An Open Letter to Theists: The Truth is Out There

I understand that the tone of my rhetoric can often sound like exhorting, and sometimes it is, but usually I have valid reasons for the claims I am making. 


As I shared with you before (here and in my writing elsewhere), I believe systems must demonstrate their claims. If a claim is not demonstrated, then in all likelihood, it is a false claim. Or more problematic, unfounded, and therefore baseless. I find most religious claims and beliefs to be completely, and utterly, baseless.


If you feel that I am belittling you by saying so, I am sorry, that is not my intent. My criticism of what you [the theist] believe is not necessarily a criticism of you personally. It is a critique of why I find the belief itself [and the belief of other theists] inadequate when it comes to demonstrating its claims. That is to say, I have a hard time believing in things that do not hold up well to scrutiny.


My wording should not be confused for denigration of vilification, but rather as an admonition. The reason for the admonition is that, when I have investigated religious claims, upon finding they are largely unfounded, the only remaining explanations for the persistence of a specious belief are justifiably because of things like delusion and/or ignorance.


I do not intend to insult religious people by claiming that they are all ignorant and/or delusional, because I know that is not very likely considering the mass numbers of religious adherents found around the world. But in my research, I have found that the reason religious belief often persists, in every culture where it arises: whether in tribal religions, mass cults, or world wide religions, is because ignorance and delusions are usually involved. It is well known that many Muslims are illiterate and can't even read their holy book. Moreover, many more Christians, who can read, have never taken the time to read theirs. Many more feel they do not have to as long as they have religious demagogues telling them how to behave and handing out edicts on how they ought to live their lives.


Furthermore, I should remind my readers, that I don't say this as an elitist criticizing the people's tendency to relinquish their thinking minds for the call of pious unthinking dogmatism, which is bad enough, but I say it as an objection to the conviction that the theist's religion is at all valid, especially knowing their religious beliefs are largely based on nothing more than groundless appeals to authority.


How strange of a world would it be if everything just so happened to be true because we referred to someone else who believed it too? Luckily, this is not the sort of world we live in. Although, to my dismay, many seem not to be aware of it.

If the truth didn't matter, then people would be free to believe what they will. I for one, however, believe truth substantially matters. Not only for numerous logical reasons, but also because I believe putting one's faith in the truth over one's propensity to believe a lie is always beneficial to society. If we dedicated ourselves to finding the truth over believing in falsehoods, then we would be better off--for how could we not? It may be a utilitarian sentiment not all share, but I believe it is a rationally justifiable one.


I agree with you that our choice to believe is a separate issue from what we believe, but I must disagree that we are entitled our beliefs simply because we believe them. Adolf Hitler felt killing all the Jews and hence committing genocide was a worthy belief--yet I would not expect anyone to claim he was free to believe what he chose to simply because I am obliged the same privilege. No, I would not go that far. Some beliefs, as it turns out, are categorically wrong.


Acting on false information can often cause us to act poorly--make mistakes--and potentially cause harm. This is the inherent danger we find in not checking our beliefs against the evidence and seeing whether or not they are justifiable in the light of better reason. Granted not all beliefs are so easy to determine one way or the other--there is a lot of gray making it difficult to know definitively the verisimilitude of any given belief--but it's the principle of questioning our beliefs and holding them up to scrutiny--not merely trying to prove them right or wrong--which I wish to instill as vital to our progress and development. 


I think beliefs matter when they are justifiable, that is to say, when the system demonstrates the claim. When the belief is demonstrably false, it should be rejected and abandoned. What purpose does believing in a lie serve? If I am mistaken, I want to know about it! Then I would want nothing more than to correct myself. Why should religious belief be held to any other standard than this?


Maybe there are good counter arguments which can be made for holding a false belief. Perhaps the person does not know it is false because they are under the impression it is true (contrary to the evidence). This is delusion, plain and simple. But maybe they intuitively understand something is the matter, that something doesn't quite make sense, and doubt is stirred up precisely because of the problematic nature of their belief, but instead of investigating it they continue to take it on faith.


Perhaps their willingness to take it on faith is because they are a product of their environment, everyone else believes it, so how could they possibly be mistaken? Perhaps their belief helps them cope with the world around them, or with life in general, and comforts them in some way. So they continue to take it on faith in lieu of their underlying concerns. They wash away the doubt with the feel good euphoria of their cherished beliefs--and for them ignorance is bliss. But if we can prove--and confirm--that many of the beliefs they hold are really a form of delusion, or that the person is genuinely mistaken, then the claim to have faith in such a belief is proved false.


