in the making of documentaries is that Moore at least tries to approach the subject in a serious manner. Religulous is also proud to call itself religious satire or parody, forgetting the fact that repeating dogma in a redneck accent does not make a good satire or parody. Maher preceeds his actual “documentary” by saying he will approach the matters at hand with an agnostic attitude, even though he titles his work with a portmanteau derived from the words “religion” and “ridiculous”.

In all his interviews except the one with his sister and mother, Maher shows no respect to his interviewees. He does not have the decency to let the person finish and jumps in mid-sentence with some or other bad remark that was probably intended as funny, laughing to himself as he does so. This is not only annoying for the interviewee but also for the viewer of the film. If Maher didn’t manage to intercept with some half-wit’s pun on the spot, the editors of the film have made sure that the interviewee is ridiculed in other ways. Maybe it is funny and I simply don’t get it, but one has to agree that before the interviewee is able to answer a question Maher jumps on top of him or her. The only thing Maher does reasonably well is ask questions that are difficult to answer for those who intellectually rely on no more than faith. Maher does this particularly well on interviewing the U.S. senator Mark Pryor. Personally I thought this was the best of his interviews, but maybe that was because this senator ridiculed himself enough for Maher not having to intercede on his behalf.

As you might have guessed, there are little to no real arguments that Maher puts forward in his film. This is why I think anyone who is engaged in opposing faith or religious doctrine, either as a secularist, an outspoken atheist, a bright, or otherwise, has no need to watch this film. Many people of this actively nontheist calibre have already heard of all the blatantly unrealistic claims, have already researched religious dogma, and have already heard all the arguments for and against that this film puts forward. In one of the first interviews with some truckers in a roadside ministry Maher did not seem to detect one of the truckers used the famous Pascal’s Wager argument. Instead of replying “Well what if you’re wrong?” he could have listed several reasons why such an argument doesn’t have any intellectual merit. Any one of “us” who have debated theists time and time again would have been able to come up with much better ways to counter the theistic arguments, without having to resort to simple ridicule which doesn’t take require too much effort to begin with.

There were a few scenes in the film that I did enjoy. One was the interview with the (former) director of the Vatican Observatory, who had the complete opposite views regarding the age of the earth, the universe and evolution as the former interviewee, the nutcase young earth creationist Ken Ham from the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. Another funny interview was with father Reginald Foster, the Pope’s principal Latinist. He seemed a very jolly fellow and agreed with Maher on almost everything Maher said was wrong with religion in general and some dogma in particular. Neither Maher or I had expected this and it made for a fun diversion from all the fundamentalist crackpots.

In conclusion I just want to recap my recommendation: if you’ve debated religionists before, if you’ve studied the doctrines, if you’ve studied theological arguments, there is no reason for you to go see this film because you will not hear anything new. It would not have been a waste of time if it was funny, but frankly I didn’t think it was. I’d say you’d best save it for a moment of desperation in which you feel the need to fill your time with hopeless ad-hoc and reductio ad absurdum.