Twenty-One Theses

1. The Christian religion posits an all-powerful, omnipresent god who cares greatly about human beings as a whole and, indeed, who is concerned with each of us as individuals. Yet, in scrutinizing what is alleged to be god’s magnificent creation, the most conspicuous fact given by observation is god’s utter absence from it. If god exists, he is a silent, inert sluggard who cannot be bothered to make his existence manifest, despite the fact that, in biblical times, he was full of wonders, miracles and prodigies.

2. The Bible, which, according to Christians, is the inspired word of an omniscient god, does not contain the slightest shred of internal evidence to support that contention. Indeed, every single sentence in the entire tome could have been written by any first century commoner with the rare talent of literacy. Men’s ignorance in biblical times was so comprehensive as to be rather shocking; the Bible fully captures, and credulously regurgitates, the ancient ignorance of its time.

3. On Christianity, god is interested in human salvation, and the religion quite clearly holds that salvation is achieved through saving faith. It is interesting, then, that god has not been more proactive in disseminating this rather important point, given the fact that, even now, there are remote places that the Christian message has not yet penetrated. Christianity’s slow spread by the efforts of man indicates god, if existent, does not much care whether his message is heard.

4. With its bizarre tales and miracle claims, the Bible reads like any common collection of mythology. A world in which a virgin birth occurs, men rise from the dead, miraculous healings are effected and street magic is not mere illusion bears no similarity to, and has no relationship with, the world in which we find ourselves, where the laws of nature are immutable. When one reads mythology and legendry, one finds precisely the same topsy-turvy world one recognizes from the Bible.

5. Although even some Christians discount the factual veracity of most of the Old Testament, many still dogmatically hold to the myths about Moses and the Israelites. The best available evidence indicates the flight from Egypt, wandering in the desert and conquest of the Promised Land did not ever occur. Indeed, rather than the Israelites conquering Canaan following the Exodus, most of them, in fact, had always been there. That is, the Israelites were simply Canaanites who forged a distinct culture. The Old Testament contains nothing more than self-aggrandizing folktales.

6. One of the few theological tenets that are clearly open to scientific experimentation is prayer. And, in fact, the efficacy of intercessory prayer has been tested in a rigorous and credible way. The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), supported by the John Templeton Foundation, which attempts to wed religious and scientific thinking, found that intercessory prayer had no effect on complication-free recovery from coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In this case, prayer was tested credibly and it comprehensively failed.

7. The fact of Darwinian evolution by natural selection contradicts biblical Christianity and shows it to be false. Although some proportion of Christians has succeeded, in their minds, in melding the Christian faith with recognition of Darwinian fact, this seems a fruitless exercise. There is not a whisper of Darwinian understanding in the Bible, which, as Christianity’s foundational text, purports to speak to questions of origins. Any “harmony” between Darwinian thought and the Bible is the product of an elaborate construct invented by scientifically aware Christians.

8. The Christian religion is fantastically solipsistic with respect to the human animal and its place in the cosmos. The Christian message specifically says that humans are god’s special creation—made in his image—and that, of all the creation, he is principally interested in us. This notion, of course, arose in a time of immense ignorance of the cosmos. We are a single species, on a single planet, part of a single solar system, in a single galaxy, in an almost unimaginably vast universe. Humanocentrism is a luxury of ignorance we can no longer sustain.

9. To cite god is to invite an infinite regress from which there is no escape. Any god character who is complex enough to design a universe—let alone to monitor every human being who has ever lived, listen to and answer prayers, and send a son to die for our sins—is statistically improbable exactly because of that complexity. Inasmuch as Christians offer no explanation for god’s existence, it is all but ruled out simply because of the statistical improbability of unexplained organized complexity. We can explain the human brain’s evolution; Christians cannot explain the organized complexity of god.

10. The faith to which one adheres seems, in the majority of cases, to be quite directly determined by (a) the faith of one’s parents and (b) the dominant faith of the society in which one is raised. Young children trust their parents—a fact that, quite clearly, has evolutionary benefits generally. However, it also means they are susceptible to parental religious inculcation, from which it can be difficult to liberate oneself. One wonders how many people adhere to Christianity, or any faith, as adults simply because they were raised that way.

11. Homo sapiens sapiens have walked the Earth, in something approaching modern forms, for the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. This is scientific fact, and no thinking person entertains Young Earth creationist piffle. This means, then, that for tens of thousands of years human beings lived, struggled, suffered and died—and Heaven watched, arms folded, in silence. After this interminable wait, which likely lasted well over 100,000 years, god decided that maybe it was time to intervene. His method of intervention? A nauseating human sacrifice in a very remote part of Palestine.

12. The world looks exactly as we would expect it to look if there was no god and no special interest in human affairs. Our planet is plagued with natural disasters in which people are killed indiscriminately—without any regard for their supposed righteousness or evilness. We do not find the slightest hint of ultimate justice in the cosmos. And god, who supposedly loves humans so dearly, demonstrates his laziness again. When there is a hijacking, he never zaps the hijackers with heart attacks. When a crazed gunman is on the loose, he never turns the bullets into popcorn. Love is in evidence; hate is in evidence. Only god is not in evidence.

13. Christianity loves to cloak itself in the raiment of meekness and humility, endlessly drawing attention to how humble it is. Christians call themselves lowly, sinful worms in god’s eyes, desperately in need of redemption through saving faith in Jesus. Although Christianity features an unquestionable tendency toward self-debasement, it is also fantastically arrogant. Fearing that the creator of the universe is upset with you is equally solipsistic—indeed, betrays equal arrogance—as enjoying peace from the belief that the creator of the universe is pleased with you.

14. The notion of an afterlife—surviving one’s bodily death—seems completely incompatible with our current scientific understanding. A blow to the head can rob one of one’s memories. Neurodegenerative disease, in some cases, can result in what might be described as the loss of the self. Phineas Gage suffered a traumatic head injury, the lasting effect of which was a dramatic change in personality. As Victor Stenger notes, neurological and medical evidence strongly indicates that our memories, emotions, thoughts and, indeed, our very personalities reside in the physical particles of the brain or, more precisely, in the ways those particles interact. What, then, would make it into the afterlife? Vague, impersonal energy?

15. To threaten small children with damnation to hell strikes me as a particularly hideous form of mental abuse. Our imaginations seem to be most vivid when we are children, and our credulity is at its peak. To small children, weeping and gnashing of teeth, not to mention lakes of fire, are not metaphorical descriptions of existence apart from god; to the undeveloped mind, they are real and haunting. One can only hope, when they grow and mature, they realize, to be a deterrent, hell’s awfulness must at least be commensurate with its ludicrousness. Because hell is infinitely silly, to deter anyone at all, it must threaten infinite punishment.

16. On Christianity, moral facts exist, because Christians stipulate that morality—what is good and what is evil—flows directly from god’s nature. They contend that god’s nature is unchangeable—cannot be otherwise—and, therefore, morality is objective. Yet, in conducting an evidence-based interrogation of the natural order, one finds no moral facts. Earth’s biodiversity is a bare fact. A conclusion flows naturally therefrom: A fact necessarily exists about the origin of, or explanation for, Earth’s biodiversity. Nowhere do we find the necessary existence of a moral fact, or any evidence that one exists.

17. If, as Christians say, morality flows directly from god’s nature, then any behavior god exhibits, and any action he commands or endorses, is necessarily righteous on the Christian view. In Genesis 19:4-8, the Bible character Lot offers his two virginal daughters up for rape to the men of Sodom, who surround his house. In 2 Peter 2:7-8, Lot is called “righteous” three times. The Bible, on Christianity, is the word of god; therefore, one must conclude Lot’s offering his two virginal daughters up for rape is consonant with god’s objective morality. Deuteronomy 7:1-5, Deuteronomy 20:16-18 and Joshua 10:28-40 demonstrate that god, whose very nature defines what is moral, sometimes commands genocide.

18. Men have been inventing deities for millennia, and Yahweh is just one in the near-infinite troop. As H.L. Mencken observed, the graveyard of dead gods, wherever it is, is well populated. I have little doubt that Yahweh’s grave is already dug, and that perhaps it is alongside the final resting places of Resheph, Baal, Anath, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Hadad, El, Addu, Nergal, Shalem, Nebo, Dagon, Ninib, Melek Taus and Yau. Then again, Yahweh’s grave might be closer to those of Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Ptah, Sebek, Anubis and Molech. RIP Yahweh.

19. Human beings, although clearly the most advanced species currently living on Earth, are easily deceived, deluded, confused and baffled. Our minds are well adapted for survival and for dealing with “Middle World,” where things are not microscopically small or cosmically very large, but they are still evolved organs with inherent limitations. Through a long period of trial and error, we can now conclude that marshaling evidence—relevant facts—is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth as we interrogate the world of experience. If Christianity is to be accepted, it must be on the strength of its evidence.

20. On scientific thinking, hypotheses are meritorious only to the extent that they (a) make predictions, (b) enable those predictions to be tested and (c) find that, upon testing, the predictions are confirmed. The Christian hypothesis, to its detriment, is exceedingly bad at having its predictions be confirmed. Let us take Genesis, for example. The creation chronology presented in Genesis represents a testable prediction. In recent times, science has been able to test that prediction. Rather than being confirmed, the prediction failed, because Genesis’ creation chronology is wrong. This is a strike against the Christian hypothesis. Archeological disproof of the Exodus narrative is another strike against the Christian hypothesis.

21. It has been said some people are so constituted that they cannot believe in god. I am not such an individual, insofar as I invite convincing evidence of god’s existence and workings. I shall not fall prostrate to god’s feet in any case, but I would believe god existed if the evidence were sufficient. Any moral opinions I articulate, including those in which I deem god’s actions evil, are expressions of my deepest nature; I am constituted as I am, and I can neither help nor change what fundamentally strikes me as grave evil, which would prevent me from worshipping god, irrespective of evidence for his existence.

The god of the Bible Endorses Offered Rape and Actual Genocide

Editor’s Note: The purpose of this piece is not to make a moral case against Christianity. It is not to declare that the biblical god character is immoral. It is not to insinuate that, by inculcating Christian theology into one’s children, one will produce immoral adults. On issues related to morality, I am a nihilist; that is, I do not believe objective “right” and “wrong,” or “good” and “evil,” or “moral” and “immoral” exist. Thus, I am quite possibly the worst conceivable individual to make a moral case against any belief system’s truth. This is why my present purposes relate much more to academics and scholarship than to passion or righteous outrage. I aim simply to explain what the god of the Bible endorses, without standing in judgment of what he endorses.

On any Bible-centered Christian worldview, it is quite easy to apprehend what is right and what is wrong...what good and what evil. To a Christian, such as my frequent interlocutor Rhology, that which is good is consonant with god’s nature and that which is evil is counter to it. A key point must be made clear: On Christianity, it is not that god’s will conforms to that which is good; rather, on this view, god’s nature defines what is good. To a Christian, anything god does, commands or affirms is necessarily good, and could not be otherwise. Turning to the Bible, then, any behavior god exhibits therein, and any action he commands or endorses, is necessarily righteous on the Christian view.

To live up to this post’s title, then, I first must prove that god endorses—approves of—“offered rape.” To do this, I shall cite Lot, the well-known biblical character whose unfortunate wife was turned into a pillar of salt. When two angels came to Sodom, which god had marked for destruction for its unbridled wickedness, the kind and righteous Lot would not accept their intention to spend the night in the square and, instead, took them into his house. No sooner had they eaten a feast than the plot thickened….

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Genesis 19:4-8

I selected a Bible translation in easily understood English to ensure the gist was clear: The men of Sodom were surrounding the house because they wanted to fuck the two angels. But Lot, being a good host, intervened in an effort to forestall such an unpleasant experience. His suggestion to the libidinous troop was to rape his two virgin daughters instead, whom he offered to bring out for them. This was the suggestion of Lot, the most righteous man in the entire city.

How do we know Lot was considered righteous? We do not even have to cite the simple fact the angels moved to save him and his family. It is spelled out very clearly:

and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),

2 Peter 2:7-8

The Bible, on Christianity, is the word of god. On the Christian view, god’s nature is the definition of what is right, or good. The Bible describes Lot as righteous, and god’s own angels move to deliver Lot from Sodom’s imminent destruction. At the same time, in his efforts to bargain with a lascivious mob of would-be angel sodomites, Lot offers his virginal daughters up for rape. Thus, in at least some circumstances, offered rape, on the Christian view, is consonant with upstanding morality.