But sometimes having your beliefs falsified forces you to grow. We should not fear being wrong. What we should fear is always being right--because then there would be nothing left to know--nothing left to investigate. What a boring existence we would be fated to have! I find such a thought intolerable. I welcome the chance of being proved wrong--perchance to learn and grow.


As I have said before, and I will say it again, I would rather have a belief proved false and readjust my beliefs accordingly, than continue to believe in a lie simply because I was too afraid of what the truth might hold.

In other words, I am willing to keep an open mind. I am willing to question my beliefs. I am willing to examine my experiences, instead of merely taking them for granted as so many people inevitably do.


I don't doubt that your religious experiences are real experiences. Of course they are! What I doubt, however, is whether these experiences are all what they are claimed to be. Off the top of my head I can raise several worthy objections to the majority of metaphysical or spiritual experiences of the supernatural kind. I can offer valid natural explanations which readily explain the very same types of experiences--and what's more, I can offer scientific support to demonstrate my claim that what you most likely experienced as a person of faith was not metaphysical in nature, but visceral, physiological, psychological, and plain old mundane. This places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders to offer convincing evidence that your experience was something otherworldly and not just worldly. If you have such evidence, I for one, would gladly like to know about it.


If the question of asking you to support a claim offends you in some way, then I am sorry. However, I do not think we can just take people's words for it. Testimony and personal conviction all fall into the same category of anecdotal hearsay. Nothing to write home about, as they say, since anecdotes are very hardly ever reliable. So much so that they are classified as an informal fallacy. Of course, that doesn't mean all anecdotes are invalid--it just means that they can't be trusted--at least not without extra sources of confirmation, such as a general consensus, which can confirm the claims made within the anecdote.


Ubiquity, however, must not be mistaken for biology. Like beliefs must not be mistaken for universal truths. The fact that many religious people experience the same type of experience(s) doesn't, I'm sorry to inform, prove these experiences are in any way true. It may be observed that all share a mass delusion. Such cases are well documented in cult behavior as well as mass traumata, from nuns to nutters. Therefore, we must realize, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--and if it can be claimed without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence.


Being demanded to respect someone's beliefs simply because they believe something, it seems to me, is like being asked to accept something without evidence. I find no reason to readily relinquish my skepticism for such a lackadaisical mindset. As Bertrand Russel once quipped, "Most people would rather die than think; and most of them do."


Without our minds we are nothing. All the things that you and I cherish: love, loyalty, honor, justness, goodness, decency, and all the rest are because we have minds enough to appreciate the profundity of these ideals and to know when our words or actions needlessly cause others undue pain and suffering.


We have the power to prevent ills, and like Thomas Paine if I had any religion it would be to do good. To make the world a little better place for my children, and their children, and children's children--in the hope that they would do the same for theirs. Hopefully, they will be able to discover unknown truths that we cannot even begin to fathom, and thereby improving their knowledge move ever closer to the best imaginable truth possible.


Stuck in the quagmire of superstition, seems to me, a waste of one's cognitive gifts. Religion is not as mysterious as some would have us believe. Certainly its not as sophisticated as the theologians like to remind us--as they busily work to buttress their faith like industrious worker ants furiously trying to fortify a house built of sand.


Just because a superstition is more awe inspiring and fantastic, does not mean we must continue to allow ourselves to be force-fed lie after lie after it is revealed that our superstitions are all but repudiated. May we, in our steady progress toward enlightenment, close our gaping mouths and open our eyes to the truth? 

Dismantling one's worldview is never easy. It's hard, traumatic, and often a laborious task to have to start over and think everything anew. For some people it is a downright daunting prospect. Others will be thrown into disarray as their belief system crumbles around them. There is always a risk of being wrong when truth is involved. But without the truth being revealed, we would risk forever remaining in perpetual darkness, forever subjugated by our ignorance and the delusions which hold power over us. Personally, I fear this more than I fear being wrong.


So you see, we need our minds, our rational component, to question everything. Where there is doubt, investigate! Where there is skepticism, question! I am afraid many make the mistake of waiting for the truth to reveal itself--as if the divine hand of God would simply reach down out of the sky and pull back the curtain for you, revealing all the mysterious wonders of the universe. I'm afraid it's not that easy.


