The Antichristian Phenomenon

Slightly lost, I arrived at Chapmans Torg and was expecting some gathering or sign to point the way as to where to go. I knew the address, but there was nothing. Eventually I figured out that the entrance in fact was a vegetarian/vegan restaurant, and I saw some of my classmates already sitting inside. We were welcomed by our “lecturer”, whose name I never caught, but he was a pretty short, very considerate Indian man. He reminded me much of my Russian friend in personality and manners. There was a room further inside the restaurant where he had placed some cushions on the floor so we could all sit down. He started by introducing the Hare Krishna movement and the cosmology revolving it. Although I study Social Anthropology as my main field, I know shamefully little about Hinduism and Hare Krishna. For me Hare Krishna is a name only, and I had a loose idea of there being some scandals where group members were involved, but I didn’t know what it was, and I still don’t, and no one ever bothered to ask. Suffice to say, I arrived with a very open mind, although slightly disappointed over that I had mixed up the dates and thought we were originally supposed to visit the local Scientology church instead of Hare Krishna. In a very typical manner, I started to lead the “conversation” with a few others. It turned out to be one of the best spent two hours ever in my life actually, and it made me realize why I am educating myself in the field I am actually doing, and that I would have no problem spending days, months, maybe even years with people so different to me and just learn their ways of living. I have the outmost respect of our “lecturer” that he took the time to answer our questions and explain the movement for free I should add, and to me he seemed like a pretty simple man very satisfied with his life and his religious beliefs. He wasn’t one of the most faithful, as he was just a normal member of the movement, and thus didn’t follow many of the more extreme ascetic values such as fasting, which he said he had tried once but it was too hard for him or refraining from having sex, and I think that presentation worked very well. He could explain the religion from a point of view everyone could understand, and he was really good at explaining, often using different kind of metaphors to get a point across.
Being the person that I am, of course I questioned him many, many times. I sure hope he didn’t find me offensive, and I very much appreciated the time he took with me, especially considering that I know so little about Hare Krishna. Having to attend my grandfather’s funeral last week made me miss out the presentation of the group unfortunately, but now in retrospect it might actually have been the better choice. In Social Anthropology, one of the biggest fears is to trying to fit certain ideas or groups of people into a box either because of lack of understanding or prejudice. I felt this wasn’t the case today, and I really see it as one of the first examples I had at “working in the field”. More or less all studies in Social Anthropology today are done in the forms of fieldwork studies. Other types of studies are possible but generally frowned upon because of the lack of an emic (inside) perspective. Having little to no foreknowledge thus allowed me to be there with without prejudice, and I got to take part of how our “lecturer” viewed the Hare Krishna movement and his journey from warm India to cold Sweden. In a way, having him telling about his religious beliefs and the religion he practices was some kind of lifestory. He grew up in middleclass India, and professed to be some kind of atheist, studying as an engineer at some Indian university. (At this point I also realize how bad it was of me to not take any notes when he was talking! I thought he would actually lecture in the actual sense, so I didn’t think I would need any… Hence the citation marks.) One of his roommates from the UK or Australia had left some tapes (this was in the 80s) and he (our “lecturer”) decided to give them some listens before tossing them away, and it turns out they are records of some Hare Krishna lectures. The tapes intrigued him, and I can recognize my own curiosity in his own, now that I am sitting home at my computer writing down my two hour encounter, because regardless of scandals and mystery, Hare Krishna is a religion that fascinates and captures.

