Biblical Morality

In the discussions on this blog, the one thing that keeps coming to the forefront again and again is the concept of morality. Especially in the area of metaphysics. During the discussion of whether a rational basis exists for the belief in a transcendent god, the one premise that has been brought up is that if one does not believe in God (specifically the Christian God), then one is condemned to live a life of amorality. However, such an assertion lacks in regards to be a cogent, coherent analysis of the areas of morality and ethics.

The line of ‘reasoning’ that they use is flawed and contradictory, as shall be seen.

1. They make the assumption that there is a God.
2. They then assume that this God is the Christian God.
3. After this, another assumption is made that absolute morality emanates from this God.
4. Then this God inspired the infallible Bible, which begs the question of Inerrancy.

From the fourth point, they then begin the assertions of Absolute Morality is only to be found in the Bible, and can only be recognized by following the Christian path. Of course, another statement that begs the question is the assertion of Absolute Morality, which they conveniently forget to define. To this date, the slogan of Absolute Morality has been touted in fundie circles over and over again, yet even a little time spent on Google and certain academic, theological databases reveal that not one essay, not one philosophical argument has been offered that shows what this morality is without resorting to tautology.

Of course, when you take away the position of Absolute Morality, most theists will declare you as an inhumane, self centered person intent on ignoring the truth in order to satisfy your own lusts and sins. This attack is nothing more but an attack based in fear and ignorance. First, there are reasoned, logical arguments that do not resort to logical fallacies in order to support their positions in regards to absolute moral truth. The reason why most theists ignore these, however, is because these arguments do not resort to the unknown (a definition of God which turns out to be contradictory in most circles of theodicy, or resort to statements that morality can only come from this unknown in philosophical terms) in order to propagate their reasoning on what morality is, how it is to be achieved, and how to live by it.

Indeed, when the argument is looked at in its entirety, a rational person would have to conclude that this is the irrational response of a person who has invested much emotional energy into the construction of their metaphysics, but cannot be relied on to utilize reasonableness in assessment of their own claims. For instance, there is no consensus among theists about the attributes of God. Is it omnibenevolence? If so, then why is the scriptural writ of choice for Christians so vague when it comes to this absolute moral standard? If a person holds truth, but refuses to clarify that truth for the betterment of his fellow man, especially in areas where loss of life may be incurred through ignorance of this truth, then the person is guilty of murder through omission. If God is omnibenevolent, then where are His proclamations regarding gene splicing, genetic mapping, stem cell research? Is God omnipotent? If you know how to swim, and stand on the bank of a stream and watch a child drown, you are guilty of allowing that child to drown when you had the opportunity, the means, and the knowledge in how to save him. However, this Omnipotent God that the theists posit allows millions to die from natural causes every year. Remember the tsunami last year? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

This argumentation of the contradiction in terms between Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence has been discussed for centuries, with the theists always resorting to defending untenable positions. However, if we look at the Bible for attributes that belong to God, we find that many of the attributes are similarly contradictory. It should be no surprise, then, that if a theist is relying on a text that is irrational and contradictory, then his arguments for the existence and definition of God will likewise be contradictory. For example:

Ezekiel 6:12 He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them.

Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Numbers 11:33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

I Kings 22:21-23 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

II Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

So much for the idea of Omnibenevolence being an attribute of God. The Christians own scriptures are riddled with these, and dozens of other, contradictions when it comes to the exact attributes of God. The reason why these particular quotes were cited is because these are excerpts that are usually ignored in most Christian circles, as they tend to undermine their credibility when it comes to citing God as the author of Absolute Morality. Here, we see that God, according to the Bible, causes deafness, dumbness, inflicts sickness and disease, delights in lying to his followers, cause people to lie and to believe lies, is the author of evil, is vengeful, is jealous, is wrathful, and so on and so forth, all contrary to what the typical fundamentalist would want you to believe. These quotes, though, are in direct contradiction to the quotes that fundies usually espouse, which should illumine a rational person to the fact that the inerrancy doctrine is seriously flawed.

With such gaping holes in the Inerrancy Doctrine, one wonders how the Christian then goes on to argue for absolute morality in the Bible? The problem is that they can’t, but they do not want you to know it. The fundamental supposition that is false within a Christian Fundamentalists worldview is the fact that Absolute Morality is never defined. It is, to them, an unproven assertion that is brought out from time to time to attack others that do not adhere to their philosophical viewpoints.

