The Wonderful World of Secular Ethics

Welcome to

The Wonderful World of Secular Ethics!

     My goal with this series of posts is to outline my moral system and show various philosophical points along the way. I also wish to put my view in text as a way of sorting all of this out for myself, so I may seem to argue with myself...this is intentional. I consider myself, and anyone else who loves wisdom and actively seeks it, a philosopher but I am by no means a good one. I will likely make logical blunders or miss something. Please view my work with a critical eye and let me know when you find anything that isn't right, I welcome criticism as an opportunity to improve myself. I see this as the proper attitude to approach such topics. 

"Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute anyone else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute, for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two..." 

-Socrates (Gorgias dialogue)

A little tangent on the word "Secular"

     As a christian I had a gut reaction to the word "Secular". I associated "Secular" with atheist, worldly, evil, or sinful. I feel it is important to note at the start I am not proposing "Atheist Ethics". When I use the word secular I mean simply that this ethical system does not require religious belief to work. Religious people are welcome to use this system while maintaining belief in souls, heaven, hell, God, or the supernatural. In this context secular simply means "open to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs". 

Philosophy, a brief overview

     Philosophy comes from the Greek root words philo (loving) and sophia (knowledge, wisdom). Philosophy is commonly broken down into several subcategories or branches.

Aesthetics‎ - The philosophy of beauty, art, and taste.

Epistemology - The philosophy of what we know and how we know it.

Ethics‎ - The philosophy of right and wrong action or behavior.

Logic - The philosophy of reasoning and argumentation.

Metaphysics - The philosophy of the ultimate nature of reality.

Political philosophy - The philosophy of society and government.

     The bulk of my posts will deal with the study of Ethics (Hey, it's in the title) but It is impossible to talk about one branch of philosophy without wandering onto another branch from time to time. I will try to narrow my posts as much as possible... it's easy to get off topic here.

How do I... Ethics

     Ethics comes from the greek word ethos meaning "habit". This is because the illustrious Aristotle believed that in order to be moral you must perform right actions out of habit... don't worry I'll go into much more detail on this in the section Moral Theory: Virtue Ethics.

     For the scope of my posts ethics or moral philosophy, the terms are interchangeable, is the study of how we ought to act, what is right, and what the good life is. I've also heard it defined as the criteria by which we sort actions into the categories of the morally acceptable, the morally unacceptable, and the morally obligatory. Either definition will serve us perfectly well for our purposes here.

The field of ethics is broken down further into 3 main categories.

Meta-ethics - The study of the nature of moral theory.

(What is goodness?)

Normative Ethics - The study of moral prescriptions.

(How should we act?)

Applied Ethics - The study of actual moral questions people face in certain situations.

(Is abortion wrong?)

     These 3 categories will likely melt into each other through my posts but it's important to be able to spot the difference when you see it. Asking "is murder wrong?" is very different from asking "Why is murder wrong?". 

Why do ethics?

     There is a deep seated desire in myself to be moral. I wish to live the best life I can while providing that same opportunity to others. I simply care about my own wellbeing, the wellbeing of my friends and loved ones, and the general wellbeing of society. Perhaps this feeling or one like it is genetically innate in humans, the result of our large brains or maybe it is taught.

     I had the benefit of being raised by people who highly valued morality, though they  profoundly disagreed on what exactly that was. My mother is a christian, and though she has relaxed her views in later years they were much more fundamentalist during my childhood. She stressed compassion for others, self sacrifice, courage and strength of convictions. My father is an agnostic with a buddhist bent who always stressed respect, tolerance, peace and love. My step mother, an avowed atheist,  helped shape my later childhood with secular values like democracy, feminism, and critical thinking... though I fought her tooth and nail in the beginning it seems they rubbed off on me after all.

     So why do I do ethics? After losing my faith I also lost my moral theory... It's hard to follow divine command theory when you don't believe in any gods. Before all out apostasy there were cracks in my moral philosophy, I reasoned that homosexuals did not deserve to be shamed for who they love, but instead of reevaluating my whole philosophy I just put a band-aid on it and put it aside in my mind. Now, however, I am forced to either adopt a new moral theory, build my own, or float on without one and lean solely on my moral intuitions. 

     The question "Why do ethics?" should not be confused with the question "Why be good?". "Why be good?" is a question I often get from fundamentalist christians when discussing the fact that people can be good without a god. It often seems to be an issue of insufficient reward/punishment motivation, the phrase "What if I don't care about harming others, going to jail, or getting killed?" seems like a show stopper to some christians but my response of "What if I don't care about going to hell?" seems ridiculous to them. I will talk about moral motivation in greater length later on, it's just not what I mean here.

Thank you for reading. Any comments, questions, or corrections are greatly welcome.
-Adam

The Irrational Atheist Argument

"You are an atheist because you are angry at God or the church." 

This is a common form of rationalization for Christians as to why a sheep has left the fold.

