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.

Great Deluge Models

A conversation with Nick prompted me to bring up the Great Flood Myth in the Bible. It seems like he is one of the people that takes this particular story in its literal sense, which, to me, does not make sense. In regards to that, let me preface this article with a brief description of the Scientific Method.

In order to advance the knowledge of a particular field, a scientist will make observations about the phenomenon that she perceives. (The sun rises and sets every day.) Then, the scientist creates a hypothesis to explain the perceived phenomenon. (The sun circles the earth.) Then, when the scientist is done with the creation and description of the hypothesis, she will then perform experiments to see whether if the hypothesis is correct, and has the ability to predict future actions. (In this case, the hypothesis should predict that other planets also circle the earth.) Then the research is submitted for critical peer review. (Galileo Galilei’s observations, and Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion falsify the Geocentric model.) If the hypothesis proves to be correct, and it is useful for predicting future actions, then it will generally become a theory or a scientific law, as long as no new evidence comes along to falsify it. If it is proven incorrect, then the hypothesis needs to be modified to fit all extant data, or become invalidated.

Of course, this is a rough approximation, but more information regarding the Scientific Method can be found here.

Now, Creationists propose a hypothesis that a Great Flood happened in the recent past. Fundamentalists believe this to be the case because of their belief in the literal truth of the passages in the Bible which relates the Flood Myth. With this belief in mind, combined with the Scientific Method, we can see whether if such a flood has happened in the past. First, the hypothesis: The Earth was covered in water, where even the highest mountain had a span of twenty feet of water covering them. Note that they completely ignore observations about the natural world in the forming of this hypothesis. They start with a theory, and then try to work backwards from there. Okay, be that as it may, we can form some predictions based on the hypothesis already. Some, but not all, predictions would be:

1. The amount of water in use to cover the entirety of the earth. The best approximation that I have read would necessitate over 2.5 times the volume of water already in the ocean to make this model true. To date, no data supports this.
2. The model should reflect why the polar ice caps are still there. If the earth were flooded, then the polar ice caps should have broken up. In six thousand years, we should only see a number of ice layers in the polar ice cores that have been taken that reflects the time since the flood. To date, no data supports this.
3. Mountain erosion. We should see in different mountain ranges similar erosion activity at the same time to reflect flooding conditions. Again, no data supports the Great Flood Myth.
4. Unusual amounts of terrestial detritus within the ocean floor core samples that have been taken. If there was a great flood, then terrestial silt and animal by-products (skeletons and such) should be found in great quantities within the core samples. To date, this also has not been the case.
5. The presence of Mitochondrial DNA. In the process of tracking back the most recent ancestor for mitochondrial DNA, we should expect to arrive at a number of about 6,000 years or so. Instead, we have evidence that Mitochondrial Eve was alive no more recently than 150,000 years ago! Again, the evidence that we have to date does not correlate with the Flood Model.
6. Geological Sorting. The fossil record that we have today should correspond to models of hydrological sorting processes if such a flood had happened. Instead, all corroborated evidence and data in the Scientific Community shows that such a process has not happened in the past.
7. Dispersion of human settlements. The Flood Model has not, and cannot, account for all of the evidence pointing to gradual human dispersion throughout the globe.
8. Extant Writings. If the Flood happened, then we should not see any written documents from the time that the flood was purported to happen. Instead, we have slabs and slabs of rocks from the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, and so forth, that were written and dated at the same time as when the flood happened!

These are just some of the problems with the Hypothesis of the Great Deluge. The model, in effect, has not made any predictions that have been valuated, and because Creationists worked backwards, they had no observable phenomenon to quantify before the formation of the Hypothesis.

In effect, the Flood Myth has been falsified over and over again. To present, there is no evidence that such a global flood has taken place.