He explained that Hare Krishna worships Krishna, the one god. Krishna is generally referred to as “lord”. He said that Vishnu is a great god as well, if I remember correctly an avatar or aspect of Krishna, but according to some Sanskrit interpretations (there are obviously over 600 of them!), Krishna himself said that he is the creator of everything, as well as the end. One thing which surprised me was that Hare Krishna had a great focus on the individual rather than being holistic, which I didn’t expect considering that it’s a sect (here used to refer a branch of a main religion) of Hinduism, and I know that Hinduism puts a great focus on a holistic cosmology. He explained that Hare Krishna has a holistic view too, but the main goal is to create your own individuality so you can finally meet Krishna as a person. There are thus different kinds of stages that occur in the afterlife where you will either retain your individuality or you won’t. Retaining your individuality was thus greater than becoming a part of Krishna, whereas I had thought it to be the opposite. In this regard Hare Krishna thus sounds very similar to Christianity in the personal relationship you are supposed to have with god, or at least attempt to have. Such activities as prayers (repeating certain phrases constantly for a certain amount of time) and performing yoga are all means to get closer to god or create a communication with god. I also asked our “lecturer” about who the first guru was (prophet/apostle in some kind of sense, although the term “guru” just means “teacher”), since Hare Krishna was started by a guru who taught created the Krishna movement in the West. In Hare Krishna, and other forms of Hinduism, there must be some kind of teacher because humans are imperfect and it is thus impossible for a human to suddenly one day just realize all the great mysteries of god. Here too I notice a similarity with Christianity. Gurus are thus needed to spread the knowledge and messages further to the coming generations. Here I had to ask him who the first guru was, since it’s an interesting question. I actually think they solved the problem pretty well, at least when comparing to Christianity. Our “lecturer” explained that the very first guru was Brahma (sp?), and he taught the humans about Krishna. Of course the disconnection is still there, as Brahma is considered a divine being, even though he has a material body. In such a sense Brahma is in fact very similar to Jesus, who too, was sent to Earth to teach the word of god but at the same time being god in flesh. Now that I am writing about it, I forgot to ask if Hare Krishna consider all other deities to be mere parts of Krishna or whether they are entities of their own, but this is certainly an interesting aspect which should be explored further, although maybe not today. I do however know that there is some dispute among the academics whether Hinduism as an official religion should be considered polytheistic or monotheistic. At least the Brahma solution is better than “being inspired by god” or such nonsense. Even if god inspires us, and there is certainly proof that our beliefs in god at least can, it still doesn’t solve the problem that humans are imperfect and thus everything we do will be imperfect. Our “lecturer” did however seem to believe in some kind of perfect spirituality, where one reaches such a spiritual insight that it can be considered perfect to those who do not understand it. The guru who started the Hare Krishna movement was considered such a person for example. Therefore I suppose that it is logical in such a sense that a being such as Brahma can teach humans to reach such spiritual state of perfection that they too can become gurus.

As the “conversation” continued, it was unavoidable that we would eventually be touching such subjects as women’s rights and how women are treated in India and inside the Hare Krishna movement. It was explained that there have been female gurus, but they were no modern ones that our “lecturer” knew of that existed today, and not within the Hare Krishna movement, but there had been one 400 years ago. He further explained that women were never asked to take upon such a position, but when they wanted to no one stopped them. This was slightly surprising as well considering how patriarchal India is still today, even though it’s changing and has been changing rather rapidly throughout the past years. Within the Catholic Church female priests are forbidden and even in Sweden which is considered one of the most equal countries in the world, some male priests frown upon female priests. The “conversation” then went onto discussing the polygamy versus monogamy issue, and what view the Hare Krishna movement has on taking many wives. Our “lecturer” explained that it’s very uncommon for men to marry more than one woman today, but it happens often in the more rural parts of India, where having many wives might even symbolize a man’s social status. The more wives a man can afford to sustain the higher social status he has. Generally speaking though, no one’s looking down upon a man if he takes more than one wife, but the question is whether he can afford to be married to more than one. Naturally children were brought up after that. Hare Krishna believes that a parent should teach their children to be as good citizens as possible, and this is in fact the only reason why a member of Hare Krishna would have children, and thus didn’t fit too well with me. While I can understand that a member of Hare Krishna may consider their way of life to be the best one, and there are certainly aspects that I don’t mind at least, I do not agree with teaching a child that their way of living would naturally be the best one. However, our “lecturer” also said that it is not a failure for a parent if the child doesn’t follow the way of Krishna but takes a different path, and almost retorted to something like “god’s way is mysterious”. He didn’t express it in such a sense, but that our consciousness together with karma can more or less influence our lives both directly and indirectly. This also includes the religion or lack thereof we may follow.