Now, a more liberal interpretation of the Bible does not adhere to such fallacies as the fundamentalists. In their interpretation, there is an explicitly defined sense of what morality is, that is independent from the conception of God. The rational basis for the dichotomy of the argument is lest that Good becomes Evil, and Evil Good; for if there is no difference between the two, and they are defined arbitrarily by anything or anyone purporting to be God or speaking for God, then deception sets in, and the people are led down a rapacious path that is irrespective of moral standards and ethics. Only through reasoning what Good and Evil stand for can a person be relatively assured that his actions are righteous.

Of course, if there is a standard of Absolute Morality according the Bible, I have yet to see it. Maybe someone else can elaborate the argument?

Rejoinder Comments on Morality

Well, after waiting several days, I finally figured out what was going on with the discussion that had started within the article ‘Atheism and Morality‘. It seems that Akismet, that wonderful utility that captures and flags spam, had been a little overzealous in capturing comments from other people, as well. Which, I guess, would explain why they myriad comments I’ve left on other blogs around WordPress have not appeared within my Comments menu item. I hope that this problem finally has been fixed.

For the purposes of this article, I will be quoting from several layers deep from the discussion, akin to what you normally find in a spirited listserv or Usenet discussion. While this format is not the most ideal for blogs, I think that it is pertinent that all see exactly what is taking place in regards to the break down of rational discussion and apologetics. June, an avowed fundamentalist, seems to be making the same errors over and over again. I think I detect a hint of frustration in the posts that have been left by June. While this whole discussion began with myself making a comment on one of her articles, things have spiraled out of control ever since. With the beginning debate on Biblical Slavery, I have restricted myself to just debating the virtues of atheism, Biblical Slavery, and morality. Morality, by necessity, needs to be discussed when contemplating the slave trade, especially when the crux of the debate hinges on the fact that the Bible never condemns the practice, but sets up rules and regulations in order to live with it. This, of course, has been my premise of immorality within the Bible, something that June even tacitly admitted that the Bible never condemns the practice. However, because of the discussion on morality, which tangentially also brushed up on the issue of atheism, June then began to assert that atheists, in a nutshell, are amoral. Yes, I know, this was never said outright, but I plan on proving this through expository analysis of the posts that have been left on this blog.

To begin with, starting with the post ‘Atheism and Morality‘, I wanted to clear up a few myths. Go ahead, re-read the article to freshen your minds on what was, and was not, stated. Now, here is June’s first posting on the matter:

You put forth these arguments; and, sure, they sound great on the surface; but they themselves are nothing but straw men.

Why didn’t I quote more? Because of one thing- June’s use of the term “straw men”. I have, over and over again, pointed out logical fallacies that are embedded within certain theistic arguments. Sometimes, as Nick can testify to, I’ve gone overboard and been rather patronizing and condescending, upon which, when pointed out, I’ve immediately apologized. However, the one thing that I cannot stand is a blatant logical fallacy that is embedded in an argument. (Trust me, making a rational, logical thesis is extremely hard work, as it forces you to use critical thinking skills and not to resort to assumptions.) I have pointed out the New True Scotsman Fallacy, the Straw Man Fallacy, the Bifurcation Error fallacy, Begging the Question, Tautology, and so on and so forth. I’ve even provided links to these fallacies to the pertinent Wikipedia articles that give a brief overview of what they look like. The reason why I stopped quoting there is because it appears that June still does not know what a Straw Man fallacy is. Be that as it may, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponents position.

That’s it. In the article, I made no straw man arguments that I can detect. I wasn’t even debating about the Christian theology. Instead, I was clearing up myths and misunderstandings that a lot of fundamentalists have about atheists and atheism. It seems that this escaped June.

To continue with June’s comments from the article:

1. The Catholic Church (the original version, at least) is not Christianity. Why is that? Well, it’s because they devalue Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Why did June state this? I believe that it was in reference to this quote from the article:

The most successful communist regime in the world today, and by far the oldest, is the Catholic Church. Most Christians are uncomfortable with that fact, because they have been conditioned to only think of Communism in terms of a caricature of atheism.

