Former evangelical leader Ted Haggard broke his silence on a sex scandal that ended his career during a sermon at a small church in Illinois. Haggard said that his sins stemmed from sexual abuse he received in the second grade. Haggard was one of the most powerful evangelical leaders in the country when accusations of gay sex and drug use caused him to step down.
November 12, 2008
October 12, 2008
post-traumatic homo disorder
Correlating homosexuality and childhood abuse or rape furthers antigay rhetoric popularized by conservative and Christian think-tanks. Consider the societal impact of such sentiment. Let me preface these by stating that I understand that you may not subscribe to the following viewpoints; they are nonetheless common among your circle.
To assume that homosexuality results from trauma (such as rape or abuse) contributes to the notion that homosexuality is a classifiable mental disorder. Such condensation toward homosexual lifestyle places yet another obstacle in their pursuit of societal acceptance. Rather than accepting homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexuality, this view emphases the possibility of a “cure” to their handicapped, troubled mental health.
More than emphasizing the need for a cure, this view subjects homosexuals to the limitations that befall other mentally troubled individuals. Someone with post traumatic stress syndrome expressed via homosexuality, cannot, for example, be expected to adequately and/or safely care for an adopted child, lead a boy scout troupe, etc.
The push to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder is ongoing. Since the American Psychiatric Association and other authorities on mental disabilities removed homosexuality from its roster, homophobic institutions have utilized evermore creative schemes to revamp the myth. The attempt to link trauma with homosexuality is a more recent iteration of that effort.
In a more perfect world, one would not perceive relative differences in the normalcy or moral superiority of various sexual orientations. Thus, in a more perfect world, the nature/nurture argument would be irrelevant. Alas, we live far digressed from a perfect world. I have already alluded to this point, but there exists incredible fear in our society that something can “cause” gay.
As President Bush would say (regarding just about anything progressive), “not all the science is in.” Nevertheless, I can not find a single source (other than Christian or “family values” websites) that suggest a correlation between nurture (including trauma and twin studies) and homosexuality. you can undoubtedly fathom the damage that furthering a “such-and-such causes homosexuality” statement does to the civil liberties of homosexuals. When such damaging claims moreover have dubious origin, that is unacceptable.
I am not sure where you heard the myth correlating rape and homosexuality, but I find it sad that you did. I feel this way not just because of the injustices it perpetuates, but because such misinformation spreads so easily, so relentlessly. Regardless of who the messenger was or the information available to them, they have no excuse. As a supposed authority, that person has a moral responsibility to (1) relate information accurately, and (2) understand the societal impact of their message. This duty transcends all titles-- whether they be your peer, teacher, preacher, or parent.
To assume that homosexuality results from trauma (such as rape or abuse) contributes to the notion that homosexuality is a classifiable mental disorder. Such condensation toward homosexual lifestyle places yet another obstacle in their pursuit of societal acceptance. Rather than accepting homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexuality, this view emphases the possibility of a “cure” to their handicapped, troubled mental health.
More than emphasizing the need for a cure, this view subjects homosexuals to the limitations that befall other mentally troubled individuals. Someone with post traumatic stress syndrome expressed via homosexuality, cannot, for example, be expected to adequately and/or safely care for an adopted child, lead a boy scout troupe, etc.
The push to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder is ongoing. Since the American Psychiatric Association and other authorities on mental disabilities removed homosexuality from its roster, homophobic institutions have utilized evermore creative schemes to revamp the myth. The attempt to link trauma with homosexuality is a more recent iteration of that effort.
In a more perfect world, one would not perceive relative differences in the normalcy or moral superiority of various sexual orientations. Thus, in a more perfect world, the nature/nurture argument would be irrelevant. Alas, we live far digressed from a perfect world. I have already alluded to this point, but there exists incredible fear in our society that something can “cause” gay.
As President Bush would say (regarding just about anything progressive), “not all the science is in.” Nevertheless, I can not find a single source (other than Christian or “family values” websites) that suggest a correlation between nurture (including trauma and twin studies) and homosexuality. you can undoubtedly fathom the damage that furthering a “such-and-such causes homosexuality” statement does to the civil liberties of homosexuals. When such damaging claims moreover have dubious origin, that is unacceptable.
I am not sure where you heard the myth correlating rape and homosexuality, but I find it sad that you did. I feel this way not just because of the injustices it perpetuates, but because such misinformation spreads so easily, so relentlessly. Regardless of who the messenger was or the information available to them, they have no excuse. As a supposed authority, that person has a moral responsibility to (1) relate information accurately, and (2) understand the societal impact of their message. This duty transcends all titles-- whether they be your peer, teacher, preacher, or parent.
September 28, 2008
is god necessary for ethics?
A debate at the University of Utah on April 13, 2007, between Mark Hausam and David Keller that asks "Is God necessary for ethics?"
YES: Mark Hausam is an adjunct instructor in philosophy at Salt Lake Community College and an elder at Christ Presbyterian Church. He has an interest in formulating and articulating the evidence for the existence of God and the truth of the Christian religion and exploring how the Christian world-view impacts all of life.