At this point I had to ask what he thought about other religious beliefs or even making up your own, or what it meant to lead a “pious” life but yet not worship any god. To that he retorted, loosely quoted from memory, “that it’s like a road with many mailboxes, where some never received any mail to pick up”. He thus seemed to believe that some religions (most probably the ones he knew of and which shared similar ideas to his own) have more legitimacy than others. Some religions don’t worship any gods, Shinto being a more well-known example, but on the other hand, is it important if there would be some “answer” on the other side if you aren’t expecting any? Atheism and humanism comes to mind. I wasn’t asking it straight out because I didn’t think of formulating it in such a way, but I was of course thinking of the morality issue that many Christians throw around with in atheist/Christian discussions. I do think that he did believe that people can still lead pious lives though, without actually believing. There was no patronizing or threats such as “…but this will happen when you die!” sort of deal, just a simple answer that if you aren’t expecting anything of the religious or metaphysical nature, then probably nothing will happen. I think this is very interesting because it shows how important it may be for us to actually believe without there being anything to necessarily believe in. The belief itself is somehow more important than the worship, and I do believe it still boils down to what ways that works for each individuals that can help them to their self-empowerment, which I wrote about in a previous article here at the ACP. One of my classmates asked him whether he would’ve picked another religion, would it have been introduced to him in another environment, but she also said that he had answered it already in that he thought that Hare Krishna had all the right answers (that fit with him). But what I disagreed with here is that ultimately he believed that there must be some great divine authority that carries the knowledge over to humanity. We are ourselves unable to form our own answers to our existence. I do not believe in authorities, and people who know me well will probably also know that I like to form my own answers, not be given any. This is very true when it comes to my “spiritual” beliefs as well, as I do not share any ideas that move into the metaphysical and even if metaphysics would be true, I also ultimately believe that metaphysics is merely physics. I also do not share the sentiment that there would be a great divine being that controls all. I suppose that for some people it might give them relief knowing that they are not in control of everything and thus the cause of every action they take, in a way becomes some kind of excuse or crutch to say that “well, at least it wasn’t my fault it happened this way it happened”. I believe I am in control of my own life in that I can directly affect the world around me according the actions I take, or for the actions I choose not to for the matter. The free will versus causality is a tricky question. While I believe in free will in such a sense that I believe that we are free to decide our actions to a certain extent by becoming aware of our options, we are also controlled by causality because we are all part of a causal flow. When I feel hungry I feel hungry because my stomach just sent information to my brain that it’s empty, so my brain generates some signal substances that makes me feel hungry, but I at that moment I also got the option to eat and not eat, or if looking back into a previous moment in time, I could’ve eaten later to avoid becoming hungry, since I can calculate the causal flow that I will become hungry at a certain point. Eating before that point will thus change the causal flow. However, I am digressing; this is about my study visit at the Hare Krishna, not about the problems with Cartesian dualism.

Since I am already on the free will versus causality, Hare Krishna shares some peculiar ideas on the subject matter. First of all, every human being has a consciousness. It is something we can learn to control with increasing spiritual awareness. Our consciousness is thus similar to our normal mental processes and Descartes’ formulation “cogito, ergo sum” comes to mind, in a very literary sense. This is an idea strongly shared within Hare Krishna, and is also reflected in such terms as “civilized animals”. I can either learn to control my consciousness and become closer to god by doing so (read leading an ascetic and pious life) or I can be like an animal and merely act on my instincts. Consciousness is thus something that we can control with our “free wills”, and it may even be able to affect the environment around us. An example was when one of my classmates asked if our “lecturer” believed in Astrology, and he said he did, although “99% are fake”. He told us a story about one of his father’s coworkers who got his fate read by a local Astrologist whom he claimed was good at reading when people had bad luck. So this coworker got his fate read, and the Astrologist said that on a certain Monday he would be hurt by a very sharp object. So the coworker refused to go outside on that Monday, hoping that by limiting his movement that day he would reduce the risk of getting hurt. However, he had forgotten the antlers of a deer that hang on the wall above the sofa he had decided to sit in, and the antlers fell down and penetrated his chest. To this my classmate retorted that it could’ve as well actually been his consciousness that had been so focused on not getting hurt by this sharp object this very day that he actually got hurt. So in a way it’s like cognitive psychology where they speak about self-fulfilling prophecies. If you think something bad will happen, something bad will in fact happen because you will unconsciously expose yourself to such risks and may even cause them yourself without being aware that you are doing so. Then lastly there is karma. Most people are probably accustomed with the term that if we do good actions, we get good karma and if we do bad actions then we get bad karma. Depending on what kind of karma we have, it will also affect the environment around us. Karma also accumulates among a group of people so if a group of people do a lot of bad actions, the karma within that group will be generally bad. Karma is some kind of higher power of justice. If a person leads a very pious life but goes through many struggles, he or she may ultimately be rewarded thanks to karma; similarly, a person who leads a bad life might get punished. At this point asking about Haiti felt very natural, knowing that some Christian groups are so avid exclaiming that the earthquake in fact was caused by the god as punishment because of the Haiti people being so sinless or some equally silly nonsense. To this our “lecturer” explained that there are two things that can cause an earthquake. There are some demigods that control such things as the weather, and thus naturally also earthquakes, but earthquakes can also be caused by too much accumulated bad karma. I do not know which answer he believed was the right one here, but I felt he was treading very carefully in this matter considering how touchy the subject is, hence the vague answer.