The Bible also expresses, in the clearest of terms, the moral righteousness of genocide in some cases. Let us first define genocide so no later confusion is possible: Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group, whether racial, political, cultural or religious. To demonstrate god’s endorsement, the challenge is not so much finding applicable passages to select as avoiding the potential pitfall of illustrating the point gratuitously. Here are a few prime examples:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,
and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.
"But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.

Deuteronomy 7:1-5

"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.
"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

Now Joshua captured Makkedah on that day, and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword; he utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it He left no survivor Thus he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho.
Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah, and fought against Libnah.
The LORD gave it also with its king into the hands of Israel, and he struck it and every person who was in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor in it. Thus he did to its king just as he had done to the king of Jericho.
And Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Libnah to Lachish, and they camped by it and fought against it.
The LORD gave Lachish into the hands of Israel; and he captured it on the second day, and struck it and every person who was in it with the edge of the sword, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish, and Joshua defeated him and his people until he had left him no survivor.
And Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Lachish to Eglon, and they camped by it and fought against it.
They captured it on that day and struck it with the edge of the sword; and he utterly destroyed that day every person who was in it, according to all that he had done to Lachish.
Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron, and they fought against it.
They captured it and struck it and its king and all its cities and all the persons who were in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor, according to all that he had done to Eglon. And he utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it.
Then Joshua and all Israel with him returned to Debir, and they fought against it.
He captured it and its king and all its cities, and they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person who was in it. He left no survivor. Just as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and its king, as he had also done to Libnah and its king.
Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Joshua 10:28-40

Working from our definition that genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group, whether racial, political, cultural or religious, there can be little—nay, absolutely no—doubt that the god of the Bible has commanded genocide. This is not to say that any genocide is consonant with godly righteousness; not in the least. It is not even to say that one in 1000 genocides is consonant with godliness. It is merely to prove that, on the Christian view, in principle, genocide can be consistent with righteousness before god. It proves that, if god condescended to humanity again tomorrow, and he commanded genocide, it would be consistent with some previous commands and, on the Christian view, to perform genocide would be moral.

I believe it has been established sufficiently that the god of the Bible—in circumstances however limited—endorses offered rape and actual genocide. In those circumstances—again, however limited—offered rape and actual genocide, on Christianity, are consonant with god’s necessarily righteous nature.

An Instructive Exchange?

This morning, while making what has become my daily trip to Rhology’s blog, I discovered a most interesting post. It seems a friend of Rhology’s wrote him recently requesting prayer, because he feared that, due to his possibly blaspheming against the Spirit, the creator of the universe might be upset with him. Even before reading Rhology’s response, I was struck by two things: First, I felt considerable sadness that Christianity has the power to rouse such fear in people who, in all other facets of their lives, do not permit their minds to be addled by nonsense. Second, I observed the intense solipsism that is deeply ingrained in Christian thought (such as it is). How else could one describe the absurd egoism of such concerns except as solipsistic? I replied in the comment box, briefly giving my thoughts, which led Rhology and me to a rather interesting back-and-forth exchange, to which I shall momentarily come.

Before that, though, I wish to delve a bit deeper into Christian thought in general. The overwhelming majority of my writings have to do with Christianity’s truth or, more precisely, its untruth, as revealed by our best available evidence. I do not seek to make a moral case against Christianity because, at present, we have no good evidence that moral facts (that is, facts about what is moral or immoral) exist; in any case, Christianity having what I perceive to be negative consequences has no bearing whatsoever on its truth value. Nevertheless, because this relates directly to the exchange below, I shall reference two moral concerns I have about the Christian faith: First is the aforereferenced egocentric solipsism lying at its heart and with which it infects its adherents. Second is the odious, noxious nature of some of its theological tenets, for example damnation in hell, which I recently deconstructed here. In the main, Christians attempt to paint their religion in the colors of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. If, however, one is unwilling to submit to their preachments, they often let the simmering threat system upon which Christianity is predicated boil to the surface.

As you read the following exchange, do consider these points: In his certitude and in the place he carves for himself in the cosmos, which one betrays greater arrogance? Which one is more likely to presume to know far more than he actually can? Which one is more apt to stand in judgment against the other?

Nihilist: I have nothing much to say here except to observe that fearing the creator of the universe is upset with you is equally solipsistic—indeed, betrays equal arrogance—as enjoying peace from the belief that the creator of the universe is pleased with you; the insincere raiment of meekness and humility with which Christian thought cloaks itself is a poor substitute for being genuinely humbled by the insignificance of not just each of us but, indeed, of our entire race.

Rhology: I'm not sure you really understand biblical theology and thought, then. There's nothing insincere about how I esteem myself - I *am* a worm, disgusting in my sin and loathsome in my kicking against the redemption and purification that Jesus has provided for me.

God is not pleased with me in myself. He is pleased with me b/c "it pleased God to crush (Jesus)" on my behalf. I don't expect you to accept that for yourself, but it's not very decent nor humble of you to act like you can read my mind and thus prove me a liar.

Nihilist: My comment was not particularly about you, nor was it an attempt to prove you a liar or accuse you, specifically, of insincerity. What is insincere is the pretended meekness and humility of Christian thought itself. You might say and, indeed, believe that god is not pleased with you in yourself. Nevertheless, though, at the heart of Christian thought is the fantastic leap of solipsism that the creator the universe is personally aware of the individual, concerned for the individual, interested in the individual and in possession of love for the individual. The knitter of the fabric of space-time...he who confected Alpha Centauri...he who twiddles the knobs on the physical constants... is concerned with YOU (as the individual). Again, in whatever fashion Christian theology might force you to declare yourself a disgusting sinner who is shameful before god’s eyes, this remains a staggeringly arrogant stance to take, in my view.

Rhology: Why is it a fantastic leap, given Christian presuppositions?

What's so hard to see about a God Who is all-powerful and omniscient and Who concerns Himself with little things AND big things? After all, "big" to an infinite God means the expenditure of simply a larger numerator over an infinite denominator. It's nothing.

What we have here is just further expression of your stubborn unbelief. Fine. But it's nothing more.

What's far more arrogant is for you, mere man, to call evil what God has called good.

Nihilist: Any moral opinions I articulate, including those in which I deem something (the actions of your god not excepted) evil, are mere expressions of my deepest nature. I am constituted as I am, and I can neither help nor change what might fundamentally strike me as grave evil.

Rhology: The man-centered pride of your statement is striking. One day, your knee will bow. You who have explicitly chosen to put your blind faith in "evidence" and its power to tell you the truth, ignoring the many problems with your view and the many factors that your worldview doesn't account for, would call the teaching of Jesus "evil"...you're in for a very unpleasant end. May the Lord have mercy on you and not give you the judgment you so richly deserve.

To close, then, I humbly present the answer I would give to any god who, judging me after my death, would confront me for disbelieving in him. In this case, I must steal from Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, god! Not enough evidence!”

Putting Away Childish Things

From where does the primitive, delusional silliness of religion come? Why did men invent gods in whose service they all too frequently waste their sole earthly lives? It seems the answer is threefold: First, in times of ancient ignorance, men invented gods to explain phenomena that were beyond their understanding. People could not adequately explain natural disasters or thunder and lightning, so they bound up such events with angry or wrathful deities. Medical understanding of disease was pathetically lacking, so people associated sickness—especially mental illness—with invasive demons or curses. Second, it seems to be a universal part of human nature that, when things are going badly, people like to feel there is somebody in their corner on whom they can count. Because people are limited in their ability to palliate each other’s pain and depression, it is comforting to invent a god to whom one can turn in one’s blackest hours. Third, conjuring a god in whose presence you can spend an afterlife is a neat way of lessening one’s natural fear of dying. The human mind is an amazing thing, and its blessings are numerous, but it also curses us with sure knowledge of our own mortality; god belief, however unjustified and silly, contributes to distracting us from our inevitable expiration.

This third reason why men invent gods and confect religions is my principal interest at present. I am not qualified to say whether individuals of any other species are aware of their own ultimate mortality, but we can be certain none possesses awareness near as acute as that of humans. And yet…death’s slow but sure approach does not preoccupy most of us. We watch our CSI-type shows and see a corpse on an examining table being looked over by the medical examiner, but it rarely occurs to us that, in some period of years—perhaps many but perhaps few—we shall be on just such a cold metal table. A mortician might not be our favorite person to see, but, when we do, it is seldom we consciously ponder that, eventually, powder and makeup shall be applied to our own ashen faces, drained entirely of their pinkness and vitality. I do not think our ability to forget about our own impending death has, in the main, to do with religious superstition; I think we are easily distracted by our prosaic day-to-day lives. But, surely, on the anthropological level, looking across cultures, the idea that one can survive one’s own death has appealed to our kind for millennia.

Although I am without gods, have no use for infantile spiritual pursuits and recognize an afterlife as nothing more than wishful thinking, I have no fear of death. (This is not to say I have no fear of possible pain associated with death, but only that dying, to me, is not frightening.) The balance of this post shall explain why. Religious individuals (principally Christians) have often warned me that, as a blasphemous atheist, I shall spend eternity in hell, being tortured and roasted and experiencing all manner of other such unpleasantness. To be sure, I recognize that, on Christianity’s truth, I shall be consigned to the fire pit; the conclusion is hardly debatable. However, these warnings give me no pause. One reason is that hell, in itself, seems so transparently invented as a means of controlling people’s behavior and making them fall into line. I also find laughable the very notion of a place where billions of wispy, incorporeal essences are tortured infinitely for finite sins committed during earthly life. (How might one torture a wispy, incorporeal essence, anyway? How might there be pain without a physical body? Beats me.) Why does the doctrine of hell entail unending, limitless torment? I submit that, to be an effective deterrent, hell’s awfulness must at least be commensurate with its ludicrousness. Because hell is an infinitely silly concept, to deter anyone at all, it must threaten infinite punishment.

There is no good reason to believe god’s celestial dictatorship exists in the real world but, for a moment, let us suppose it does. Indeed, let us suppose that hell exists, too, and billions have been consigned there. If a god exists who damns people to hell, this god is cruel beyond description and, to my standards, the very picture of evil. On Christianity, god is omniscient, in addition to being the author of every human soul (that being, the immaterial essence that animates our flesh). Omniscience entails that, when fashioning a soul, god already knows every action the person-to-be shall take; there can be no mystery for an omniscient creator. Inasmuch as god is creating people, the deity is creating each individual to be as he is. The deity made John Wayne Gacy to be John Wayne Gacy; he could have created him differently but he did not. In fashioning Gacy’s soul, the deity, with full foreknowledge, fashioned a serial killer who would not repent and who would be sent to hell. Gacy was created to fail, insofar as god chose to make him as he was and all his actions were a foregone conclusion even before he emerged from the womb. The deity, then, established a torture chamber, from which escape is impossible, to punish those people who he, given his omniscience, deliberately created to be unredeemed sinners (that is, sinners who he knows shall not get redemption). Indeed, god is the toymaker who, after purposefully making faulty toys, inflicts wrath upon them.

I do not recognize objective morality, but I see no way I could worship such a deity, who, in my judgment, exhibits the height of cruelty. No matter, though. The unfairness of a god who creates hell is rather a moot point, given that hell is a patently ridiculous concept. Rather than wasting breath arguing against it, it is more properly the subject of derision. Much like Jesus’ apparent parthenogenic birth, Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt, and biblical characters living hundreds and hundreds of years, hell carries falsehood upon the very face of it.