NO: David R. Keller is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Utah Valley State College, where he also serves as Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics and Chair. He is particularly interested in the relationship of religion and public policy in pluralistic societies.
Moderator: Dean Chatterjee teaches philosophy at the University of Utah and is the editor-in-chief of the forthcoming multi-volume Encyclopedia of Global Justice and the series editor of Studies in Global Justice. His publications include, most recently, Democracy in a Global World: Human Rights and Political Participation in the 21st Century (2007).
YES: Mark Hausam is an adjunct instructor in philosophy at Salt Lake Community College and an elder at Christ Presbyterian Church. He has an interest in formulating and articulating the evidence for the existence of God and the truth of the Christian religion and exploring how the Christian world-view impacts all of life.
NO: David R. Keller is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Utah Valley State College, where he also serves as Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics and Chair. He is particularly interested in the relationship of religion and public policy in pluralistic societies.
Moderator: Dean Chatterjee teaches philosophy at the University of Utah and is the editor-in-chief of the forthcoming multi-volume Encyclopedia of Global Justice and the series editor of Studies in Global Justice. His publications include, most recently, Democracy in a Global World: Human Rights and Political Participation in the 21st Century (2007).
September 11, 2008
continuing on moral relativism
To call the Judeo-Christian code of ethics Christianity’s white elephant does not duly articulate its uselessness. Its veneration throughout the Western World, both remarkable and tragic, persists unchecked and without reason. The code employs zero constituents, not for its impossible standards or the flaws of humankind, but for its irrelevance to routine moral dilemma. Let me explain.
Judeo-Christian ethics lives in a box wherein dilemma unfold simply and out of context. You’re in a box, knife in your hand, facing a nameless other. Do you kill or not kill? You don’t kill-- wonderful. You’re in a box, a nameless other asks your name. Do you lie or not lie? You don’t lie-- two for two; this is great. Now consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other. He insists, “Pick a number, one or two.” You pick two. “I’ll slit my throat if you chose two. What did you choose?” You no doubt lie, answering “one” to save his life. Let me make myself clear: you conclude that the relative appropriateness of lying hinges on the details governing the situation. Once again, consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll kill the child at mine.” You say “no” and his child suffers the slow anguish of maniacal exuberance. And once more. You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll dice the 1 million children at mine, and the one at yours.”
It was horrid, but you killed a child that day and saved a million more. In case you’re scheming, let me establish an additional constraint. As the dead child lay at your side, the nameless man says, “You repent your sin, in your prayers or in your heart, and I will shred these kids apart.” You comply; you live; and later you die. Are you burning for all eternity in the depths of Hell? No. Just as before, you recognize that the relative appropriateness of murder hinges on the details governing the situation. Likewise, you expect that God, with His infinite mercy and benevolence, shares your sentiment.
Granted, the box scenario’s a sham, but it highlights an important and inescapable limitation of Judeo-Christian ethics: such ethics only apply to simple, one-dimensional scenarios, free of controversy and free of moral doubt. When faced with a defining moment-- that is, a scenario whose varied solutions each require a wrong and each prevent a right-- Judeo-Christian ethics provide no guidance. The reason you assume your salvation following the last example is because you assume God acts pragmatically, that for the case presented He empathizes with your decision to murder or at least recognizes your intention to glorify Him. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral relativism.
Next, reconsider the final moral dilemma. All else constant, this time the nameless man threatens fewer than 1 million children. Perhaps he garners 5000 children, or 42 children, or 3 children, or whatever number of children between 1 and 1 million for sacrifice. How many children must the nameless man assemble to justify your murdering just the one? I expect there exists a range of numbers of children in which you become ethically torn. And your range might differ drastically from others’. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral ambiguity. Even if you redirect your moral quandary to God, you must recognize that in order to provide guidance, God must act pragmatically (that is, in a morally relativistic manner).
While the previous examples were concocted for the sake of argument, I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter conform to this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong Judeo-Christian ethics do not suffice. Moral relativism or ambiguity arises not from evil, corruptness, or a discomfort in “claiming that someone else is wrong,” but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. Examine the decisions of your life ranging from the most challenging to the most mundane. You’ll find that some degree of pragmatism (that is, moral relativism) was evoked; it is necessary for survival.
Judeo-Christian ethics lives in a box wherein dilemma unfold simply and out of context. You’re in a box, knife in your hand, facing a nameless other. Do you kill or not kill? You don’t kill-- wonderful. You’re in a box, a nameless other asks your name. Do you lie or not lie? You don’t lie-- two for two; this is great. Now consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other. He insists, “Pick a number, one or two.” You pick two. “I’ll slit my throat if you chose two. What did you choose?” You no doubt lie, answering “one” to save his life. Let me make myself clear: you conclude that the relative appropriateness of lying hinges on the details governing the situation. Once again, consider a more demanding example.