We must uncover the truth ourselves. If what we find helps to validate our beliefs, then great! However, if what we discover proves our beliefs false--or unjustified--then I see no purpose in persisting in one's beliefs. Without our capacity to validate our beliefs and demonstrate the claims, the truth is meaningless. It places the lie on equal footing with the truth--and this is why faith based belief troubles me. So often religious faith attempts to reshape itself, and maintain the lie, each and every time the truth pervades. When one religious belief is disproved, such as prayer, excuses are made, rationalizations are formed, and apologetical tactics employed to fit the religious claim to the truth--to make the belief right with the world.


Here's the problem though, we can only make our beliefs retroactively conform to the evidence, we cannot force the evidence to conform to our beliefs. (Which, I might add, is why religious apologetics is a failed enterprise.) Once we understand this, that our beliefs must conform to the evidence, then we can go about testing our beliefs, analyzing our experiences, and hope they are compatible with the truth the way it reveals itself through the natural order and through science.


Science, as far as I know, is the only way of testing truth claims, as well as testing the objections, and either falsifying or proving them. Science is the only method we have in adequately investigating these issues--which is why I find it highly important to inform myself of the most up to date science and scientific theories. Admittedly, this is different than practicing science. I am not a scientist, however, I find it highly valuable to familiarize myself with the methodology behind science--because if we hope to get at the truth--this is our best, perhaps only, means of doing so.


I hope, by asking you to always ask questions and ponder these things, I do not sound like I am preaching at you that you must do so, although I sincerely hope that you would. I cannot pretend to tell you what to believe, instead all I can do is point out that some of what you believe requires further explanation, and hope that you will not take your beliefs and experiences for granted, as I once did.


Sincerely,

The Advocatus Atheist

Ethnohaulism and on Confusing Religion, Culture, and Race

An ethnic slur, or ethnohaulism as it's technically called, is when a term or combination of terms are used as insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or insulting fashion. More simply put, an ethnic slur is a term or word(s) used to insult someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality.

Recently I was watching a debate about the pejorative term "towel-head" and whether or not the term is racist. Personally, I do not know the history of the usage of this term, but according to The Oxford Dictionary of English, the term is classified as informal/offensive. Not informal/racist.

The term, however, is commonly used as a term of abuse for a Muslim or Arab who wears the style of headdress, either a turban or keffiyeh, which looks like a wrapped up towel atop of a person's head.

I personally would never use the term "towel-head" to describe anybody, but as an ethnic slur, intended to ridicule a cultural style of head dress, I don't see how the cultural connotation denotes any real sense of racism. Certainly, it's not racist in the same way "sand-nigger" is explicitly racist. Racist terms usually refer to the person's race like sexist terms refer specifically to sex. "Tar baby" is a racist term whereas "Faggot" is a sexist term. "Towel-head" is neither. It's not attacking gender or genetics, but rather, culture. That may be bad enough for some, but it doesn't make it racist (although the tactless person using it very well may be a racist--however, that is a separate issue).

Again, it depends on the context and how the term is applied. A person who hates all Arabs is a racist. A person who hates silly hats, or wrapping up your entire body and head in drapes when you live in the blistering desert, is simply ridiculing what appears to them to be a bad idea. On the other hand, it could be argued that historically the keffiyeh styled headgear was used to protect a person from the sun and could be used to cover the mouth and eyes in sand storms--not at all a bad idea. But this is before the advent of sun screen, automobiles, and air-conditioning that is. After all, a silly looking hat is still a silly looking hat. I like the ones with little propellers on top.The point I want to make, however, is that the two usages are different.

a) Pejorative ridicule: In the first case, the term is being use pejoratively to mock, or ridicule, a bizarre religious or cultural observance.

b) Invective scorn: In the second case, the term is being used to mock, or ridicule, a person's ethnicity.

If I were to be asked whether the first case denotes a hint of racism, I would be forced to say no. Although, if I were asked whether the second case denotes a hint of racism, then I would have to say maybe. It depends on how the word is used. Some words, like the Hawaiian term Haole, may or may not be derogatory depending on how it is used. It can be used as a harmless slang for white people, or as and ethnic slur, or it can be used as an invective. Other ethnohaulisms can be both simultaneously racist and sexist, such as the derogatory term "Squaw."

Racism can be linked to ethnic slurs, of course. Such terms as "chink," "coolie," "spic," or "nip" are overtly racist. Some ethnic slurs are more imaginative, but no less offensive. Slurs like "Oreo," "Pepsi," and "Porch monkey," although amusing, should be reserved for foul mouthed stand-up comedians--not everyday speech. In each of these prior cases, however, the ethnohaulisms refer specifically to race--color of skin and/or genetic predisposition--whereas the term "towel-head" does not.