If there is no hell, as surely there is not, what does happen to us when we die? Of course, no living individual can know for certain, but the evidence is rather clear: Upon death, we cease to be. Much as we all might wish that, after dying, we might find ourselves in a theme park in the clouds where our old friends and relatives eagerly await us, we really need to leave such childishness behind if we wish to have an accurate apprehension of reality. What, exactly, is supposed to make it into the afterlife? Victor Stenger writes, “We have seen that neurological and medical evidence strongly indicates that our memories, emotions, thoughts, and indeed our very personalities reside in the physical particles of the brain or, more precisely, in the ways those particles interact. So this would seem to say that when our brains die, we die.” And Stenger is correct, of course. A blow to the head can rob one of one’s memories. Neurodegenerative disease, in some cases, can result in what might be described as the loss of the self. Is one honestly supposed to believe that when the brain is dead—perhaps even rotting away—phenomena strictly dependent upon brain activity, such as memories, thoughts and personality, shall persist? If one wishes to pursue that silliness, one might also revert to the idea that emotions such as love emanate from the heart.

For something that at one time lives, death is merely not to exist. Indeed, in a true sense, each of us may say we were dead during all the years prior to our birth. I was dead throughout the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire. I was dead throughout the time of the dinosaurs. I was dead during World War I and World War II. I was dead when Charles Darwin was formulating his dangerous, and wonderful, idea. For the brief present period, I am alive; after this period, I shall be dead again. Insofar as my death was no inconvenience or trouble to me for the previous several billion years, I expect it shall cause me no unpleasantness for the several billion years upcoming. Sadness and regret, loneliness and missing—these are emotions for the living, and none of them follows when the dirt closes over us.

Atheism, then, is freeing and joyous in its way. True, it does not entice us with promises of an afterlife that does not exist. It cannot distract us from our mortality or life’s briefness. But, it allows us to focus our full attention on the single life we do have—this one—and wringing as much enjoyment from it as we can. We do not waste our time prostrating ourselves before a god who, by my standards, would be unworthy of mere acknowledgement, let alone servile obedience. We refuse to gorge ourselves on the false comforts of childish delusion, instead accepting the world for what (and how) it is and, indeed, finding joy, inspiration and wonderment in studying and better understanding the natural order. There is no need for Bronze-Age superstitions cooked up by semi-stupefied peasants when there is biology, cosmology, anthropology and physics, just as no one bothers with alchemy when chemistry is available to us.

Life might be short, and nothing but individual non-existence follows thereafter, but evolution has bequeathed us a gift that no other species has been given: We are capable of understanding our own evolutionary origins and where we, for a brief moment, find ourselves. If this is insufficient to occupy the mind, it is difficult to imagine any cobbled-together book of folklore or magic Jesus wafer would ever be.

A Brief Digression on Morality

Can objective, prescriptive morality survive in a world without god? Certainly, a great many atheists seem to think so, including freethinkers for whom I have a great deal of respect, such as Christopher Hitchens, for instance. Recent books tackling the issue from a scientific perspective include Michael Shermer’s The Science of Good and Evil, which, in part, discusses the origins of moral instincts in light of our evolutionary development. Whether atheists have the ability to reference “good” and “evil,” “right” and “wrong,” “moral” and “immoral” in anything other than a subjective sense is an important question, and it is a question to which I have a rather disconcerting answer: No. With a proper, scientifically literate understanding of biology, the cosmos and the world in which we find ourselves, we must accept that we seem to be bereft of actual moral facts (that is, facts about what is moral and what is immoral).

Given the near universality of some behavioral codes among members of our species, we can be extremely confident that Darwinian evolution by natural selection had some role in shaping our collective sense of right and wrong. There are numerous examples that could be cited, but, to select one, there are very few, if not no, cultures that revere cowardice and pusillanimity while reviling courage and bravery. Most cultures have some version of The Golden Rule, which urges you to do to others as you would have them do to you. And it is easy to understand why certain behavioral guidelines would be selected for as our burgeoning civilization came to be. A functional society—that is, a society that can grow, prosper, maintain itself and cooperate—will persist; a dysfunctional society—that is, a society that is self-destructive, antagonistic and consistently hobbling itself—will die off. Even before proper civilizations began to emerge, certain kinds of behavior in smaller bands also would be conducive to a band’s success, and thus be selected.

Evolution is powered by natural selection. At its base, natural selection is about gene propagation; selection favors those things that enable “selfish genes” that wish to multiply (yes, I am anthropomorphizing) to get as many copies into the next generation as possible. In a sense, then, human bodies are just complicated machines whose sole purpose is propagating the genes that built them. We have sex and rear offspring because our selfish genes want the maximal number of copies in the next generation’s gene pool. Physical traits and characteristics evolve because they increase biological fitness (that is, the ability to reproduce successfully). Selection works against those traits detrimental to biological fitness. Instincts and inclinations evolve alongside, if not in direct relation to, the physical structures of the body.

Why do human societies, almost without exception, embrace The Golden Rule? It seems inescapable that they do so because that inclination, along with others, increased biological fitness among our ancestors, whether they were part of roving bands, small tribes or more advanced civilizations. Proscribing murdering one’s neighbors or stealing from one’s fellows made good sense vis-à-vis a population’s survival and, thus, moral instincts were imbued in the individuals. In short, then, our moral sensibilities developed because they were useful. This is not unique to morality. Richard Dawkins writes, “When we look at a solid lump of iron or rock, we are ‘really’ looking at what is almost entirely empty space. It looks and feels solid and opaque because our sensory systems and brains find it convenient to treat it as solid and opaque. It is convenient for the brain to represent a rock as solid because we can’t walk through it.” A rock looks and feels solid and opaque because it is useful for it to seem so. Similarly, it was useful for intraspecies (or, at least, intratribal) killing, theft and savagery to be considered immoral.

But does what happened to be evolutionarily useful actually relate to a cosmic truth vis-à-vis giant questions of “right” and “wrong”? There is no reason to suppose so. Evolution has imbued other inclinations into our nature, in a way not dissimilar to moral ones. For instance, generally speaking, males are more promiscuous than females are; this is a fact of observation. What explains it? It has to do with differential investment in sexual mating. In the case of males, the supply of sperm is essentially unlimited and, what is more, following fertilization, the male conceivably could abandon the female and still have some confidence of his offspring surviving and, thus, his genes making it into the next generation’s gene pool. Therefore, evolutionarily, it is in a male’s interest, essentially, to fertilize as many females as possible; this explains promiscuous inclinations. For females, though, the situation is reversed. Compared with sperm, females’ supply of eggs is much more limited, and their physical investment in a pregnancy is hugely greater than for males. Evolutionarily, it is in a female’s interest to be choosy about by whom she is fertilized. Does this understanding of differential investment in sexual mating mean men ought to be promiscuous and women ought to be choosy? I see no grounds for such a conclusion.

Studies of evolution help to explain our innate inclinations, and we may follow those inclinations or go against them—there is no “ought” of which to speak. Just because natural selection imbued us with tendencies or instincts does not mean we are slaves to them, or they touch on cosmic truth. Richard Dawkins gives an illuminating explication of natural selection, saying, “It is all about the survival of self-replicating instructions for self-replication.” He continues, “Viruses and tigers are both built by coded instructions whose ultimate message is, like a computer virus, ‘Duplicate me.’ In the case of the cold virus, the instruction is executed rather directly. A tiger’s DNA is also a ‘duplicate me’ program, but it contains an almost fantastically large digression as an essential part of the efficient execution of its fundamental message. That digression is a tiger, complete with fangs, claws, running muscles, stalking and pouncing instincts. The tiger’s DNA says, ‘Duplicate me by the round-about route of building a tiger first.’”

Thus, humanity’s delusions of exaltation crumble in a heap. Humans, like everything else on the tree of life, are a mere digression to ensure the survival of self-replicating instructions for self-replication. This biological reality check is amplified by our knowledge of the cosmos. I can think of no analogy to illustrate how tiny a speck of the cosmos humanity represents. Indeed, even if we restrict our view to our own meager planet, human-like creatures have been around less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth’s natural history. We are a single species, on a single planet, part of a single solar system, in a single galaxy, in an almost unimaginably vast universe that would have long since forgotten about us if only it had known of us in the first place. The moral questions with which we wrestle seem terribly important to us, as do our thoughts and our actions…even material things like our possessions and our homes.

Doubtless, moles are preoccupied with their underground burrow systems, too.

Imagine There's No Evolution (It's Not Easy If You Try...)

What if the entire scientific community is wrong? What if Darwinian evolution by natural selection, convincing though it has been since the time of Charles Darwin, has not occurred? Indeed, what if, far from modern notions of common descent, all species were specially created—all at once—by a supernatural Creator who personally designed every creature’s form? This Creator would be responsible for Homo sapiens sapiens, of course, but also for Drosophila melanogaster, Apatosaurus excelsus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus and Dendroaspis polylepis, along with every other species of living thing that has ever populated the Earth. Going down this particular rabbit hole is rather difficult; after all, Darwinian evolution by natural selection is scientific fact, a truth as well attested and irrefragable as the germ theory of disease or the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Nevertheless, if we take the enormous leap of faith required to reject Darwinian evolution, we can examine the world as we find it and, I shall argue, discern important qualities of the Creator. These qualities should offer no comfort to the religious.

And so, down the rabbit hole we go, looking at Earth not as an extremely ancient planet whose antiquity is confirmed by several converging lines of evidence but, rather, as a baby planet whose considerable biodiversity can be entirely explained within a several-thousand-year history. Yes, now we must look at Earth as the backyard garden of the Creator. But what kind of a Creator? Looking at the available evidence, I shall explain why we can conclude such a Creator is (1) a devious being, who wishes to trick humans into believing Earth is extremely ancient and the species have an evolutionary history, (2) remarkably odd, because the distribution of species on Earth, if consciously arranged, speaks to an extraordinarily queer mind, (3) peerlessly wasteful, given the presence of nonfunctional pseudogenes, and (4) idiotic, as evidenced by the utterly incompetent design that can be found throughout the creation, in humans as well as other species.

The majority of my material, as well as my initial inspiration, comes from The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins, and Why Evolution is True, by Jerry A. Coyne. When I use either author’s exact words, I shall quote him directly; if, however, I simply summarize a discussion in either text, I might not make a specific citation. Thus, let it be clear that Dawkins and Coyne’s fertile minds contributed invaluably to the whole of this piece.

First, then, surveying the evidence at our disposal, we can be certain that the Creator is devious, deliberately setting out to create a false impression of Earth’s antiquity and evolution’s occurrence. The first way in which this characteristic manifests itself is in the theory of plate tectonics, a geological theory that states the lithosphere of the Earth is divided into a small number of plates that float on and travel independently over the mantle. We now understand that the continents have not always existed as we currently know them. For example, Gondwana was an ancient supercontinent encompassing our present South America, Africa, Arabia, Madagascar, India, Australia and Antarctica. Gondwana broke up gradually, in stages.

Our principal interest is when Africa and South America began breaking apart, which, according to current scientific thinking, was about 140 million years ago. The two continents are now separated by some 3000 miles, with the speed of separation being a couple of inches per year. If, however, Earth is actually quite young—merely several thousand years old—and the product of a Creator, such a snail-like speed would not be nearly enough to separate the continents to their current distance. Indeed, if, as some have proposed, Gondwana broke up during the Noachian flood, the continents would positively have had to hurtle away from each other. Because the speed of separation can be measured, and it is remarkably slow, we can be confident that any Creator who separated the continents at a very quick speed sometime in the last few thousand years is trying to deceive us into believing Earth is ancient. The Creator is deceptive.

The Creator’s trickster tendencies are also apparent in our radioactive clocks. Radioactive isotopes in igneous rocks (rocks formed by magma cooling down and becoming solid) are used for dating purposes, because the isotopes decay at a constant rate. It is important to note that there are several radioactive isotopes scientists use, and they often co-exist within the same rocks. The decay rate used is typically the half-life, that being how long it takes for half of the unstable isotope present to decay to something stable (to go from 100 to 50, 50 to 25 and so forth). Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14; its half-life is 5730 years. Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206; its half-life is 4.5 billion years. Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207; its half-life is 704 million years. Other unstable isotopes include Potassium-40, Thorium-232, Rubidium-87 and Samarium-147. Importantly, as Jerry Coyne writes, “Several radioisotopes usually occur together, so the dates can be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree.”