Now, where in the article was I tacitly discussing the Catholic Church? Yes, that’s right, dear readers, it was only discussed in the context of communism. Specifically, it was discussed in the context of communism not being an atheist only framework for government, as there are many, many theistic implementations of that that can be wrought in the world, and organizations that are both theistic and communistic. However, two fallacies were deployed here: the No True Sotsman Fallacy, and a Red Herring. The discussion was not about the Catholic Church being Christian, but that of communism having many different flavors; hence the Red Herring fallacy. The No True Sotsman fallacy by her denial that Catholics are Christians. Which is the reason why I replied with:

Irrelevant, not to mention off-topic and arbitrary.

Junes response to this was:

I’m sorry; but you are completely ignoring what I have said by writing it off as nonsense; but that only shows me how unwilling you are to see the truth because I made great points in there.

Maybe, just maybe, after she reads this post, she will realize why those points were considered irrelevant. I’m hoping she goes to the links cited, and really reads and tries to understand the fallacies so as not to repeat them again. In the context of discussing Morality, Slavery, and the Doctrine of Inerrancy, yes, I will ignore those points, as they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If they do, then please reword the argument so that a simpleton like me, someone who appreciates rationality in a post with an adherence to logic, can follow it.

Now, going to her most recent comment, skipping the irrelevant parts of Catholicism for reasons already stated, we have:

That was the point of those examples of injustices against fundamentalists. If you had read it, you would know that I asked you what I can tell these atheists to show them how they are going against the principles of atheism to prove definitively that what they are doing is wrong. I can point to the Bible. What can you do? Granted, these articles don’t explicitly say that the people who arrested them are atheists. But that’s a little bit difficult to specify. These arrests, though, are a result of assaults on Christians in the political realm which are a result of free thought on the part of liberals.

To begin with, I would say that the most important principle for an atheist would be that of Reason. The majority, if not all, of the atheists in the world came to their conclusions regarding the concept and existence of God through lengthy deliberations, reasoning, and weighing of the evidence. Without the capacity to reason, and more specifically, to employ critical thinking skills in the realm of religion, most of the people that you know would still be following the antecedents and rituals of their forebears. The concept or morality is a concept that stems from reason. For instance, if you had clicked on the links and actually read the articles on Aristotle and Plato, not to mention the essay pertaining to materialist ethics, you would have known this.

Another point to make in reference to this paragraph is the fact that you posit no moral structure, no reasoned ethic, no logical argument for what morality is. The purpose of the debate was if slavery was moral or not, and if the Bible had explicitly banned it. As you have not answered that question, I can only surmise that it is because you have not thought out a well reasoned structure for the basis of morality in your own life. You keep saying that you can point to the Bible for morality, but I can quote verse after verse where the most immoral acts are condoned by the God of the Bible, and call them immoral. Why? Because of reason. Because I, as a rational creature, with the capacity to reason, can come to conclusions based on empirical evidence and in keeping with the doctrine of reasonableness, can make moral judgements. However, since you point out your vitriol time and time again about moral relativism, but without defining exactly what absolute morality is, I believe that you yourself do not know. Please post on this. Here is an essay on Absolute Morality from the atheistic perspective.

And just for fun, because you are being so vague, is human sacrifice moral? Reason and rationality say that it is immoral, but it seems that it was pleasing unto the God of the Old Testament.

After this, in June’s most recent comment, we get to the fact of numerous citations being quoted purportedly about “atheists” who are oppressing fundamentalist Christians. However, all of the quotes in the comment were from Fundamentalist organizations that had no links to the original Reuters or AP wire articles. That may be just as well, as it seems that June still hasn’t read the original article where I posted:

We can see that atheism does not equate to immorality. Neither does theism. Morality is defined, regulated, and ruled by other ideas and concepts.

Since June seems to be confused about the issue, I even posted again:

In the links provided within the article there were clear examples and logical arguments showing the dichotomy between God and morality. One does not necessarily follow from the other, another point that you ignored. The examples provided showed there is no correlation between theism and morality, just as there is no correlation between atheism and morality.

So, let me clarify again: What are your standards of morality, how do you come to them, and are they logical? Do they contradict each other? Are there logical fallacies in play? Instead of addressing this issue, you posted link after link of articles that only proved my point. (I’m just as outraged as you in some of those articles, as I firmly believe in Patrick Henry’s statement,”I may not believe what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”) Perhaps if you address the situation at hand? Of course, rather than addressing the issue, you wrote:

Quite frankly, you wouldn’t be able to prove to a Communist that what he is doing is wrong though. How would you tell the following Communists that this action is wrong?

