Maybe You Have Too Much Faith To Be An Atheist

Seventh Day Revisions

Resting for an omnipotent being seems odd to me--especially for one who apparently didn’t do anything with His eternal life up until the book of Genesis. It’s one of the many (many, many) reasons I don’t accept the bible at face value. This got me thinking...what could the bible say about that 7th day to make the story just a little more believable? I’ll give it a shot. Update your holy books, Christians, you can thank me later.

• On the 7th day, God went off his medication.
• On the 7th day, God planted fossils to cover his tracks.
• On the 7th day, God created a talking snake to undermine his plans.
• On the 7th day, God developed multiple personality disorder.
• On the 7th day, God adds defective genes, unused biology, occasional congenital diseases and birth defects, and other design flaws to his creations.
• On the 7th day, God establishes a place of eternal torment to send those who refuse to believe he is a loving god.
• On the 7th day, God created narcissists and sociopaths in his image.
• On the 7th day, God gave man the imagination to come up with crazy notions like, well, gods.
• On the 7th day, God rested...and every day thereafter. Amen.

Have a 7th day revision of your own? Add it in the comments!

I Have So Many Questions...

Mortality Week: Afterdeath

Welcome to Mortality Week! (not to be confused with my past theme of Morality Week) Everyday this week I'll be posting articles relating to what it means to be mortal. Mostly it means we're gonna die. Death is certain. The afterlife? Less so.

Grundy on the Christian Afterlife

I was a Christian for twenty years and I still don’t have a clear picture of heaven. The bible is somewhat contradictory and somewhat vague on the topic. The church has done it’s best to fill in the blanks, but “the” church is really just “a” church and every denomination is a bit different. If I had to cobble together a consensus, all I can say about heaven is that “it’s nice.”

A believer would probably say that it’s perfect, but my perfect might not be your perfect--but we are probably going by God’s perfect which likely isn’t either of ours perfect. Last time the Almighty made paradise it had an evil, talking snake in it, so I’m not making any assumptions.

Then we have the problem of eternity. I call it omni-bordeom, because you can, and will, have too much of a good thing. The are only two ways around this. One is a divine-lobotomy that takes away your ability to become bored, but once we get into God fundamentally changing who you are, can we say that it is really you that lives past this mortal coil. The other option is continuing the human tradition of shitty memories. I might live forever, but I’ll only remember the past fifty years or so. This undermines the idea of both eternity and perfection, but it’s better than getting sick of your favorite movie.

Grundy on the Muslim Afterlife

72 virgins, right? Better comedians than I have written every joke that can be written about the Muslim afterlife. Honestly, I have a feeling there is more to it than non-Muslims think. I’m not saying that it isn’t a stupid and misogynistic view of the hereafter, but it could very well be not stupid and misogynistic in quite the way I imagine. Until I’m more educated, no comment, but I’m pretty sure they suffer from the same downsides of eternal life.

Grundy on the Hindu Afterlife

Like Islam, my understanding of Hinduism is that of an American outsider. At first glance, I kinda wish it was true. The idea of Karma is the fairest motivator to be moral in all the religious traditions. Instead of our acts for the span of 0 to 100 years being the subject of judgment to determine our next infinity of years, we have a system of judging one life to determine the starting point of our next life. We trade the two extreme options of heaven and hell, to a sliding scale. If an afterlife exists, I’d like it to be this one...but I’m not holding my breath.

Via Flea Snobbery

Grundy on the Atheist Afterlife Death

When I tell people that I believe that nothing happens to us when we die, it is usually met with some variation of “that’s depressing.” (This is often coming from people who think everlasting punishment is an option.) Depressing or not, we have no reason to believe that we have a soul or spirit or anything more than what our living brain provides. Wishful thinking does not dictate reality. Even if you find some argument for God convincing, which you shouldn’t, that doesn’t mean an afterlife is a given. Just because something is eternal, doesn’t mean that we are. The only reason almost every religion connects an appealing afterlife with their God, is because we wouldn’t worship the God or obey the religious leaders otherwise.

Am I glad that there probably is no afterlife? Not particularly. I’d rather have reincarnation or some reunion with lost friends, but not at the expense of knowing that others could be unjustly suffering. Hell is universally unjust.

Hitler doesn’t deserve eternal torment. There, I said it. I’m not sure what he deserves. Maybe an ass full of red hot coals. Maybe a painful death and rebirth for every Jew who died in the Holocaust and every soldier who died in World War II. That would be an “eye for an eye” revenge that only a supernatural deity could exact. This would be overkill, pardon the pun, but it would still be infinitely more just and humane then eternal torture. I don’t think believers ever quite wrap their brains around “forever,” if they did I’d expect a lot more objections.