This is important because, with our half-life figures calibrated, we can use radioactive clocks to converge on an approximation of Earth’s age. In fact, scientists have done just that. Richard Dawkins writes, “The currently agreed age of 4.6 billion years is the estimate upon which several different clocks converge.” This fact surely means the Creator—who created Earth merely several thousand years ago—is devious beyond compare. Not only did he change the half-life figures of every radioactive isotope that we use for historical dating, but he also changed them in such a way that each one converges on the same ancient age—4.6 billion years—for Earth! To be sure, for every clock to converge on, say, 6000 years, every half-life would have to be tweaked differently.

Dawkins makes this point: “Bear in mind the huge differences in timescales of the different clocks, and think of the amount of contrived and complicated fiddling with the laws of physics that would be needed in order to make all the clocks agree with each other, across the orders of magnitude, that the Earth is 6000 years old and not 4.6 billion!” To do such fiddling, thus making every radioactive isotope that we use all agree that Earth is 4.6 billion years old, attests to a Creator who deliberately attempts to trick humans undertaking scientific study. The Creator is devious.

This deviousness extends to evolution, which, clearly, the Creator wants scientists to accept; that is the only explanation for the fossil record. When we talk about “dating fossils,” what we nearly always mean is dating the rocks around which the fossils are found. This is where the geologic strata become important. The geologic strata (singular is “stratum”) are layers of rock, one on top of the other, with the oldest rocks the deepest down and the youngest rocks the highest up. The scientific community refers to this layering as the geologic column, and it is extremely well evidenced. The salient point for our purposes here is that, when dating fossils (actually, the rocks around which fossils are found), they appear in a strict evolutionary order. When questioned by a creationist as to what observation could possibly disprove Darwinian evolution, the late J. B. S. Haldane famously answered, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!” On the evolutionary view, the Precambrian spans from Earth’s formation about 4.6 billion years ago to approximately 542 million years ago; rabbits are mammals, and the first mammals do not come onto the scene until about 250 million years ago. As Coyne writes, “Needless to say, no Precambrian rabbits, or any other anachronistic fossils, have ever been found.”

The complete absence of anachronistic fossils lends considerable credence to the evolutionary view. To reconcile it with a Creator, one absolutely must assume a devious trickster. Dawkins writes, “It is a fact that literally nothing that you could remotely call a mammal has ever been found in Devonian rock or in any older stratum. They are not just statistically rarer in Devonian than in later rocks. They literally never occur in rocks older than a certain date.” He continues, “There are literally no trilobites above Permian strata, literally no dinosaurs (except birds) above Cretaceous strata.” At the considerable risk of deceased equine flogging, Dawkins sums it up: “All the fossils that we have, and there are very very many indeed, occur, without a single authenticated exception, in the right temporal sequence.” How many dinosaur fossils have we found in the same rocks as Australopithecine fossils? Zero. How many zebra fossils have we found in the same rocks as trilobite fossils? Zero. How many anachronistic fossils have been authenticated? Zero. The only explanation is that the deceptive Creator is fudging the fossils to make Darwinian evolution an inescapable conclusion.

On creationism, the distribution of species on Earth makes very little sense, attesting to a Creator with an extremely odd mind, bordering on completely inscrutable. Nowhere is this sheer oddness more evident than in island biogeography. With respect to islands, there is an important distinction that is material to our discussion: the difference between continental islands and oceanic islands. Continental islands are those that once were connected to a continent but later became separated. An example would be Madagascar. Oceanic islands, by contrast, are those that never were part of a continent; islands of this variety arose from the seafloor. An example here would be St. Helena.

On a creationist theory positing a Creator who is not a weirdo, there is little reason to suppose there would be much difference vis-à-vis biogeography between continental and oceanic islands. However, the differences are dramatic, which has led many scientists to accept evolution and, in our case, for us to conclude the Creator is simply an odd duck. Coyne writes, “Oceanic islands are missing many types of native species that we see on both continents and continental islands. Take Hawaii, a tropical archipelago whose islands occupy about 6400 square miles, only slightly smaller than the state of Massachusetts. While the islands are well stocked with native birds, plants, and insects, they completely lack native freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, and land mammals. Napoleon’s island of St. Helena and the archipelago of Juan Fernández lack these same groups, but still have plenty of endemic plants, birds, and insects. The Galápagos Islands do have a few native reptiles (land and marine iguanas, as well as the famous giant tortoises), but they too are missing native mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish. Over and over again, on the oceanic islands that dot the Pacific, the South Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean, one sees a pattern of missing groups—more to the point, the same missing groups.”

It takes only a moment of thought to recognize that plants, birds, and insects and other arthropods “can colonize an oceanic island through long-distance dispersal.” By contrast, land mammals, reptiles, amphibians and freshwater fish would have extreme difficulty colonizing an oceanic island unless, for example, some reptiles made it onto a log that happened to “raft” onto one. The topic of island biogeography is rich, and a great deal more could be said, but it exceeds the scope of this paper. Suffice it to note that, on creationism, with anything but an extraordinarily queer Creator, we would not expect such differential biodiversity on continental versus oceanic islands.

The peculiarity with which the species are dispersed cannot be overstated, and Dawkins asks the questions as well as anyone does. He writes, “Why would all those marsupials—ranging from tiny pouched mice through koalas and bilbys to giant kangaroos and Diprotodonts—why would all those marsupials, but no placentals at all, have migrated en masse from Mount Ararat to Australia? Which route did they take? And why did not a single member of their straggling caravan pause on the way, and settle—in India, perhaps, or China, or some haven along the Great Silk Road? Why did the entire order Edentata (all twenty species of armadillo, including the extinct giant armadillo, all six species of sloth, including extinct giant sloths, and all four species of anteater) troop off unerringly for South America, leaving not a rack behind, leaving no hide nor hair nor armour plate of settlers somewhere along the way? Why were they joined by the entire infraorder of caviomorph rodents, including guinea pigs, agoutis, pacas, maras, capybaras, chinchillas and lots of others, a large group of characteristically South American rodents found nowhere else?” Dawkins notes that lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, and thus continues, “Did all thirty-seven and more species of lemur troop in a body down Noah’s gangplank and hightail it (literally in the case of the ringtail) for Madagascar, leaving not a single straggler by the wayside, anywhere throughout the length and breadth of Africa?” Once again, then, we have no choice but to conclude the Creator is profoundly odd.

The next two Creator characteristics can be discerned more briefly, and I shall do so to keep the information easily digestible. The third characteristic of a Creator is that he is peerlessly wasteful, and this fact is never more clear than in examining the pseudogene, which is defined as a sequence of DNA that is very similar to a normal gene but that has been altered slightly so that it is not expressed; by definition, they are incapable of producing a protein product. Coyne writes, “Virtually every species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of about thirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than two thousand pseudogenes. Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes.” For what possible reason would the Creator litter the genome with pseudogenes—a gene that, by definition, does entirely nothing? Because, as I say, the Creator must be prodigal in the extreme. Perhaps shameless wastefulness is a virtue.

Finally, the evidence clearly shows that the Creator, far from being a designer of formidable intelligence, is rather idiotic. In so declaring, I am not referencing the mindless wastefulness of pseudogenes; rather, I refer to the shoddy engineering and craftsmanship of the species themselves. A classic example—indeed, it has been well mined by Darwinians—is the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Coyne writes, “Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curious thing is that it is much longer than it needs to be. Rather than taking a direct route from the brain to the larynx, a distance of about a foot in humans, the nerve runs down into our chest, loops around the aorta and a ligament derived from an artery, and then travels back up (‘recurs’) to connect to the larynx. It winds up being three feet long. In giraffes the nerve takes a similar path, but one that runs all the way down that long neck and back up again: a distance fifteen feet longer than the direct route!” Of course, on an evolutionary view, this presents some evidence of common mammalian descent; on our creationist view, it simply reveals a Creator whose stupidity is reliable.

The examples I could mine in the vein of the Creator’s idiocy would fill a book—perhaps several. The vas deferens takes a similar nonsensical detour in its route from testis to penis. In his inimitable way, Dawkins writes, “It takes a ridiculous detour around the ureter, the pipe that carries urine from the kidney to the bladder. If this were designed, nobody could seriously deny that the designer had made a bad error.” Yet another example of idiocy comes in the form of goose bumps. In species with a full coat of hair, piloerection makes sense. If the creature is cold, it results in the erect hairs trapping air to create a layer of insulation. Additionally, if the creature is threatened, “puffing up” its body hair can create the impression that the animal is larger. In short, then, piloerection, though completely sensible for hair-covered animals, is utterly senseless in humans—the naked ape. It is as though the Creator, in a fit of idiocy, attached a steering wheel to a refrigerator. Thus, we can be assured that the Creator, responsible for humans and bats, dandelions and plesiosaurs, is formidably moronic.

Is this really what creationists seek? Do they really want a Creator who is devious, weird, wasteful and idiotic? We must go where the evidence takes us; we must look at the simple facts and draw our conclusions directly from them—we must never let the conclusion dictate the facts we choose to recognize. The facts that we find as we examine and analyze the natural order all lead directly to Darwinian evolution by natural selection. To make any creationism hypothesis work, we must (a) endow the Creator with numerous negative attributes that fundamentally contradict the holy books from which creationists lift their science and (b) flagrantly violate the principle of parsimony. Is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation for the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals really that the Creator’s idiocy was in full force when designing, for example, humans and giraffes? What about the geologic strata and the complete absence of anachronistic fossils? What about the radioactive clocks? Did the Creator really tinker with all the half-life values, making them all converge on a fictitious ancient age for Earth?

Some creationist worries are legitimate. On evolution, humans indeed are just another species of animal. Knowing our place in the single tree of life robs us of our specialness, to some considerable extent. It also undermines objective morality. A polar bear might eat its own young. Do concepts of “moral” or “immoral” apply to that situation? If not, why would such concepts apply to humans, who are a twig on the tree of life just as much as polar bears are? Natural selection might have favored “moral instincts,” but such inclinations are hardly objective or prescriptive in any conventional sense. Evolution provides no morality-oriented “ought to” or “ought not to” as far as behavior.

More than anything else, evolution puts us in our place. We are just another species of animal. One day we shall go extinct. Our universe shall not miss us—at least, not any more than it misses trilobites or the giant armadillo. The significance we attach to…well, everything…is overdone when one looks from a grand, cosmic perspective.

There is no devious, weird, wasteful and idiotic Creator. There is no Creator of any variety. There is only nature, of which we are a sliver. We can be happy—and, really, this is enough—that evolution has granted us brains that are sufficiently large and complex to understand from where we came, along with constitutions strong enough to accept, in the last analysis, our species’—indeed, our world’s—final destination.

Why I Am Not a Christian

In roughly descending order of importance, I endeavor to explain the principal reasons why I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because god is absent or, at the least, silent. In essence, those of the Christian faith proclaim that our universe, and all that is part of it, is in the hands of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator deity who takes a personal interest in human affairs. It is completely inexplicable, then, that this creator deity would be entirely undetectable and utterly absent from day-to-day life. If one reads the Bible, one finds an active, present, immediate god; moreover, one finds copious miracles and prodigies that are unlike anything with which we are familiar.

David Hume writes, “It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations…. When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous….” Hume rightly adds, “It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days.”

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways? Where are the miracles and prodigies for our scientific age? Richard Carrier writes, “For example, only those who believe in the true Christian Gospel [could] be granted…supernatural powers that could be confirmed by science; only true Christian Bibles [could] be indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating; and [a] Divine Voice [could] consistently convey to everyone the will and desires of the Christian message alone.” Because god, if existent, is a do-nothing layabout, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because the Bible, despite the fact it is purported to be inspired by god himself, wallows in pitiable pre-scientific primitivism and yawn-inducing mundanity. Certainly, considering its divine inspiration, one might expect the Bible to be full of dazzlingly specific information of which no one had been previously aware. Considering its divine inspiration, one might expect the pinnacle of all intellectual achievement. This is not so. Sam Harris writes, “[The Bible] does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.” There is nothing about the actual age or size of our universe. There is nothing about the germ theory of disease. Earth’s vast geography is shrunk down to claustrophobically local levels. It is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of our universe is aware of Australia. The Bible is not a product of divine inspiration but, rather, lamentable ancient ignorance.

How, Christopher Hitchens asks, can Genesis be proven the mundane work of ignorant humans in merely a paragraph? “Because,” he writes, “man is given 'dominion' over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified, because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia—the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new 'Eden'—was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood, it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had 'dominion' over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity.”

