The Antichristian Phenomenon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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?

You always hear and see Christians exclaim how much more fortunate they are that they belong in the only religion that can grant them true happiness after death. Some go even further and decide that people who do not believe in christianity are missing out and it is their duty to save them before it is too late. Mix that with the threat of eternal damnation on the other side and you’ve got an powerful chain of fear to bind people when brainwashing them from a young age.

But I digress, this is not the point of the article I am attempting to write currently. Rather, I would prefer to focus on the first part of the previous sentence, that is, how Christians are virtuous only because they want to get into Heaven and what effect it has on all of us. (more…)

A while ago I wrote an article about a Christian doctor who refused to take care of a child because he didn’t like her mother due to his beliefs. At the time I was still hoping it was an exception.

Today I found an article on MSNBC about how this seems to be a very common case in the United States. Conservative Christian doctors and hospitals often deny women a range of legal medical care. Ranging from a morning after pill when they’ve been raped, to IVF for lesbians and the list goes on.

It brings up an actual story of one of those women who were raped and refused help by a Christian doctor. He even worked at a Good Samaritan Hospital. Good Samaritan? Refusing help? Wow, what a good Christian you’re being. Disgusting sack of shit.

Worst is though, the law defends these doctors. Right now  that only applies for certain things yet, such as contraception, abortions, sterilisations, and so on. But lawmakers in four States are working on generalizing the bills so doctors can refuse any kind of care that goes against their beliefs. Legally, the wording of that law could even allow doctors to refuse aiding someone in ER, solely because they wear a pentacle or a Thor’s hammer around their neck or on a ring.

This is yet another example why it is impossible to respect Christianity. There is only one way to save the world from this evil, and that is to pulverize their entire religion.

As of late, I have been watching lots of documentaries and videos on the internet concerning religion. I have found that some atheistic groups have defined their own ten commandments. Some googling will result in many different variations on this moral code. I think christian claim that you need religion to have a sense of morality has sparked the postulation of these “atheist’s ten commandments”. Of course, this is a misconception, but to define your own Ten Moral Biggies is the wrong approach to sort this mess out.

Let’s first sidetrack a little and have a look at what the christians are on about. They often refer to the bible as the book of absolute truth and thus also absolute moral code. And exactly with the “absolute”, they’re quite wrong. As much as they like to think so, the bible is not very consistent about its ideas of morality. For moral guidance, most christians will only refer to the ten commandments. Does it not strike you as odd that the only morals in a book written over hundreds of years, would only have ten lines concerning morality? Can these ten commandments be applied to every situation and supply an answer as to what is the right thing to do? No. The ten commandments are only a fraction of what can be found in the bible. What about these guidelines?

The book of Deuteronomy is very clear about dealing with people who served or wish to serve another deity.

Deuteronomy 12:2-3: Ye shall surely destroy all the places wherein the nations that ye shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
Deuteronomy 13:9: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And how does the bible prescribe us to deal with one who blasphemes against the name of the christian god?

Leviticus 24:14: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

There are numerous examples of the death penalty in the bible, as well as selling your daugther and the shame of long hair on a man. You can’t be cherry picking what moral rules to adhere by and which not, if you insist on your holy book being one of absolute truth.

What I am trying to say is that morality can not be absolute. “The moral thing to do” depends on many factors like culture, situation and even your own personality. It is very hard to define a certain moral rule that is universally applicable, because you need not have much imagination to come up with a situation in which the moral thing not to act according to the moral rule. And if you do succeed, why would you insist that everyone should take it into comtemplation? Of course, there are some concepts (like not allowing the taking of another life) that are quite universal, but this does not mean they are absolute truth! Good and bad are mere concepts by human minds. These concepts are used in legislation to keep an eye on the public and prevent chaos. This is not a matter of divine righteousness, but a matter of governing people.

So why are there the ten commandments, and why are there exactly ten? Do you not think that people are perfectly able to decide for themselves what is wrong and what is right? Would you not allow even this freedom of thought? Why are there not nine commandments, two, or fifty-seven? It is silly to think there is a limited number of moral rules. Again, I urge you to always make up your own mind. There is absolutely no need to write down a moral code. You have this nifty little thing called a brain that is always at the ready for any query. In every situation that calls for a moral decision, balance all things on the scales of reason and make your decision. It’s a silly idea that you would need to contemplate a writing and see what rules apply in this precise case.

Alright, let’s sum this all up. Morality is not absolute, not christians’, nor atheists’. It is a matter for you to consider every single time it passes you on your way. Remember, morality is part of philosophy, wherein lie no answers, but only a few options and a huge stage for you to play your own act.