The Antichristian Phenomenon

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.)

We’re used to Hollywood portraying Atheists as cynical and bitter personalities who only need the slightest push to see the light as part of their redemption (or alternatively serve as a handy character to kill for being too rational.) Usually we can point out and avoid movies which play on those ridiculous archetypes but sometimes this nonsense comes at you from where you least expect it.

Such was my experience with Dragon Age, which after my recent escapades during its procurement, now gives me another reason to blog in relation to it. You see, this game not only features de-facto atheists as part of your band of “heroes”, not only does it feature them in a profoundly Holywood way but it goes at that extra step to make sure we get the point.

As far as I’ve progressed in the game, I’ve encountered two characters who can be rightly proclaimed as atheists. One of them is the Wild Witch Morrigan which even though is a mage shows a strong disbelief to “The Maker” (A monotheistic deity whose religion is similar to the Christian one) and the other is Shale, a stone Golem which I’ve only had with me for a bit and speaks like an agnostic but already shows strong tendencies towards atheism.

You get the religious views of those two characters mainly by having them in your party at the same time as you have the ultra religious Leliana which then strikes up casual dialogue with either of them on this topic while you’re walking in cities. From those ambient discussions, you quickly realize the beliefs of the two atheists while also getting the classic Holywood trope about atheism. Even though the discussions are quite humorous at times and entertaining in their own right, especially at the parts where Morrigan wonders why she should believe in anything without proof, they quickly turn annoying when instead of showing a person who has a solid basis in their worldview, they paint those characters as insecure and afraid (deep down).

“I’m feel sorry for how isolated and alone you must feel in your life” Leliene says at the end of an exasperating discussion with Morrigan. “Er…I…none of your business.” retorts Morrigan, making obvious to all that she does indeed feel isolated and lonely. I couldn’t help but feel why she couldn’t answer like I would.  “You’re mistaken, I’m far from lonely” or even “I like it that way.” In short, any kind of retort that an atheist who is not insecure in his life would give.

But that’s not the worst of it, far from it in fact, if that was all I wouldn’t really mind it. What really annoys me is not simply that those two are cynical, bitter or whatever but that they’re both downright evil! And this is quite the explicit kind of evil mind you, not the vague moral choices that seen from the right perspective might lead to some interesting ethical questions, but the “who cares for suffering, just give me unlimited power no matter the costs” kind of evil that only exist in the cartoonish villains of Hollywood. Morrigan is by far the worse of course, abundantly disproving when I even think of helping the downtrodden and blatantly approving of only the most vile acts (examples: -5 approval for simply convincing a merchant not to exploit the desperate refugees. +7 approval for opting to allow the evil demon to possess a child.)

Shale on the other hand openly admits in disliking humans, consider itself a far superior being, has no issue with wanton violence and is of course, quite hearless about it. This wouldn’t be an issue in itself but when coupled with it openly promoting rationalism and critical thinking, once more one tends to say “Now hold on a goddamn minute!”

Now let me here point out that I have no problem with there being evil Atheists in games. Not at all. However I’d like some basis on this evil which here simply doesn’t exist. Morrigan seems to be wishing the evil options for the sake of being evil. The excuses for the disapproval the character gives are laughable only only serve to point out the shallowness of her worldview which makes the fact that she ignores the obvious result of doing the good thing as benefiting our own mission even more annoying. For example, during a mission where I had to convince a king to help me, I reached his castle only to find that undead were pouring out of it and attacking a nearby village. It made perfect sense to protect the village during the attack and then once the undead were destroyed or lessened, I would go in the castle. Then the obviously thankful King would be more willing to help me out. However for Morrigan helping the village was a big no-no so I got penalized for doing the sensible thing.

So evil atheists are not a problem but when you have only the (blatant) Atheists as goddamn evil bastards while the theists are all little goody-two-shoes angels who approve of all the good stuff (and of course the game doesn’t give any proper moral choices, only caricaturish black&white options) and only care for helping the poor, then one can’t help but make the appropriate assumptions.

While the game could have put a nice perspective into the oppression of organized religion in the form of the templars, we’re rather told that they’re in fact right for being so oppressive since all those people they oppress are kind obviously powerhungry fucks. So again religion + authority + strict rules  = good while individualism + atheism + freethought = bad.

For me thus, the problem does not simply simply lie in the fact that some Atheists are portrayed as powerhungry bastards, it lies in the fact that all atheists are such while all the theists are, quite explicitly, good. Would it hurt to have some of the theist heroes be intolerant of, say elves and dwarves (maybe some are, I haven’t seen all of them yet). Would it hurt to have some of them disproving of alternate sexualities? And on the same track, it wouldn’t hurt if some of the atheists weren’t total bastards all the time. It really pokes me in the wrong way where either I have to make total dickish choices with my character (eat babies!) or to lose the only two characters I like since they will disapprove of me so much.