Because the Bible’s mundanity belies the claim of divine inspiration, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because worship of Yahweh as the singular creator deity did not arise independently among numerous geographically isolated populations. Any delusional belief system, if designed cleverly enough, has the potential to “catch fire,” as it were, and spread pervasively throughout our species. Much less likely, however, would be for the same delusional belief system to arise independently in many different places. Imagine if, around 2000 BCE, worship of Yahweh had arisen, nearly simultaneously, in the Middle East, China, the Americas and central Africa. What would have been the odds of an identical god character—with distinctive quirks, commandments, preferences and fetishes—being invented by completely different populations? They seem infinitesimal. However, there is no evidence of Yahweh-worship arising independently. However spiritual they might previously have been, primitive populations began to worship Yahweh specifically when believers in Yahweh arrived at their shores.

Christopher Hitchens writes, “One recalls the question that was asked by the Chinese when the first Christian missionaries made their appearance. If god has revealed himself, how is it that he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing the Chinese?” Whatever deities might have haunted Chinese history, none was distinguishably Yahweh. Because god did not independently reveal himself to several geographically isolated populations, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because the Bible contains palpably nonsensical claims. Matthew attests to a horde of zombies roaming about Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53). Lot's luckless wife was turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26). People attain impossible ages: Adam, 930 years; Noah, 950 years; Abraham, 175 years; Sarah, 127 years (less ludicrous, but still). Jesus is alleged to have been born by what can only be presumed to be parthenogenesis, despite the fact that, as Christopher Hitchens notes, “…parthenogenesis is not possible for human mammals.”

When confronted with nonsense, one has no obligation to proffer any counterargument. As David Hume writes, for a just reasoner, “a miracle, supported by any human testimony, [is] more properly a subject of derision than of argument.” Because the Bible testifies to self-evidently ludicrous claims, which justly demand derision, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because, though archaeological evidence could have substantiated the biblical narrative, it does not. Christopher Hitchens writes, “…much more extensive and objective work was undertaken, presented most notably by Israel Finkelstein of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and his colleague Neil Asher Silberman. These men regard the ‘Hebrew Bible’ or Pentateuch as beautiful, and the story of modern Israel as an all-around inspiration, in which respects I humbly beg to differ. But their conclusion is final, and the more creditable for asserting evidence over self-interest. There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert (let alone for the incredible four-decade length of time mentioned in the Pentateuch), and no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date. No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing, and Egypt was the garrison power in Canaan as well as the Nilotic region at all the material times. Indeed, much of the evidence is the other way. Archaeology does confirm the presence of Jewish communities in Palestine from many thousands of years ago (this can be deduced, among other things, from the absence of those pig bones in the middens and dumps), and it does show that there was a ‘kingdom of David,’ albeit rather a modest one, but all the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded.” Because archaeological evidence contradicts biblical claims and shows them to be false, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because prayer is useless and, in its very design, self-deluding. Prayer has been tested in a scientific manner, and failed. The Harvard Medical School Office of Public Affairs issued a news release entitled “Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery” on March 31, 2006. It read, “Researchers in the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), the largest study to examine the effects of intercessory prayer—prayer provided by others—evaluated the impact of such prayer on patients recovering from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.”

It continued, “The STEP team, composed of investigators at six academic medical centers, including Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C; and the Mind/Body Medical Institute, found that intercessory prayer had no effect [emphasis here, and later, my own] on recovery from surgery without complications. The study also found that patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse. The paper appears in the April issue of American Heart Journal.”

Prayer could have evidence value in proving Christianity correct. If prayer resulted in amputees’ missing limbs growing back, it would be hard to dispute its efficacy. As things actually are, when people indulge in the folly of prayer, they almost always pray for things that might happen anyway. A husband prays that his wife gets a lucrative job. A mother prays that her son, trapped underground in a mine, gets out safely. Parents-to-be pray that their son is healthy. Grandchildren pray that their grandfather beats his cancer. By contrast, few widows pray that their dead husbands reanimate and come back home. Even though god is supposed to be omnipotent, people have the good sense not to pray for things that are impossible; deep in the subconscious, people very much want to maintain the comforting illusion of prayer’s usefulness. And that is why amputees do not pray for limbs to grow back. It is also why, if they did pray, and their limbs did re-grow, there would be evidence value. Because prayer is ineffective and self-deluding, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because Darwinian evolution by natural selection is true, but any clear-eyed reading of the Bible reveals the text (and not merely Genesis, but also statements by Jesus and Paul) is fundamentally incompatible with common descent. Darwinian evolution reveals that various orders of animal roamed the planet (and, indeed, went extinct) before other orders of animal even came to be. Biblical-literalist Christians argue that all orders of animal were created at about the same time; that is, humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Despite mighty efforts, biblical-literalist Christians have been completely unsuccessful in falsifying Darwin’s brilliant theory, although, theoretically, the geologic strata present a falsification opportunity. A biblical-literalist Christian could find horse fossils in the Silurian (among multitudinous trilobites). Alternatively, as requested by the late J. B. S. Haldane, a biblical-literalist Christian could discover fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. Of course, though, as Jerry A. Coyne writes, “Needless to say, no Precambrian rabbits, or any other anachronistic fossils, have ever been found.” Because Darwinian evolution by natural selection is true, whereas the biblical creation narrative is false, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because it is a solipsistic religion that places humans at our universe's center. There are very possibly 130 billion galaxies in our universe. A dwarf galaxy can be populated with as few as 10 million stars. Spiral galaxies—much more massive than dwarf galaxies—can contain hundreds of billions of stars. The Andromeda galaxy, by itself, has about a trillion stars. The Sun is one star. We are on one planet that orbits it.

Michael Shermer writes, “What science tells us is that we are but one among hundreds of millions of species that evolved over the course of three and a half billion years on one tiny planet among many orbiting an ordinary star, itself one of possibly billions of solar systems in an ordinary galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of stars, itself located in a cluster of galaxies not so different from millions of other galaxy clusters, themselves whirling away from one another in an expanding cosmic bubble universe that very possibly is only one among a near infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse was designed and exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in that solitary bubble universe? It seems unlikely.”

Remember, too, human evolutionary history on our planet. Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. By contrast, Homo sapiens, in more modern forms, first made their appearance about 195,000 years ago. This, of course, means human-like creatures have been around less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth’s natural history. And yet, for Christians, humans are central not only to Earth, but to our unimaginably vast universe. We, essentially, are what all of this is “for.” Talk about a prodigal god….

When one considers the size and age of our universe—and the inescapable fact of our ultimate cosmic insignificance—Christianity seems yet sillier for its stern moral proscriptions. Our universe has been in existence for between 13.5 and 14 billion years. Its enormity exceeds the mind’s ability to conceive properly. And, yet, the creator of this natural reality—the artist behind cosmic beauty and wonder—is perturbed…is rather miffed…about what humans on Earth are doing while naked?

Because Christianity ludicrously inflates humanity’s importance and centrality, both to Earth and to our universe, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because the god of Christianity is too statistically improbable. Some Christians accept the truth of Darwinian evolution by natural selection (despite common descent’s incompatibility with the Bible), but believe god must be invoked to explain the appearance of that first life form, on which Darwinian evolution acted. That is, to these people, god is not required to explain biodiversity—Darwinian evolution does that—but, rather, is required to explain the origin of simple life. The problem with this is one of simplicity versus extravagance. In order to explain the appearance of monocellular life… we must appeal to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator deity who has the ability to monitor the thoughts, deeds and desires of every human who has ever existed while, simultaneously, listening to billions of prayers and, if so moved, answering them (while also, of course, reigning over heaven)?

Appealing to a god is laughably extravagant as an explanation for monocellular life and, indeed, completely unhelpful when seeking an explanation for our universe. Richard Dawkins writes, “Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable—and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.”

Dawkins continues, “To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution. It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity: seemingly limitless complexity—certainly up to our human level of complexity and very probably way beyond. There may be worlds on which superhuman life thrives, superhuman to a level that our imaginations cannot grasp. But superhuman does not mean supernatural. Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences. Once it has done so, of course, those intelligences can create other complex things: works of art and music, advanced technology, computers, the Internet and who knows what in the future? Darwinian evolution may not be the only such generative process in the universe. There may be other ‘cranes’ (Daniel Dennett's term, which he opposes to ‘skyhooks’) that we have not yet discovered or imagined. But, however wonderful and however different from Darwinian evolution those putative cranes may be, they cannot be magic. They will share with Darwinian evolution the facility to raise up complexity, as an emergent property, out of simplicity, while never violating natural law.”

Because god is too statistically improbable, and serves as no kind of explanation for either monocellular life or our universe, I am not a Christian.

I am not a Christian because religion all too often tends to be an accident of geography. Frequently, I pose a question to my theist friends who still follow the religion into which their parents indoctrinated them: Do you feel fortunate to have been born into the correct religion? Researchers have concluded 19 major world religious groupings exist on this planet. Those groupings are subdivided into roughly 10,000 distinct religions (which is not to mention all the belief systems that have gone extinct over the millennia). Leaf through the list of religions, and ponder just how different your life would have been had a different superstition been inculcated into you during your youth.

I would suggest that if a devout Christian, who was born in Topeka, Kansas, had instead been born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he would have been a devout Muslim. If Osama bin Laden, who is a devout Muslim, had instead been born in Athens, Alabama, he would have been a devout Christian. Religion spreads, passively, by the coincidental geography of one’s place of birth and, actively, by parents’ talent for inculcating their defenseless, trusting offspring. Some people seemingly have a predisposition to religious zeal; the religion to which they wed themselves has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with inculcative history. The Christian apologetics that is utterly convincing to a person born in Hendersonville, Tennessee, would be infidelic venom to that very person, had he instead been born in Tehran, Iran.

Because a fundamentalist Christian, in an alternate reality, would be just another mujahid, I am not a Christian.

A Biblical-Literalist Christian Thought Experiment

The following thought experiment is designed for biblical-literalist Christians. Specifically, to partake in this thought experiment, it is necessary that (a) you believe Earth to be several thousand years old, rather than 4.54 billion years old, (b) you believe Earth’s biodiversity is explained by creationism/intelligent design, to the exclusion of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, and (c) when referring to creation, both of Earth and of life, you credit the god of the Bible as the creator and ruler. If these stipulations coincide with your worldview, step right up and play along.

Suppose that, in just one instance, time travel was possible. For the sake of this hypothetical, assume that you—a biblical-literalist Christian—had the opportunity to travel far, far back in time and, of course, return to the present day after your trip. Further, suppose that a meddlesome secularist goaded you into traveling 100,000 years into the past, in hopes of proving to you that Earth, indeed, is far older than a mere several thousand years. For this hypothetical, let us assume that the time machine’s accuracy is 100% and, if there were no such thing as “100,000 years ago,” the machine would travel nowhere. (I deliberately spell out such prosaic assumptions because, to touch on the interesting issues raised by this thought experiment, I must close as many loopholes as I can conjure.)

You step into the time machine, which is set for 100,000 years into the past, and are whisked away. Moments later, you step out of the machine and find yourself very much on Earth. In fact, you are in what would now be called Western Europe. After mere moments of exploration, you stumble upon a species that is completely unfamiliar to you: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. You have never laid eyes on such a robust-looking hominid, and watch in awe as they ably hunt for sustenance. Later, to your shock, you stumble upon a burial site where the creatures place their dead. What a curious, curious creature—so seemingly skilled with tools and weapons and, more discomfiting to the biblical-literalist Christian, so similar to us while, at the same time, so unquestionably different.

You are about to step back into the time machine when you notice several woolly mammoths approaching. Needing little more encouragement, you return to the present day, where the meddlesome secularist anxiously awaits your report. Yes, you say, Earth is indeed older than a mere several thousand years. Having traveled to the very time in question, you can say with utter certainty that Earth, at the very least, is 100,000 years old. Obviously, this expedition could not prove Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but it would disprove Young Earth creationism. Old Earth creationism (hardly a monolithic school of thought) is not disproved; Darwin’s theory, of course, remains entirely in accord with the evidence gathered from the journey.