No afterlife is at once more depressing and more comforting than most religious alternatives, but not by design. Atheists hold certain beliefs because there is no evidence to believe otherwise. The afterlife will forever be beyond our knowledge. It is up to you to either believe your preference, or to go with the most educated guess.

The Unconvinced Jew

If you witnessed someone walking on water, consistently and visibly healing the sick, casting out demons, spontaneously creating bread and fish, turning water into wine, calming storms, killing trees with a glance, and raising the dead including himself--wouldn't you be convinced that the guy is the son of God? Even the most atheist of atheists would have to admit that is some pretty extraordinary evidence. It certainly meets my conversion standards.

Imagine if you were not only present, but you had a vested interest in believing this guy was the messiah. If he was one of your people and fulfilled the prophecy you've been staking your entire worldview on. Imagine you were a Jew in the presence of Jesus.

Yet, many Jews did not buy what Jesus was selling. Many did, sure, but considering the Moses-level miracles...why not all? Or at least 99%? If there is something I'm not getting about history, please let me know, but the way I see it, how am I supposed to accept claims two thousand years removed with here-say records when so many of the contemporary neighbors weren't impressed.

Maybe, just maybe, the "miracles" just weren't impressive.

The Second-Hand Miracle

I just got off the phone with one of my best friends from college. It was a call a long time coming. He converted from atheism to Christianity about a year ago and I never had the chance to hear his story. I didn’t rush this call for a few reasons. First, I didn’t want him to think I was jumping for the chance to drag him kicking and screaming back to atheism. Second, I didn’t want his pitching of theism to further hurt our already lapsed relationship. And third, and most importantly, I didn’t think religion would take. It did, and after hearing his story, I understand why.

Quick Background

In college, my friend, we’ll call him John, was no saint. He was, however, fairly typical for his age and culture. His great sin was womanizing, most of which took place entirely within his mind. In the four years I knew him, he cycled between only five or six sexual partners while cataloguing every ass of note in our predominately female class. His conversion brings up an interesting question: if a man stops womanizing by becoming a bible-thumper, is that a net positive or negative for our feminism-infused Atheism Plussers? Either way, his origins in atheism had more to do with rejecting the rules of the Bible than disproving it. As technical as John could be, he never cared about science.

John's Testimony

It started when a pair of Christians came to his work place for a little evangelizing. Why were they allowed to make with the missionary? It’s unclear, but it seems like John’s boss is of the same faith. It’s also unclear whether the Christians started talking to John or if John initiated the discussion. They asked him if he was married and he remembered asking (inexplicably and completely out of character) “how could I be the head of the household without Jesus the head of my life.” The guys kept talking but John only picked up on key phrases like “God loves you” and “Jesus loves you.” John started crying on the spot.

John apparently pulled himself back together and went on his way. Not long after, he found himself having a vision in his car--hopefully when he wasn’t driving. John saw himself in a cathedral in front of an alter, completely at peace. When he came out of this dream state, his GPS was operating with navigation in progress. John follows the God-as-Garmin to, you guessed it, a church. He exists his car, wanders around until a church patron informs him their place of worship is currently a trailer--seeing how their church burned down. The vision of the alter didn’t come to pass, but John managed to find a chair facing a cross and got with the kneeling.

In fact, God made him kneel. At points in this journey, John said he felt lead as if someone was holding his hand. This hand allegedly tugged John down to his knees. He claims to have heard God's or Jesus’ voice say “Let me in” and claims to have seen his own demons pass from his body in the form of a husk of his past self--complete with a schizophrenic last attempt to convince him to stick with his scandalous ways.

So yeah... I went into this conversation expecting a story about his mother, who is also a born-again, or his new bride slowly indoctrinating John into the faith. Instead, I got a personal experience that changed my friend to his core overnight. John hadn’t talked to his mom all but a dozen times since he was 14 and had no contact leading into this conversion. His wife was perfectly happy as an atheist--John had to indoctrinate her into the faith before proposing. How do I reconcile this?

Short answer: I don’t. I can’t. I don’t believe his story, but I believe that he believes it. As many times as he has testified this particular miracle, I’m sure he believes it more now then he did the evening of the event--each retelling solidifying the memory--both the real and imaginary aspects. The only bit that can’t be explained by a mental break from reality is the GPS involvement. Was there really a holy ghost in the machine or did John’s yearning for Jesus make him search for “church” on a subconscious level? The later, of course. And yet...if I had a similar experience, Deity Shmeity would have some rebranding to do. After all, if true, this “miracle,” fits my high-standard of conversion.