Fundies Gone Wild

Well, I have to say, this woman actually brought me back to my childhood. Yep, these were the type of people I grew up with. My friends wondered why I didn’t like fundies until they saw this video…

Slavery and Translations

Now that I actually have the time to construct a sound argument about the passage in I Timothy that June from the Artist Thinker Blog has been waiting for, I’m actually glad that I decided to wait this long. Not only that, but I’m glad I forgot to respond to the passage to begin with. It was fortuitous indeed that this post should go into this passage in detail, as I think I’ll be touching upon the corners of other fallacious doctrines in fundamentalist Christianity which holds up their whole world-view. How? Well, let’s just say that the passage that June quoted is one of the most ambiguous, mis-leading, and vague passages in the New Testament, as far as linguistics, semiotics, and translations go. How could this be? The answer is rather simple if you have spent any time at all translating texts from the extant living languages in the world, and should be extrapolated into more and more difficulty when dealing with dead languages that still have written colloquialisms and idioms that are no longer understood, not to mention concepts and words that cannot be translated into English because the current English language simply does not have the precepts to understand these ideas. Of course, the same is true in reverse, but hardly serves our purpose for translating some sections of the ancient texts.

Let’s start off by reading 1 Timothy 1:8-11 in different versions, shall we? Let’s see if the words “slave trade” actually show up in the various passages. After all, this is a very specific occupation that actually had it’s own word within the Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and pidgin vernacular of the time, so if the original text utilized the Greek word for slavery, slave trade, and so forth, than the other translations should adhere to this as well. Especially since this is a list response enumerating specific incidents of morality, so the cry of “idiom” should be very far off. First, let’s take a look at the passage in the original language for those of you who may be using bastardized study aids that were manipulated to support one particular viewpoint, rather than trying to arrive at the truth:

8 oidamen de oti kaloV o nomoV ean tiV autw nomimwV crhtai,

9 eidwV touto, oti dikaiw nomoV ou keitai, anomoiV de kai anupotaktoiV, asebesi kai amartwloiV, anosioiV kai bebhloiV, patrolwaiV kai mhtrolwaiV, androfonoiV,

10 pornoiV, arsenokoitaiV, andrapodistaiV, yeustaiV, epiorkoiV, kai ei ti eteron th ugiainoush didaskalia antikeitai,

11 kata to euaggelion thV doxhV tou makariou Qeou, o episteuqhn egw.

Of course, the translation that June posted can be found here. This comes from the New International Version of the Bible. For some of the purists out there, let’s look at the King James translation. After all, the English language has had the word and the conception of slave and slavery for quite some time now, haven’t we?

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

For “menstealers”? Well, Old English has been known to be extremely vague, and “menstealers” might be construed as “slave traders”, along with a dozen other options. Okay, let’s find another translation that might be a little bit more specific. From the Amplified Bible:

8 Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [for the purpose for which it was designed],

9 Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,

10 [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers–and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

11 As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

What a neat little translation, in both senses of the word at this juncture! We have gone from slave traders, to menstealers, to kidnappers! Wow, the enormity of it all! Well, let’s try out another translation:

8 We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching 11 of the good news that the glorious and wonderful God has given me.

Again, we have the term “kidnapper”. What is going on here? Why is it only in the NIV translation that we have the term “slave traders”? If we look at the original Greek version that I posted at the top of the article, we see that the term that is being translated is the Greek word “adrapodistai”, the stem of which is andrapodistes. In _Strong’s Concordance_ we see that this word is enumerated as 405, and the Concordance gives a meaning of:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer — one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Here we find that the term “slave dealer” has been defined as one working illegally with the slave trade, one who goes beyond the limits of propriety in the search for profits. In this passage, we again see that there is no out right condemnation of the practice of slavery, but rather an admonition to adhere to the Law in practicing the trade.