This is a rationalization because its not usually founded on any empirical evidence but is deduced from other already held beliefs.

1. My religion is true.
2. Someone left my religion.
3. They cannot have left the religion for legitimate reasons. This would imply the religion might be flawed. See belief #1.
4. They must have left for illegitimate reasons, ie. Emotional turmoil, faulty reasoning, ignorance of the facts, deception, self delusion, or supernatural interference (demons). 

    This line of reasoning is rarely conscious but flows from the person dogmatically holding belief #1. But just because the reasoning that lead to this conclusion is faulty that does not mean the conclusion itself is wrong. This what's known as the fallacy fallacy.  Just because the reasoning one used is fallacious does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false... It's just means the conclusion is unjustified.

     Recently I have had some people hint at or outright accuse me of leaving christianity because I was offended by a minister. So, I am interested in finding out if I actually had legitimate reasons for abandoning Christianity or not. Before I delve into my own situation let me briefly look at the implications of this kind of argument.

What if I did leave christianity for emotional reasons?

     Human beings are social mammals and emotion is a powerful motivator for us. We have realized that our emotional responses do not always map to reality and they often cloud our judgment and betray our best interest. Emotion alone, unsupported by sound rational argument, is not a good justification for action. However, sound reason is not made less reasonable because it is accompanied by emotional motivators.

     So when someone criticizes an action as being emotionally motivated they are implying that the person's reasoning was bad and that the person's better judgment was blinded by their emotions. Whether my apostasy was motivated by cold calculation or fiery passion, this still all boils down to how good my reasons are.

     Now we get to the problem of epistemology, how can we know if our reasoning is valid? A person deluded by powerful emotions may believe that their reasoning is sound and yet be utterly wrong.

How do I know I'm not deluded?

"I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible."

- Matt Dillahunty

     That is what is most important to me, I want my beliefs to reflect reality as accurately as possible. So finding out if my reasons for rejecting Christianity are based on a sound, logical examination of the evidence or if they are merely a delusion brought on by negative emotions is paramount. But how can I ever know I'm not delusional myself? Almost by definition, a crazy person doesn't know they are crazy.

     First, I accept that I may be wrong. Of course, I believe I am correct and that I have reasoned properly but on practical and philosophical grounds I must always maintain that I could be wrong. Far from hedging my bets, I am merely accepting the fact that I don't know everything and I'm trying to keep an open mind. Someone may come along tomorrow with sound reason and evidence that a god does in fact exist. At that point I would cease to be an atheist. I try not to hold any of my beliefs dogmatically.

     The difference between being wrong and being delusional is your willingness to reconsider and change your mind when confronted with sound argument or evidence. Can you be reasoned with? Can your mind be changed by the force of evidence and argument? If yes, that makes you reasonable in my book.

Now I want to work through my personal case.

     Whenever I hear the "you must be hurt" or "you must have had some trouble" line as a dismissal of my hard thought out position I feel indignation rising in my chest. The thought "how dare you trivialize my decision!?!" Is never far behind. However, I have learned to view the bubbling up of such indignant feelings with suspicion. Instead I try to force myself to ask, "What if they are right? I would still feel indignant wouldn't I? Maybe I need to take their accusation seriously, I have been wrong before." If they are right I don't want to be a stubborn mule and persist in my error. I'm not perfect and I often fail at this but it is a behavior I strive for. As a human being my pride and ego often get in the way.

     If you have read one of my first few posts on why I am no longer a christian you know that my deconversion from Christianity was triggered by an emotional event. At a single moment I realized that my values had changed. When the preacher made a statement that illustrated his values I immediately noticed they stood in stark contradiction with my own. Furthermore I noticed his values had once been my very own, saving souls from hell at any cost used to be a primary mission in my life and the beauty of salvation was sublime to me. Just ask my unbelieving family members who I pestered beyond belief.

     Many people read that story and think that I rejected Christianity because the statement the preacher made offended me. That I had rejected Christian salvation because of the words of one of it's representatives. To these people there is not much I can say but I don't think that's why I became an atheist as I realize that this reasoning is fallacious and I have experienced other similar opportunities for me to lose faith in the past that did not break me.

     As I recall, my mother attended a sermon by the faith healer Benny Hinn in a desperate attempt to receive healing for her Lupus. She had been on medication and Hinn told her to leave her pills on the altar. She tossed the remaining doses as a sign of faith and left feeling inspired and seemingly healed! She was even declared in remission, though she had taken most of the medication already. Later the Lupus returned and as a result our pastor removed her from the treasury position she had held at the church. He told her that it was her lack of faith that caused the disease to return and that she was unfit to hold a position of authority in the church anymore. This was the pastor who I trained under to become a minister, I looked up to this man and I still did for a while after this happened. Later I realised that he was not a good person or role model. Not once do I recall feeling resentment at God over this, and to this day neither does my mom. Needless to say I see it much differently now.

