Tuesday, September 16, 2014

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?

Saturday, August 30, 2014

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

Monday, July 14, 2014

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.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

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

Friday, June 6, 2014

Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument


     The moral argument is another common argument for god you are likely to come across in your conversations with the faithful. The argument was made popular by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his treatise "Critique of Practical Reason". Kant argued that the existence of god was a necessary assumption one would need to make in order to understand morality.

The moral argument takes many forms but it usually looks something like this
  1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
  2. Objective morality does exists.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
     There are a few philosophical stumbling blocks contained in this argument that should be explained before I go into the content of the argument itself, mainly "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".

Objectivity
     Objectivity as used here means being true outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginations.

Example: The mass of the earth is 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms.

This is an objective fact. It is true independent of any individuals opinions of it.

Subjectivity
Subjectivity means relating to the perceptions, experiences, interpretations, feelings, and beliefs of a subject.

Example: Vanilla ice cream is the most delicious ice cream. 

     This is a subjective statement. The truth or falsity of the statement is relative to the opinion of person evaluating it. If you like vanilla then you agree with the statement, however, If you prefer chocolate ... well screw you.

     Now, it can get even more fuzzy because you can have objective facts about subjective statements. "Vanilla ice cream is the most delicious ice cream." is a subjective statement but the fact that "Adam thinks vanilla ice cream is the most delicious ice cream" is an objective fact.

... Hope I didn't butcher Objective/Subjective and hope I didn't confuse you, or myself. on to the moral argument.


Problems
     My main problem with this argument is the first premise. This is because I accept premise 2 (depending on the definitions of objective and morally good or bad), but that is a whole post on it's own that I plan to do later on. For this post I mean to focus on why this argument is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of any god or gods.

If God does not exist, objective morals do not exist.

1: What do we mean when we use the word moral?
     Morality deals with the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong. A big difference between theists and atheists on the subject of morality is the definition of the words good and bad. Premise 1 fails because it becomes irrelevant or circular when morality is defined in any religious terms.  
     
   Some define good and bad in this way

Good is what god tells us to do.
Bad is what god tells us not to do.

     This is known as Divine Command Theory. Lets substitute this definition into the 1st premise.

If God does not exist, Divine Commands do not exist.

      Of course it is true if a command exists then the one who gave the command is implied. This pushes the objection to the 2nd premise because I reject that this morality as defined under Divine Command Theory exists. More over I am willing to bet that most believers, when pressed, reject this as a definition of morality as well.



Enter The Euthyphro dilemma

     The Euthyphro dilemma was put forth by Socrates in Plato's book "Euthyphro" and it exposes the problem with attributing morality to a god. It was originally used to demonstrate piety but is easily adapted to morality. It goes like this:

Is that which is good commanded by the gods because it's good, 
or is it good because the gods command it?

Neither answer is satisfying.

Good is commanded by god because it's good
     This reduces god to a messenger, a middle man who is telling us what is good and bad. This means god is irrelevant and not the source of morality thus defeating the argument that he is required for morality to exist.

Good is good because god commanded it. 
     In this case god could command slavery, rape, or murder and it would become good by definition. Prepare yourself for the inevitable "But God would never do that" response. Check out some of the crazy stuff the god of the bible has commanded over the years.




     In this scenario morality becomes truly arbitrary and subjective, god would then be the source of it but it would by no means be objective.


"The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good." - Bertrand Russell (Why I Am Not a Christian)


The usual response to the Euthyphro dilemma is to try to create a 3rd option.

"Neither, instead good is good because it reflects gods character or nature"

This changes the definitions of good and bad slightly

Good is what reflects god's nature
Bad is what conflicts with god's nature

This only changes the terms of the dilemma and further damages the argument.

Is god's nature the way it is because it is good or 
is god's nature good merely because it is god's nature?