You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll kill the child at mine.” You say “no” and his child suffers the slow anguish of maniacal exuberance. And once more. You’re in a box, knife in the hand of a nameless other and in yours. He insists, “Kill that child at your side or I’ll dice the 1 million children at mine, and the one at yours.”
It was horrid, but you killed a child that day and saved a million more. In case you’re scheming, let me establish an additional constraint. As the dead child lay at your side, the nameless man says, “You repent your sin, in your prayers or in your heart, and I will shred these kids apart.” You comply; you live; and later you die. Are you burning for all eternity in the depths of Hell? No. Just as before, you recognize that the relative appropriateness of murder hinges on the details governing the situation. Likewise, you expect that God, with His infinite mercy and benevolence, shares your sentiment.
Granted, the box scenario’s a sham, but it highlights an important and inescapable limitation of Judeo-Christian ethics: such ethics only apply to simple, one-dimensional scenarios, free of controversy and free of moral doubt. When faced with a defining moment-- that is, a scenario whose varied solutions each require a wrong and each prevent a right-- Judeo-Christian ethics provide no guidance. The reason you assume your salvation following the last example is because you assume God acts pragmatically, that for the case presented He empathizes with your decision to murder or at least recognizes your intention to glorify Him. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral relativism.
Next, reconsider the final moral dilemma. All else constant, this time the nameless man threatens fewer than 1 million children. Perhaps he garners 5000 children, or 42 children, or 3 children, or whatever number of children between 1 and 1 million for sacrifice. How many children must the nameless man assemble to justify your murdering just the one? I expect there exists a range of numbers of children in which you become ethically torn. And your range might differ drastically from others’. This, of course, is the definition and application of moral ambiguity. Even if you redirect your moral quandary to God, you must recognize that in order to provide guidance, God must act pragmatically (that is, in a morally relativistic manner).
While the previous examples were concocted for the sake of argument, I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter conform to this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong Judeo-Christian ethics do not suffice. Moral relativism or ambiguity arises not from evil, corruptness, or a discomfort in “claiming that someone else is wrong,” but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. Examine the decisions of your life ranging from the most challenging to the most mundane. You’ll find that some degree of pragmatism (that is, moral relativism) was evoked; it is necessary for survival.
September 9, 2008
historical credibility of the bible
Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus. [He] is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the early Church and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time and has appeared on NBC'sDateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, North Carolina.
lewis' proof of a greater meaning
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." [Mere Christianity]
This quote exemplifies a critical thinking fallacy commonly expressed by C.S. Lewis: the use of a questionable analogy. True, the absence of phenomenon (lightness, East, sadness, ownership, etc.) should render such phenomenon “without meaning,” for there would exist no reference to them. So does our inclination to ponder the meaning and purpose of life require that a meaning and purpose to life exist, thereby confirming Lewis’ analogy?
No. Lewis failed to recognize that the human story is laden with declarations of meaning and purpose, most pertaining to survival and maintaining some way of life. While often trivial, especially relative to some grandeur purpose and meaning, these small-scale declarations offer humanity the perspective to ask the deeper questions without requiring any answer at all. Expanding Lewis’ analogy, one should expect a creature accustomed to dim light to, at some point in its history, wonder whether there exists something more bright. Christian literature is fraught with questionable analogies.
lewis sets the mood for doubt
"Now Faith…is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion."
I am quite fond of this quote by C.S. Lewis. It demonstrates his expertise in manipulating language into seemingly logically consistent streams that further his agenda. Notice that he chooses to credit one’s “mood” as the sole source of one’s doubt. It’s an obvious choice; moods are flippant, irrational, and inconstant. To tame one’s variable mood, he calls upon “reason.” Again, it’s an obvious choice; reasons are objective, thorough, and consistent. Of course, Lewis did more than choose his words wisely: he redefined the mechanics of the doubting person. Consider the first sentence of his quote reworded in an arguably more honest form: “faith is the art of holding onto beliefs in spite of reason.” And as you might guess, I completely agree with this latter statement.
You might accuse that I have committed the same fallacy as Lewis; namely, that I have simply manipulated language into seemingly consistent streams in order to further my agenda. I accept the burden of arguing otherwise.
C.S Lewis wrote Mere Christianity more than 50 years ago-- predating the mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang Theory, evolution, and other scientific jabs at religious institutions. Perhaps back in 1952 (at least more than today) one could “reason” the existence of God. But these days, in an era where science pulls the curtain on even the most complex, beautiful, and curious phenomenon, it is impossible to find a “proof” of God in the natural word. Therefore, rather than defining faith as sticking to one’s “reasons” as C.S. Lewis asserts, I define faith as sticking to one’s “beliefs.” Fair enough?
Now consider the roots of doubt. Doubt-- in Christianity or any other belief— surfaces for a variety of reasons. Possibly the least common of which is a simple mood swing. Doubt more often arises because one has difficulty reconciling the claims of Christianity with some conflicting, but seemingly irrefutable, piece of evidence. Lewis suggested that we close our minds to such evidence for the sake of soundness. Although perhaps not his intention, Lewis is encouraging a most asinine and dangerous approach to belief: blind observance. I feel that recasting and legitimizing the antagonist in Lewis’ story as honest and pensive “reason” rather than “changing moods” better reflects one’s struggle with faith.