How grievous would the injury to your worldview be, if such an event were to transpire? Could you, as a biblical-literalist Christian, just switch from Young Earth creationism to Old Earth creationism and still leave the entirety of your worldview intact? Or, given your literalist interpretation of the Bible, would the absolute knowledge that Earth, at the very least, is 100,000 years old throw into doubt all you thought you had known? If the creation story, to some degree, must be read metaphorically, what else might be metaphorical? Jesus’ birth by parthenogenesis? The story of Noah and his ark? Jesus’ resurrection from the tomb? Would the shattering of Young Earth creationism poke too many holes in your worldview to be easily plugged? Or, again, would minor tweaks be sufficient to reinforce the edifice?

Let us not end the thought experiment there, though. Instead, let us take it a step further. Suppose, through some method I shall not bother to confect specifically, you came to the certain knowledge that Darwinian evolution by natural selection is true. For the purposes of the hypothetical, again, we are talking about utter and unquestionable 100% certainty. Additionally, let it be clear that microevolution—the process of small modifications occurring within the species level that can result in a new subspecies—is not the topic at hand. Rather, we are discussing macroevolution, which is exactly the type of which Darwin wrote and precisely the process through which our kind, Homo sapiens sapiens, came to be.

This would leave the biblical-literalist Christian with few appealing options. You could endorse a theory of Universal Common Descent, which has been espoused by Darwinians. Or, you could stand behind a theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism scheme, in which evolution has occurred precisely the way Darwinians say, but, essentially, the process was designed, and continues to be overseen, by god. It is not a random process, then, in the broadest sense, because its operating structure was designed by god.

If this were the case, and Darwinian evolution by natural selection was known to be true, how grievous would the injury to your worldview be? Would it throw everything you thought you knew about the nature of the universe (not to mention the nature of reality) into question? Would it lead to a crisis of faith and a newfound doubt in various metaphysical propositions proposed in the Bible? Or, as before with our time-travel trek, would a mere rejiggering suffice to patch up your worldview and make it solid once again?

All this rhetoric, at base, seeks to discover how central denial of Darwinian evolution by natural selection is to the biblical-literalist Christian worldview. Imagine your worldview as a Jenga tower. How important is the piece positing Genesis’ accuracy? If that piece were forced to be removed, would the tower topple?

Of Postulates and Axioms

Preface: Axiom, as explained by Wikipedia: “In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”

Rhology (and, apparently, Vox Veritatis) expressed concerns about my use of “faith” in laying my evidentialist foundation. The questions they jointly prepared make blindingly obvious their mutual misapprehension of the role “faith” actually played (a temporary one, analogous to scaffolding in building construction).

Below, find my attempt to disabuse them of their wrongheadedness.

Rhology: Keep in mind that the JN has retreated to this admission of the faith-scaffolding b/c it has become clear that his First Principle - that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth - cannot justify itself. Any attempt to do so ends up in an infinite regress.

Nihilist: Although it is clear one of your preferred debate strategies is to cheerlead any concession you believe you have won from your opponent, you are here pointing out something that I have never denied. My Philosophical First Principle (hereafter, “PFP”), best stated as “evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth,” is a postulate (axiom, premise, etc.). I have defined a PFP as the lens through which an individual interrogates the world in which he finds himself. Before one can commence said interrogation, one must procure said lens. That is, before one may employ a postulate (noun form), one must…well…postulate (verb form). This postulation could be described as an act of “faith,” if one were inclined toward biased word choice. I utilize the scaffolding analogy because, once one postulates, and thus has a postulate, no further postulation is required; one simply employs one’s postulate “to erect one’s tower.”

Rhology: 1) I know you didn't continue with the scaffolding of faith. Why didn't you keep relying on faith? After all, you consider that faith was sufficient to get you to your big First Principle that you find so attractive, while that FP could never get you there by itself.

Nihilist: This question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the preceding discussion, which, although never laid out quite so explicitly by me, has been implied throughout our recent interactions. In order to obtain a postulate (axiom, premise, etc.), one must postulate; there is no getting around it. In that light, your first query makes little sense. You are essentially asking, “Since, in order to get a postulate, one must postulate, why not make postulation one’s postulate?” In raising such an objection, you effectively attempt to rule out postulates/axioms entirely.

Rhology: 2) Why did you choose this FP? It seems a completely arbitrary standard. Why not the equally-but-no-less-arbitrary "mustard is the best way to discover truth"? Mustard as FP is not self-justifying either, but one could just as easily make evidence-free faith appeals to it, just as you have to your evidentialist FP.

I don't expect the JN to go this route, but rather other commenters - the fact that mustard is a prima facie silly example makes no difference. Unless the argument for the evidentialist FP is successful, it is just as arbitrary as mustard.

Nihilist: I have described a PFP as being the lens through which an individual interrogates the world in which he finds himself. Here, let us focus on the word “lens.” I have worn glasses since third grade and, unfortunately, my vision is quite awful. Without my glasses, I would be completely nonfunctional…unable to work, drive, watch television or do much of anything. When I go to visit my ophthalmologist, he puts a machine in front of my face and proceeds to switch from lens to lens, based upon my guidance of what enhances and/or diminishes my vision. In choosing a PFP, one does essentially the same thing: In terms of interrogating the world of experience, which lens seems to make things most clear? Perhaps several lenses are acceptable…satisfactorily functional. However, it is only sensible to choose what appears to be the clearest, most sharp lens. For me, evidentialism represents 20/20 intellectual vision.

Also, I must say, your “mustard is the best way to discover truth” example seems a bit disingenuous. Remember that, generally speaking, in order to qualify as an axiom (postulate, premise, etc.), a notion must be self-evident. Looking at evidentialism first, “evidence” merely refers to “relevant facts” in the context of any given situation or point of contention. It would be difficult to argue that the usefulness of relevant facts is not self-evident. Conversely, the usefulness of mustard hardly seems self-evident by any conceivable standard. Also, in practical terms, I have no idea how mustard might be used for deducing and inferring truths that are more complex; it hardly seems a foundation upon which to build anything. Thus, your example suffers from definitional and practical problems.

Rhology: 3) The JN said:

I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure you would claim that your life is rife with appeals to evidence. That's the best way to discover truth, after all.

So it goes like this:

(top)

| Answer |

| Question |

| Evidentialist FP |

| Faith scaffolding |

(bottom)

You appeal to something more basic to answer less basic questions. In doing so, how is it an avoidance of appealing to the faith foundation-scaffolding? This question is meant to unmask atheists' widespread allergy to claiming that their position is faith-based. Faith is for wackos and fundies, after all, not for rational people like atheists with rational positions like atheism.

Nihilist: Your “illustration” is wrong because the evidentialist PFP does not rest upon the scaffolding of faith as you imply. Rather, the faith scaffolding permitted the evidentialist PFP to be laid. [That is, the act of postulation allowed one to obtain a postulate.] Think back to physical construction for a moment: A builder does not lay his foundation on top of his scaffolding; if he were to do so, the scaffolding would become an integral part of the building’s structure. And, by definition, scaffolding is not an integral part of a building’s structure. Rather, scaffolding is “a temporary framework used to support people and material in the construction or repair of buildings and other large structures.” Yes - one must postulate before one may employ a postulate; however, it is not the act of postulation that serves as a starting point for world-of-experience interrogation. Postulation merely allows the interrogatory starting point to be established. Once it is established, there is no further need for postulation; this is why, like scaffolding, it is “removed” from the tower.

Rhology: 4) In what way is this evidentialism thing a FIRST Principle since faith precedes it logically?

Nihilist: A foundational postulate allows one to build a rising tower of conclusions. The scaffolding of faith enables one to postulate.

A foundational supposition allows one to build a rising tower of conclusions. The scaffolding of faith enables one to suppose.

A PFP allows one to interrogate the world of experience. The scaffolding of faith enables one to lay a personal metaphysical foundation (from which to interrogate). Only once the foundation is laid can world-of-experience interrogation actually commence.

Scaffolding for Evidentialist Tower

My Christian interlocutor Rhology and I have been continuing our ongoing debate in one of his “comboxes.” Because the extent to which my readership is identical to his is certainly questionable, I shall publish our most recent exchanges here. The overarching topic at hand is faith, and the degree to which I—an evidentialist—am dependent upon it.

On Monday, September 15, 2008, Rhology published a post entitled “No faith, just faith.” In it, he writes:

Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?

That pithy provocation warranted an immediate response, quoted below:

You have raised this point on at least three occasions, so, rather than letting the question fester, I shall address it presently.

You are correct in saying I take evidence’s usefulness in human approximation of truth as a supposition or a postulate. (You use the loaded word “faith” in order to try to rouse discomfort in me; nevertheless, at least in this instance, I shall grant your biased word choice.) You attempt to equate my “faith” with the superstitions of Christians, seeming to say, “See? We are bound equally by blind faith!” In actuality, however, this similarity is much overstated.

Eventually, the following analogy breaks down (at least with respect to the practical realities of construction), but, nevertheless, it remains instructive. For me, faith is most accurately analogized as scaffolding, defined as “a temporary framework used to support people and material in the construction or repair of buildings and other large structures.”

In order to confront, analyze and interrogate the world in which one finds oneself (the world of experience, whether such is “really real” or a Cartesian Demon’s construct), one must begin somewhere. I call this analytical starting point the Philosophical First Principle (hereafter “PFP”). Because a PFP is foundational—a human’s first step toward interrogating the world in which he finds himself (that being, the world of experience)—it cannot be discovered or independently proved from other propositions. It is taken as a supposition or a postulate…as a point of faith.

I employ faith as scaffolding. Only with this scaffolding in place can I lay my building’s foundation, which is “Evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth.” With this foundation laid, dried and completely solid, I have no further need for my scaffolding (which, again, in this analogy, is faith). Instead of faith appeals, I continue erecting my building upon the dry, solid foundation (in my case, evidentialism).

I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.

You repeatedly ask, “Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with ‘faith is the best way to discover truth?’ Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that?”

You might as well ask a Fortune 500 executive, whose company soon shall reside in a new Chicago office tower, why he does not simply arrange all the desks on the scaffolding.

The scaffolding is temporary, existing only to allow the building to be built. And for me, faith is mere scaffolding, permitting me to erect Evidentialist Tower.

Rhology quickly retorted with the following:

I am not equating our faith positions, actually. My faith position has actually quite a lot of justification for it, while yours does not. Your faith is blind, while mine is informed. So no, I wouldn't call them equal really.

Yes, one must begin somewhere. You begin with faith. Then you later have the gall to criticise me for having faith. It's very cheeky of you.

Nihilist: “Because a PFP is foundational—a human’s first step toward interrogating the world in which he finds himself (that being, the world of experience)—it cannot be discovered or independently proved from other propositions.”

Rhology: I hate to keep doing this, but you have said many times in the past that, for example: “If you believe those bare facts of reality require external grounding, I suggest you attempt to demonstrate such.” and “evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting.”

I honestly don't know which of these you actually believe.

Nihilist: “I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.”

Rhology: Why not use it more than once? If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere? And you appeal to faith to form your very first principle. Thus all your life is based on faith - I'd call that “rife”, actually, yes.

Nihilist: “why he does not simply arrange all the desks on the scaffolding.”

Rhology: On the one hand, I see what you're saying.

However, the switching in and out of “faith is good and useful” to “faith is bad and useless” seems completely arbitrary. On what do you base your decision to switch building materials? What guides it?

My rejoinder reads as follows (with some minor modifications):

Rhology: “Yes, one must begin somewhere. You begin with faith. Then you later have the gall to criticise me for having faith. It's very cheeky of you.”

Nihilist: I suppose the factuality of your statement depends upon what you mean when you say, “begin with.” Faith is not my First Principle; faith is not the foundation upon which my worldview is erected. Instead, faith was merely the scaffolding that permitted me to lay down my foundation, which is evidentialism.

Also, I do not necessarily criticize you for having faith. You are a devout Christian and I am content to let you live a devoutly Christian life. I criticize those Christians who attempt to impose their values and moral viewpoints on others, who ought to be permitted to confect their own worldviews and live in accordance with them. After all, Rhology’s Metaphysical Foundation is precisely that; it does not overarch the world.