Again, we can ascertain that Communism is wrong through reason. The a priori maxim of ‘Each man has a right to his own life’, with all of the corollaries, show that communism is wrong. This is not the point, though, as communism being equated to atheism was a myth that was dispelled in the article. On this point June then goes in further:

It’s wrong because you say so? It’s wrong because someone else says so? It’s wrong because they wouldn’t like it?
First of all, who are you to tell them what to do? How do you truly know what right and wrong are? Second, so what if they wouldn’t like it if it was them? There’s nothing really wrong with doing things to people that they themselves wouldn’t want done to them.

This is yet another Straw Man argument. June has over and over again equated atheists as being amoral; that they have no capacity to know what right and wrong are, and that atheists firmly believe in all instances that the ends will justify the means for the purposes of furthering their own egoism. June seems to not have grasped the rationality behind morality, and seems to be supporting the notion that the only way to tell right from wrong is adherence to the Bible. If this is the case, then how do we know if the Bible is right or wrong? Given June’s supposition, one can infer that atheists, and indeed others that are not Christian, do not know what right and wrong are, and cannot know this, but must blindly follow the dictates from Scripture in order to be assured that what their actions will follow a righteous path. This logic leaves June in a bind in defending slavery as wrong, though, as all people, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, and so on, believe that slavery is a vile, immoral institution.

The more pertinent point, though, is that we are again dealing with a level of recursion that needs to be addressed. Is God good because He says He is good? If that is the case, then we are back to the method of ‘Might Makes Right’. However, if God commanded people to start slaughtering those others that did not believe upon Him, either through ignorance, or because they are of a different religious stripe, then would God still be good? Of course, through the process of reason, a rational person would say ‘No!’. Then, we can see that God is not the progenitor of Good, but Good and Evil are transcendent moral facts that are themselves separate from God. If anyone purporting to be God, as defined in this instance as having the property of Omnibenevolence, but does or commands immoral acts, then we can safely assume that this would be a false god. June still hasn’t written a thesis about his/her conception of morality and how to define it. I’ve given several links already on ethics and morality, all mutually supportive of each other as each is based within the methods of reason, and all of them explaining, within a larger epistemological framework the concepts of Good and Evil.

I suspect that June has not posted such reasonings because of a lack of understanding of Epistemology, and the larger aspects of Ethical reasoning in regards to that which is true and false.

Wrong doesn’t exist in the atheist world. If it’s wrong for the individual, it’s wrong. Period.

In discussions such as these, I’m always amused be people who make an unproven assertion, but then try to distract from it by ending the statement with ‘Period’. There is no supporting evidence, no supporting reasoning; we are to accept June’s statement blindly. June, you need to prove that atheism is equated to amorality. I’ve done my fair share of giving you some links to begin researching this topic, but it seems you want to keep on propagating a myth. (Which is a polite way to put it, as I believe that it is a bald face lie, although not an intentional one.)

On the Bible and Morality:

You demand that I prove that the Bible is the authority; but if you read what I wrote, I clearly state that it’s wrong for me.

Okay, here I’m a confused. Do you mean that Biblical morality is wrong for you? Do you mean the Bible as a whole is wrong for you? I couldn’t find the antecedent this statement was in reference to, so I’m kind of out of the loop on this point.

I was refuting your assumption that I follow these moral codes because I will go to Hell otherwise. Here it is again:

Quote Myself:
I follow the morals of the Bible because it has proven itself to be the Word of God to me. And God’s morals are good. I follow them because they make the world a better place, not because they save me from a lake of fire because they do not.

June, you have skirted the issue over and over again: How can you tell if the morals are good or not? If they are defined to be good arbitrarily by a transcendent being, then how would you know that human sacrifice is bad? If the Bible condoned human sacrifice (theoretically, and yes I’m aware of the hermeneutics that have been employed to excuse the previous example cited of human sacrifice in scripture, but I find them to be weak and irrational), then a person would be put in the unfortunate position of having to defend human sacrifice as Good, because of the assertion that all Good and Evil is defined de facto by God. However, here, in this sentence, you have shown that you do know what right and wrong are, and that you have some method of expounding upon it. Please elucidate this for the rest of us.

But this is supposed to be an analysis of atheistic beliefs, not Christian. You charge me with skirting the issue when it is you who is doing so.