September 7, 2008
lewis' metaphysical quandaries
Barry Wallace writes:
[C.S. Lewis] was a careful thinker, and a former atheist, which means he wrestled with a multitude of metaphysical quandaries both as an unbeliever and as a believer. In neither case were all doubts erased from his mind.
Here are a couple of other excerpts from his writings that shed some additional light, I think, both on his reasoning and on your reflections.
[C.S. Lewis] was a careful thinker, and a former atheist, which means he wrestled with a multitude of metaphysical quandaries both as an unbeliever and as a believer. In neither case were all doubts erased from his mind.
Here are a couple of other excerpts from his writings that shed some additional light, I think, both on his reasoning and on your reflections.
"Now Faith…is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion." [Mere Christianity]
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”
“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound-a proof that there are no such things as proofs-which is nonsense. Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: `If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’” [Possible Worlds] But Naturalism, even if it is not purely materialistic, seems to me to involve the same difficulty, though in a somewhat less obvious form. It discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself.'” [Miracles: A Preliminary Study]
your rationalization reveals your soul
You’ve seen this clown-- the half evangelical, half circus act that plants himself around universities, city centers, or wherever else the scent of sin settles into a thick dew and secularism endures almost as well as was intended by our Founding Fathers. He squats a local grassy mound, hill, stage, knoll, or whatever other vantage allows him to yell and yell and be heard all the while manically waving his Bible like a wand that just might, with the grace of God, render these troubled iPod adorned souls spellbound. Let’s call our esteemed patron of the Lord Fred, the graced, the pious, the blessed, the sacred warrior.
Few listen to Fred, and probably zero sequentially credit his sermon for the sudden overpowering presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. And I think I understand why. Fred does not preach subtly. This might be our fault: it’s rather hard to grab the attention of godless fiends without a little hint of extremism, maybe a dash of racism, pinch of disguised hate. Try to imagine Fred posted on his sad little hill talking nonsense like “forgive trespasses” or “turn the other cheek.” What a joke.
But, in spite of this, I don't think it is our fault. I think Fred-- Fred the devout, the righteous, the faithful-- passionately and unconditionally loves the Lord with all his being. Fred prepares to speak at that day’s chosen grassy, crowded place and feels the Lord lift him. “Give me courage, Lord; give me strength; give me the words.” Fred speaks. Harshly but honestly.
Let me pause here. For now, I am not very interested in Fred’s story-- not his intentions, or his background, or his particular flavor of Christianity. I am more interested in the Christian that heard his sermon on the street. “He gives Christians a bad name!” they'll say. “He’s not a true Christian!”
Fred-- our esteemed Christian zealot-- is not a true Christian? Now, wait a minute. I understand that Fred might have some ingrained extremist, racist, and apocalyptic thoughts, but he read the Bible just as you. Page by page, Fred formed the Christian foundation that now defines his life and drives his heart. Go ahead and try preaching to Fred. Try to shake up Fred’s roots with some Scripture that seemingly contradicts his actions and he will just as quickly bellow a rationalization or additional Scripture that counters your point. This happens so frequently within Christian circles. If you’re Christian, I urge you to read the Scripture that motivates the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to commit their horrid actions in the name of the Lord.
As you read their proof (supported by Scripture) that God does not love everyone, you’ll be inclined to say “No, they’re interpreting the Scripture incorrectly.” But not so fast. Read those lines again. Do they loosely support the claims of the WBC? Yes. Other than simply recalling your understanding of the Bible and Christianity, can you explain why one interpretation (yours) should supersede theirs? No. The problem here is that the Bible is infinitely interpretable. One can manipulate its words to reflect whatever backward and narrow-minded or uplifting and inclusive message they wish. Thankfully, overall, mainstream Christianity preaches a message of hope and benevolence. But one cannot claim that the interpretations of the WBC are not at least as solid as mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of when life begins or whether homosexual marriage should be prohibited by law.
So the next time you see Fred, don’t get angry at him and call his sermon blasphemous. Rather, consider Fred a gift-- a symbol of the malleability of the Bible. Let Fred remind you that you needn’t pursue petty intolerances just because someone’s slanted interpretation of the Bible asks otherwise.
Few listen to Fred, and probably zero sequentially credit his sermon for the sudden overpowering presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. And I think I understand why. Fred does not preach subtly. This might be our fault: it’s rather hard to grab the attention of godless fiends without a little hint of extremism, maybe a dash of racism, pinch of disguised hate. Try to imagine Fred posted on his sad little hill talking nonsense like “forgive trespasses” or “turn the other cheek.” What a joke.
But, in spite of this, I don't think it is our fault. I think Fred-- Fred the devout, the righteous, the faithful-- passionately and unconditionally loves the Lord with all his being. Fred prepares to speak at that day’s chosen grassy, crowded place and feels the Lord lift him. “Give me courage, Lord; give me strength; give me the words.” Fred speaks. Harshly but honestly.