At this point however, my two hours were up and we had to leave. It had been an interesting evening and I am really looking forward to the Scientology study visit in two weeks.

First of all, Happy/Merry whatever-holiday-you-celebrate. Hopefully everyone is enjoying the day off work and school and putting on a few pounds with tasty cookies.

Full article below the jump: (more…)

That’s all folks.

Preface

This article will deal with the ideology of positivism, rationalism and Karl Popper’s idea of good science. It will also further deal with why “Praying for person X made person X well from ailment Y” is not being a good form of science, but pseudoscience at best, particularly when presented in a scientific manner.

Definitions

Postivism is a scientific idelogy that we can only produce good science with the help of empirical data, most notably, by gathering facts. Is something not a fact, then we cannot consider it to be a positivist claim. So if I make a statement that the earth is flat when we have clearly observed that the earth isn’t, it is a false statement simply because it is not based on empirical evidence and because it is not a given fact. If I however say that the earth is round, it is a good positivt claim because we have good supoprting evidence that the earth is round and people have observed it as such, we can thus consider it a fact and the statement to be true.

Rationalism is a specific scientific ideology in turn developed by Karl Popper, stemming from the idea of positivism. Karl Popper’s goal with developing rationalism was to first of all debunk pseudoscience, secondly to set up a border when something can be considered good science and when it isn’t. Karl Popper defined good rationalist science as “finding faults in the problemsolving”* and “by speaking to thinking and experience rather than to moods and emotion”*.1

So the biggest difference between positivism and rationalism lies in that positivism does not necessarily change a theory when the empirical data does not fully support it, but may use help-theses, something Karl Popper despised. Rationalism then, is the complete reforming of a theory when new data is found, or when the theory is incapable of explaining the current data properly without using help-theses which are applied ad hoc.

The good positivist or rationalist science

Then how would positivist or rationalist science look like? A positivist would try to study the empirical data as good as possible and then make factual statements about those, a rationalist would look at the same empirical data but is more interested in being critical to how to explain the data and finding faults in this explanation while at the same time trying to appeal to logic and experience rather than that of emotion. This brings us to the main point, namely why praying, as evidence for the existence of god, is not evidence and why it is not scientific.

Example

One of the most common stories you hear from Christians as evidence for god is when they make a statement that praying works and they’ve seen it. Now, let’s assume ourselves in the role of a Christian practioneer who is praying for a relative being seriously ill, to the point where this illness is endangering this person’s life. As a good Christian, we are praying every day for this relative to become better, but the doctor’s treatment seems to be negative. Instead this person seems to become more ill than well. Suddenly though, there is a turn of events, without any seemingly explainable cause, the relative is cured from the illness and our conclusion must be that it was the work of god. Or wait, is it really?

A positivist would not accept this explaination, because obviously the empirical data has not been studied enough. The primary data here being our now cured relative, and why this relative all of sudden became better when it seemed that the medication made no difference. There are many factors to consider, such as our relative’s physiology. Maybe our relative really didn’t need any medication, because this person’s physiology worked in such a way that this person was supposed to overcome this illness regardless. Maybe the doctors gave this person the wrong medication. This cannot be outruled either. Doctors are human and humans make errors. The doctors gave our relative the wrong diagnosis and thus also the wrong treatment. A variant of the previous point, but happens all the time as well. A positivist would then start to debunk these theses by investigating the empirical data related to them, such as taking blood samples from the relative and studying them, or asking the doctors whether they changed the medication or if they believe they missdiagnosed the relative.

A rationalist would of course also do the above, but would be even more interested to see if we can trace any fault of logic in the original reasoning. It seems we can find quite a few of them. First of all, we cannot be certain god exists, as we have no evidence for this. Not necessarily using Occham’s Razor here, but a rationalist would examine the claim how probable it would be that god intervened and did so because of our prayers. Secondly, we also have the issue of prayers themselves. In the Bible it states that god knows everything, god is omniscient. Would it not be enough then to just think that we want to save our relative for god to respond to such a need? God would know even without having us praying, thus, it actually seems more logical that it was not the praying that was the actual cause. Thirdly though, and probably the greatest issue with this example is the emotional part of the argument. A religious person would of course want to believe it was god, it speaks that the religious person’s needs. It has thus an emotional appeal, rather than it being rational. So while a religious person may be overlooking some logical inconsistencies in their problemsolving when it comes to such statements as “My prayers saved my relative from dying”, the reason why they would believe such a statement is more because of the emotional appeal, they want it to be true, not necessarily because it is true. So when Christians make statements like these, they are not scientific in their approach, because they overlook great many faults in their reasoning.