I’ve provided link after link for the basis of morality, all without resorting to positing the unknown in order to know what is moral. I’ve requested that June does likewise. To date, the only thing that has been accomplished has been the changing of the subject again and again, in an adversarial manner, to keep from showing where June’s moral center is grounded. Let me state again: Can June post a logical, rational thesis on morality? Especially in the context of the original debate, which was the Scriptural justification of slavery? (And the side issues pertaining to the Doctrine of Inerrancy.)

When it comes to atheism, June has not done a very good job. June has posted myth after myth, all refuted, on how fundamentalist view atheism. Like I stated in the original article:

No argument should be based in ignorance, or a willful distortion of other’s worldview that you yourself may not hold. Such is the death of wisdom; true wisdom comes in the form of knowing how little you know, and striving to add to your knowledge with the tools that you have available.

To continue with June’s comments:

Unless I find that you are misconstruing Christianity, which was the point of those quotes.

This I find to be funny, as the original article was posted to refute June’s distortions of atheism. The only point that was made in regards to Christianity was in refuting that a political ideology logically followed being an atheist. This has been proved false, but then June thinks I was misconstruing Christianity. The points that were raised in this respect have been refuted over and over again. The intent of the article was not a description of Christianity, but a description of Atheism, and what one should expect from it. Again, this seems to be beyond June’s ken.

Please read my quotes and the text right above them. I am asking you for your opinion on them. Since it seems like you agree with them, I will just go ahead and tell you where I got them from.

Here, we see that June is still engaged with the Red Herring Fallacy. Let me state this: it matters not how many links you post, as for each link that you post in support of fundamentalists being oppressed, I can post another link to an atheist being oppressed. It matters not as both of them lend credence to what has already been stated: Theism or Atheism is not correlated to morality! Reason is. However, it seems dodging the arguments seem to be the order of the day in this thread.

You can post links to books claiming that the Nazi leadership was Christian just because they were trying to win over a Catholic Germany; but private personal comments among friends and family state the contrary. I don’t know whether or not Hitler was atheist. He did use symbols of Hinduism and Buddhism for his flag; but one thing is clear. He wasn’t Christian.

Again, we are back to the ‘No True Sotsman’ fallacy. As far as his being Christian or not, I do not know. Neither, I believe, will it ever be proved one way or another as far as what his personal religious beliefs were. While the comment that was posted is very interesting, I cannot ascertain what the context was. However, it is an undeniable fact that the leadership of Fascist Germany was Christian. This, again, proves that you are moving from point to point in a Red Herring Fallacy. Please post your thesis on morality, specifically on how it applies to Biblical justifications for slavery.

On the point of evolution, Herbert Spencer was trained as a minister, and was a prominent philosopher of the 19th century in England. However, his misapplication of Darwin’s theory of evolution to the social sciences is egregious, as has been discuss here. It seems that Fundamentalists want to confuse the issue between Darwin’s theory of Evolution, and Spencer’s theory of Social Darwinism, as it benefits them to keep the waters muddied to prevent others from seeing with the clear eyes of rationality. Be that as it may, it has little to do with morality in the context of the Doctrine of Inerrancy, and the Biblical justifications for slavery. Again, the fallacy of the Red Herring is present here.

One thing that I want to touch on before I end this article:

What’s your definition of immoral?
You can’t give me one. If you did, you would be advocating the oppression of free thought.

Where on earth did June get this idea? This is patently false, deceptive, and not to mention another unproven assertion, as there is no definition of free though, and an irrational supposition that freedom to think would be oppressive to others. Here is a good starting definition of what exactly FreeThought is:

Freethought: The right to entertain any opinions that commends themselves to the judgement of earnest and honest seekers of truth, without his being made a victim of social ostracism in this world, or without his being threatened with punishment in some other.

This does not mean that any opinion goes. Only those premises which are supported by evidence and reason should be entertained by the FreeThinker. This not only extands to atheists, but to theists as well. How one can conclude that FreeThinking means anything goes is quite beyond my grasp. (ie, illogical, irrational, and another myth that Fundamentalists like to tout when debating the concepts of Atheism.)

Errancy and the Bible

In the previous discussion on this blog about certain matters scriptural (can you tell I’ve been brushing up some of my Romantic languages?) my main contention has been the rebutting of certain doctrines and myths concerning the Protestant Bible based on the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Some people may not know what this doctrine entails, so let’s look at the definition:

Biblical Inerrancy: Biblical Inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error.