As I said in the beginning of this article, I stated that there were other issues with this passage of text that strikes at the core of linguistics and translation. The reason for this is that this passage is quoted most often, in addendum to a passage from I Corinthians, to be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as well. However, some scholars have stated that the term that has been translated as “homosexual” within the confines of this text is a made-up Greek word that Paul utilized to convey a clear and specific message pertaining to the sexual mores at the time. The term, “arsenokoitai”, meaning men + beds, had a very unusual implementation within the language, and has been translated as masturbators, perverts, effiminate, sexually immoral, sin against nature, sodomites, ad nauseum. How should this word tie into the surrounding passage? After all, Fundamentalists are constantly accusing others of taking Scripture out of context in order to justify their views of the Bible. Well, by looking at the surrounding analogies that the author made, we can see that this debate of homosexuality actually ties in with the current discussion of Slavery. Let’s take a look.

Within this passage the author used duets and triplets of sinfull behavior to describe for whom the Law was intended. First there is the lawless and disobedient, two related categories of sinful behavior. Then there is the ungodly and the sinners, also two related categories. After this, the author cites the unholy and profane, which I think most reasonable people would also conclude that a relationship between these activities exist. Then we have three types of murderers, those of fathers, those of mothers, and manslayers. Then we have the whoremongerers and the “arsenokoitai” and kidnappers. How do we go from these other groups to this last set of iterations? Well, the author has shown that he is linking together groups of similar sinful discourse, so it would be prudent to assume that he is still doing this with this next to last set in the passage, especially since the last set of behaviors, the liars and perjurers, concludes the analogy with yet another set of categories that are intrinsically linked. Let’s look at the terms in the original Greek.

The first of the terms is “pornoi”, which comes from the Greek stem word “pernemi”, which is the infinitive for “to sell”. Pornoi refers to an enslaved male prostitute. A more prudent interpretation of arsenokoitai is one who sleeps with an enslaved male prostitute, and the last term andrapodistes refers to one who illegally enslaves others. We see that the common theme running through this triplet is Slavery. More specifically, it is dealing with a form of illegall slavery that was common at the time that the author seems to be condemning.

Again, we have a comment from June:

In fact, the only reason why slavery has been abolished and seen in such terrible light is because of the Christian nations. If not for that, it would be continuing on today. There was no one else who condemned it. NONE.

Well, actually, if we look at history, we find out there was one group of people that actually condemned slavery within the limits of their historical perspective and mores: the Muslims. If you recall your history, while Europe was languishing within the Dark and Middle ages, an Enlightenment movement was sweeping the Muslim nations in the Middle East. In fact, most of the basis of our current mathematics and sciences are firmly established within the Muslim Enlightenment. They had indoor plumbing and gas lights while English and French farmers and peasantry had none. They had great mathematical minds that were translating the lost texts of Euripides, Demosethenes, Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers into Arabic, and then expanding on them. Also, they were formulating plans for the eventual abolishment of the institution of slavery. As we can see from the Quran:

“Three types of people will stand apart on the day of Resurrection as My enemies – and an enemy of Mine will be doomed; a man who vowed in My name then betrayed, a man who sold a free person as a slave and appropriated his price, and a man who employed a worker and had him do the assigned work then failed to pay him his wages.”

I could go on and on, but it is obvious from even a cursory inspection of the Quran that there is blanket condemnation of the practice of slavery, unlike the Jewish Torah or the Christian New Testament.

Artist Thinker | Slavery Condoned

If you have read the comments in the previous section detailing the debate between myself and the writer of the Artist Thinker Blog, you know that June had made some comments concerning that Christians were responsible for the abolition of Slavery, armed with Theology based in the Biblical Scriptures. My point of contention is that the verses that June had posted are taken out of context, and if looked at in the light of other Scriptures, can be seen to only address slavery in the light of Hebrews being enslaved to other Hebrews. They say nothing about the enslavement of other races. Also, within the Scriptures of the New Testament, there is no repealing measure to the practice and establishment of slavery. Instead, what is called for is an egalitarian communion among the members of the Church within the confines of the Church. Slaves are still expected to serve their masters whole-heartedly and cheerfully.