Conclusions

     There is not much more I can say to refute this accusation. To some extent it seems unfalsifiable, If I argue that I was not rebelling against god out of some kind of angst, it simply makes me look more rebellious. I have however satisfied my own investigations and in the end I am convinced by the evidence and arguments that I made the right decision. I will however remain open to the possibility that I have reasoned fallaciously or that there is evidence out there I have not discovered. If anyone wishes to wright me off as irrational without discussing my reasons first, I see that as their loss. If anyone wants to discuss the arguments and evidence with me I hope to be the shining example of charity and open mindedness I strive to be.     

Comments, corrections, concerns are always welcome. Thanks for reading!
-Adam

The Historicity of Jesus Christ

The Historicity of Jesus Christ

     I had always assumed that the biblical Jesus existed. Mainly because I also believed he died for my sins, rose from the dead, and spoke to me personally ... be it through my internal conscience or just a euphoric warm fuzzy feeling. Even after losing my faith in god and my belief in all the magic in the gospels I still held as a given that behind all the legend was a real person, there just had to be. It was by searching for who Jesus REALLY was that I came to realize that the christian doctrine that I was taught was ignorant of the facts or just shamelessly dishonest. 

   Does it matter if Jesus was a real historical person? If you're a christian it matters immensely but if you are not then Jesus's existence may or may not matter to you. There is an inherent asymmetry in bias toward this question. In order to fairly look at this issue we need to look our own bias's in the face.

   

     The stakes are significantly higher for a christian believer than a non-believer. I would like to say I have no bias either way and that I can be completely impartial in my analysis of the evidence but that would not be strictly true. If Jesus existed then I am where I started, believing him to be a Jewish rabbi who lived roughly 2000 years ago. If Jesus turned out to be an absolute myth I stand to benefit by undercutting the tedious arguments for Christianity. I could nip them in the bud.

     However, I cannot ignore the skeptical part of me that warns, "If you desire a certain answer before you look at the evidence you will tend to find the answer you wanted in the first place... regardless of what the evidence actually says." So I will try my best to account for this unconscious bias by representing the best arguments I can find against my own position as well as my arguments for it. If I fail at this please let me know... truth is more important than confirming my desires.

Did Jesus Exist?

Evidence for a historical Jesus

Testimonium Flavianum

     I had a conversation with a youth pastor recently where we discussed some arguments for and against god. One question he asked me was "Do you think Jesus existed?" and I answered with, "I don't really know." Technically,  this was true, I don't know, but I really just wanted to see what reason he had for believing Jesus did exist. The first piece of evidence my pastor friend brought up outside the bible itself was Josephus. 

Titus Flavius Josephus

(~37 CE - 100 CE)

     Josephus was a famous first century Jewish Historian who wrote books on Jewish-Roman history that survive to this day. Allegedly, Josephus was the earliest secular historian to have mentioned Jesus. Josephus's work "Antiquities of the Jews" has two places where Christ appears.

The main reference quotation known as the "Testimonium Flavianum"
is found in Book 18, Chapter 3 

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

     You'll notice in the selection there are a few [Red Bracketed] portions. These are known interpolations (Additions to the original text) made by early christians and this fact is not in any dispute. However, the Testimonium Flavianum is believed by many historians to be entirely a forgery. There is a second reference where the phrase "who was called Christ" is inserted in a paragraph in Book 20 Chapter 9 of Antiquities of the Jews.

Here is a link to the second Josephus reference

      Christian apologist Matt Slick at Carm.org makes a case for the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. He argues that the braked portions are most likely interpolations but that the rest of the passage is authentic. To back this up he makes reference to the work of Shlomo Pines who published citations of the Testimonium Flavianum from the 10th century written in Arabic that agree with the passage as it is today except for the bracketed interpolations. Slick concludes that even if both the Greek and Arabic versions were tampered with they at least mentioned Jesus and made reference to his miracles.

Here is a link to the argument at Carm.org

     A bit more information may clear up this problem. Josephus originally published Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE (1st century). The Arabic quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum  appears in Agapius of Hierapolis's book, "Book of the Title" written in 942 CE (10th century). There are appearances of the Testimonium Flavianum as early as 324 CE (4th century). Knowing this, I am far more likely to believe that Agapius was quoting from an already interpolated version of Antiquities of the Jews. 

     In fact, from it's initial publication in 93 CE there are no reference to the Testimonium Flavianum until in 324 CE when the Bishop Eusebius, the father of Church History, cites it in the form that survives today in all manuscripts. Do not confuse the Testimonium Flavianum which is just the passage about Jesus for the entire book "Antiquities of the Jews" which is quoted at length by many early christians. Why wouldn't they use this golden piece of evidence to win their arguments back then? Some historians believe it is because the Testimonium Flavianum was not in the original version and that Eusebius had it added in. Other arguments that put the credibility of this passage in doubt are out there, see my link below.