God's nature is good merely because it is god's nature.
     This leads us right back into the arbitrary definition of good. Gods nature could be any way at all and that would be good by definition. This is further confounded when you ask "Did god have any choice in his nature?" if he did then you have the exact situation as before where god simply subjectively defined morality. On the other hand if he is not the source of his own nature then neither is he the source of morality

God's nature is the way it is because that way is good.
This is plainly circular. just ask "why?"

Why is what is good morally better than what is bad?
Because what is good reflects god's nature and what is bad doesn't
Why does god's nature reflect what is good instead of what is bad
Because what is good is morally better than what is bad
...Rinse and Repeat


2: Which god?
     Again even if this argument was successful it would only argue for a generic deistic god or even aliens that are sufficiently more advanced than us. There is nothing in it that would point towards any particular religious tradition.



All in all I find there is no way to define morality in a religious way without assuming what it is you are trying to prove. If you want my definition of good and bad please check back when I post my treatise on morality... might be a while, I want to do a bit more research and thinking on it before I post. In the mean time check out these links and videos to learn more.



This guy is brilliant... 
but he pronounces "Euthyphro" weird


Morality 1: Good without gods 



Morality 2: Not-so-good books

Morality 3: Objectivity and oughtness


Thank you for reading and I welcome any comments or corrections especially on this subject as I am a bit of a newb here. 
-Adam

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Defence Against the Dark Arts: Personal Experience

Personal Experience



    Another Favorite argument that the average religious person will bring up in discussions with the godless is their personal experience of the divine or a miracle they witnessed. I have already had several encounters of this kind and so far they have come from people I care deeply about. Recounting their personal experience has resulted in them becoming emotional or even crying. This leads me to believe that they are being incredibly honest and sincere.
     That makes these types of conversations incredibly awkward and difficult because I do not want to hurt their feelings but at the same time I absolutely cannot give credibility to anecdotal stories because they are infamously unreliable and ridiculously insufficient as evidence of such grand claims. So here are some tips I have developed for how to handle these encounters (Hope they help).

Let me remind you the goal here is to get through this awkward situation without hurting your relationship or their feelings and without reinforcing any delusions.
(if their feelings are not your priority scroll down)

1: Listen intently
Give the person speaking your undivided attention and let them finish. They are usually pouring out their heart and soul when they recount their personal experience. Letting them have their say will help create openness.

2: Do Not Laugh!
You may be tempted to giggle or chuckle while you listen, especially if the story gets supernatural or ridiculous but DO NOT DO IT! Nothing kills someones willingness to cooperate more than being laughed at.

3: Make an effort to understand them
If this is a person you care about you'll want to actually understand the emotions fueling this belief as well as understand how to help them through it. Ask clarification questions and genuinely make an effort (this is time consuming and can be tedious but if it is someone important to you then It will be worth the effort)

"Seek first to understand then to be understood" - Stephen Covey

4: Don't acquiesce 
An easy way out of these situations is to agree with the person and lend credibility to their story. This is harmful to the person because it reinforces the delusion. Every time they tell the story and get support from someone they will feel more confident in it. Politely, let them know that you cannot find their story convincing or reliable and let them know why as kindly as possible. That being said, do not apologize or flip flop. Respect the person and respect their emotional reasons for holding unjustified beliefs but do not pretend to respect the ridiculous belief itself. (This is tricky and I don't always do so well with it myself)

5: Don't try to disprove their personal experience
You probably can't. Even if you were there and know what happened, trying to argue against their interpretation of events is next to impossible. Excuses like "It could have been all in your head" or "Maybe you missed something" may seem like reasonable rationalizations to you but might be interpreted as a cheapening of the experience to them or it could come off as you calling them crazy.  Relating a story of your own or telling them about some of the common tricks our brains can play on us could be beneficial but avoid coming off as adversarial. Try to avoid using the word "You" as it can put them on the defense.

6: Try not to get frustrated
The person probably wont give up the belief after the first talk with you about it. Realize this is an emotionally based belief, evidence and argument carry very little weight here. Be patient. Think of your talk as the first dose of antibiotics to treat the problem and further doses will almost certainly be needed. If you show signs of frustration (sighs, moans, glares, side-long glances, face-palming, or becoming angry) you can compromise the relationship you have been trying to build with the person.