Some of the first Scriptures that June quoted are taken from the Old Testament, directly from the Holiness Code. (Or the Law, as the Hewbrews knew it.) Rather than quoting the verses in full, I will link to them to the On-Line Bible, wherein the reader can read the verses in any translation that they prefer. First are the verses from Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and Leviticus 25:35-55. (I will get to the verse from I Timothy shortly.) As we can see, all these verses deal specifically with the practitioners of the Law in regards to slavery; i.e., they may sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay off debts or to make ends meet for themselves and their families. However, these verses do not pertain to the practice of taking slaves from other races, tribes, or nationalities. Indeed, we find that in Leviticus 25:44-46 that the Hebrews were allowed to take slaves from other tribes, and that this practice of enslaving others extended to all the slaves progeny. To quote, for those too busy (or lazy) to look at the link:

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This exemplifies in totality the outlines to Law in which slavery may be practiced. However, June also posted from Deuteronomy 15:12-18, which has nothing to do with Slavery, but rather Indentured Servitude. While in our day and age the difference between the two seems relatively minor, in those eras the difference was rather huge within the societies that such concepts operated.

Then, June asserts that slaves were not to be treated with ill-will. From Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we see that slaves were not meant to be given back to their masters. However, as we can see from previous excerpts from the Law, this verse only refers to those Hebrews that were taken as a slave and escaped, seeking refuge. Indeed, June then goes on to quote from Ephesians 6:9. Let me post this so all those can see the clear and inherent contradiction that June does not seem to grasp:

“9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”

From this verse we can see that there is no abrogation in the doctrine of Slavery. Rather, followers of Christ were expected to treat their slaves well. Nothing was stated about Slavery being an immoral, unethical institution.

Then, June posted two excerpts from the New Testament purportedly showing that slavery was sinful. These come from Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:26-29. However, these verses have nothing to do with slavery, but instead show the egalitarian spirit in which the Church was to operate in accepting new converts and the social communion that was to be shared. Indeed, if we look at Ephesians 6:5, we see that:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

as well as Colossians 3:22, which states:

“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.”

Hence we see that there is no such construction of the abolition of slavery being inherent within the Bible as June asserts. At this point, I would have to agree with the essay by Charles Bradlaugh that, “I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men professing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognizing freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity.”

In conclusion, we see that the Bible actually condones the practice of slavery, the New Testament reiterates this support within the praxis of just rule over another, and nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that condemns the practice as immoral, unethical, barbaric, and wrong.

Artist Thinker | Questions on Apologetics

Well, late one evening, as is my wont, I was utilizing the random blog jumper button. You know the one, the little arrow in the top right hand corner of the page that appears when you are logged in to see your blog if it is hosted on WordPress.com. Well, while doing so, I stumbled over a post that purported to show Christianity in a “different” light. By the word “different”, I mean that they were trying to show that Christianity was a rational, logical religion that should be believed because the evidence extant proves it to be true.

Well, everyone who knows me in real life knows that I make a distinction between two types of people. (At least when it comes to the religious type of person.) The first group are people who realize that their religion is a product of personal belief and faith and profess as much. The other is more akin to the fundamentalist who says that Logic, Reason, and Evidence shows their religion (and Denomination and Sect) to be the One True Way.

So, I guess what this should show the reader is that I have nothing against a religious Christian. I do have something against a religious Christian zealot who tarnishes her integrity by not claiming that her belief is based in faith.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. I made a comment over at Artist Thinker, a Blog that is dedicated primarily to Christian topics and apologetics. However, one of the posts there seemed to be addressed to the readers at large, and I posted a comment to it. The reason for my comment has it’s basis in what I talk about on this blog, especially when it comes to critical thinking skills. Specifically, what I referenced was the Error of Bifurcation. (Now, let me see if I learned how to do block quoting…)

“The fact of the matter is that either the Bible is the Word of God, or It’s a pack of lies. You have to choose one way or the other for the Bible and every document that claims to come from God. There is no middle ground. If one part of these books is a lie, then how could you possibly trust any of the rest of it?”