     But what is the big deal? Let's say that the Testimonium Flavianum is 100% authentic. What would that achieve? Jesus is said to have died around the year 30 CE and Josephus wasn't even born until 37 CE. So Josephus could not have possibly been an eye witness himself and given the life span of people back then was about 30 years, not many surviving eye witnesses would have been able to give the historian first hand accounts. This means even if the Testimonium Flavianum was authentic it would have been 2nd or 3rd hand account at least. This is far from the eye witness certainty most apologists give Josephus.

For a more comprehensive analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum check this link

Other Sources 

     While the Testimonium Flavianum is the main piece of evidence that people will bring up for a historical Jesus it is not the only one. The following is a list of  people who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Clicking on their names will bring you to their Wikipedia page... I know Wikipedia has its problems but it is a jumping off point if you want to learn more. Names in red are early Christians, saints, or apologists.

Clement of Rome (Died 99 CE) Info Info
Ignatius of Antioch (35 or 50 CE  – 98 to 117 CE) Info
Pliny the Younger (61 CE–  113 CE) Info
Suetonius (~70 CE - 130 CE) Info
Cornelius Tacitus ( ~56 CE – 117 CE) Info
Polycarp (69 CE – 160 CE) Info Info
Phlegon (~2nd century) Info
Thallus (?) Info
Justin Martyr (100 CE – 165 CE) Info
Lucian of Samosata (125 CE - 180 CE) Info
Clement of Alexandria (150 CE – 215 CE) Info
Tertullian (160 CE – 225 CE) Info
Origen (184 CE – 254 CE) Info
Cyprian (200 CE – 258 CE) Info
Eusebius (260 CE - 340 CE) Info

     Most of the non-christian authors listed made mention of Jesus or of Christians in the ancient world but reported these things not as historical facts but as the tales told by early christians. This is similar to the way a modern reporter might describe the story of  L. Ron Hubbard the founder of Scientology. This reporter wouldn't be reporting the story as fact but simply as a way of telling her readers what a Scientologist is and what they believe. 

     The more glaring problem with these sources is timeing. All of them were born after Jesus is said to have died. That means not one of them could have been an eyewitness. Even if they interviewed eyewitnesses, Which none of them claim to have done, the further you are from the events the less credible you are as a source. Below is a timeline of these sources along with Jesus's reported lifetime.

The Argument from Silence

     This black-out period between Jesus's ministry and death ~30 CE and the first few historic references to Christ ~90 CE seems odd. But It gets even more odd when you look at the historians who lived and wrote during this dark period of christian history... but made no mention of Jesus Christ. There were many historian of the mid first century who neglected to mention Jesus the most notable is Philo of Alexandria.

Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE –  50 CE)

     Philo of Alexandria also known as Philo Judaeus was a Jewish philosopher and historian who lived and wrote at the perfect time and place to be a credible witness of Jesus and early Christianity. Philo worked to merge Judaism with Greek and Roman philosophy. So why wouldn't he mention the Jewish reformer who stirred up the Jewish authorities and the roman occupants so much that he was crucified. Many mythicists (People who believe Jesus was entirely a myth) say this is because there was no Jesus but this is not proof.

     The main problem that I have with the argument from silence is one of logic. Carl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The example he gives in his book 'Demon Haunted World' is the claim of dinosaurs still living in the Congo jungle. If we send an expedition into the Congo and they do not find the dinosaur that doesn't mean that the dinosaur isn't in there somewhere. I think this is similar to the case with Jesus. Just because a historian who had the motivation and ability to report on Jesus did not report on him doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist. Although, to me this does hint that the story reported by christians isn't right either.

Conclusions

     So how does all this bear on the question of the historicity of Jesus? Well this becomes a question of "who has the burden of proof?" If you want to claim that Jesus was real, then you have to prove your claim... and I don't think that has been done yet. On the other hand if you want to claim that Jesus did not exist and that the christian myth was built on a celestial tale, then you must prove your claim... I do not think this is proved either. So where does that leave us? I don't know. We must admit our ignorance on this subject. Neither side has proved their case.  The idea that a man lived is not an extraordinary one so I tend to think there was some kind of person beneath it all ... but the mythic claims are not as ridiculous as they have been made out to be. Perhaps time will tell.

For those of you who have been thinking "What about the Gospels" this whole time I plan on posting a historical critique of the gospels in a separate post, there is a lot to talk about.

Thank you for reading and as always any comments corrections or questions are welcome!
-Adam

From a friend, to a friend, by a friend

From a friend, to a friend, by a friend

The following is a short story from a friend of mine who recently de-converted from christianity. He has a beautiful story of his difficult time waking up from religion and then coming out to family. I asked him to write this for my blog because he is a close friend to me and we both hope it may help someone else out there.

     I have been asked by the proprietor of this blog site to give you my testament. It is not one of glory, excitement or even genuinely interesting…unless you like myself are having more than some difficulty continuing to swallow the God delusion. 