Legend
* – My translation

Sources
Vår Tids Filosofi, Part 2

It appears to be more important to rail against a preconceived notion of a concept rather than engage the idea itself.  What do you think this ad is saying about those children in the image?  Why are they so happy?  Is the message based on who the children are?

No, its not.  It doesn’t matter who those kids are, the point is that they’re kids.  They could be happy, sad, cute, or ugly, and the message would stay the same.  It also stays the same regardless of what religion their parents are members of… which happens to be Christianity.

The  idea that somehow the fact that these kid’s parents are Christian undermines the message of the advertisement is absolute nonsense.  It wouldn’t be reinforced if their parents were atheists.  The fact is, those kids are way too young to really choose whether or not they believe in any religion, so as the ad says, DON’T LABEL THEM.  They are not “Christian children”, they are children of Christian parents.  It is not ironic in any way that their parents are Christians.  This ad is not about their parents, its about them.

Additionally, they probably chose happy looking kids not to make any statement on religion itself, but because a picture of a smiling person is better suited to advertising.  Why do you think soap and underwear and laxative advertisements have “smiling” people?  Same reason this ad does, it grabs attention.  Also, look closely at their faces, they’re not *really* smiling and happy–just like every other lame ad photo, they’re being told to smile for the camera.  Their smiles are insincere zygomatic-only smiles, not the sincere Ducenne smile, which also entails the involuntary contraction of the orbicularis oculi, which creates “crow’s feet” at the corners of the eye. Due to the fact this muscle contraction is completely involuntary and unable to be recreated at will (short of artificial stimulation with electricity) when people are genuinely happy, they can’t help showing it, and they can’t force themselves to appear happy when they’re really not.

So they didn’t REALLY choose genuinely “happy and free” children.  They chose children who LOOKED “happy and free” because they possess the ability to “smile” on command… just like every other model in advertising.  Look closely at the next few ads and magazine covers you see with “smiling” models, you’ll find this phenomenon of not-really-smiling universal.

(And before the inevitable accusation–it would be exactly the same if the parents were Muslim.)

I had a lecture the other week when one of my teachers came to talk about his fieldwork he conducted on West Java, studying the (religious) meaning of fasting. Java’s biggest religion is Islam, so thus, one would conclude that the ritual of fasting bears great importance in the daily lives of the Java people. Once my teacher started to investigate what fasting truly is however, it turned out that fasting wasn’t just a religious rite practiced during certain holidays such as Ramadan, but students said to him that they would fast a couple of days before an important exam, or that if they were going to an interview for a job they really wanted, they would fast before as well. Obviously, fasting isn’t just a religious expression, although religious leaders put great emphasis that fasting should only be performed. Then what is fasting? Fasting is in its simplest form an expression to control the body, that is, what goes and and what comes out. In anthropology we may call these things substances. Food may be considered a specific form of substance, and by fasting, a person can control what form of food they eat and don’t. It thus requires some kind of self-control of the body. But why the importance to control the physical body? I didn’t think much more about it then, until I read some posts here on the Anti-Christian Phenomenon Website, and I realized that this is a very common reoccuring theme in most world religions. Judaism may advocate for ascetism, and so do more extreme variants of Hinduism. In Christianity the step is taken even further and there is a whole system built around the idea of sin, which basically is a guideline of what is accepted behavior in how to control the mind and body. One explanation can be that if one is able to control one’s body, then one is also able to control the mind, and the logical conclusion would be that one will naturally lead a more healthy and happy life when being able to muster this kind of self-control.

The idea is far from new, and we may even find notions of this in other philosophical systems that may seem completely unrelated to religion at all. Friedrich Nietzsche spoke about his concept of the übermensch, the super human, and that we can only become truly free and be able to take control of our own lives once we discard such notions as religion. In the humanist movement a less metaphorical term is used, and it is simply just called empowerment. Once again, by discarding such things as religion can we become truly free and take control of our own lives. In the Enlightenment movement one could only become truly free by accepting rationality and common sense. Through logic and reason alone are we capable of realizing our own individual freedom. In Taoism, we can only become truly free by understanding our own importance in a holistic system, and realizing that it is not about I, the subject, but about we, as a single entity. The system in Taosim in how we can achieve true balance with the world is also very intricate, and advocate strong ideas of how to act and behave in different situations.