Here’s the point that got me all riled up. How, indeed, should we trust a book if one part of it is proven to be false? My, if just one itty, bitty, little bit of it is proven to be a lie, well, then, by Golly! we should chuck the whole thing out of the window! I mean, after all, we know how to do eisegeisis, do we not? We know linguistics, semiotics, the majority of the original language of the written portfolios and autographs, have scientific validation of the historical events that are portrayed within the documents, and so on. But, June wants everyone to believe that if just one, little, itty bit of it is proven false, then the whole thing must be thrown out, rather than just looking at the historical, social, and cultural ramifications and implications of the passage in question. Not to mention that as of yet, there exists no guidelines for telling when the Bible digresses into allegory and when it is relating factual evidence.

Well, June, here is a whole list of inconsistencies, errors, and outright falsehoods of the Bible. Yes, I will admit that the author was stretching a little bit here and there, but the Bible, if it is inerrant, should not get fundamental things wrong, such as the fact that the Bible says that rabbits chew their cud.

Be that as it may. June responded with this quote:

“And the inclusion of a wrong book or the exclusion of a right book would not amount to a pack of lies? What could you really trust anymore? Is God so incapable of perserving His own Word and confusing us on something so vital as the truth? The few small mistakes that have slipped by have been discovered and amended such as 1 John 5:7. Is this not God preserving His Word?”

Well, as we can see, there are far more than a “few small mistakes”. Also, the one thing that I would like to point out is that there is a little bit of ignorance on the part of most lay people about the history of the formation of the Bible. Some of the books that were considered Canon in the first and second centuries are no longer around, and also books were included at later dates that may have even more recent genesis. This is another nail in the coffin of the Doctrine of Inerrancy.

More was said:

“Your Ethics and Reasoning from the Renaissance served to produce such things as racism which tainted early Reformation leaders such as Martin Luther, who really should have known that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and literally by blood since each and every one of us descended from two people.”

I’m sorry, but when did ethics ever present a situation where racism was considered good? I can not think of any. Reason, especially reason that strives to base itself in empirical premises first, also has never promoted racism. However, we can see ample evidence of racism in the Bible, and in many different theologies that are based in Biblical thought. The whole reason why the South (of the United States, that is) struggled against abolition is because they used verses to promote the institution of slavery! Philosophy, especially that philosophy as espoused by the Objectivists, (say what you want about them, as I find some of there logic fallacious as well, but Ayn Rand was right about this) says that “Every man has a right to his own life”. That means that slavery, racism, sexism, and other prejudices that are not based within the content of character of the individual or her actions are ethically wrong. I must respectfully disagree with you on this point, June, as it seems you are utilizing the Straw Man Argument, wherein you set up a factually inaccurate portrayal of the opposing viewpoint in order to bolster your own premise. Your litany is not true.

Again, from the Comments page to the article:

“It also produced evolution which bolstered claims of superiority and relegated “lesser races” as non-humans and even women as lesser beings.”

Well, I wished you would have read my post calling for creationists to submit proof of special creation. As I’ve stated before, there exists proof for evolution by the truckloads. However, most fundamentalist Christians either do not understand the fact of evolution, or they do not understand the theory of evolution, or they intentionally misunderstand all aspects of it. While some people may have misused the theory of evolution, that does not negate the theory itself. People have also misused the theory of magnetism to have others believe that they possessed supernatural abilities. Does this mean that the theory of electromagnetism is wrong? However, to concentrate upon the evolution side of the debate, you also employed the term “superior”. Within an evolutionary context, “superior” only refers to those species that have adapted to their ecological niche can propogate faster than other species. This means the most evolutionary “advanced” species on the planet would be some type of microbe, and most scientists will agree to this. Only madmen, psychopaths, and megalomaniacs have abandoned reason in order to use evolution as their justification for wholesale murder.