Here's the problem though. Many people don't make a distinction between the two usages. Which is where the trouble arises. I have observed, both online and in real life, that there are many who are quick to confuse the two cases. Interestingly enough, they always confuse the second one for the first and never the other way around. That is, in most every case I have ever seen or heard of, the culturally sensitive person is quick to cry racism whenever they hear a pejorative term like "towel-head"--but the term may simply be about a silly custom--not about skin color or race. The moral of the story is--the person may not always be racist, rather, they are most probably a culturally stunted, insensitive asshole. But then again, they may be a comedian. Like I said, it depends on context.

Many, however, do not see it this way. With religions like Islam, for example, ethnic culture and religious culture often blend together, and it is sometimes difficult to delineate a line between the two. This is where the ethnic slurs and racism are often confused for one and the same. When a culturally insensitive, callous critic negatively critiques a religious custom in a religion where there is no clear distinction between culture and faith, negative comments mocking or ridiculing some as innocent as wearing a kippah, hijab, neck rings, etc., can become highly inflammatory. This makes it difficult to criticize the religion without offending people--because the people will inevitably confuse it for a personal criticism, or worse, a criticism of the sacred--the one true unforgivable crime in religious eyes. The Danish cartoon controversy is a good reminder of what happens when people confuse their religion, culture, and race.

So although I do not feel it is a good idea to employ ethnohaulisms generally, I think it is more menacing to confuse religion, culture, and race as one and the same thing. Those who do so, in my opinion, are being just as culturally insensitive and threatening as someone who unashamedly throws around ethnic slurs. Of course, if you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to share them in the comments section below.

God Is Love = Stupid Theology Part 1

God is love. (John 4:16)

Quite often these days I see religious folk posting quaint little blurbs like the above on the Internet.  It makes me really question whether they have thought through their beliefs--because if they post the above sound bite because they actually "believe" it--then all they have done is show how fallacious their beliefs really are. 

The above quote is not only a contradiction in terms--but it is also blatantly false. Only a person who has NOT taken the time to think about what the words are saying would be under the impression that the above sentiment is somehow agreeable. It's not, for reasons we shall soon discuss.

So from now on I have decided to rebut stupid theology anytime I see it--in a series fittingly called Stupid Theology--just to show why its not only categorically wrong to hold such beliefs--but ultimately such types of belief(s) prove false. I suppose you could believe it if you so wished--but to me this would only amount to the tacit admission that the only reason you hold the [specious] belief at all is because the lie makes you feel good.

The above proclamation of faith found in the quaint, and brightly painted yellow, epigraph is designed to squash your doubt with a catchy apologetic rationalization. In order to show why it is patently false, however, we need to re-examine it line by line. Methodical, I know--but hey--that's what using your brain is--hard work. Which is why people who post this stuff need to spend less time in the echo chambers of their faith--and spend a little more time thinking through their beliefs.

Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it. But I'm afraid he might just ask me the same question.

Okay, so I broke the single sentence into two in order to better emphasize the clashing ideologies at play here. The first sentence is a secular humanistic response to the Problem of Evil (i.e., the Problem of Pain/Suffering as we find in the physical world). The Humanist thinks, if an all loving God truly did exist, then this suffering is inexcusable. Hence we must questions God's integrity, concern, and sense of justice.

Of course the Problem of Evil is probably the most difficult theological obstacle any theist can ever face, so it seems suspect that it is purportedly answered in the following sentence. But pay extra close attention to what happens in the second line, because the apologetics at work shifts the burden and theodicy, or defending the goodness of God in the face of all the suffering and evil in the world, becomes the focus.

The fact that we are lead to believe that it is our responsibility to fix the ills of the world reflects the humanist sentiment behind the quotation--and I agree, it's up to us to address the issues of poverty, famine, and injustice in the world--but the problem here is the second line redirects our focus from the fact that the quote is about God's responsibility to act in accordance to his "all loving" nature. After all, according to believers, the Bible, and the theology, God is love.

So what of this love? Well, instead of doing anything about the ills of the world--God is content to ignore them. Hardly something a loving God would do. Especially one with the power to prevent such ills in the first place.

Yet it is this very realization which provides the negation to his "all loving" nature. We soon come to realize that there is a deeper problem we need to address concerning God's conflicted nature. God's assumed nature, according to religious belief, is likely to be false given the nature of the evidence. According to the evidence (i.e., the pain and suffering in the world), God can either be all loving or all powerful, but not both. We know this for the very reason that the idea of an "omnibenevolent and omnipotent" God willingly allowing evil (in any form) to exist is patently absurd.