     I was a Christian for about five years. My life previous to this was one of staunch anti-theism. I never went out of my way to prohibit people of faith I was merely content to scoff and belittle any theist who approached me with the matter of said faith in hand. I lead the life of a typical teen. I joined the army out of high school and was discharged before completing basic for sustaining an injury to my back. I came home and began working for my father installing conveyor systems out of state. After work dried up with him I got my own place with a friend and began the inglorious work of dish washing for Uno’s. It is during my drug infused and beer sodden years comming from having a “bachelor pad” that I came to Christianity. This came as a result of some very unfortunate events that occurred in high school and would have a greater impact on my life than I could have ever imagined.

     I became a Christian because of the testament of one my high school sweet hearts. We dated for about three months. Not long in the grand scheme of things but long enough to grow close; close enough to learn the gruesome details of her preceding relationship.  Before we were dating she suffered brutally at the hands of her previous boyfriend who would constantly beat and rape her. For months she suffered in silence. Eventually a case was opened against him a restraining order was issued. The part of the story that changed my mind about God comes later, long after the two of us went our separate ways. She attended college at Nazareth and found a Christian group there. What they helped her do, in my mind is nothing short of miraculous. (Despite my dislike of the term I find that the faithful have copyrighted I will use it to grant my words a taste of irony and efficacy.) After connecting with this group and being a part for a period of time they helped her to let go of the hurt of her assault and she was able confront her ex and forgive him. She called me late one night after I had gotten out of work to tell me of her triumph over her fears and of the weight that had been lifted off of her shoulders. My jaw literally fell open. I was in utter shock. She explained to me how and why she had been able to obtain this peace of mind and clarity of life. Instead of clamming up and scoffing as I had been accustomed to doing at the mention of God or Jesus my thoughts turned instead to maybe there is something to this faith. I met my future wife shortly after all of this and she was able to answer my questions regarding the big G-man. After many long discussions and going to a few services I eventually came to faith and was baptized. My wife and I were married shortly after that and so began a lifetime of happiness, peace, love, and an eternity in heaven when it was all said and done. Well… so I thought.

     Being so enamored with God the father I sought, as the bible “teaches” us, to tell the story of Jesus to as many people as I could. The people whom I tried most ardently to convert were my friends and family. I preached sermons and prayed with and for all of them on a fairly regular basis. I cast down my nets and quit one of my jobs in order to seek out the “Lord’s work”. The church I attended hosts a summer camp for which I helped repair, maintain, and lead. Either it was leading family groups with my wife or being camp manager I would plug in where ever I could find a niche. My wife had grown up in the church and her father has been the lead pastor for about thirty years. I was living the dream and doing my part to achieve salvation for as many people as possible. I had questions too. We all do. But what my faith told me to do was to leave the unknown to God go to scripture and your elders when you could. But in the end if you could not find the answer, you where not meant to and all you can do is trust all knowing all mighty God. In the end He would always know better than you, and you should have every confidence that He, being omni-benevolent, does all things for a greater good that you or I may never be able to know with our mortal and finite minds. It was exactly this seemingly insignificant chip in my spiritual armor that would be the undoing of this delusion.

     My coming to reason is a direct result of meeting Mr. Johnson at work. During my years as a Christian I changed jobs often and even quit one in order to “cast down my nets” to go and do work for Jesus. After telling my wife that I quit my job for Jesus she broke down and cried but not with elation as had expected but with genuine grief. I was more than confused. It was my understanding that doing as the twelve did and as Jesus had done was something to emulate. I was wrong. This was one of the first falling outs my wife and I had. She as a woman felt betrayed by me as her provider. It took many long months arduous consolation to earn that trust back and to find steady work again. I was eventually hired at a manufacturing plant near our apartment. I advanced quickly in the company and would remain there for two years following. Shortly after I was hired another individual came to work in my department and that was the first time I had met Adam Johnson.  He was a Christian at the time also and so we whiled away the hours discussing Jesus and his many teachings. One day, it was a Tuesday I remember this because I have bible studies on Mondays (I still do have them it is not a grammatical error.) and we had been talking about Jesus being all man and all God and I wanted his opinion on the matter when he told me that he no longer believed to which I responded, “Well… let’s talk about that.” And talk we did. Adam has even and continues to come to the bible studies hosted by a couple members of the church I used to belong to. But at any rate he asked me more challenging questions than I had ever encountered before and as a result my faith began to deteriorate. Not being able to sate my desire to know the answers to the questions he was posing was the most instrumental part of my mental reformation. 