Unfortunately this is a perfect example of the Hollywood-type worldview, on games which enter the same mainstream as movies. When the budgets and risks get into the same range, only the same safe bets in displayed morals and ideas can be played and thus culture might just as well go down the same shallow drain. I’m afraid that as long as profits are on the line, morality will always remain black and white and cuddle the theists who wish to claim the moral high ground. After all, in aggregate, they have the most money don’t they?

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.

Swedish political right extremist party Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) have managed to give rise to more controversy more than gaining power among the voters. Their leader, Jimmie Åkesson, published a very controversial debate article yesterday in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (The Evening Paper) where he makes various claims about Muslims being the new threat to the Swedish welfare system.

You can read the article on this site both as a Swedish extract and with a Google translation.

It is clear that Åkesson use sweeping statements and hyperboles, such as claiming that Europe will have the highest rape statistics in the world, and that Muslim men will be overrepresented. This is nothing new and basically just fear-mongering, the truth remains that most rapes today are done by white middle-class men no one would expect to be rapists, and neither do they, hence the as usual complete denial. A lot of men who are white and belong to the middle-class are never convicted simply because the judges believed them more, only for the pure reasons that they were white middle-class men. We do not perceive them of being capable of raping, even when there is overwhelming evidence presented. The reason why is simply of what Åkesson just expressed; we rather believe in the dark ambusher coming from an Arab country, spying on lone women at night hiding in a bush near a parkway, just ready to attack.

I live in a pretty Muslim-dense part of my town, and there is a local store that sell Halal meat. I can’t really say it bothered me more than I think it is unethical to drain an animal of blood while it is still alive, as I consider it a form of animal cruelty. Neither have I never felt unsafe when walking alone at night in my area. A lot of children’s families live here, the worst thing I usually experience are teenagers who drive around with their vespas in the middle of the night. I have also yet to meet a person who was clearly mean to me. All of the people I’ve spoken to are nice, such as the guy who sits at the counter in the previously mentioned store that sell Halal meat.

Instead of actually explaining how he would like to proceed to solve the issues with identitiy crisis among second- and third generation immigrants, Åkesson retorts to fear-mongering tactics. What’s worse is the huge support SD have started to gain among the general population, so obviously it is working. I wish people were less blind and could actually see that Åkesson offers NOTHING to solve the problem, he just makes statement after statement of what is wrong. That is not a solution, just empty promises. So what is Åkesson going to do once he get to power? Kick out all immigrants from Sweden? That is obviously not going to work, no matter how you look at it. One reason is that the Swedish birthrate is too low.

I should add that sually any identity to the grandparents’ country is lost at the third generation as they become completely immersed within their “host” country, so I am not sure what kind of statistics Åkesson took part of, but it’s very contradictory to what I’ve learnt as an anthropology student. So I don’t see why Åkesson is quite worried. Yes, angsty teenagers in the surburbs are a problem, but they aren’t angsty because they are Muslims, they are angsty because the politicians do nothing to improve their situation and ultimately the become marginalized from society! One would expect our politicians to learn that it doesn’t work to dump immigrants on one dense place. Philipe Burgois’ book In Search of Respect is a perfect example of what will happen in Sweden in the future if we don’t try to spend money to improve the situation.

Lastly, there are a lot of claims made about what is Swedish, but Åkesson nor anyone from SD never offer any form of explanation of what they mean what being Swedish is. Am I Swedish for having a Swedish name and a Swedish personal number and for considering myself part Swedish? Or am I too, an evil immigrant here to poison the country and the so called Swedish culture because of my Korean heritage? I do not deny my Korean heritage and I consider myself just as much Korean as I consider myself Swedish. I just so happened to have a Swedish name that people mention me as and to speak Swedish fluently. It should be said that my Korean name is actually a part of my whole name, only the surname is left out for reasons I don’t know, but I think it was inconvenient for my parents to name me Fridh Kim or any variant of it, since they were married and it would be troublesome legally I suppose.

If there is anything that worries me right now when it comes to Swedish politics it’s if SD would get into the parliament. I am very worried over what will happen with the current Swedish democracy and freedom of speech. I do not deny Åkesson’s right to voice his opinions, but I do deny him the right to get into the Swedish parliament and I will actively do so by refusing to vote for him and his party. Any person who only argues for the right for his own freedom of speech and his own social rights only fool himself if he claims to support a democratic society where everybody is equal.