Let me pause here. For now, I am not very interested in Fred’s story-- not his intentions, or his background, or his particular flavor of Christianity. I am more interested in the Christian that heard his sermon on the street. “He gives Christians a bad name!” they'll say. “He’s not a true Christian!”
Fred-- our esteemed Christian zealot-- is not a true Christian? Now, wait a minute. I understand that Fred might have some ingrained extremist, racist, and apocalyptic thoughts, but he read the Bible just as you. Page by page, Fred formed the Christian foundation that now defines his life and drives his heart. Go ahead and try preaching to Fred. Try to shake up Fred’s roots with some Scripture that seemingly contradicts his actions and he will just as quickly bellow a rationalization or additional Scripture that counters your point. This happens so frequently within Christian circles. If you’re Christian, I urge you to read the Scripture that motivates the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to commit their horrid actions in the name of the Lord.
As you read their proof (supported by Scripture) that God does not love everyone, you’ll be inclined to say “No, they’re interpreting the Scripture incorrectly.” But not so fast. Read those lines again. Do they loosely support the claims of the WBC? Yes. Other than simply recalling your understanding of the Bible and Christianity, can you explain why one interpretation (yours) should supersede theirs? No. The problem here is that the Bible is infinitely interpretable. One can manipulate its words to reflect whatever backward and narrow-minded or uplifting and inclusive message they wish. Thankfully, overall, mainstream Christianity preaches a message of hope and benevolence. But one cannot claim that the interpretations of the WBC are not at least as solid as mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of when life begins or whether homosexual marriage should be prohibited by law.
So the next time you see Fred, don’t get angry at him and call his sermon blasphemous. Rather, consider Fred a gift-- a symbol of the malleability of the Bible. Let Fred remind you that you needn’t pursue petty intolerances just because someone’s slanted interpretation of the Bible asks otherwise.
September 4, 2008
how do atheists explain jesus?
What do I do with the figure of Jesus? Jesus professed great common sense—blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacekeepers, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, forgive trespasses, don't pray in public, judge not lest you be judged, do unto others as you want to be done by. Of course, most of that message predates Jesus by thousands of years and most modern Christians refuse it anyway-- not that Christianity should be blamed for its misuse.
I don't think that Jesus performed the miracles that Christianity claims. A common but remarkably uncreative "proof" of the divinity of Jesus unfolds as follows: Jesus called himself the Son of God and claimed to perform miracles. This allows three possibilities: 1) he lied, 2) he was a psychopath, or 3) he was telling the truth. I don't consider any of these answers appropriate. I think his divine nature was prescribed onto him by oral traditionalists in the century following his death. Otherwise, he was either a liar or a psychopath-- but still a good guy that preached some great common sense!
I don't think that Jesus performed the miracles that Christianity claims. A common but remarkably uncreative "proof" of the divinity of Jesus unfolds as follows: Jesus called himself the Son of God and claimed to perform miracles. This allows three possibilities: 1) he lied, 2) he was a psychopath, or 3) he was telling the truth. I don't consider any of these answers appropriate. I think his divine nature was prescribed onto him by oral traditionalists in the century following his death. Otherwise, he was either a liar or a psychopath-- but still a good guy that preached some great common sense!
the bible is the inspired word of god
I realize that the Bible provides hope to both those suffering on Earth and those perfectly accommodated, but one cannot honestly and purely examine the Bible-- its messages and its history-- and claim its divinity. The Bible's evolution and interpretation over the past twenty-five centuries reflects-- century for century-- the political and social drivers of the day. Did God aid clergymen in judging which gospels to include in the earliest version of the Bible?-- no, it was political. Did God guide the insertion of increasingly misogynistic text in the middle of the previous millennium?-- no, it was political. Did God demand the insertion of Mark 16:9-20 hundreds of years after the original?-- no. Did God intend that the term "homosexual" be added to the Bible for the first time in 1946?-- no, it was political. There are literally thousands of other examples. A common response to such evidence goes something like: "just because humans are fallible doesn't make the religion fallible." I adamantly agree, but to admit that the fallible nature of humankind has impacted the Bible necessarily strips the Bible of its divinity.
What I cannot understand is how one-- knowing that our earliest copy of the Bible dates only to the 3rd or 4th century AD; knowing that the Bible has undergone explicit, in-your-face alterations; knowing that the Gospels date 100 or more years after the supposed death of Jesus; knowing that the Bible's vagueness offers any person license to advance their own petty, narrow-minded beliefs; knowing countless other damning evidences-- can claim faith in its messages. I blame circular logic; remember that the only source that claims that the Bible is the word of God is the Bible itself. I often wonder, "In what do you have faith-- God or the Bible?" I do feel that each answer is mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, most Christians' understanding of God-- including how He perceives us-- follow directly from the teachings of the Bible. I imagine it incredibly difficult to divorce the two.