I felt that I needed to share this even though parts of this story may seem to undermine my naturalistic perspective. You come to your conclusions, I'll come to mine.

An Assessment of John

You’ve heard my assessment of the story, here is my assessment of John. He is entirely sane. While completely convinced, John seemed confused about parts of his own tale. There was often lost time and parts that he didn’t remember. The telling contained more passion than details, but there were plenty of details. Today John is, by his own account, a better man. His porn addiction and alcoholism are no longer a problem...even though I doubt any doctor would have diagnosed either. An addiction is usually classified as such when it interferes with other aspects of one’s life. His girlfriend seemed fine with porn and he was only drunk in my company for obvious drinking occasions. Since he still enjoys an adult beverage on occasion, I doubt he was an alcoholic. Typically, when they quit, they can never drink again without a relapse. Or so I've heard. I’m not a doctor.

To me, the conversion made him better today by retroactively making him worse yesterday. The shame and guilt of Christianity is in full affect. Now every sexual daydream he ever had is equivalent to rape. The sins of the mind might as well be acts. I’d consider it a wash if he now has a higher opinion of women...but I can’t. He replaced objectifying strippers with minimizing the entire role of females. John made it very clear by saying then reiterating that men follow God and women follow the men who follow God.

Message Interference

This is a less important aside, but if there is a God, shouldn’t he want to get this message out? During this half hour conversation with John he lost cell service twice and we both were interrupted by other callers. Did Jesus have hecklers on the Sermon on the Mount? Did the burning bush take a few times to catch? The Bible probably left that part out.

Fairness & The Performance Enhancing Deity

I've been thinking a lot lately about fairness. For a society that values fairplay, I can't help but wonder, what in life is fair? It is not fair to ask the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. On the other hand, it is not fair that the wealthy to have more opportunities than the poor. It isn't fair for someone to be born an English Royal while another child is born starving in Africa. Beyond a birthright of luxury, some are born with the genetic potential to succeed over others. I.Q., physical beauty, an ambitious personality--all kinds of attributes contribute to one's eventual success of failure. It isn't fair.

Conservatives want us to believe that success is all about elbow grease, and most of it is, but not nearly all. No one trains for success more than the athletes competing in the Olympics. A friend of mine was a near Olympic-level cross skier. He was in better shape than I could ever hope to be and constantly skied in the winter and ran in the summer. Yet, he was only near Olympic-level. Truth is, I could never be the best cyclist or the best swimmer because I don't have Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or Michael Phelps' body shape. I'm too short to play for the NBA and too tall to jockey. I'd me mad if I didn't understand, but I do. Life isn't fair. Life is random.

If God exists, why is life random? Why set some up for heaven on earth and leave others to suffer? The "blessed are the" whatevers argument has us to believe that the meek and poor will inherit heaven while to rich will need to work hard to find their place. Truth is, those who suffer on earth are more likely to suffer in the afterlife as well, assuming Christian doctrine is correct. The poor are the more likely to set down a path of commandment-breaking actions if only to survive. The deck is stacked against them in this life and the next. If life isn't random, then what is the apologetic answer for God's haphazard cruelty?

Some must think God helps counter his previous bad decisions by deciding to help those who ask. Let's double back to the Olympics for this example. There are strick rules against athletes using human growth hormones because they give an unfair advantage. Even though I have argued that certain athletes already have a natural unfair advantage, I totally agree that man should not add to the problem. Why is it okay for God to add to the problem? Why should some athletes have a supernatural advantage? The faithful's impulse to pray to God for a win isn't practically unfair--because, of course, it does nothing--but it certainly shows the athlete's intension to be unfair. The only reason that the Olympic Committee and the people of the world allow this holy appeal is because we all know it doesn't work. Belief, in this case, is topical. It's right there on the surface, but deep down, we know. We know prayer doesn't work. We know life is random. Deep down, we're all atheists.

Random Thoughts on a Friday

If I made this blog a book it might be called Don't Sweat the Supernatual Stuff.

I kinda wish someone would write a prequel to the Book of Genesis. What was God doing in the dark for eternity?

It was easier for the Aurora theater shooter to get a M-16 rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol than it was for him to find the correct color hair spray. Well done, NRA, well done. I can't wrap my head around the idea that the shooter was obsessed with Batman or the Joker if he didn't at least wait to see The Dark Knight Rises before commencing with the carnage. It's terribly sad news overshadowing a pretty awesome movie.