...on to the argument itself

Does Personal Experience count?

The argument is usually formatted like this.

1. I had a personal experience of god
2. Therefore god exists

Some common experiences are 

a near death experience
Witnessing a miracle
a revelation from god 
a vision or a dream
the inner witness of the holy spirit


Argument 1: Can your experience mean anything to me?
      In chapter 2 of Thomas Paine's pamphlet "The Age of Reason"  Paine say's

"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it."

The argument here is basically: 

You may very well have had a genuine experience of god but to me it can never be anything but a story.

Argument 2: Some things seem extremely real... but they are not actually real
     While there is still many secrets about the inner workings of the human brain there are many things that neuroscience has brought to light. Among these bits of incite into the cosmos between our ears are warning signs. There are many things our brains do that are not at all obvious to us consciously, many pit-falls and shortcomings of the mind that we need to be aware of before accepting divine revelations as anything more than figments of our imaginations.

Some tricks of the mind are:

Optical Illusions
(This pic is not moving)

Hallucinations
(This one is fun in full screen... but not if you have Epilepsy)

     With this in mind I am very skeptical of my own experiences and look for evidence before I come to a conclusion about what I have seen or heard. In turn I am more skeptical of other people's experiences when they bring little or no evidence to support their conclusions. In addition religious experiences have been induced by magnets in the laboratory (google "god helmet") leading us to believe that all of this is in our heads.

     This is an immense topic and I cannot do it justice here, for more info check out Michael Shermer "The believing brain". 

(Warning it's a bit long, but well worth the watch)

Argument 3: Which god?
     This is a reoccurring response to many arguments for god. I personally have heard from christians about their experiences seeing Jesus or calling on his name and being saved from a bad outcome to a series of events. But non-christians have experiences relating to their beliefs too. Why should we take the word of christians but not the word of muslims, mormons, hindus, buddhists, alien abductees, or anyone els? Are hindu miracles less miraculous than christian ones?
     If we must believe everyone's personal experience at their word then we will be believing contradictory things. So all of them cannot be what they are claiming to be, at least some of them must be wrong. They all believe their own claims with the same conviction as everyone els, so some of them must be believing something untrue with that same conviction. Some of them must be delusional.

How can I tell the difference between your religious belief and a delusion?

If there is no process I can use to differentiate between what you claim and what a delusional person claims how can I tell them apart? 
     In response to this many people will reply "Come on now you can't compare a crazy person to a religious person". Why? To someone outside both of their beliefs they both appear to be claiming highly unlikely or downright impossible things and providing no solid evidence for it at all. How do we know if we cannot check? 

How popular the belief is? 
The amount of money they have? 
How nice they are? 
How reasonable they act concerning other things? 

     These reasons are all fallacious, you can be popular, rich, kind, reasonable, and still be wrong. The answer is we can't tell, they are indistinguishable. They are both bizarre unsupported claims that I have no reason to take seriously.

Argument 4: Hume on miracles 
     The basic argument David Hume makes is:

The only way you could have enough evidence of a miracle happening is if the possibility of it not happening was even more unlikely.

A good example is the Miracle of the Sun
     In Fatima, Portugal on October 13th 1917 30,000 people witnessed the Sun crashing toward the earth in a zig-zag pattern. The event is well reported and witnesses well documented. But did the miracle happen?

It seems improbable that 30,000 people shared in a mass hallucination, collaborated to lie about it to reporters, or that they all were mistaken.

But how much more improbable is it that the gigantic star at the center of our solar system almost crashed into the earth without anyone outside of that town noticing? What about the gravitational effects? The natural explanations are not very likely but the probability of it having actually happened is even more remote.


     

Thank you for reading, I know it was long. Any comments or corrections are welcome and appreciated.
-Adam Johnson


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Happy 420 / Easter

I have been lazy this week but here is a brilliant clip of the late Christopher Hitchens on the Immorality of christian doctrine.