     It all started simple enough. Questions like; what would you do if tomorrow you found out that what you believed in was wrong? Could you ever be wrong? Where did God come from? Why is what you think right when there are people in the world that think that what they believe is right with the same if not more conviction? How do you square the fate of past religions to your own? Questions like these are simple in manner but profound in meaning. Adam recommended and supplied literature for me to do my own investigatory work which I accepted with glee. As he recommended to me so I recommend to you Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. An excellent book on how to learn to think critically it is now my first defense against bologna of which there is a tool kit of detecting in the book. After that I was on my way. I did not want to be separated from my faith. At one point I even told him that I became an atheist to gain further trust with him and planned on recanting providing he showed any weakness. He did not to say the least and I did eventually confess to him of my mildly devious plot. With more grace and honesty than any Christian I have ever met he forgave my trespass and was not in the least bit surprised. I have since done more research and read more books than I have ever done in my life up to this point. Through honest discussion and reason I was able to give up my faith but this as it turns out was not going to be easy.

     The next part of my story comes months after my decision to give up Christianity. My wife still strong in her faith is the subject of my next section. We had had a turbulent relationship up to this point not unhappy overall but not the best in any case. Like most couples we have had our differences in just about every facet of our life together but one night would bring most of our world crumbling down about us. During one of our more verbal confrontations I became rather enraged and said something to the effect of, “Well if you only love me because of your mythical creature's sake…” And that was it. Nothing would ever be the same after that. I know we have all been at that teetering precipice of speech where we find ourselves willing to dangle helplessly over the edge in order to attempt in vain to collect the words spun by our tongues. But I would dare to venture that none have tried more ardently than I to gather those uttered words and stuff them back into the Freudian slit from whence they came. In an instant the mood changed and there was a palatable intensity in the air. The tears welled and the anguish came in torrents. Her world shattered in instantaneously I could see the pieces crashing and mocking me as they fell into the abyss. Helpless and alone she ran. My own tears formed and my cries were not without the most desperate pleadings of a soul to have its other half rejoined. I do not blame her and nobody could. I dare someone to have the one person they love most tear away years of trust and like mindedness in a subject that bears all the weight of an eternal being in one foul swoop. I impart this information to you in an effort to discourage you from making my mistakes.      

     With all of my being I hope that if you take nothing away from my writing take this. Be understanding. Be understanding of all people at all times. While I had effectively divorced myself of my faith my wife was and still is not ready to take that same step. Let love reign. Let love endure. Let love rest comfortably upon the pillars of your heart and at the forefront of your mind. You do not know everything and if you could you would choose the words you choose to speak much more carefully. You never know what somebody has gone through and there are no guarantees that you ever will. Be understanding of people’s faith. If you are like me and come from a background in faith never take for granted your experiences under that veil. Remember forever what it was like to be under that spell and sympathize with those you encounter who have not yet rid themselves of it. Be understanding of the fact that some people would rather live a comfortable lie than face the truth. Never forget that you could be wrong also. There are no assurances in life so be humble to that fact and let it shape you into the person you would like to meet. With all of my being I hope that if you take nothing away from my writing take this. Be understanding. Be understanding of all people at all times. While I had effectively divorced myself of my faith my wife was and still is not ready to take that same step. Let love reign. Let love endure. Let love rest comfortably upon the pillars of your heart and at the forefront of your mind. You do not know everything and if you could you would choose the words you choose to speak much more carefully. You never know what somebody has gone through and there are no guarantees that you ever will. Be understanding of people’s faith. If you are like me and come from a background in faith never take for granted your experiences under that veil. Remember forever what it was like to be under that spell and sympathize with those you encounter who have not yet rid themselves of it. Be understanding of the fact that some people would rather live a comfortable lie than face the truth. Never forget that you could be wrong also. There are no assurances in life so be humble to that fact and let it shape you into the person you would like to meet. 

     Take courage. I give you my testament so that you may yet find hope for yourself and for those around you. I also tell you my tale so that you do not feel alone. My only wish for you, fellow human, is that you live a life of prosperity and happiness free from the tyranny of religious dogma. My wife and I are still working on our differences and are stilled married with no end in sight much to my ecstasy. I hope that you can take courage from me and my story and uphold the standards of human dignity and reproach better than I did. Be sympathetic and be critical of yourself, your beliefs, and others and their beliefs. Be responsible with your life and the lives of those entrusted to you fore this life is the only one we have reason to believe exists and if we are not at every moment making an attempt to create a better life for ourselves and for those around us I ask you what is the point?Take courage. I give you my testament so that you may yet find hope for yourself and for those around you. I also tell you my tale so that you do not feel alone. My only wish for you, fellow human, is that you live a life of prosperity and happiness free from the tyranny of religious dogma. My wife and I are still working on our differences and are stilled married with no end in sight much to my ecstasy. I hope that you can take courage from me and my story and uphold the standards of human dignity and reproach better than I did. Be sympathetic and be critical of yourself, your beliefs, and others and their beliefs. Be responsible with your life and the lives of those entrusted to you fore this life is the only one we have reason to believe exists and if we are not at every moment making an attempt to create a better life for ourselves and for those around us I ask you what is the point?