What I cannot understand is how one-- knowing that our earliest copy of the Bible dates only to the 3rd or 4th century AD; knowing that the Bible has undergone explicit, in-your-face alterations; knowing that the Gospels date 100 or more years after the supposed death of Jesus; knowing that the Bible's vagueness offers any person license to advance their own petty, narrow-minded beliefs; knowing countless other damning evidences-- can claim faith in its messages. I blame circular logic; remember that the only source that claims that the Bible is the word of God is the Bible itself. I often wonder, "In what do you have faith-- God or the Bible?" I do feel that each answer is mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, most Christians' understanding of God-- including how He perceives us-- follow directly from the teachings of the Bible. I imagine it incredibly difficult to divorce the two.
how do atheists cope with death?
You ask what I, as an atheist, think happens when I die. Well, I suppose I rot. But seriously, can I imagine a universe absent of my own consciousness?-- no. Do I believe my consciousness blinks out at death?-- I don't know. This is as honest an answer as I, or anyone else, can provide.
atheism leads to moral relativism
You consider Christian morals superior to those derived from an atheistic perspective. You cite the consistency of Christian ethics, as well as its focus on human dignity and stewardship, as evidence for your position. You further demonstrate the inadequacy of atheistic ethics through its equal treatment of "all substances"-- so, whether rock, insect, or human, atheists (at least after careful logical consideration) must value each equally. To be precise, this latter claim is not accurate: numerous spiritual traditions throughout history have emphasized the equality of "all substances." Consider, for example, some Native American societies. It is interesting to note that these societies, perhaps more effectively than most Christians or even atheists, rationalized apparent inconsistencies in their behavior (e.g. how they might justify killing a buffalo for food) rather cleverly.
Moving back on topic, simple right/wrong Christian ethics prove fabulously incomplete. It works well only for elementary, one-dimensional scenario-- to lie or not lie, to kill or not kill. Increasingly complex situations require a pragmatic (or morally relativistic) approach. Again consider lying and killing. Each is abominable, but a pragmatic approach allows one to, for example, lie to a murderer to save the life of another. Obviously, the appropriateness of lying is conditional.
Consider a more demanding example: would you allow one person to die in order to save two? Most people might answer "No!" But would you allow one person to die in order to save 1 million? Most people might answer "Yes!" Notice that a curious condition arises. Two persons and 1 million persons represent extremes-- a very small number of people and a very large number of people. But what if the numbers weren't so extreme? Logically, there must exist a number between 2 and 1 million where a person becomes ethically torn. Herein lies moral ambiguity. I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter on a daily basis are of this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong ethics do not suffice. Moral ambiguity arises not from evil or corruptness, but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. I further argue that regardless of your preferred moral identity, all humans operate pragmatically; it is necessary for survival.
Moving back on topic, simple right/wrong Christian ethics prove fabulously incomplete. It works well only for elementary, one-dimensional scenario-- to lie or not lie, to kill or not kill. Increasingly complex situations require a pragmatic (or morally relativistic) approach. Again consider lying and killing. Each is abominable, but a pragmatic approach allows one to, for example, lie to a murderer to save the life of another. Obviously, the appropriateness of lying is conditional.
Consider a more demanding example: would you allow one person to die in order to save two? Most people might answer "No!" But would you allow one person to die in order to save 1 million? Most people might answer "Yes!" Notice that a curious condition arises. Two persons and 1 million persons represent extremes-- a very small number of people and a very large number of people. But what if the numbers weren't so extreme? Logically, there must exist a number between 2 and 1 million where a person becomes ethically torn. Herein lies moral ambiguity. I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter on a daily basis are of this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong ethics do not suffice. Moral ambiguity arises not from evil or corruptness, but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. I further argue that regardless of your preferred moral identity, all humans operate pragmatically; it is necessary for survival.
faith offers my life meaning
To summarize your point, you're a Christian because you seek meaning. And, as you rationalize it, meaning offers the only logical barrier to suicide. You expand this point to address those atheists who haven't yet realized that suicide is their only logical next step, and conclude that their accomplishments cannot logically derive self-gratification because, in the end, there's no point to their pursuits. Honestly, this assessment is both juvenile in its depth and personally insulting. It reiterates a lame, narrow minded, and partisan dogma that permeates throughout the Christian world. Allow me to demonstrate its lack of rational merit: you claim self-meaning because, by definition, God offers your life meaning. You will live, you will die, and will henceforth spend eternity glorifying God. You find joy in this eternity because, by definition, you derive all- encompassing and everlasting joy in the presence of God. Trudging beyond the demonstrably cyclic nature of these statements, one is left with the following question: how does one justify meaning in the eternal glorification of God? At best, a God offers one additional degree of separation from the inevitable question: "What's the meaning of all this?"
As an atheist, I derive meaning from the same sources as the Christian (in an actionable sense). I recognize the merit in caring for one's family; in caring for one's children; in striving for the betterment of society and self; in intellectual pursuit. These offer my life meaning, and they offer your life meaning as well. And, sure, when asked "what's the point of it all?" you can proudly claim the glorification of God. But when asked to justify the meaning of the glorification of God, you'll need to resort to circular logic. Unfortunately, God offers no solution to our biggest questions-- He merely redirects them. So, you can kill yourself if you want, but I'm going to keep on living.