Maybe it is easier to understand why some people may turn to religion in the light of being an excuse to find self-empowerment which they alone failed in achieving without an intricate system such as religion with clear rules to follow in how such empowerment can be reached. I will not try to go into and debate as to why self-empowerment may be so intrinsically important to human beings, and why we ultimately still like to believe in the idea of our own prsonal freedom and power to achieve things we want to achieve, nor is it in the scope or interest of this website, but if religion offers a possibility to reach such self-empowerment, then it has surely succeeded. With that said, obviously religion is not for everybody, as shown with my examples of philosophical movements and ideas that are unrelated to religion and at times even strongly opposed such a notion, so maybe ultimately the reason why some people may seem to change religious affiliations as if they were changing clothes may lie in that the system they just joined simply wasn’t the way for them to achieve this empowerment within, may it be for philosophical or other reasons. For example, I really don’t find the notion attractive of living an ascetic life or fast once a year for a month, but if making a claim that my non-religious stance has helped to make me feel that I am in control of my own life, I will answer honestly that yes, I do believe so. I am not going to deny that religion ultimately is a powerful tool when it comes to finding self-empowerment, if it wasn’t, I am sure a lot less would be religious than what we are currently seeing today, the problem is of course all the other ideas that religion imposes that I cannot as easily accept as something intrinsically good, and if religion truly is representing a system for self-empowerment, maybe it would be time to develop something new that does not include ideas of human rights 2000 years ago.

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.

I have discussed the nature of God and his desires for quite some time with Christians. I have always searched for examples to help convey my points. I have recently worked on a logical exercise that deals with concepts of infinity; however, I don’t believe that paper is as complete as it could be. As a direct result I think I have developed an example that really drives the point home about God’s notions of “justice” and “love”.

I should forewarn the reader that I am a mathematics major and as such, I have tried to apply a sort of governing formula for my discussion here. I have tried to outline it and provide examples that are fitting to the problem at hand.

Here is how I am going to approach the Bible for this particular exercise I wish to discuss. I look at the ultimate goal of the Bible to be an algorithm that essentially outlines God’s plan. It’s a sort of rulebook, if you will, that outlines what God’s program is going to do and what believers can expect. We see the “expected” outcomes in the forms of “prophecy”. I am also taking something for granted, the fact that Christians frequently say how God’s word is “truth” or “absolute truth”. This axiom, to me, means that God never breaks his word (i.e. he never lies)… according to the Bible at least. Thus I will assume that God’s algorithms for “governing” his creation are not going to be broken as well. Christians can say “God can do whatever he wants” in response to some of my points. However, that means that God would break his word as laid down by the Bible (i.e. he really lied to us).

I can now get into the purpose of the paper. The most major criteria governing who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell can be summed up with the two following rules (as quoted by many Christians to me).

#1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body and soul.
#2) Love your neighboor as yourself.

I wouldn’t say these are actually unique to the Christian faith, as I have heard similar statements made by the Jews. There is even an allegory I remember reading about an old Rabbi who was challenged once about Judaism’s message. Basically the story went that the challenger said he would convert to Judaism if the Rabbi could teach him all the knowledge of the Torah while standing on one leg. The Rabbi rose to the challenge and said “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” As you can see, this little saying isn’t really anything new. Anyway, this is one of the major things Christians use to preach the Gospel and win people over to their way of thinking. I really want to focus in on these two sayings and apply it to some very extreme cases that are real world examples.

The first person I want to discuss and introduce is Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi. Gandhi is considered, historically, as one of the worlds most influential people for civil rights. For those needing the history refresher he was the leader of a non-violent civil disobedience movement against the British occupation of India. He essentially wanted to free his people from British rule through non-violent means. His story has been heralded the world over as one of the greatest in human history. He is synonymous with many symbols of peace and he has influenced many movements of civil rights around the globe. The world is, frankly, a better place for his existence. Not only did he help his own people, but he has influenced others to stand up against oppression and demand their freedom as well.