Rhology: “I hate to keep doing this, but you have said many times in the past that, for example: ‘If you believe those bare facts of reality require external grounding, I suggest you attempt to demonstrate such.’ and ‘evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting.’

I honestly don't know which of these you actually believe.”

Nihilist: I shall respond to those quotes in reverse order.

When I say I can appeal to evidence to demonstrate evidence’s utility in the approximation of truth, I am not defending evidence with “other propositions.” Rather, I am defending evidence with evidence—defending one proposition with the very same proposition. This is why you often accuse me of question begging. However, my purpose in “begging the question” is different from what you might expect. I do not mean to confirm evidence’s utility via circular proof, but rather to show that evidentialism is a self-subsistent First Principle. The “question begging” exercise is a simple demonstration of self-subsistence. Faith (to yield, once again, to your biased word choice) is still required to lay my initial foundation.

When I reference “the bare facts of reality,” I am talking about the world of experience…the world in which one finds oneself. That world—the world of experience—simply is. It might be genuinely real or, indeed, it might be the fabrication of a Cartesian Demon. I cannot rule either possibility out. However, the world in which I find myself, irrespective of its veridical nature, is manifest, and I seek to interrogate it, using my chosen evidentialist First Principle. In short, with respect to the line you quoted, I have little patience for those who refuse to recognize the world of experience as simply existent.

Rhology: “Why not use it more than once? If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere? And you appeal to faith to form your very first principle. Thus all your life is based on faith - I'd call that ‘rife’, actually, yes.”

Nihilist: You are conflating two ideas here, I think. When you say, “If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere?” you seem to be referencing faith, even though faith is not my foundation—evidentialism is. Faith was merely temporary scaffolding, permitting the building to be built. It was transitory…not part of the finished structure.

Why do I not appeal to faith except to pave the way for my First Principle? Because, once I have selected a First Principle, it makes little sense to overthrow it for some other one, such as appeal to faith. If I laid a foundation for a skyscraper, why would I start building things elsewhere, rather than on the foundation I just established? Once I have a First Principle, that is to what I appeal. Faith was of utility only before the principle had been established…when I needed a place to start.

And, my life (and, implicitly, my understanding of the world) is not based on faith. Scaffolding was needed to lay my foundation, but, once that foundation was laid, my analytical processes became a natural extension of it. I appealed to faith once, to lay my groundwork; I now appeal to my principle.

Rhology: “On the one hand, I see what you're saying.

However, the switching in and out of ‘faith is good and useful’ to ‘faith is bad and useless’ seems completely arbitrary. On what do you base your decision to switch building materials? What guides it?”

Nihilist: There is no switch of building materials in my analogy. The scaffolding used to enable a building to be built, by definition, is temporary. It was always meant to be used and then removed. In order to lay down my evidentialist foundation, faith was required. So, for that period, faith was “good and useful.” Once the scaffolding was no longer required—because a solid foundation had been laid—it was taken away. This does not mean faith becomes “bad and useless” but only that its purpose had been served and it was no longer required. Faith was needed when there was no foundation of which to speak; now, I have evidentialism as a solid foundation upon which to build. Why revert back to the temporary framework?

Again, I recognize my scaffolding analogy is flawed, but I am trying to explain a point that practically invites misapprehension, even by those of sincere intent.

Conclusion: Faith indeed played a role in permitting my foundation—evidentialism—to be laid. However, once in possession of a foundation upon which to build, the temporary scaffolding (faith) became outmoded…no longer needed.

In sum, then, scaffolding was deployed, used and, finally, duly removed.

Jason Voorhees Rises Again: Evidentialism and Nihilism in Resurgence

Rhology, my longtime Christian adversary, whose intellect and facility with the English language have kept me engaged despite this blogalogue long since having become post-mortem equine savagery, has composed another attack on evidentialism and my articulation thereof. Hence, like a horror movie monster that is repeatedly resurrected for lucrative (and lesser) sequels, I have reactivated My Case Against God, though only to respond to this latest attack. Because Rhology likes to select snippets from my writing and respond directly to them, I shall quote those (where applicable) in italics before posting his rebuttal and, finally, my rejoinder.

Prior to delving into the multifarious issues, I shall quote my own definitions of “Cosmic First Principle” and “Philosophical First Principle”…definitions with which Rhology never expressed disagreement.

I would define a Cosmic First Principle as one that, quite literally, explains everything: Such a principle would presuppose nothing (not even the coherency of “principle” as a concept), yet, in itself and through itself, illuminate everything. Such a principle would be true, active and vital before any consciousness was around to grasp or utilize it; that is, it would in no way be dependent on humans, our sentience or our thoughts. A Cosmic First Principle would be there—true, active and vital—even before matter condensed in the cosmos.

By contrast, a Philosophical First Principle is an indivisible, unsplittable foundation of human thought. Taking certain things (including, but not restricted to, one’s own existence, one’s own sentience and the existence of abstract concepts such as principles) as granted (all those things are manifest, by the way), such a principle aspires to be a roadmap for efficacious reasoning. [Think of it this way: “Here we are…sentient beings on this planet in this universe. How best might we harness our minds?”]

Rhology: First off, I'd like to point out that he hasn't answered the questions raised here.

Nihilist: I have addressed every relevant point in your post in our assorted comment box discussions. I have not had much to say because your attack on evidentialism was misguided from its conception: Not recognizing the distinction between a Cosmic First Principle (hereafter “CFP”) and Philosophical First Principle (hereafter “PFP”), you conflated them, criticizing one for not being the other. In other words, you complained my PFP was not sufficiently CFP, despite the fact that they are substantially different concepts.

Rhology: No one who reads his blog or his comments would think that he is unsure or agnostic about whether he's right, about whether he is pretty sure that evidence is the best way for humans to approximate truth, but if he doesn't defend his own position and if he destroys mine, then he's left drifting in a morass of agnosticism.

Nihilist: On its own terms, as a PFP, that is, a lens through which an individual interrogates the world in which he finds himself, my position has sustained no appreciable damage. Again, the entire foundation of your critique was unwarranted conflation. This is illustrated when, in your evidentialism post, you write, “I asked him for a, one, (1) First Principle, and he provides one that is totally inadequate, to the point that he has to smuggle in numerous other concepts that he didn't mention.” Evidentialism, as I embrace it, might be insufficient according to CFP standards but, once again, it is not a CFP.

Rhology: And notice how he's vacillating. One moment he's crying "axiom!" to get out of the infinite regress of asking for evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the evidence for the idea that evidence is a good way to discover truth.

The very next minute he's saying "evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility", thereby utterly begging the question.

Nihilist: My evidentialist PFP is axiomatic (a postulate or supposition)…is foundational. However, self-subsistence can be tested and, fortunately, my PFP passes. I constantly cite the mathematics example, but I shall do it again because, apparently, you have not fully understood my point. “Mathematics is the only way humans can reach truth” is a self-annihilating postulate because one cannot appeal to mathematics in order to show mathematics is the only way humans can reach truth. By contrast, “Evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth” is a self-subsisting PFP because one can marshal evidence to demonstrate evidence’s utility. You might call the exercise—drawing on evidence to substantiate evidence—question begging; in actuality, it is proof of self-subsistence. Indeed, it is definitive demonstration that my PFP does not annihilate itself.

Rhology: The next minute he's differentiating between a "Cosmic" 1st Principle (CFP) and a "Philosophical" 1st Principle (PFP) and claiming that his PFP is useful for observing and living in this universe. This... "cosmos", if you will. Hmm. Seems a little arbitrary.

Nihilist: This is just semantics-driven taunting. Call one “Larry” and the other “Moe,” for all I care. All that matters is recognizing two separate concepts.

I do not have to deal with the “brain in a vat” question because the location of my brain—inside my skull—is manifest.

Rhology: This deals with the concept in point 4 here. He's begging the question again.

"Well, obviously I'm not a brain in a vat. My brain's right here!"

For one thing, he's never directly observed his brain. He's observed his SCALP, not his brain. I don't encourage him to try it, but to stop begging this question, a bone saw would need to be involved.

Nihilist: Although I have never directly observed my brain, it has been seen before. When I was one year old, I fell down the basement stairs and suffered a skull fracture; I needed to undergo surgery and have a metal plate installed in my skull. During this delicate procedure, the doctors saw my brain: It was there, in my skull, exactly where it belonged. There is no reason to suppose that it wandered off in the intervening years. Anyway, I am still a living, thinking, conscious human…surely my brain must get some credit for that!

Rhology: Also, if you're a brain in a vat, you are simply being deceived by the electrical stimuli being fed into your brain by the evil alien/demon in charge of creating your illusions. Go ahead and marshal evidence that this is not the case.

Nihilist: Enter the Cartesian Demon, who is inventing the elaborate illusion I call reality. Can I be certain there is no Cartesian Demon? No, I cannot. It always shall remain a possibility (the likelihood of which is essentially inscrutable). However, in fact, the whole question is irrelevant. Here, I yield to Richard Carrier, writing in “Sense and Goodness without God.” The context is the consistency of our cosmos, and Carrier’s discussion dances dangerously close to addressing PFP (that, once again, being a foundational axiom for interrogating the world in which one finds oneself).

“…if the demon were really this consistent in giving us results, through which we satisfy our every goal and desire, there would hardly be any intelligible difference between what we call ‘reality’ and the world the demon is inventing for us. [The Cartesian Demon’s construct] would be reality, in every sense of the word we normally use. And since we observe some methods [of discovering truth] to work better than others, and indeed some work best of all, a Cartesian Demon would have to be arranging it this way, constructing reality for us solely in accord with a fixed plan it has chosen. In that case we have just as much reason to pursue the relevant methods for discovering that plan, and to abandon the bad ones, so we can gain the reward of a successful life experience from this mischievous demon. In other words…even if [the Cartesian Demon theory is true], nothing significant changes for us regarding method [of truth discovery].”

The only world with which to be concerned is the world in which one finds oneself—that is, the world of experience. If my existence is the elaborate illusion of a Cartesian Demon, this confected reality is, in fact, reality for me. The “actual reality” of my brain in a vat is not the world of my experience. With that, its relevance vanishes.

Second, the entirety of your line of reasoning is based upon what I deem to be a fallacious notion: that the bare facts of reality cannot be the bare facts of reality, but, instead, require “grounding.” The cosmos exists—this is manifest.

Rhology: 1) Prove the cosmos exists, and that you are not being deceived by a grand illusion.

Nihilist: Cartesian Demon. Redux. The world of experience is the only world with which I must concern myself. For me, the reality that I experience is reality. Some gratuitous reality beyond it, even if existent, has absolutely no relevance to my life: My consciousness is here…not there.

Rhology: 2) I love it - the JN wants me to bring forth evidence all the time for the existence of TGOTB, but when it comes to other things that make him uncomfy, all of a sudden, things are just "manifest". Arbitrary, again.

3) Very well then - TGOTB's existence is just a bare fact of reality. It doesn't require grounding. See, wasn't that easy when we just invoke the ipse dixit? Perhaps the JN thinks he's the infallible Pope of Reason.

Nihilist: One cannot claim just anything to be manifest; in order for that word to be applicable, the fact at hand must be blindingly obvious: The sun’s existence is manifest; humankind’s existence is manifest; water’s existence is manifest. Your particular god character could never be described as such…could never be placed alongside the afore listed bare facts. If nothing else, my favorite Christopher Hitchens quote from “god is not Great,” in which the Chinese express bafflement as to why, if god has revealed himself, he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing them, goes to show just how far from manifest Yahweh is.

Rhology: He's already shown he's willing to put on and take off the Pope of Morality hat when it suits him; now his authority apparently extends to even more areas of life than I originally realised.

Nihilist: I am endlessly bewildered by your morality-related snipes. I have been unfailingly clear in my rejection of moral truth. There is no reason to believe anything is objectively moral or objectively immoral; it is merely a matter of person-by-person opinion, analogous to whether one likes a film or whether one finds a joke amusing. To imply I claim to divine moral truth is outrageous, because I deny moral truth’s very existence. Any moral judgments I render are pure opinion…no different from my annual Top 10 Films list.