We live in a world where people think Adam and Eve really happened, and yet we've been to the moon. Humanity has some crazy range. Granted, we haven't been to the moon lately, but...

Since an idealized God can do anything and only does somethings over an infinite time frame, one more "omni" should be used to describe him. Omnibored.

Theist logic breaker: When did God create time?

I had a daydream about a modern day Noah hearing the voices in his head warning him of a flood. Imagine how embarrassed he would be returning all those ark supplies to Home Depot when it doesn't rain.

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is a profession of faith that is recited by Catholics every single mass. I have included it below, with my two cents, of course.

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible. <- Invisible is his speciality.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God, <- So...there's two true Gods now?

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;  <- Consubstantial is a made up word.

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, <- Bow chicka wow wow.

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, <- Never knew why they singled out PP.

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures. <- Fulfilled prophecy is the Bible proving the Bible.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end. <- An infinite dictatorship.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, <- Sure this is monotheism?

who has spoken through the prophets. <-They may have misspelled "profits" here.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins <- Even those sins can be forgiven later too.

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead <- The Walking Dead on AMC.

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

It's a longish creed, granted, but what really gets me is that they need to be reminded of what they believe every Sunday. I've been to a variety of Catholic churches now and when the priest starts reciting this creed, he reads it. When the congregation chants it with him, 80% of them take the card next to their bibles to read it back. Only about 10% have it memorized. The last 10% are either mumbling along or asleep.

Don't take my word for it, go to church. If you can't stomach the hypocrisy, check this photo I took recently during the Creed-read. I'm just glad my religious belief can be summed up with a "non-of-the-above."

Extraordinary Evidence

Recently, I've seem some atheists post this flowchart as an indictment on theists' ability to discuss religion. You need not look far to see where most theists fail in this chart. In fact, it needs not "flow" anywhere. The first statement is: Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

Religious faith, by definition, makes the answer to this question no. If you have doubt, then you don't have faith. How different are atheists? We hang our worldview on critical thinking and the lack of compelling evidence and leave faith out in the cold. I am very certain that atheism is currently the wisest position. Still, we should ask ourselves what kind of evidence would be needed to change this.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ~ Marcello Truzzi

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ~ Carl Sagan

The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness. ~ Pierre-Simon Laplace

In my recent interview series, you may have noticed that I'm consistently asking the question "Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god?" The answers can be paraphrased as "barely." A believer might think that Jesus returning would immediately bring all the infidels into the Christian fold. Not so much. The general consensus is that, atheists would remain skeptical. This new Jesus would be subjected to the scientific questions posed to all supposed evidence. Is he authentic? Are his miracles more than tricks and illusions? Does he provide some wisdom that could only come from God? Some of us go so far to posit he could be the product of other worldly technology. 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Nevertheless, I would at least consider a magical Jesus in the real world is authentic, but it wouldn't get me speaking in tongues as fast as some other extremely unlikely scenarios. Below is a chart of events that would make a believer out of me. I used Dawkin's Scale of belief to show what degree of belief I would hold for each event. This is an approximation because each event could be more or less convincing depending on the circumstances. Of course, combining events would also hasten my conversion. For example, a previously dead religious figure performing a large-scale miracle with witnesses might seal the religious deal.

Happy Father's Day!

Y'know, assuming you're not Christian. Anyone accepting the New Testament as the word of God probably shouldn't celebrate.

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9 New International Version

(Strange that priests are called "Father" considering this scripture. Am I missing something?)

Does the Bible Represent an Omniscient God?

I've previously posted as to why an omniscient God makes no sense, but theists continue to claim that the Lord is all-knowing. I assumed they came to this belief from the Bible, but now I'm not so sure.

Let's look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abe is commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac to prove his faith and obedience to the Lord. Abe moves ahead with the order preparing for the ritual killing and just before he lights his kid on fire, the Almighty says...

“Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. ” 

Genesis 22 : 12 New International Version 

God knows now, meaning he didn't know then. If God knew then, why the charade of testing Abraham in the first place?

So where did the idea of omniscience come from, if not the Bible? Well...it still kinda came from the Bible. This is one of it's less publicized contradictions, even in the atheist community. The two passages that claim omniscience, according to About.com, are from Psalm and Isaiah. Let's check them out.

2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely.
5 You hem me in behind and before, and you lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 

Psalm 139:2-6 New International Version

I've read emo-school-girl poetry more interesting than this. This Psalm is clearly not the word of the Lord, it's a poem to the Lord. Surely the Genesis bit is more telling of God's superpowers, it is a direct quote, after all.