As an atheist, I derive meaning from the same sources as the Christian (in an actionable sense). I recognize the merit in caring for one's family; in caring for one's children; in striving for the betterment of society and self; in intellectual pursuit. These offer my life meaning, and they offer your life meaning as well. And, sure, when asked "what's the point of it all?" you can proudly claim the glorification of God. But when asked to justify the meaning of the glorification of God, you'll need to resort to circular logic. Unfortunately, God offers no solution to our biggest questions-- He merely redirects them. So, you can kill yourself if you want, but I'm going to keep on living.
eventually, science will point to god
This idea-- that science will eventually point to God-- perfectly demonstrates a misunderstanding of the function of science. Science relies on the scientific method. In this scheme, one observes his or her environment. Based on such observation, one generates a hypothesis, which incorporates the behavior exhibited by the observed phenomenon. At any time a new observation does not align with the hypothesis, or a prediction suggested by the hypothesis does not prove reliable (including "God of the gap" patches), the hypothesis is updated or discarded. This method, developed to its modern standard during the Scientific Revolution in the 1600s, is the sole reason why we enjoy countless technological luxuries today and, more importantly, why we can begin to fathom and understand the awesomeness of our Universe. It is self-correcting, neutral, and never requires faith.
Again, I understand that you are not anti-science or anti-technology. But my point is this: the scientific method defines the pursuit of modern science. The antithesis of this approach is to make conclusions first and then seek out observations that suggest its validity. Such methods, thrown out by science, explain how pseudo-scientists can "scientifically" conclude that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that intelligent design offers a superior description of our evolutionary history, or that the Earth is the center of the Universe (yes, this theory was pushed by religion / politics, not science). It also explains why radical groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church can cite the Bible as the justification for their actions-- they hold troubling views and have at their disposable 30,000 verses to use (at their discretion) as evidence.
When conclusions or assumptions prelude science, it enables one's personal passions, beliefs, hopes, and politics to inspire the science. This is not science-- it is a tool used to further the agenda of the vested individual or group.
Again, I understand that you are not anti-science or anti-technology. But my point is this: the scientific method defines the pursuit of modern science. The antithesis of this approach is to make conclusions first and then seek out observations that suggest its validity. Such methods, thrown out by science, explain how pseudo-scientists can "scientifically" conclude that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that intelligent design offers a superior description of our evolutionary history, or that the Earth is the center of the Universe (yes, this theory was pushed by religion / politics, not science). It also explains why radical groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church can cite the Bible as the justification for their actions-- they hold troubling views and have at their disposable 30,000 verses to use (at their discretion) as evidence.
When conclusions or assumptions prelude science, it enables one's personal passions, beliefs, hopes, and politics to inspire the science. This is not science-- it is a tool used to further the agenda of the vested individual or group.
consider reading francis collins
You suggested I read Francis Collins, probably because Collins manages to reconcile his professional (scientific) and spiritual influences. But one can hardly credit Collins for writing a scientific book that leads to God. Collins' thesis centers on what he perceives as a misplacement of faith: according to Collins, many Christians place their faith in God in those fields where the science remains inadequate or incomplete— the Christian God becomes a so called "God of the gaps." Unfortunately, as Collins notes, this leaves such Christians vulnerable to advances in science. For example, as progresses in microbiology better define the evolutionary processes that lead to the creation, diversity, and complexity of species, arguments such as "irreducible complexity" no longer carry weight. This is troubling to a Christian if he or she bases his or her faith in God on the validity of Intelligent Design (which Collins speaks against). Therefore, Collins urges one to place his or her faith "outside the jurisdiction" of science.
So where does Collins place his faith? Collins finds refuge in the altruistic nature of humankind—that because anthropologists and sociologists cannot determine the evolutionary usefulness of altruism, this (according to Collins) is where God reveals Himself. I was incredibly disappointed with his conclusion. Collins delivers a scathing and creditable criticism of the "God of the gaps" mentality only to conclude that he places his faith in a tendency of human character that scientists have yet to fully understand. Unfortunately for Collins, scientists have presented several theories to explain the altruistic nature of humans (and other animals). What will Collins do now?
So where does Collins place his faith? Collins finds refuge in the altruistic nature of humankind—that because anthropologists and sociologists cannot determine the evolutionary usefulness of altruism, this (according to Collins) is where God reveals Himself. I was incredibly disappointed with his conclusion. Collins delivers a scathing and creditable criticism of the "God of the gaps" mentality only to conclude that he places his faith in a tendency of human character that scientists have yet to fully understand. Unfortunately for Collins, scientists have presented several theories to explain the altruistic nature of humans (and other animals). What will Collins do now?
the so-called evangelical atheist
Joshua Moran writes:
I've put a lot of thought over the past year or two into men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, whom I would consider evangelical atheists. Their books The God Delusion and Letter To A Christian Nation are two of the "best" attacks against Christianity today. Last time I checked both authors were in the top 100 best sellers, I think with Dawkins staying in or around the top ten (I think Harris was 33rd). I'm not writing this to give out a critique to all of their thought, I've thought and come up with my own critiques in the past and can honestly say that their thoughts neither frighten me nor hinder my faith. However, their thought has harmed many Christians over the past few years and the since the Enlightening Christians have had a hard time dealing with the ideas of faith and reason. I'm going to offer two thoughts in this note, one on Dawkins and Harris and one, albeit loosely, on the idea of faith and reason. Here it goes.