God could be "all loving"--but not all powerful. That is, he might merely be unable to effectively change the natural order of things. This hardly sounds like the God believers profess an ardent faith in--it's certainly not the God who created the universe and everything in it--it certainly can't be the Orthodox God of Christianity.

So here's the rub, if God was all loving and all powerful--then God must act in necessity (in accordance with his nature) to prevent evils such as starvation, famine, sickness, etc. Yet these things are, sadly enough, found in abundance. Also, because God (supposedly) has the power to create entire universes and everything in them, then we know God has (at the bare minimum) the power to effectively change the physical laws--i.e., change how pain and suffering affect living organisms--but his very refusal to do so shows that God cannot be all loving.

Thus we know God is NOT love.

As such, we are left with three possibilities as to what constitutes God's true nature. 1) God is malevolent, or 2) God is indifferent, or else 3) there is no God.

The fact that the quote we are dealing with misdirects our attention from the issues of God's obligatory necessity to prevent evil (according to his "all loving" nature) is an apologetic trick meant to shift the burden and make us feel guilty for the problem(s) which, technically speaking, are not our problems--if a loving God exists.

The fact is, humans are anything but "all loving." But we are compassionate, so our conscience grows concerned when we see injustice, poverty, and needless suffering. This suggests we are morally superior to the God of theism, because we exhibit empathy where he does not.
 
Granted, there are some (overused) theistic rebuttals, e.g., rationalizations, the believer can fall back on when confronted with these prior set of objections. They can claim God works in mysterious ways, his mind is unknown to us, so who are we to question God?

Well, the answer to this rationalization is quite simple--we have the inescapable obligation to question such a God--because he explicitly allows for suffering which he should find as shocking, unsettling, and horribly unfair as we do--if he were at all a compassionate sort of person, such as we humans typically are.

[Of course, not all humans are compassionate, I get that. But most healthy human beings exhibit compassion as an inbuilt feature of being, well, human. We have evolved this way. As such, a loving God would undeniably have to, at the very least, exhibit as much compassion as we do in order to be considered at all loving.]

Moreover, we don't need to know the mind of God to know that idly sitting by and doing nothing, simply letting injustice, suffering, and evil occur without so much as batting an eyelid is, not only wrong, but morally reprehensible!

Hence the apologetic ploy is to leave us feeling guilty when the question is (deliberately) reversed to question our inability (or refusal) to obey the imperative to prevent evil by having God ask us why we do nothing. Again, the message here is, ultimately, humanistic--God wants you to right the wrongs--because he can't be bothered.

Ultimately, however, as I pointed out--it's not our burden--if a loving God exists--because the imperative dictates it is God's obligation to prevent evil, suffering, and injustice since it is his very nature to do so. 

[Coincidentally, this allows us to rule out the other oft raised rebuttal that God must allow for evil in order to realize the greater good--this makes no sense when God, being all powerful, could actualize the greater good without the allowance of even a bare minimum of evil. The free will defense, when used to explain evil, only shifts the goal posts further back--it doesn't solve the problem of God's imperative to prevent evil.]  

Thus, the fact that injustice, evil, and suffering do exist in the world is strong evidence that, contrary to John 4:16, God is NOT love.

Now here's the kicker. Remember the three possibilities we are left with? To reiterate, God is either 1) malevolent, 2) indifferent, or 3) non-existent.

As such, keeping these three points in mind, when we re-examine the quote:

Sometimes I want to ask God why he allows poverty, famine, and injustice in the world when He could do something about it. But I'm afraid he might just ask me the same question.

What we are really asked to consider makes no sense whatsoever. 

First of all, if God is malevolent, then the reason he allows poverty, famine, and injustice is obviously because that is in accordance to what he wills. In other words, God desires there to be poverty, famine, and injustice.
 
Secondly, if God is indifferent, then the reason such things exist in abundance shows God simply doesn't care to do anything about it--they exist--so what? No skin off God's back. Deal with it.

Last but not least, if God is non-existent, then the quantity of evil we find in the world exists simply as part of the natural order, so it makes no sense to question something which isn't even there--something that's not real--but merely a figment of our imaginations. It is the equivalent of asking the Flying Spaghetti Monster why there is so much evil in the universe. It's a ridiculous and absurd question to even posit--so much so that it's downright delusional.
 