Most of time time, especially in the Pentecostal sects, this is taken to mean that the Bible should be taken in its most literal context. The reasoning for this is that God is perfect, and as such, all His actions are perfect as well. When communicating with a fallen race (humanity), God needed to impart His wisdom in the most literal way possible for humanity to come to a more perfect realization of His Presence. While this is a very rough paraphrasing of the ideology, I just do not have the inclination to go into the whole doctrine in this article.

When reading the Bible with this type of an interpretation in mind, one will come across passages that seemingly contradict each other. In order for Scriptural Inerrantists to harmonize these passages, various modes of interpretation are implemented. The foremost of these would be eisegesis. Some people who are involved with critical, methodological interpretation of the Scripture may cringe at this, citing that the main method of interpretation would be exegesis, but as has been seen by the plethora of differing sects, denominations, and personal inclinations of the interpreters, a broad basis of consensus may be established to the fact that what is generally considered to be exegesis in methodology is nothing more but eisegesis. Another important tool to most Biblical researches is the process of Hermenuetics. While there are some very important aspects involved with the application of hermeneutics, especially in those areas that were broadened by Heidegger and current philosophers in semiotics, when it comes to critical interpretation of the Scriptures, most hermeneutical methodologies are left out because of the subjective nature of interpolation of personal philosophy and opinion into the texts at hand.

Now, given these tools for the harmonization of certain passages that may contradict each other, should we see a resolution of the apparent contradictions? Maybe in certain morality scenes, but the issue remains especially contentious in regards to facts, history, geography, and other areas of interest that the Bible seemingly gets wrong. For instance, in the classification of foods into either an unclean category or a clean one, the Bible states:

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Now, when interpreting Scripture in accordance to the inerrancy doctrine, one must keep in mind that the doctrine states nothing about the translated copies, so to the original language we go! There, we find that the Hebrew word used for cud is ‘Gerah’, which in its most literal sense means ‘Bring up the cud’. Anyone who has dealt with rabbits should know that they have a disgusting habit of eating their own dung. I’m sure there is a perfectly plausible scientific reason for this, but it remains disgusting. Nonetheless, if this particular passage were an indictiment against rabbits based on their eating habits, then shouldn’t the phrase have used the Hebrew word for ‘dung’? There does exist in Hebrew a word for dung, which was not used in this passage. Here, we see that all methods of interpretation for this passage fails to harmonize the Bible with known facts. The passage is plainly errant, which is a strike against the inerrancy doctrine.

However, in matters Scriptural, the doctrine goes even further! The premise is that God is perfect, and by definition and corollary, does everything perfectly. Another premise is that God is good, being the exemplified incarnation of the Platonic Ideal of Goodness. Hence, the original translations should be infallible when it comes to facts, figures, history, science, morality, and everything else the Scriptures touch on. It is here, at this juncture, that we turn from the more mundane aspects of Scripture and instead concentrate upon the morality inherent within the passages, thus bringing us full circle to the Slavery debate.

The arguments is this: God is perfect, and the perfect encapsulation of what is termed Good. As such, He cannot do anything imperfectly. Since He is both Good and Perfect, then when He lays down the laws of morality, He does so in the perfect conceptualization of said morality. Therefore, His moral code should not contain anything that is immoral, nor support immoral actions. Granted, there are a lot of fallacies within this argument, but this is not mine own argument that I’m defending, as this is the line of defense that many Pentecostal ministers and preachers use in their apologetics of the Bible. In this line of reasoning, combined with the doctrine of inerrancy, all that is written in the Bible is the Revealed Word of God, and as such should condemn those institutions that advocate immoral actions and modes of thought.

At this point, we get back to the original argument: Where is the condemnation of Slavery? Nowhere in the Scriptures do we see a blanket dismissal of the Institution of Slavery. In the stead of the expected condemnation of this practice, we see Scripture after Scripture that lays down guidelines for the treatment of slaves, to their procurement, to how slaves should react to their masters. Clearly, the Bible is errant in it’s morality in the upholding and justification for slavery.