Continuing with the statement:

“Such human reasoning gave rise to Nazism and Fascism and Marxism, poxes on history that have scarred many and continue to do so. Don’t believe me? Think such people as Che are to be revered? Well, why don’t we ask the hundreds of Cubans who risk life and limb to make it to this evil nation of America with all it’s evil capitalist freedoms? Are they not the direct benefactors of Che’s ideology? And that chaste man of the people Fidel Castro most definitely did not make it on the list of some of the most wealthy leaders in the world.”

For some reason, I think in June’s earnestness for the sake of argument, June became convinced that I was a communist. I don’t know how I went from just pointing out a logical error in the argument to being a cheerleader for Communism. However, more to the point, June insists that such politics and methodologies such as Fascism and Communism (the Nazis, despite the word “socialist” in their name, were very much a fascist state) can be laid directly at the feet of human reason. Well, I would propose that it would depend on the connotation of the word. I use the word Reason to mean a well ordered, rational approach to the problems of life wherein as much evidence as can be found before forming logical arguments. Basically, I’m using the word reason in the same way that a scientist or a philosopher may use the term. From the way June derides the term, however, I suspect that June’s interpretation of the word is more along the lines of “Whatever a man may think”.

Again, from the comments section:

“By the way, you obviously failed to read Part 2 in this series called Does God Exist? — The Philosophical Argument. If you had, you would have seen how I show how our own reasoning of ethics can be tainted and unreliable. You have skipped to the end of the book and consequently are confused about the ending.”

I will admit that I did not read the article you wrote. I have since rectified that problem, and think that I can succinctly summarize what you presented in this article: For the greatest happiness, there must be a moral order. If this moral order is found that engenders happiness, then it must have been made by someone. This someone is God. Even in this statement you allow several logical fallacies. You beg the question by stating that people are only happy in following rules. You beg the question that these rules do exist, as well as assert an unproven premise. You also beg the question again in the following statement by asserting that the rules had to be made by someone. Not only that, but there is the error of Bifurcation again, as there exist many different possibilities about the formation of these rules and even how these rules are perceived. Your final unproven assertion is that this frame of rules was codified by an unknown and undefined term such as “God”. (That’s a completely different debate that’s been raging for centuries, though.) There are many other methods and arguments that could have been employed in your apologetics for the existence of God, why did you choose this one?

The one thing that I want to point out here is that if I’m wrong, or presented fallacious evidence, or employed errors in my reasoning, then I will be all to happy to admit to the fact of my error and correct it immediately. This also extends to turns of phrase that I may have mis-stated. The point is this: Can you do the same?

After this point, June asks about a personage that I named in the comments section; a certain Mr. Farrell Till, current editor of the Skeptical Review. I think the link should provide all the evidence needed to assay June’s feelings on the topic. This is what was written:

“Question on Farrell Till: If he was a preacher for TEN YEARS as you have stated, then why did he have to be told to dig deeper into the Bible? Isn’t the nature of a preacher the fact that he has already studied the Bible? What were his sermons like if he didn’t dig deep into the Bible until later? They must have been pathetic flops based on his own assumptions and reasoning.
This all just seems soooo….odd.”

I find it odd that a person would engage in ad hominem attacks and character assassination before even knowing something of the subject matter at hand.

This leads me to my final point: I do abhor the fundamentalist. They resort to doctrines that are not true, can patently be falsified (again, in the scientific context), and must use Apologetics that have been disproved time and time again throughout history. A true person of faith will admit to being just that, a person of Faith. They know they believe what they believe because it is an article of belief and faith. If more religious people would just say this up front, I do believe the world would be a much better place.

The Martyr Mentality

Or, in other words, the Politics of Victimization. This is especially relevant in the United States right now because we, as a culture, love the under-dog. Most people will root for the ill-favored team (How else do you explain Twins’ fans?), the new-comer to the market, the David against the Goliath. From this, we also sympathize with victims. We expect justice to be done. From this sympathization with the victim, though, certain movements in the country have been playing off of this empathy for good and for ill.