Thus the above religious sound bite is not only self refuting, but it is also a case of extremely stupid theology. 

Theists would be quick to realize this if they took even just one minute to think it through more carefully. But the fact that we can see such blurbs pop up all over the Internet is strong evidence that most theists haven't thought long enough, or hard enough, about their beliefs. Subsequently, this goes a long way to explain why religious belief in God persists--presumably because the majority of believers have never taken the time to properly question, or adequately address, the speciousness of their cherished beliefs in the first place.

Go to Hell

What seems like every few weeks I will recieve a random email from a theist reminding me that I am going to Hell.

They often follow up by saying, "It's nothing personal, it's just what I believe."

The caveat, however, is that if you don't share their belief and believe exactly as they do, then the threat against your life--in the after life--is that you will be forever punished, tortured, and as the Christ, meek and mild, reminded us (no less than seven times) there will be a "wailing and gnashing of teeth."

So dreadful is this message of the punitive punishment we nonbelievers will receive in the fiery furnace (after death) that, for some reason, believers feel they are doing us a service in reminding us of it.

This is the sort of mail I tend to get:

"You are going to burn in hell. I hope you realize that."

Others state things like:

"If you accept Jesus into your heart, then you won't have to fear the punitive punishment of Hell."

Others are more straight foreword in their concern for my everlasting soul when they sate:

"Go to Hell atheist pig!"

Christian compassion runs deep.

But let's step into the nonbeliever's shoes for a moment. Let us ponder how absurd this entire belief in Hell really is.

For me, the concept of Hell carries no weight whatsoever. Mainly for the obvious reason that it has as much evidence for its existence as the imaginary place called Candy Land. This makes it really hard to take such people serious when they get all worked up over the state of my eternal soul, because to me, when they state their belief that I will go to Hell, all I really hear is, "Go to Candy Land atheist pig!"

Needless to say, such absurdities don't keep me up at night.

Additionally, stating it's not personal, as if that was some kind of threat against my safety--and that you couldn't be bothered to do anything about it--makes me question your integrity as a human being. It may be what you believe, but if you truly grasped how cruel, absurd, and needlessly hurtful holding such beliefs really is... then as a good Christian... you would keep it to yourself. Why flood some guy's in-box who you don't even know with messages about the horrible torture he is going to receive? Doesn't that sound morbidly sick and twisted to you?

I also have a strong opinion about Hell. I believe anyone who believes in Hell is most likely delusional. I'm sorry, that's just what I believe.

The difference between my belief and a religious person's belief, however, is the evidence for the delusion is squarely on my side--while the evidence for Hell is completely lacking. Still, even though the odds are completely against them that Hell is actually real, they never seem to bat an eye when reminded of it.

Yet the bigger question is, it seems to me, that when a person who is clearly wrought with delusional thinking wants to engage nonbelievers in a dialog, and asks us to take what they are saying seriously--and on top of this demand to respect their beliefs asks us to hear them out--how are we supposed to put faith in anything they have to say when the delusional quality of the belief is overshadowed foremost by the obscenely absurd nature of it?

Opening a dialog up with believers is important, but I still haven't been able to find a way to entertain their unfounded beliefs without finding them both silly and frustrating, especially when both sides are demanding equal respect for their beliefs. I suppose they could very well say the same about atheism, except for the fact, that atheism isn't claiming that imaginary people and places exist, but rather, is making the simple observation that such has never been observed nor confirmed. If you are going to play the "respect card" then, in my estimation, you have to at least back it up. When it comes to the doctrine of Hell, believers are without an excuse (i.e., there is no clear reason why anyone should believe in such a thing), and so I find no reason to necessarily dole out respect for such a belief simply because someone holds it.

If that troubles you, then I'm sorry, that's just what I believe, and for good reason. For the record, my beliefs are quite harmless. They are a threat to no one. They cause no one anxiety or grief. Indeed, if you don't share my beliefs--there are no unforeseen consequences. Surely, you will not be tortured. But I know through personal experience that thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of young children under the yoke of absurd religious beliefs really do grow up with an unhealthy dread for a myriad of imaginary fears. Fears instilled in them by their believing parents and religious community. If only there was a way to console them and say to them:

"Look, your parents and religious leaders are blowing hot air up your ass. Hell isn't real. What do they know? They can't know! And if they did know... if they had a shred of human decency.. then surely they wouldn't use your fear against you and try to blackmail you with it. It's a cruel trick to make you cower before their authority. Sort of makes you wonder about the integrity of your parents and community, doesn't it? Just know, if you ever get fed up with their obscene absurdities, then there is a whole world without these petty and primitive delusions. A world in which you don't need to fear imaginary things. A world where you can grow up and mature beyond the absence of faith. And let me tell you, as someone who has personally made the journey, it is better and more wonderful than anything religion can provide you with. So what do you want to do--spend the rest of your life being miserable and afraid--or do you want to grow up and take control of your own life?"