13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding? 

Isaiah 40:13-14 New International Version

Again, this is someone other than God talking about God. In fact, this guy's just asking questions. Rather good questions, actually. I'm guessing the answer is supposed to be "no one" meaning that God is omniscient, but I see these as skeptical questions that show another paradox of God's nature.

So there you have it, a couple believer's musings are the foundation for God's omniscience while the Lord acknowledges his own blind spot in regards to Abraham. How the hell is the Biblical take away an all-knowing deity? I don't get it.

Morality Week Reflection

During Morality Week, I tried my best to explain morality from an atheist perspective. I hoped to be able to sum up morality in a tight text snippit. A typographic sound byte. The tagline for godless goodness. I think I failed.

Is this because I suck? Maybe, but I doubt it. Morality is a multilayered issue. It’s more than commandments. It’s even more than the Golden Rule, which is probably the most utilitarian moral cliff-note available. I think the best way to verbalize my view of morality is a set of “best practices” to live by. Let's break it down one last time.

Right vs. Wrong

Let’s rebrand “right” and “wrong” as “better” and “worse.” I say “better” and not “best” because the “best” thing for an individual may be at the expense of others. Morality only makes sense as a term when it's applied to the group. We are moral because we are social. We are social because others enrich our lives.

Objective vs. Subjective Morality

Morality varies across cultures. Even within the U.S., polls show there are many issues that have the population split as to their moral worth. This is evidence for subjective morality. The only "evidence" any one has ever presented for objective morality is asking a question similar to "is murder wrong?" To which I give my answer, "yes." The answer is my belief that murder is wrong. It's subjective. Your belief, which is also likely to be that murder is wrong, is subjective. The argument of common consent basically states that most people believe in God therefore God exists. This argument of common consent seems to be their basis for objective morality as well. Most people believe murder is wrong, therefore it is wrong. Unlike the argument of common consent as applied to God, I am part of the consent in regards to murder, but that only means that we should treat murder as wrong. To say it is wrong, or in fact exists at all outside of humanity's ability to conceive and act upon it, is unfounded. In addition, belief in objective morality is dangerous. The same people who don't just believe murder is wrong, but know it is wrong, also know that homosexuality and other victimless "sins" are wrong. With this supposed infallible knowledge they can enforce what are really just opinions without considering the possibility that they are wrong. Abortion clinic bombers not only know that abortion is wrong, but they know they are doing the Lord's work. To paraphrase MiB's Agent Kay, "Imagine what they'll know tomorrow."

The Argument from Moral Truth

While I don't see any evidence for objective morality, this argument is flawed to the point of uselessness even granting a universal moral truth. The argument states:

1. There exist objective moral truths. (murder is not just distasteful, but it's actually wrong.)
2. These objective moral truths are not grounded in the way the world is but, rather, in the way the world ought to be. (Consider: should white supremacists succeed, taking over the world and eliminating all who don’t meet their criteria for being existence-worthy, their ideology still would be morally wrong. It would be true, in this hideous counterfactual, that the world ought not to be the way that they have made it.)
3. The world itself—the way it is, the laws of science that explain why it is that way—cannot account for the way the world ought to be.
4. The only way to account for morality is that God established morality (from 2 and 3).
5. Therefore God exists.

Why did God make murder wrong? Why not make it right? Is there any reason for God's choice or is morality completely arbitrary? If God had a reason, then we should be able to come to the same reason. If God had no reason, then why follow pointless rules? Either God is a redundant middle man or we are still left with no reason moral truths are true. If we feel the need to explain our possible objective morality, then why are we more comfortable with a lack of a supernatural explanation then we are with a lack of a natural explanation? At least we know the natural exists! The whole argument is passing the buck.

The Bible as a source of morality.

Item 4 of the argument leads to where believers go to find God's established morality. The Bible is a popular repository of perceived goodness. Shall we start with the Old Testament that commanded people to keep slaves, slay their enemies, execute blasphemers and homosexuals? Hmm...it might be best to pick and chose which Biblical morals to follow and interpret them to be relevant to our society. The question here is, if you need the Bible to give you your morals, how do you know which morals in the Bible are the most moral? It's, of course, because we already had morality before we checked the "good book." It makes sense, if the majority of people didn't think murder was a bad thing prior to Moses, I doubt humanity would have survived long enough to get those tablets. If you believe that sort of thing.