Defense Against the Dark Arts: Lunatic, Liar, or Lord Argument

Lunatic, Liar, or Lord Argument

(C. S. Lewis)

     The Lunatic, Liar, or Lord Argument is a specific argument for the divinity of Jesus. It was put forth by author, historian, and christian apologist Clive Staples Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity". Lewis is trying to prevent people from claiming Jesus was a good moral teacher but not a god. The argument aims to prove that Jesus must have been God.

Here is the quote

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Here it is a little cleaned up

1: Jesus claimed he was god.

2: Therefore, Jesus was either a

          A: Lunatic: He was crazy, not god.

          B: Liar: He lied about being god.

          C: Lord: He actually was god.

3: Jesus obviously wasn't a lunatic or a liar

4: Jesus was and is god

     This is an argument used in conjunction with other arguments to prove the christian deity instead of just the nebulous deistic god. There are quite a few problems with this argument.

Problem 1: Did Jesus actually claim to be god?

     This is a problem with premise 1. "Jesus claimed he was god". In the bible this is not stated directly but the inference is drawn from several vague and euphemistic verses in the gospel of John. 

"...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" - John 14:9

"...Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." - John 8:58

"...My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working." - John 5:17

     Given the acrobatic lengths some christians go to in order to interpret other verses so that they seem to make sense, it is difficult to say with any confidence that we should interpret these verses as Jesus claiming to be god. 

     However, if we do accept this interpretation does that prove he actually said what he is quoted as saying? Not rly, it is possible that he was misquoted. Seeing as john is the latest gospel, it was not written until well after the synoptic gospels, and all the gospels were written decades after any depicted events there is plenty of room for a legend to develop. What if the whole story is made up fiction?

Problem 2: False trilemma

     The only 3 options given in premise 2 were Lunatic, Liar, and Lord. Lewis discounts lunatic and liar so that he is left with lord. But process of elimination only works when you know those are the only options. There is at least 1 more option Legend, the story of Jesus claiming to be god was fabricated or embellished. That makes this a false dilemma ... er trilemma. 

Problem 3: How do you know Jesus wasn't a lunatic?

     Maybe the word lunatic is a bit hyperbolic but what if Jesus was honestly mistaken? Lewis makes the assumption that if Jesus believed he was god, but wasn't really god then he was a lunatic "on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg". But that isn't necessary, Jesus could have been perfectly sane and just been wrong. 

     If Christianity is false, that doesn't make all christians lunatics and If Hinduism is false, that doesn't make all hindus lunatics. One of these is necessarily false as they are contradictory. Many perfectly sane people are on both sides. One or both sides are defiantly wrong but I wouldn't call them crazy.

     What if, however, he was clinically insane? Does that mean he couldn't comport himself as a functional member of ancient society? There are plenty of nut jobs running around in this day and age that escape the luny bin long enough to gain followers (David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson), why would an ancient culture fair any better? 

Problem 4: Was Jesus a great moral teacher?

    This argument started out by trying to prevent people from saying "Jesus was a great moral teacher, but he wasn't god". Was Jesus a great moral teacher? I have my doubts. Here I outline my opinions on Jesus.

     First off, there is no historical evidence Jesus even existed in the first place. No eyewitness testimony outside of the gospels (Which are unreliable to say the least. Pseudepigraphal, clearly biased, and unverifiable), no physical evidence is on hand, and no other records are available. Still, I am not opposed to the idea that a man walked the earth at that time with that name. There is nothing extraordinary about that claim and I am willing to grant it for sake of argument. I plan on doing a historicity of Jesus post in the future, so check back soon.

     As for the teaching in the gospels that are attributed to Jesus there are several gems and several blemishes. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is truly good but "Take no thought for the morrow" is irresponsible and foolish. 

     The overall story of someone standing up to corruption and sacrificing themselves for the good of others tugs at all our hearts. This theme is plastered throughout history and mythology. When on trial in Athens, the philosopher Socrates resolved to drink hemlock poison, accepting a death sentence instead of backing down from teaching the pursuit of virtue. So far as Jesus was standing up to corruption and teaching peace and love I admire him as a hero, but so far as he threatened eternal torment and hell fire for honest doubt I despise him as a villain. 

As always, thanks for reading and any comment or corrections are greatly appreciated

-Adam

Screwed up bible verse of the day

Screwed up bible verses

" I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them. " 

- Jeremiah 19:9 (NIV)

!CONTEXT! 

This is Jehovah (god) being quoted by Jeremiah the prophet. This is what god is going to do to Topheth, a city in Jerusalem, for worshiping the Canaanite pantheon.

Many Christians think this is a just punishment because one of the worship rituals of the ancient Canaanites was child sacrifice, which was common among our ignorant and superstitious ancestors. They thought that by sacrificing what they held most precious (their children) they could bribe a god to help them grow crops, win a battle, survive a drought or storm or whatever natural disasters they were worried about. I shutters to think how many children, goats, birds, and sheep would have been spared by a Doppler radar.