For instance, in Exodus 21:20-21, we see that it is entirely permissible to severely beat a slave, as long as the slave does not die within a day or two. If we are to believe as the fundamentalists believe, and take this passage literally, then we would be remiss in our duties to examine fully the nature of the situation and to bring moral judgement upon it. Today, if this were done, there would be a loud and thunderous outcry against the practice! However, this was just one of the passages in regard to slavery that is in need of serious harmonization. The proper approach is to put the passage in its proper context both in history, culture, and surrounding texts. From this, one can come up with a myriad of ‘interpretations’ to come up with an explanation of why the passage should not be read they way it was written, but these are the worst sort of hermeneutics. In fact, all justifications for harmonization of these Scriptures lies firmly within the mode of interpretation of eisegesis- reading into the passage that which you expect to find.

While the Law laid down the guidelines for the slave trade (indeed, the act of purchasing a human being makes you part of the slave trade), there are those who will insist that the New Testament abrogated this doctrine, and that all slaves should be free. Except for these passages:

Ephesians 6:5-7 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,

I Timothy 6:1 1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Colossians 3:22 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Titus 2:9 9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18-22 18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Clearly, it can be seen that from beginning to end of the Bible, the Bible supported slavery. While there are many regulations on the institution, there does not exist one verse commending slavery as the vile, immoral institution that it is!

Of course, in this debate, there has been much contention over Galatians 3:28. However, when the whole chapter is read one finds that this is not an indictment of the institution of slavery, but rather an admonition that the Gospel is for all, based on Faith, irrespective of racial, sexual, or cultural disposition.

To wit, we return to my main point, which is that the institution of Slavery was not abolished because of Christianity, but in spite of it. Exegesis, eisegesis, and hermeneutics all fail to harmonize these passages with morality, and shows that the Doctrine of Inerrancy is false.

However, June, I believe, has asserted a false correlation. Mainly, the point was that slavery was abolished in the West, and the West was Christian, so therefore Christianity was responsible for the abolishment of the practice. This viewpoint neglects the major social and scientific, not to mention philosophical, revolutions that were part of the Enlightenment, which had much more to do with the improvement of our lives than Fundamentalist Christianity.

Atheism and Morality

Some comments were made on this blog that caused me great concern, as it seemed that while the author was not deliberately trying to deceive others, that was still the case in the ignorance of the quotation of certain matters as fact rather than just speculation. I believe that this is caused by the Church’s arrogance, and some cases ignorance, about philosophies and praxii other than their own, as well as certain pastors attempts to demonize anything that stood in counterpoint to their own theologies. Of course, when it comes to religion, very few people will go out of their way to read up on opposing viewpoints contrary to their own, and even fewer people take the time necessary to learn the rules of logic and reasoning that underpin their own understanding of whatever Scripture is held in Holy regard. When this is done to the Christian community, a great hew and cry is raised to point out the ignorance of the viewpoint, diatribe, or argument that was utilized against them, which I believe that they rightly do so. No argument should be based in ignorance, or a willful distortion of other’s worldview that you yourself may not hold. Such is the death of wisdom; true wisdom comes in the form of knowing how little you know, and striving to add to your knowledge with the tools that you have available.

In the Christian community, especially within the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Fundamentalist sects that I’m more than familiar with, there is rampant disdain that is lavished on atheism in general, and atheists in particular. I believe that the majority of this comes from the confusion of separate issues; for instance, the first issue that is usually raised is the fact that most Christians believe that morality only comes from God. The second topic that gets confused is that atheism, by some Christian’s definition, is necessarily equated to Communism, two completely different philosophies; one dealing with issues pertaining to the supernatural, the other dealing with a form of government. The last point of confusion that I would like to deal with is the question of meaning in a person’s life. Most Christians, through ignorance of philosophy and other’s viewpoints, often point out that the outlook of atheism is bleak, desolate, and spiritually bankrupt, as it leads to a mechanistic view of the universe, with an absence of meaning. Of course, my contention is that all of these myths about atheism are exactly that- myths.

What is atheism? In the simplest sense, atheism is the lack of belief in God, gods, and the supernatural. Most atheists have a lack of belief in the supernatural because the supernatural is not proven, cannot be tested for, and in almost all cases, cannot even be properly defined. According to this stance, if you asked ten different people what a “spirit” was, you would get ten different answers, none of which agrees with the others outside of the nebulous, ethereal nature of the “spirit”. Of course, most atheists have only the lack of belief in the supernatural; others, however, hold an active disbelief. This arises from the contradictions in fact and in reasoning of the theist position on almost all arguments relating to the existence of some transcendent being in (out of) the universe. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is what a lot of Christians confuse with atheism, mainly that agnosticism is the belief that a god could exist, but the uncertainty of if it does, or which one is the true God. However, in regards to atheism, the lack of a belief, or the active disbelief, of gods and the supernatural is the sum totality of the philosophy.