Pascal’s Assumption

The Argument from Decision Theory (Pascal’s Wager):

1. Either God exists or God doesn’t exist.
2. A person can either believe that God exists or believe that God doesn’t exist (from 1).
3. If God exists and you believe, you receive eternal salvation.
4. If God exists and you don’t believe, you receive eternal damnation.
5. If God doesn’t exist and you believe, you’ve been duped, have wasted time in religious observance, and have missed out on decadent enjoyments.
6. If God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, then you have avoided a false belief.
7. You have much more to gain by believing in God than by not believing in him, and much more to lose by not believing in God than by believing in him (from, 3, 4, 5, and 6).
8. It is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that he doesn’t exist (from 7).

There was a time when I thought this argument made logical sense. I first heard Pascal’s Wager from my favorite high school teacher. He taught algebra, coached football, and, not surprisingly, was highly involved with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Back then, the only skeptical thought I had on the wager was that belief brought on by a safe bet, isn’t the faith needed for entry into heaven. It is merely smart gambling. As an atheist, I now know this is one of the flaws with the Argument from Decision Theory, but not the only one.

The second flaw in regards to Pascal’s Wager is that it does nothing to explore the probabilities of God’s existence. For example, if God’s existence is infinitesimal, then even if the cost of not believing in him is high, the overall expectation may not make it worthwhile to believe. You can see how this invalidates Pascal’s Wager by considering similar wagers. Say I told you that a vampire moved in as your neighbor, and that unless you draw a vile of your blood to leave outside every night he will break in and suck you dry. According to Pascal’s Wager, you should break out the needle and tourniquet...but you don’t. The probability of the neighboring vamp is so low that the risk of death is negligible.

The final flaw is the most damning. The wager relies on some huge-ass assumptions. It assumes that God is the Christian God, that there is a heaven and a hell, and that said Christian God will send believers to heaven and unbelievers to hell. For this argument for God to possibly work, we’d need a separate argument that shows that these assumptions are true. Since this is the supernatural we’re talking about, meaning that all bets are off, it could be that believers go to hell and nonbelievers go to heaven. Following the wager would then mean eternal torment. The possibilities are endless and therefore the probability of any one supernatural scenario (back to flaw #2) is infinitely small.

Before any vamp nerds point this out, I realize my analogy for flaw #2 is itself flawed. Vampires can’t enter your home without an invitation, so “breaking-in” is off the table. If this bothers you, please substitute “vampire” with “velociraptor” and “blood” with “chew-toy.”)

The Internet, Almost as Big as Christianity.

 

Embiggen

Morality Week: Biblical "Morality"

Christians tend to argue one of two positions.

1. Religion provides our morality through scripture.
2. Morality is objective and we all have a God-given sense of right and wrong.

The first is pretty straight forward, and I’ve found that the second eventually leads to the first. For example, a theist can argue a moral value against rape and murder is universal and use this as evidence that the value originates with God. Yet the same theist sees a similar moral truth in an issue like homosexuality, which is far from universal. In the U.S., roughly half the population is in favor of gay marriage, which implies they don’t find gay sex immoral, while the other half votes against it. If we are supposed to have a sense of God’s morality, why do so many not have said sense on homosexuality? The theist may argue we simply ignore our sense in supporting gay rights, but in doing so they presume to know how everyone in the world feels. I can only know how I feel. I feel that hot man-on-man love (or better yet, woman-on-woman love) is not immoral.

Christians use the Bible to define their morality and claim the values within as moral truths. Below are moral values taken from the Bible that otherwise have no reasoning behind them.

• Having other gods is immoral.
• Making graven images is immoral.
• Using God’s name in vain is immoral.
• Working on Sunday is immoral.
• Fornication is immoral.
• Homosexuality is immoral.
• Masturbating is immoral.

I could get into the really strange morality-guiding rules in the Bible, (it’s immoral to wear wool and linen woven together apparently) but I’d rather stick with the stuff the least amount of theists will argue about. The first three would never be immoral if not for the Bible. They are simply rules to keep you believing once you already believe. The Sabbath rule is arbitrary no matter how you look at it. So far, the list has been taken directly from the gold standard of morality as argued by nearly every theist I’ve engaged--the ten commandments. The last three make certain sex acts immoral. Without the Bible, I can think of no reason for these to be immoral. If you have a reason, let me know in the comments.

As is the theme of Morality Week, morality should be based on reasoning, not based on a book written well over a thousand years ago. Equating scripture to moral truth, using moral truth to prove God, and using God to prove the validity of scripture is typical theist circular logic. Worse, the idea of moral truth needing no explaination is dangerous. A theist doesn’t just believe abortion in morally wrong, they know it is evil. This gnostic morality is what leads to clinic bombings. If I knew I was stopping evil at the pleasure of the Almighty, who know’s what I’d be tempted to do. I realize clinic bombers are a rare extreme, probably driven by a mental disease more than religion, but to a lesser extent this moral gnostism is what ruins many families with gay children.