Why did everyone back then think a god would be made happy by the spilling of blood? I mean If I just created the universe with all the majestic galaxies and stars and planets and complicated organisms... WTF would I want with their blood? This is simple barbaric superstitious nonsense. I am appalled that anything, human or animal, was hurt for such ridiculousness.

Even considering the atrocities they committed, how is gods punishment of forced cannibalism just? This isn't justice.  At best it seems like disgust and revenge, at worst pure jealousy.

" They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. " - Jeremiah 19:5

 Wait, what did god not command? Perhaps he is talking about worshiping other gods because clearly he can't mean child sacrifice.

We all know the story of Abraham and Issac from Genesis 22, where god commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac as a burnt offering... The last second god stopped Abraham from following through with the abhorrent human sacrifice and instead gave him an innocent animal to conflagrate.

However, Jephthah's daughter was not so lucky. Judges 11 tells a story about a war between the Ammonites and Israel. Jephthah made a deal with god in order to get victory in battle.

" Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: 'If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. '" - Judges 11:30-31

Ok, it doesn't take omniscience to figure out that the thing greeting you out of your front door when you return home is going to be human and most likely a family member. But all-knowing god accepted Jephthah bargain none the less. And all-loving god accepted Jephthah's burnt sacrifice after he returned victorious and met his daughter at his front door.

" ...nor did it enter my mind. " - Jeremiah 19:5

That's one hell of a memory.

Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Teleological Argument

The Teleological Argument

(William Paley)

     The teleological argument, much like the cosmological argument, takes many forms but they all deal with the idea of design in the natural world. The design argument we will be examining today is the Watchmaker Analogy put forth by William Paley, an English clergyman, around the late 1700's in his work "Natural Theology".

     Here it is in Paley's words:

     "In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there."

     "Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."

     "Upon the whole; after all the schemes and struggles of a reluctant philosophy, the necessary resort is to a Deity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."

     Here is the argument broken down:

1: Watches are designed by humans.

2: Watches are ordered and complex.

3: The natural world is also ordered, complex, and seems to look designed.

4: By analogy the natural world is similar to a watch so the causes must be the same.

5: The natural world must have been designed.

6: Therefore a designer of natural world exists.

7: That designer is god.

     If you have heard or seen any of the "intelligent design" propaganda you have a sense of what this argument is about. Now you know why they fight so hard to have their ideas taken seriously. If they can teach children that nature was designed it is a small step to convince them that the designer exists. Their religious motives lay bare. 

However there are some very crippling problems with this type of argument.

Problem 1: Contradiction

     

     The argument first assumes that a watch is different from a stone, which is naturally occurring, and that naturally occurring things are uncomplicated and random. It then says that since the natural world is so beautiful, complex, and ordered it too must have a designer. Thus, the argument gives nature two incompatible qualities. It is saying nature is random, uncomplicated, and common while at the same time beautiful, complex, and ordered.

Problem 2:  How did you tell the watch was designed?

     To a creationist god made everything. Everything is designed. There are no non-designed objects for us to experience. So how can the creationist look at both a watch and a stone, both of which were designed by god, and conclude that the watch was designed but the stone was not? They cannot. Truth is we infer design by comparing it with nature. If everything is designed then we have no frame of reference. 

                   (Widmanstatten pattern in meteorite rock)                  (Pocket watch)

Problem 3: Infinite regress

     If we are to draw a similarity between a watch and the universe lets follow through. Watches indeed have watch makers. Watchmakers have fathers. The fathers of watchmakers had fathers themselves... and on and on ad infinitum. Any god that is capable of making a clockwork universe such as our own must himself be incredibly complex and ordered and that functional complexity and order would suggest that god was himself designed. From this we could infer a super-god who designed the god of our universe... I hope everyone see's the futility of this form of thinking.

Problem 4: The blind watchmaker

           "Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." - Richard Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker'

Problem 5: Does a designer have to answer for the flaws in his design?

     If we admit the universe and everything in it was designed, we must also admit that the problems and evils that exist were designed by the same. Think of the intricate fitting of means to ends that allow cancer to so perfectly infect the body, the unparalleled complexity in the cancers genetic code that allows the cancerous cells to reproduce, and the seemingly unstoppable way cancer takes the life of it's host. If all the beauty and order in nature gives credit to the creator and his benevolence the evil and chaos in nature dirties the creators character to a point where his best moral excuse is that he did not exist.  

Problem 6:  Which god?

     Seems this problem will pop up for every argument. This argument, if it were in the least bit successful, would point toward an ambiguous deity. Perhaps one who died during the creation or one who doesn't care whatsoever about the affairs of men... not to mention every creator deity human beings have invented fits the god of this argument.

In conclusion this entire line of thought is predicated on a lack of imagination. It is one big 

argument from incredulity fallacy. I don't know how this could have happened naturally therefore it was designed. A bit of humility and a dash or curiosity would serve humanity far batter than this teleological thinking.

Once again, Thank you for reading. Any comments, questions, or corrections are welcomed.
-Adam