Maybe having an open dialog is the only way we can get the message out there? Perhaps, atheists will have to suffer the obscene absurdities of religion, and tolerate fundamentally bankrupt beliefs, simply to be able to spread the good news. At least, that's what I'd like to think. We're waging a war of ideas, and simply ignoring the absurd ones won't stop them from remaining absurd. As such, I think it is important to point it out--lest people continue to face irrational fears for no good reason.

The Trolley Problem: A Thought

Watching the train pass below me as I crossed the bridge over the tracks today got me to thinking about the trolley problem.

Basically, the trolley problem is a moral quandary in which the brain has a difficult time determining whether is it permissible to kill one person to save five, or let one live while knowingly allowing five deaths that could have been prevented.

Scenario A, the first part of the problem, the trolley is barreling down the tacks toward five people who are unaware that they will soon be little more than smudges. Luckily, there is a fork in the tracks, and by simply pulling a lever, the trolley will divert onto a second set of tracks as it moves away from the five innocent bystanders. Low and behold, however, before you pull the lever you notice a single moron picking up pennies off the rails (he also happens to be deaf). Unaware that the train is coming his life would be terminated if you pull the lever.

The choice is, do you pull the lever and save five people by sacrificing one? Or do you let all five perish, while the moron picking up pennies gets to become a few cents richer? According to studies, most people say it is permissible to pull the lever.

Scenario B, the second scenario, the difference is that, this time, there is only one track. Instead of a lever, you are standing on a bridge. There is one other person on the bridge with you. Meanwhile, once again, on the tracks down below are five bystanders oblivious to the harm headed their way. The question scenario B posits is, if pushing the person next to you onto the tracks would sufficiently stop the trolley and save the five people down below, is it permissible to do so?

Interestingly enough, most people say that it is impermissible to push the person over the edge in an act of intentional harm.

But what has changed? In scenario A you deliberately pulled a lever which you understood would divert the trolley onto another set of tracks and kill a single person. Scenario B posits the exact same difference, except you are personally pushing the person onto the tracks from the bridge and causing harm. Yet for some reason, in one scenario your brain thinks taking the life is permissible, and in the other scenario your brain thinks it is impermissible. Obviously the brain is experiencing conflicting moral messages--and is at an impasse. Our moral sense is confounded.

What is interesting about the trolley problem is that it shows that even simple moral precepts, like don't kill, or don't take a life, are far more complicated than they initially appear.

Now there have been various solutions applied to the trolley problem. For example, the principle of double effect has been applied so show how scenario A is inductive of not allowing harm, although their maybe some unavoidable collateral damage, whereas scenario B is a direct act of causing harm, which directly contributes to the survival of five others. The principle of double effect claims that it is morally impermissible to act out in a harmful manner. Whereas scenario A is the act of pulling the switch, scenario B is the act of deliberately harming someone. In other words, the distinction the principle of double effect seeks to highlight is that an act of allowing harm is not the same as an act of causing a harm.

However, many philosophers have pointed out that--morally speaking--nothing has changed accept for what we define as "morally permissible." The moral problem still persists. After all, not preventing a violent rape isn't the same as actually raping somebody, but you would have to be a cold hearted bastard not to prevent a rape which could save another person's life.

The thought that occurred to me while peering down over the railing at the tracks this morning was this. Let us take away the moral implications from the trolley problem, and see what happens.

Pretend, for a moment, that you are a sociopath. Unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, in normal social situations which require moral intuition, all you have to rely on to get by in society is your statistical information and logic. Logic dictates that you sacrifice the one for the many every time. Not because of any moral obligation, but because it makes more statistical sense. As a sociopath, we could very well let the five die without bringing harm to the one, but a logical sociopath wouldn't simply allow five people to die, because that doesn't make any statistical sense to a person relying on logic (remember--to better grasp the moral dilemma here we have omitted moral obligations--for the time being).