I do agree with Åkesson that our current immigration is a huge issue and that we have yet to learn how to manage to deal with all the angsty teenagers living in the suburbs. Clearly what our politicans are currently doing isn’t working, but this also includes Åkesson and his SD! I admit that one of the reasons why I want to become a scientist within the anthropological field is so I can go out in the field and actually gather FACTS so maybe they’ll start doing something USEFUL and TANGIBLE. I do want to be able to influence our politicians on a greater scale than what I am currently able of just being a normal citizen with an opinion.

It should also be noted that SD got strong Christian roots (hahahahahahaha!), as if I’d ever cast my vote for such a retarded party that make claims of how dangerous Islam is and that the Koran is so dogmatic and then come running making such weak claims that “but at least we got the NT who make claims about turning the other cheek!”. Yeah, right, like that’s exactly what you are doing Åkesson? Like referring to the NT ever stopped Christianity from still oppressing our society and still does here in the West. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. Of course, Åkesson wouldn’t define his homophobia as much as oppressing, just that the Bible says so and therefore it is right. Now, maybe Åkesson should start looking at himself first and the claims he and his party make regarding domatism, then maybe they got the right to critize Islam properly.

Such fucking idiocy. I wish people could actually see that Åkesson is just a big fucking hypocrite and if I could, I would smother him where he stands with my soceress’ fire ball. In fact, I wish we could tear down our whole current political system and abdicate all our active politicians. They are very good at talking and avoiding questions, very bad at actually making the changes they always claim they are aiming for.

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.

Just a quick article from me today. Swedish newspaper Metro had a small article in the Gothenburg version this morning about how the Swedish organization JO (Justitieombudsmannen), which is a political organ supposed to function as a report system for citizens, has now postulated that it was wrong to take down pictures of Satan pooping on a cruxified Jesus at a punk rock festival in the town of Linköping.

It can also be noted that the Autotune version of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking has now gained such popularity that it was mentioned on Nanok!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

Embedding fails.

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.

As I am studying the Greek philosophers right now, there is one interesting question regarding Plato. I may just be rambling and be way off, but I thought it might be worthwhile writing it down nevertheless. To understand why, I will first explain what ideas Plato formulated:

Plato stated that there are basically two realities: one which we can sense with our 5 senses, and one which is objective and is independent to the reality which we can actually sense. This reality is also said to be timeless and cannot change. For sake of easy reference, this objective world will from now be called O, whereas the material reality that we can study will be called M. Plato’s main idea is that M is a shadow of O, because M constitutes of many attributes that makes it “weak” or “lesser” in terms of existence, such as being finite, as compared to O.

Now, I thought that O vs M is a good analogy to ask, what if we compare O to god? I don’t think this idea is very farfetched in theory, because there are actually many similarities between the Christian god and O, most notably that:

- M is a reflection of O
- O is supposed to not be able to change in nature and is timeless
- O exists independently of M

If switching the word O with god, this would happen:

- M is a reflection of god (which can be interpreted as M is god’s creation)
- God cannot change in nature and is timeless
- God exists independently of M

Now, there are however a few flaws in Plato’s theory, most notably the one about independence. Because if O exists independently of M, then how can we know for certain that M is merely a reflection of O? We simply cannot know what O is, because O is supposed to be seperate of M. We cannot study O at all.

This argument is strikingly similar to the argument that Christians keep repeating, except that they are contradicting themselves, because:

1) Christians claim that god exists in another realm of existence outside the material world and can thus not be interacted with or studied
2) Christians claim they have had personal experiences with god, such as being told something by god, or felt a divine presence

But 1) and 2) are almost mutually exclusive because:

3) Christians also claim that we cannot understand or know god

So if 1) is true, then 2) cannot be true, because how can they know it was god if they also at the same time claim 3)? So 2) is actually a contradiction to 1) and 3), because even if they claim to know that was indeed god, we simply cannot know.

While I am not trying to argue for some kind of extreme skepticism here, at least I think that using Plato’s theory as an analogy shows that Christians can never know for a certainty that god indeed exists, and if they claim they do they are contradicting themselves. We cannot logically prove whether god’s existence is true or false, particularly if using a similar argument like that of Plato’s, but I don’t think that is what is important, but rather which I have shown here. Due to logical uncertainty, I think any religious person should not be so quick rushing at saying “goddidit” or “it was god, I know it”, because according to this, how can they can truly know? It could’ve as well been Satan or any other divine being. It is exactly that kind of naïvety that they often claim anti-religious for doing, when the anti-religious do something they do not personally agree with, (“you follow Satan but you don’t know it”), but I think here I have evidence for that they themselves shouldn’t be so certain of god’s existence, or they are as hypocricial as they claim others to be.

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.