Best example would be GNU/Linux against Microsoft. Most of us who read the Tech Trade Press like to see someone take on Microsoft’s juggernaut. The reason why we like it? Well, it might have something to do with the fact of all the illegal and questionable purchases, trade agreements, and coercion that went on in the early to mid 90’s. Companies were stifled, patents were bought and then used as weapons, lawsuits were brought against innovation that threatened the current monopoly, and so on. Now, there is a new kid in the market space that seems to be able to compete with MS in the server market, and now other companies (generally those who were burned and victimized by MS in the 80’s and 90’s) are hopping on board the Linux train!

Our sympathies in a situation like this are generally justifiable, if you view the Tech Industry as a spectator sport. (And come on, who hasn’t viewed one market or another as a sport at some point in their life?) The problem is when the politics of victimization are used to engender feelings of empathy for the majority that has no problems. Businesses are now starting to use this in their PR campaigns, but they are not the progenitors of this tactic. No, for that, we have to look at the Neo-Conservative Christians who propagated this particular methodology.

If we look at the statistics for the US we find that almost 80% of the population identifies as Christian. This is much more than a simple plurality. This is much more than a majority. This is a super-majority. Yet, we find that some Christian movements are characterizing themselves as being persecuted, denied their rights, unable to function, and enduring general social martyrdom. Why would they do this when it is obvious that they have majority opinion behind them? For one reason and one reason alone: We like the under-dogs! We want to be sure that victims are protected! Because we like the under-dogs, of course we’ll listen to them, and even help them out!

As we can see, this is fallacious, as it is their ideology, their ethics, their morality that drives this country at the moment. By setting themselves up to where an outsider thinks that they are being attacked accomplishes their goal by expanding their mind-share of the news memes at the moment, and pushes forward their propaganda on whatever issue they are contending with right now. This does not mean that all Christians are doing this. Far be it from that! While most Christians, and, indeed, their denominations, are content to live their life quietly according to their beliefs, it is the few, the extreme right wing, that is ruining the collective reputation of Mainline Christianity as a whole. Of course, here I’m referencing to the self proclaimed “Word Faith” movement that I escaped from, not to mention certain Pentecostal sects, as well as a few fundamentalist Baptists.

In the end, what is lost is the freedoms and liberties that this country was built on. There always existed a small but vocal minority within the bounds of this country that wanted to install a theocracy, and stifle any dissent to their views, in the hopes of creating a “New Jerusalem“. Let’s work to instill the original values of the Founding Fathers instead- Equal Rights Afforded to Everyone.

Let’s Have Some Proof!

Alright, I will admit it: I really, really do not like Fundamentalists. I was raised by Pentecostal/Fundamentalist parents, and because of this I have a deeper understanding of the movement than most other people do. Not only that, but when I really started to study the Bible, I started to also study the underlying linguistics and languages behind the translation of the current King James Bible as well. What I discovered made me disgusted with the people that were in the movement, as they would pervert and twist the passages of scripture to construe what they wanted it to mean to support their own personal theology. Now, it seems that they are not content with just twisting scripture, but they want to twist science as well.

If you have been paying attention to the news, you know by now that the fundamentalist members of the Kansas State Board of Education have been voted out. The population of Kansas seems to be coming to their senses in regards to what actually qualifies as Science. Hurray for them! But the defeat of the “Intelligent Design” movement in that state seems to only give them an impetus for introducing their “alternative theory” into other school districts.

My question is this: What facts support Creationism? Trying to poke holes in Evolution (which they haven’t been very successful at, just look at Talk-Origins for an example of Creationists getting their arguments ripped to shreds in the light of Factual Evidence) does not automatically support Creationism. Evolution has evidence in support of it by the truckload. What can a Creationist point to that supports their hypothesis?