What of morality? The common misconception about morality is that if one does not adhere to a belief in the Divine, then one cannot be a moral or ethical person. The fallacy in this can be immediately seen, as there have always been, and always will be, persons who abuse their religion in order to justify the expedience of definite immoral and unethical behavior. For example, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and even the Third Reich based their hideous and repugnant immorality upon the ideas of Christianity. In the current day, we as a society are still dealing with extremists such as the Aryan Nation, Westboro Baptist Church, and Fundamentalist Muslims who all believe in God, but perform immoral act after immoral act. Clearly, it can be seen that adherence to morality is not a correlation to theism. Just as Christians are errant in blaming mainstream atheism for the conception and execution of Communism and other assorted ills, so too is the atheist in blaming mainstream Christianity for the examples that were cited. Obviously, there is something else in the formation of morality and ethics.

What would this other thing be? To take a look at an example, what of the Christian who only follows a moral code because of her fear of condemnation in a lake of eternal fire? Would this person be more moral than an atheist who follows a moral code just because it is the right thing to do? You see, most atheists, because of their belief that this is the only life that we have to live, take life as a precious thing, and seek to make it as comfortable and enjoyable for all concerned as possible. Hence, their concern for following an ethical code of conduct, as this is the only way that ensures that all are accorded the right to live their lives as they see fit without abrogation of others’ rights to do the same. A good starting point would be Zindler’s essay on atheism and ethics. Also, when we look into the ancient world, we see philosophers and natural scientists that did not have access to the Bible, believed in capricious gods that had questionable morals, but were still able to make magnificent (for their time) treatises on Ethics and Morality. Plato and Aristotle both wrote articles on the ethics of human behavior that are still studied in High Schools and Universities today. In fact, it was Plato who first identified that gods, goodness, and The Good were separate entities, according to his Platonic Idealism, and then formulated his philosophy’s source for the operation of human ethics and morality. We can see that atheism does not equate to immorality. Neither does theism. Morality is defined, regulated, and ruled by other ideas and concepts.

Of course, with the advent of Communism, most Christians latched onto the phrase “Godless Atheist” when describing the Soviet Union. Then it was a “known” fact that all Communisms were atheist in origin. However, even a cursory glance at history show that this is not the case. The most successful communist regime in the world today, and by far the oldest, is the Catholic Church. Most Christians are uncomfortable with that fact, because they have been conditioned to only think of Communism in terms of a caricature of atheism. However, the underpinning of atheism is freedom of thought. Any structure that opposes an individual’s right to think for themselves is antithetical to the most important element to many Atheists. Given this, it is easy to see that Christianity lends itself far more easily to Fascism than Atheism does to Communism.

The last point to consider is the meaning of life, and should such a meaning necessarily be contingent upon the belief in a transcendent deity? Of course, most theists will state that of course it is contingent, as only God can give meaning to an individual’s life. When examined, though, we see that this viewpoint is reached because of a subscription to an ideal of a Straw Man in regards to atheism- namely, that atheism has no meaning to offer, and equates all “truths” as being relative to each other, which lowers the meanings of everything to the lowest common denominator of nothing more than a mechanistic universe. This Straw Man is false, and has been shown to be false again and again, yet still the Fundamentalists like to offer this viewpoint as the truth in regards to those who hold opposing viewpoints to their own. Any cursory inspection (again, that fundamental requisite to intelligently discuss such topics, which most Fundamentalists neglect) of philosophy will show that a meaning for life is not hinged upon the belief in God. In fact, by definition of a meaning for life in the Union of the individual with God after life inherently denigrates all life. By stating that the purpose of life to lie within the unknown (the afterlife and death) one neglects the purpose for this life that is lived.

“If a person cannot find meaning and purpose in their lives without imaging the existence of a state of being after they are dead, they fundamentally devalue and denigrate life itself. Such devaluation, in the long run, only serves to further the cause of violence — especially religious violence — because it encourages people not to value life, whether it is their own life or the lives of other human beings. When life has no value except when it is over, then in the end life simply has no value period.”

For an overview of this philosophical view, go here and here.

Hopefully this will allay some of the myths and stereotypes some fundamentalists hold in regard to Atheism.