Morality Week: Explaining to a True Believer Why He Shouldn't Kill Grandpa

The following is another pointless debate with a theist.

Apologist: What is the source or determinate of morality in a purely naturalistic reality? I understand that murder can be bad for society as a whole, and therefore a naturalistically adopted rule. But if benefit to the whole is the goal, shouldn’t we euthanize the elderly, physically disabled, etc? Society would benefit and thrive greatly without the burden of those who can not sexually reproduce or contribute labor or mental innovations. By what moral code do you defend the life of a person who is unable to contribute to society sexually, mentally or physically?

Grundy: The majority of civilized people defend the life of the elderly, myself included, because humanity is sympathetic to the Golden Rule. We love our grandparents and we know we will one day become old, so we want old people in general protected. I would never want the elderly euthanized because I know and care about old people and I wouldn’t want them euthanized. I know I will one day become old and don’t want to set the example that would let me be euthanized. I’ve met a bunch of people in my life and the vast majority of them are decent so it is reasonable to assume that a random stranger who is old or disabled is likewise someone decent and should not be put down. Why wouldn’t you euthanize the elderly?

Apologist: The reason I wouldn’t pull the plug is because God teaches us that all human life is intrinsically valuable. It has no relationship to what I think about the persons worth to me or others. And I would defend these by stating that I believe God is the standard of morality in the universe. So you would not rid society of the noncontributor, but under what standard could you argue to someone else who wanted to, that they shouldn’t?

Grundy: I already provided some perfectly acceptable reasons for why we shouldn’t euthanize the elderly that could easily be explained to anyone. Your single reason would never work on someone who is an atheist. So my reasons are more likely to convince the most people...assuming you find many people who don’t already have similar reasons.

I have a reason for every moral choice I make. To say that God gave you your morality is to say that there is no reason behind it. You are saying morality is completely arbitrary. I know that isn’t true for me and I doubt it is true for anyone.

Apologist: To say that God gave us morality is the only reason to embrace it. If you have to have reasons to be moral then it isn't morality. You simply weigh the pros and cons. So you would never be able to tell someone that anything is wrong, and that is reason enough not to do it. Morality is a standard of truth about what is right or wrong, not beneficial or diminutive.

Grundy: Morality is adherence to a moral code, not God. Individuals or societies can have moral codes--The Golden Rule is an example of a moral code that pops up organically in many societies and was part of my reasoning to not shut down nursing homes. This action would be wrong according to my moral code. Is it wrong to the universe’s moral code? Or God’s? I don’t believe it can be because the universe has no moral code and God may or may not if he even exists--which I think is very unlikely.

It is better to have reasons for what we do when the alternative is following arbitrary values of right and wrong. I can explain why rape and murder is wrong on a deeper level than “God made it so.” Telling someone to not do something is one thing. But when they ask why, your plan is to say "because God says so." That reasoning works for children, but not for me.Why didn’t God make rape and murder right? Did God have a reason for what is right and what is wrong? If so, then we can discover the same reason and cut out the middle deity. If not, then it is arbitrary.

History Isn't My Area

Science is awesome. It’s awesome because it’s methodology strips out biases better than any other academic area. Science works in such a way that one can take a rich field of study, like evolution, and be confident of it’s validity without the huge time commitment it requires to fully understand. I am less skeptical of a scientific consensus than I am of any other expert agreement because it involves a clear publication process, reproducible results and peer review. Unfortunately, this confidence can’t be applied to my current topic of interest.

History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?

That’s right, Jesus. Who provides the consensus on Jesus? New Testament Scholars is a decent choice. If you do a Google search for New Testament Scholars the first hit is Bart D. Ehrman. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s the best, but he is certainly the most controversial. Once a born-again fundamentalist, Ehrman’s Biblical investigations have turned him agnostic. His latest book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, has brought on his usual criticism from believers as well as a negative review from atheist and ancient history expert Richard Carrier. (To be fair, here is Ehrman’s reaction to Carrier’s review.)

This is just the latest example of scholarly disagreement. From what I can tell, there is no consensus among NT scholars and ancient historians. Everyone has an agenda and, unlike in science, it is impossible to filter out the facts. If you think about it, who would most likely decide to become a Bible scholar? Those with a vested interest to prove the Bible right and, to a lesser extent, those with a vested interest to prove it wrong.