This brings out an obvious objection to answers like the principle of double effect, because if you run the trolley problem again, and again, and again, repeatedly, then, the funny thing is, the sociopath--who cannot distinguish between right and wrong--will always end up saving MORE people than the moral person who abides by the moral obligation not to willfully enact harm or do evil.

The reason I find this interesting, is because the morally indifferent person can potentially save millions, while having only killed a few, thus realizing a greater moral good. Whereas the morally righteous person will be faced with the realization that they have allowed for millions upon millions of deaths because of their refusal to sacrifice one for the many. An act which no greater moral good can be found.

The question becomes, then, for the morally righteous person is this: what exact number of innocent deaths must we allow for, i.e. require, before it becomes morally permissible to push just one person onto the tracks? 1, 2, 3 deaths? 50? 1,000? 10,000?

Now be careful. I'm not asking anyone to put a value on a life. All life is precious--of inestimable value and worth. What we have to consider though--is how can we say the innumerably precious things, such as a life, all of them immeasurably valuable, have more or less value than the next? That's the moral dilemma we face here--because the question we are forced to contend with asks us to define and designate the parameters of what we deem as morally permissible when it comes to weighing the value of one priceless item with the value of many priceless items. But since they are all of them priceless, there is no correct way to go about determining their value. It is like trying to argue where infinity begins and ends. It's a rather futile task. This is the confusion the brain is having in trying to figure out which scenario is better with regard to the trolley problem when, in point of fact, they are statistically the same.

It seems to me that the implication here is the statistical data of which dictates the proper action seemingly outweighs the moral intuition. Whether this is good or bad, I cannot pretend to know the answer to. Perhaps, we should use statistical computations to help model morality with prospective logic to aid us in moral decision making. I don't know. I just thought by positing a logical sociopath, instead of a morally righteous bystander, the test shows that righteous morality may in fact pose a greater threat to society than sociopathy. A strange moral realization if there ever was one.

The Rebuttalist

Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll is fast becoming one of my personal heroes with regard to style and whit. I now must classify him in the same league of extraordinary gentlemen as Mark Twain, Bertrand Russell, and Kurt Vonnegut when it comes to witty rebuttals and savvy critical commentary of religion.

In 1878, the revivalist, old Mrs. Van Cott accused Colonel Ingersol of being "a poor barking dog."

When asked if he knew her personally, Colonel Ingersol replied, "I have never met or seen her."

The Colonel's interviewer asked him, "Do you know the reason she applied the epithet?"

Ingersoll's reply was thus:

"I suppose it to be the natural result of what is called vital piety; that is to say, universal love breeds individual hatred."

The Express, a New York newspaper published out of Buffalo, asked Ingersoll whether he wished to respond to old Mrs. Van Cott's crude accusations. Of course, he had already taken the liberty of doing so in the form of a personal letter, and he allowed The Express a copy to republish with his persmission.

His reply is one of the wittiest, and genuinely charming, rebuttals I have ever read with regard to addressing a dogmatically entrenched theist who believes simply because you disagree with them you are in league with the devil and amount to nothing more than a poor barking dog, in their righteous estimation. I republish the rebuttal in full for your enjoyment. I think you'll fin it short, sweet, and to the point.

Buffalo, Feb. 24th, 1878. Mrs. Van Cott:

My dear Madam--Where you constrained by the love of Christ to call a man who has never injured you "a poor barking dog?" Did you make this remark as a Christian, or as a lady? Did you say these words to illustrate in some faint degree the refining influence upon women of the religion you preach?

What would you think of me if I should retort, using your language, changing only the sex of the last word?

I have the honor to remain,

Your's truly,

R.G. Ingersoll

Touché Mrs. Van Cott.

[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the "follow" tab next to the "Blogger" icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says "join this site." Thanks!]

John W. Loftus is Reasonable

John W. Loftus, the atheist blogger of the popular anti-theist blog Debunking Christianity, offers an apology to those atheists he had banned from his site and he has now allowed us access to comment again.

As such, I took down my criticisms of John, because they hinged on the argument that he owed us an apology for censoring and seeking to disenfranchise us, and well, he did the reasonable thing and apologized. So my criticisms became invalid.

Instead of leaving the criticisms up for others to use as fodder to defame a fellow atheist of mine, I decided to be gracious, or at least as reasonable as John has been, and took them down. Bygones.


[If you enjoy this blog, please be sure to subscribe either by clicking the "follow" tab next to the "Blogger" icon at the top of the page, or become a member and join this sight with Google friend Connect by clicking on the side bar under the authors picture where it says "join this site." Thanks!]