There is one huge flaw with Gandhi though. He followed Hinduism. Now this is a major problem. Being occupied by the British means he would have had exposure to Christian ideology and religious teachings. This means exposure to Jesus’ teachings. While Gandhi clearly followed criteria #2, to the level that he didn’t even want to harm his enemies, he did not follow criteria #1. That’s right, he did not think Jesus was God, nor were any of his motivations for peace influenced by Jesus. This means that Gandhi has been sent to Hell. Yes, I am fully aware that I did not see God physically send Gandhi to Hell, but if God did not, then God is a liar. Not only that, the #2 requirement doesn’t appear to be warranted for the #2 slot in the hierarchy of rules governing our world. Requirement #1 seems to be a far more defining factor. Thus Gandhi is in Hell due to a technicality. I wouldn’t say this really shows the just nature of God, but it could be argued that Gandhi knowingly rejected God and thus God didn’t want to force Gandhi into wanting his help, that invalidates free will. I understand this factor, but it doesn’t technically make it “just”, though it makes sense within the system. But surely this must be an isolated incident?

Let me introduce you to the second person I want to discuss, his name is Adolf Hitler. Hitler, by many, is believed to be embodiment of evil. Truly no redemption could ever be awaiting this man. Or could it?

Let me go on a quick tangent. I have heard Hitler’s name referenced as an Atheist as an example of how atheism is a real threat. I hate to break it to people out there, but Hitler was a Christian. Below you will find some quotes, the most important being from “Mein Kampf” which was written in his own words discussing Christianity.

“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” (Mein Kampf, pgs. 562-563)

“We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. … We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.” (Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928)

“Anyone who thinks he can arrive at a religious reformation by the detour of a political organization only shows that he has no glimmer of knowledge of the development of religious ideas or dogmas and their ecclesiastical consequences. Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party.” (Mein Kampf, pg 114)

On discussing unworthy priests:
“…but for one such unworthy priest there are a thousand and more honorable ones, shepherds most loyally devoted to their mission, who, in our present false and decadent period, stand out of the general morass like little islands.” (Mein Kampf, pg 115)

As you can see the man was Christian. If you really need further proof go pick up a copy of the book, go to the index, and look up “Catholic Church”. There you will find all the reading you need on the matter. Now at this point you can see I’ve outlined that Hitler followed criteria #1. At this point you are probably thinking I’m crazy because only criteria #2 remains and how could Hitler fit that criterion? Let me explain. Amidst all that genocide and ethnic cleansing was a man who was trying to save his people. His “neighbors” if you will. Not only that, he took it a step further, he was actually trying to save the entire world from the Jewish threat. It doesn’t matter if none of it was true, the fact is, Hitler was doing it from a caring place in his heart. Sure he was angry about it, but that’s why he stood up to save the people! If you read “Mein Kampf”, as I have, you will see this plainly. His ideas weren’t coming strictly from a place of hatred, but from a place of love for his people.

Now, as a Christian, he would repent his sins, as that is part of the process. You ask for forgiveness, no self respecting Christian would say this wasn’t important. Hitler being well educated and intelligent would do this. So, I have to assume that he would ask for forgiveness of his sins and thus God adhering to his rulebook would absolve Hitler of sins. What does this mean? It means Hitler is in Heaven.

Now I thought I was going to get myself caught in a technicality for God meting out his justice. It is generally accepted that Hitler committed suicide, and most Christians seem to regard this as a major sin. I suppose it’s because they tie it in with “thou shalt not kill” and there are numerous passages discussing the sanctity of life. So Anath went and did some research for me. We couldn’t really find any passages specifically stating that if you commit suicide you go to hell. In fact we found that Samson technically committed suicide and God basically helped. Saul also committed suicide. Judas committed suicide as well. Judas, to me, seems to be the most tragic of cases. Judas was rather “pre-destined” as it is alluded to in the text that he was meant to do what he did. So it seems rather unfair that he didn’t seem to technically have a choice in this. Though, if I remember correctly, he supposedly repented (someone can correct me if I am wrong about this). Either way, I couldn’t find any specific statements that said you go to Hell immediately if you commit suicide. Rather, I find this sort of thing mentioned in Dante’s “Inferno”. Maybe the notion came from there?

In conclusion, you can plainly see the justice system as designed by God. Apparently this is supposed to be perfect. But under God’s rule Gandhi is in Hell and Hitler is in Heaven. Maybe my moral compass is broken because I have strong atheistic leanings, but internally I have a problem with this system. If it allows this kind of a thing to happen I would say the system is broken.