Sorry this post doesn’t do much in providing answers. I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed. I tend to think he did, but then I have no idea if he resembled to man depicted in the Bible. I will read Ehrman’s book, but I doubt his perspective alone will answer my questions. The history is a vague and blurry landscape. Give me science any day.

Alpha & Beta

My dog, Alpha

I got a dog the other day, his name’s Alpha. I really went all out accommodating the pooch. I made the entire house a canine playground. I put a different bowl of food in every room. I installed ramps so that every inch of furniture could be his domain. I maxed out my treat budget. Seriously, all I ever heard where squeak toys. I even gave Alpha a friend, a female named Beta. They were good dogs.

“Were” being the operative word. I told Alpha and Beta that the only thing in the house that was off limits, was my lucky tennis ball. I pointed at the ball and said “no!” They saw me do this on more than one occasion, but the little buggers couldn’t help themselves. I don’t think she knew I was watching, but Beta brought my ball over to play with Alpha and they launched it right out the window.

Disobedience is something I do not tolerate! I removed all the food and treats from the house. I threw out the ramps and fenced off their “fun rooms.” Their toys? They went straight into the trash. From then on, I made Alpha work for his food. Beta too. To remind them of their indiscretion, I installed traps randomly around the house--a snare here, a foothold there. Some would hurt the animals and others would just cage them for a while. I even drip a little rat poison in their food occasionally. There’s no rhyme or reason to it really, I’m just keeping them on their toes.

Sure, it’s within my power to buy new tennis balls, actually I already have another, but that won’t teach any lessons. I plan on continuing this punishment for the rest of their lives. Come to think of it, I better keep it up for their offspring and any other pets I may bring into the house. Alpha and Beta’s single disobedience should be felt for all future generations.

Don’t call PETA on me, this is an analogy. I don’t want to overstate the obvious, but on topics of religion I’ve learned that clarity matters, so here I go.

• The narrator/dog owner = God
• Alpha and Beta = Adam and Eve
• The house pre-disobedience = The Garden of Eden
• The tennis ball = The Tree of Knowledge
• The house post-disobedience = Earth
• The traps, poisons and other canine dangers = Natural evil (earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.)

If you don’t think of the narrator as a loving and forgiving master, than you probably shouldn’t be a huge fan of God either. The good news? You don’t need to hate God because this fable of pet ownership is no more imaginary than the fable of Genesis. There is no one to hate.

I could carry this story to it’s illogical, yet Biblical, conclusion. A few generations later the master might sacrifice a dog in order to atone for Alpha and Beta’s original sin, but why bother? It’s not like dogs go to heaven.

All Bets Are Off.

I’ve been debating a baker’s dozen of Christian Apologists and they all claim to have the logical high ground. After all, the best way to demonstrate that you are the most logical is simply by stating “I’m the most logical.” (read:sarcasm) This got me thinking, once you evoke the supernatural, does logic even matter?

Merriam-Webster defines logic as “a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.” The words “science,” “validity,” “inference,” and “demonstration” all lose meaning against the supernatural. Gravity is not valid to Superman. I can’t accurately infer anything about the actions of a genie. Someone, please, demonstrate God.

If the supernatural exists, all bets are off. God can exist, but so can literally anything. You may be praying to Allah, but only because a telepath is forcing it upon your mind. Jesus could return, or he could be shapeshifter in disguise. God himself may be unwittingly doing the bidding of being that can conceal his influence even from the Lord.

If you think God is, by definition, the top dog and creator of everything thus making the above scenarios nonsensical, I ask you, how could you possibly know in a supernatural universe? Maybe an otherwise unknown mystical creature possessed the authors of the Bible just to mess with humanity. Suddenly we can’t trust our senses. We can’t even trust history since everything that once was may have been rewritten last Thursday.

An all-powerful being is capable of every deception. Just because your God wouldn’t do such things doesn’t mean a random supernatural entity wouldn’t. As a theist you must not only believe the supernatural is possible, but also that your particular flavor of the supernatural is real in the face of no evidence. Even if you suddenly you had evidence, it could be contrived by malevolent magic. All. Bets. Are. Off.

It appears as though the universe has rules that have made everything happen in a manner that is understandable, even if we don’t yet fully understand it. Sure, each rule could just be an illusion waiting to be turned on it’s head, but I choose to believe in only the natural. If a theist ever convinces me that the supernatural is possible, I’ll suddenly have many more questions...each crazier, yet entirely possible, than the last.