"1. I can't take full credit for this idea. It's one that [another Christian] and I talked through last year at the gym. It's not worth getting mad at Dawkins and Harris. We shouldn't scathe every time we think of them nor every time someone brings them up. We shouldn't blame them for the doubt that has come up in our own lives or in those around us. Rather we should PRAY for them. My last note was on grace and how it comes free and should cost us all something. Grace is there for Dawkins and Harris. We should pray for them. Pray that they would receive power from on High. And not one of those stereotypical holier than thou prayers but a prayer of sincerity because we value their souls, we value their eternal beings. Also, we should think back to the church in Acts being prosecuted by one of the best evangelical "atheists" ever, Saul of Tarsus. Think about the impact Paul has made since his conversion, there's no reason to think that Dawkins and Harris can't do the same thing. Prayer works. do it.
2. Last night as I lay in my bed, I was thinking about men like Dawkins and Harris and anyone else that I've come into contact with that has been closed off to the gospel, or to take it a step further, anyone who has been closed off to seeing the power of God today. I wonder why is that, why are people closed off to God. I think the answer is a lack of imagination. Honestly. I think that we've begun rely only on results, creativity gets you no points. Kids in America today are involved in eight different activities at the same time, so they can boost their college resumes, so they can get into a good grad school, so they can start in six figures. They base everything on results, results, results. There's no time for daydreaming, no time for pondering, no time for imagination. I think this keeps people from God. I see it in college students, students who only want to rely on what they've seen, what they've felt, and think that's all there is out there. I'm a culprit of this myself. I often stop myself short of what God has for me because I don't think it's possible, because I have no imagination as to what God can do. All I have is my own experience, all I have is reason. I love reason and the enlightenment movement, but reason without imagination is no good at all. God is the Creator God, the creativity and imagination required to from the world out of a void is astounding, it's silly to think He doesn't want us to be creative also.
I've put a lot of thought over the past year or two into men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, whom I would consider evangelical atheists. Their books The God Delusion and Letter To A Christian Nation are two of the "best" attacks against Christianity today. Last time I checked both authors were in the top 100 best sellers, I think with Dawkins staying in or around the top ten (I think Harris was 33rd). I'm not writing this to give out a critique to all of their thought, I've thought and come up with my own critiques in the past and can honestly say that their thoughts neither frighten me nor hinder my faith. However, their thought has harmed many Christians over the past few years and the since the Enlightening Christians have had a hard time dealing with the ideas of faith and reason. I'm going to offer two thoughts in this note, one on Dawkins and Harris and one, albeit loosely, on the idea of faith and reason. Here it goes.
"1. I can't take full credit for this idea. It's one that [another Christian] and I talked through last year at the gym. It's not worth getting mad at Dawkins and Harris. We shouldn't scathe every time we think of them nor every time someone brings them up. We shouldn't blame them for the doubt that has come up in our own lives or in those around us. Rather we should PRAY for them. My last note was on grace and how it comes free and should cost us all something. Grace is there for Dawkins and Harris. We should pray for them. Pray that they would receive power from on High. And not one of those stereotypical holier than thou prayers but a prayer of sincerity because we value their souls, we value their eternal beings. Also, we should think back to the church in Acts being prosecuted by one of the best evangelical "atheists" ever, Saul of Tarsus. Think about the impact Paul has made since his conversion, there's no reason to think that Dawkins and Harris can't do the same thing. Prayer works. do it.
2. Last night as I lay in my bed, I was thinking about men like Dawkins and Harris and anyone else that I've come into contact with that has been closed off to the gospel, or to take it a step further, anyone who has been closed off to seeing the power of God today. I wonder why is that, why are people closed off to God. I think the answer is a lack of imagination. Honestly. I think that we've begun rely only on results, creativity gets you no points. Kids in America today are involved in eight different activities at the same time, so they can boost their college resumes, so they can get into a good grad school, so they can start in six figures. They base everything on results, results, results. There's no time for daydreaming, no time for pondering, no time for imagination. I think this keeps people from God. I see it in college students, students who only want to rely on what they've seen, what they've felt, and think that's all there is out there. I'm a culprit of this myself. I often stop myself short of what God has for me because I don't think it's possible, because I have no imagination as to what God can do. All I have is my own experience, all I have is reason. I love reason and the enlightenment movement, but reason without imagination is no good at all. God is the Creator God, the creativity and imagination required to from the world out of a void is astounding, it's silly to think He doesn't want us to be creative also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)