Ultimately what does this come down to? It appears to me that criteria #2 is actually rather negligible. It’s more of a “good message” concept rather than actually necessary. To me, it seems this is somewhat overridden by the forgiveness clause that Christianity also follows. Maybe #2 is there so that you can justify good works in light of God, so you can say “I do good things because I love God” or “God wants me to do them”. But that doesn’t change the fact that you can be a serial killer, a mass murderer, etc and ask for forgiveness of your sins and get to Heaven. I know that’s a major perk for winning over people, especially with the “no one can ever be perfect” message. This is akin to me wearing a blue shirt then having someone walk up to me and informing me that I am, in fact, wearing a blue shirt. For some reason a lot of people need to be told its okay not to be perfect, rather than coming to terms with that on their own. Maybe God really does sort these people out better, but based on what I read in his “word”, I don’t get that impression.

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.

An acquaintance of mine showed me this site, which I initially thought would be atheist propaganda, and I had no idea it was launched by the Humanist movement. When you enter the site, you are prompted to do a test to see how religious you are, so I did. Unfortunately the whole site is in Swedish, for those non-Swedes, but anyway. The test didn’t take long, somewhere between 5-10 minutes, depending on the effort and thinking you put into each answer. I suppose the test itself wasn’t all that bad, although some questions were extreme polarized, where even I, who don’t believe in god at all, found it hard to sometimes answer. For example, one question was formulated such as it asked whether you believed that free will exists, or whether your actions are controlled by something else, god or otherwise. While I do believe in free will as I believe that absolute determinism is flawed, what if you believe free will is an illusion but don’t believe in god? At the start of the test, you also get to fill out what rituals, holidays and other religious celebrations you celebrate with religious origin. Of course, I filled out that I celebrate Easter and Christmas, just like many other people do. But I don’t celebrate out of my belief in Jesus Christ, I celebrate it so I can gather with my family and have some good time together.

Anyway, at the end of the test I received the answer that I was not religious at all, and that religion did not control any part of my everyday life. How the test turned out if you say, believed in god and believed that homosexuals are not allowed to marry I don’t know, but the answer was obvious: either you were religious or you weren’t. And this is where I reacted as well. How can the humanists attack the religious people, and stereotype them to such a degree that they all sound like they were extreme fundamentalists? This was my very first contact with the humanist movement, and it certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, and I got sorely disappointed with their approach.

So, what about the humanist movement? The humanist movement is pro secularism, that is, seperation of church and state, and aggressively work for it to remain so. So far so good, I don’t really see this a bad thing in itself. Humanists also believe in the empowerment of the human being, and that is one of the reasons why I disagree with humanism. It focuses too much on human life, and it puts the human into the center of the universe. While I agree that human empowerment is much better than believing in a skydaddy to rely onto, I can’t quite agree with something that almost sounds derivated from Nietzsche’s idea of the übermensch either, I care too much about the other lifeforms we must co-exist with to say that my human life is more important any other lifeform. Being a humanist implies you believe in the strength of a human being, and while I am sure many people would hate me for using the word faith here, it is irrational faith that make people believe humans are more important than what they are. Nihilistic as I am, I cannot understand how a group of people can forget how little their lives matter to the vast universe, or the earth itself. Another problem I got with the humanist movement is that it’s an organizaton, it’s a group. And it’s becoming almost as bad as the religions they seem to love attacking. Why?

First of all, I will outline the basic definitions of what religion is in an anthropological definition, and even more so fundamentalism, which does not necessarily encompass the belief in a supreme being at all:

- Shared belief system (the belief that the human being is stronger without the belief in god)
- Strict rules or values/dogma (Seperation of church and state, adopted liberalistic ethics. Anyone deviating from these ideas would most likely become ostracized from the group)
- It is an organization with a leader to unite the group members

In addition, to officially be counted as a humanist, you need to pay a fee, just like Christians here in Sweden pay a fee to the Church of Sweden if they are members. Of course, one can be a member without paying a fee, but not officially. Thus far, including propaganda sites like the one I provided at the start of this post and very aggressive methods where they rather seem to be attacking the religious than the religious organizations, it’s as if the humanist movement is becoming a religion itself, and a fundamental one to add. I completely respect their wishes to seperate the church and state in countries where they are not, or to let the church and state remain seperated in countries where they already have been, but when they attack the religious people instead of the religious movements? That’s like shooting themselves in the foot and furthermore, they give atheists bad names! They reinforce the idea that atheists hate religion, and that’s the least rational atheists want.

No, there are many ways you can criticize religion and seperate it from church and state without attacking its believers. Such as stop addressing people personally and address the name of the religious organizations, like the Church of Sweden, or the Pentacostals. It’s really sad, all in all, that they are becoming the thing they so strongly oppose.