Abstract concepts such as principles can be dealt with by the human species—this, per the pattern, is also manifest.

Rhology: Humans may be able to "deal with" these concepts, but this speaks not at all to the question of whether they're true or not. The JN may have lost track of just what we're arguing here.

Nihilist: I am merely showing that the existence of principles does not need to be “grounded” within my PFP; the existence of abstract thought is manifest. That is, in the world in which we find ourselves, abstract thought exists…it is a bare fact of this world. Therefore, my PFP does not need, somehow, to “account” for it.

[Of CFPs] First, I share Russell’s concern that such musings exist solely in the land of metaphysics, having no real relationship with the world of experience.

Rhology: Your PFP is also 100% metaphysical, as we've seen and as you've admitted, sometimes (when it suits you). You can't prove evidence is a good way to discover truth by bringing forth evidence. What is your evidence for that?
See how he's forcing us to regress in our conversation? Suddenly we're where we were 3 months ago!

Nihilist: Your invocation of the Cartesian Demon theory ably evinces the extent to which you are wallowing in empty metaphysical musings. I, by clear contrast, am concerned with the world of experience. My PFP accepts certain things as “granted,” among those the cosmos, my species, me as an individual, my sentience, etc. I look the world of experience square in the eye and, with my PFP and the intellectual tools with which I have been endowed, attempt to interrogate it. As we shall see shortly, when we come to your “Flying Catfish” critique, you are doing everything but confronting the world of experience.

Ultimately, in terms of voluntary actions, one always follows one’s desire.

Rhology: I had asked him a question about morality - what one SHOULD do. He responds with a long paragraph about what humans DO. Apparently what IS is what OUGHT, but he doesn't always believe that. If he did, he would never, ever criticise any action, ever, b/c it IS. He does criticise certain actions, however, on moral grounds, so he doesn't really believe this. It's hard to talk to someone who's so inconsistent.

Nihilist: In fact, you asked, “Is there any compelling reason you could offer someone as to WHY they SHOULD accept your FP over mine?” This was not framed as a moral question but, instead, a practical one. To your practical question, I gave a practical answer:

Every voluntary action undertaken by a human is an attempt (successful or unsuccessful) to fulfill a desire. Suppose you are standing in the dining room, with the kitchen to your left and the den to your right. If you turn left and walk into the kitchen, it is because you desired to do so. Every voluntary action represents an attempt at desire fulfillment. Sometimes, desires are conflicting. Suppose you are a college student and your alarm has roused you. It is 8AM…time for class. Part of you desires to roll over and go back to sleep. Another part of you desires to rise, dress and go to class. If you do get up and start moving, it is only because you desired to do so—and desired it more than staying in bed. In fact, in the case of directly contradictory desires, one desire becomes dominant and the other ceases to be a genuine desire. Ultimately, in terms of voluntary actions, one always follows one’s desire.

That rambling preface was required to show my PFP’s worth. If evidence is an excellent way to approximate truth—and it is—then people would benefit from following my PFP because accurate, truthful knowledge enables them to align their behaviors with their desires. Every voluntary action undertaken by a human is an attempt to fulfill a desire, but if said human is filled with false information, his attempt at desire fulfillment might be entirely wrongheaded and counterproductive. Only with accurate knowledge can desire and action be aligned effectively. Thus, if I were evangelizing my PFP, I would make exactly this argument. If one uses evidence as a guiding light, the effectiveness of voluntary actions is maximized.

If you intended to pose a question of objective moral fact then I have no answer, because I reject objective moral fact’s existence.

You also referenced self-revelation through the Bible, but I do not see how that is a core essentiality.

Rhology: It is not an essential attribute for God, but objective revelation is essential for our epistemology. If we don't know anything about God, then... we don't know anything about God. This will be a very important point as these discussions advance.

Nihilist: And, in my reply to your original post, I anticipated this answer and responded in advance, saying, “I could simply say ECC condescended to reveal itself to me, and I was charged with passing along the news of the revelation.” Perhaps said deity seared its message into my brain, so I could never forget even the most piddling detail. Or, perhaps, over a period of many days, the deity shared an extensive revelation, from which I composed a thousand-page gospel. Yahweh/the Bible are not the only conceivable revelatory sources. Thus, lack of knowledge of their nature is not an intrinsic problem for my confected gods.

The Green God possesses:

* Omnipresence

* Omnipotence

* Omniscience

* Ability to create this universe and having done so

* Functionality as “grounds” for all logic, rationality, induction, and morality

PLUS...

When the deity, from his ethereal perch, looks down upon his wondrous creation, he "sees" everything with a slight tint of green. You see, this deity likes green, and so, his vision is tinted as such.

Rhology: 1) Maybe TGOTB *does* see everythg tinted green.

2) How is the Green God omnipresent if he has physical eyes with which he sees "green", like we do?

3) How do you know this god exists, and more to the point, how do you know he sees everythg tinted green?

Nihilist: 1) Perhaps he does. However, he could not simultaneously see everything tinted exclusively in green and everything tinted exclusively in red. He sees either with green tinting, red tinting, tinting of another color or no tinting at all. It could not simultaneously be exclusively green and exclusively red. That means Green God and Red God—although sharing identical core essentialities—are certifiably different. And, given those essentialities and an objective revelation to, say, me, you would have no justification for dismissing either as my CFP.

2) I never said anything about “physical eyes” or sight identical to our own. If a being is omnipotent, and wishes to see everything with a colorized tint, it can do so. If it could not do so, it would not be omnipotent.

3) As already noted, one could claim objective revelation, either with the message seared permanently into one’s brain or translated into a written gospel. The Bible is hardly the only imaginable gospel to claim itself “revealed truth.”

The Melodic God possesses:

* Omnipresence

* Omnipotence

* Omniscience

* Ability to create this universe and having done so

* Functionality as “grounds” for all logic, rationality, induction, and morality

PLUS...

* There is a melody that this deity finds endlessly pleasing. As such, in a ceaseless loop, that melody "plays" in the deity's vast consciousness. It does not dominate the consciousness, but serves as permanent "background music."

Rhology: 1) TGOTB *does* have endless background music.

2) You even admitted: "It does not dominate the consciousness". Precisely. This god is no different from TGOTB.

Nihilist: 1, 2) Perhaps he does. However, he could not have the specific background music you described (omitted here for space) and simultaneously have entirely different background music (say, reminiscent of heavy metal). Either he experiences the background music you described, the background music I described, background music of another variety or no background music at all. He could not simultaneously experience exclusively your music and exclusively my music. This means every god that has specific, exclusive background music is distinct from every other god that has different specific, exclusive background music. Given an objective revelation of each, you have an infinite set of god characters, each fully capable of serving as a CFP.

Of course, mixing and matching “green tinting,” “red tinting” and “heavy metal” variables is terribly silly; nevertheless, it is necessary to make a critical point. As long as a god character possesses the specified core essentialities (and Rhology has not objected to my list) and has condescended to offer revelation—if only to one individual—that god could be used as a CFP. And, as we have seen, for every exclusive color tinting and every exclusive background music tune, we have a recipe for different gods…infinite varieties of different gods…easily one for every human who has ever lived. Such is the folly of CFPs, which comprise little more than—presto!—defining things into existence.

Let us resolve to restrict our concern to the actual, hard, manifest world of experience.

Clarifying the State of Affairs

Although geocentric cosmology has been abandoned for centuries, its philosophical analogue pitifully persists even today in the solipsistic and speciocentric thinking exhibited by persons of varied theological (and atheological) persuasions. The delusive notion of which I write can be understood as two intertwined components: (a) The cosmos is purposeful and (b) our meager species is of central importance to this purpose. Steven Weinberg, an American physicist and Nobel laureate, once observed, “In the same way that each of us has had to learn in growing up to resist the temptation of wishful thinking about ordinary things like lotteries, so our species has had to learn in growing up that we are not playing a starring role in any sort of grand cosmic drama.” The present composition is submitted as a corrective to human ego with respect to matters cosmic.

The first, and most important, realization to which a thinking person must come is that the cosmos—by all evidentiary indications—is purposeless and dispassionate…striving toward no goal, operating with no aim, hoping for no particular result. Some commentators have called the cosmos an immoral place or, in my own case, an unjust one; to do so is mistaken. “Good” and “evil”…“just” and “unjust”…“moral” and “immoral” are judgments that cannot be made in the absence of purpose; to declare the universe an evil place is equally ludicrous as judging one’s car to be wicked or one’s computer to be morally wretched. The cosmos’ utter indifference precludes all such characterizations.

Even if the universe does have a purpose—and there is not a single credible reason to believe that is the case—there are no grounds to suppose that humans are part of it. The universe, whose estimated age is 13.73 billion years (plus or minus 120 million years), long preceded Homo sapiens sapiens (estimated age: perhaps 100,000 years), a species that is a newcomer even on Earth, which itself is a tiny, long-forgotten-about speck of stardust. Indeed, Earth is just one of, conservatively, a billion billion planets strewn about the cosmos. The folly of thinking Earth to be cosmically important is exceeded only by imagining one’s own species to be so.

Let us make a few things clear. If a global pandemic were to strike tomorrow, and the entire human race were rendered extinct in 30 days, “indifference” would vastly overstate the cosmos’ concern with such a development. Bertrand Russell, a thinker who courageously rejected the temptations of human ego, remarked in “A Free Man's Worship” (1903) that it is very nearly certain “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins….” The upshot, of course, is that, although our day-to-day travails seem to be of great importance, none of our deeds, nor anything that happens to us, is of any enduring cosmic significance. One day our solar system shall end, and it shall be as if none of us ever existed.

Must, then, we be consigned to a life of despair? I think not. Recognizing our place in the grand scheme—a place of supreme insignificance—does little to diminish the pleasures one may experience. The triviality of our existence, as a species and as individuals, does not make, for example, family vacations any less pleasurable. It does not make a joke any less funny. It does not make a swimming pool any less refreshing, nor does it lessen the succulence of a juicy steak.

Yes, we are subject to an uncaring, unfeeling universe. Yes, we are utterly impotent when faced with inevitable death. Yes, all our achievements and pleasures are fleeting, much like our existence as a sentient life form. However, our species would be in a sorry state, indeed, if mere recognition of this basic truth were to doom us to a life of despair.

The neophyte to issues scientific and philosophical should not let the abstruseness toward which these conversations tend leave him at a loss. There is but one life we have been afforded. I urge readers to live it to the maximum, wringing pleasure from wherever it can be wrung.

One never knows when the chaos out of which the cosmos formed might again reign supreme.

‘Golden Oldies’ or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Deceased Equine Flogging

Dear Rhology,

As I read your latest vigorous broadside against metaphysical naturalism and my humble articulation thereof, one word irresistibly came screaming to my mind: gold. No, this does not reference what some might consider your 24-karat intellect. Rather, it appears you are attempting, with much strain but negligible success, to split the atom. All this shall be fully explicated, but first a brief digression.

Suppose you have a block of gold and you wish to break it down into smaller pieces. Obviously, this is easy enough to do, so you crack it apart until you have several hundred small pieces of gold. But suppose you want really, really small pieces. Well, you could take a few of the smallest chunks you have and dice them up further, until they are really infinitesimally small. And you could repeat this process without end, creating smaller and smaller pieces of gold, right? Actually, no, you could not. As Richard Dawkins (in service of a different point) explained in “The God Delusion,” “Why shouldn’t you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly 79 protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, surrounded by a swarm of 79 electrons. If you ‘cut’ gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator….” In the case of gold division, the infinite regress is thwarted by the atom. The atom terminates the series.

Well, what then is a First Principle, philosophically speaking? A First Principle is a broad supposition—yes, a supposition—about the nature of reality. This supposition, once chosen, forms a foundation upon which grander conclusions can be stacked. Said another way, a First Principle is a postulate, from which to argue and with which to build. Because a First Principle is foundational—that is, it cannot be deduced from any other assumption or proposition—it cannot be “split” or independently proved. The best that can be said is that the postulate does not contradict itself. My preferred example of a self-annihilating axiom is “Mathematics is the only way humans can reach truth.” This First Principle fails because one cannot appeal to mathematics in order to show mathematics is the only way humans can reach truth. As such, it annihilates itself. My First Principle—that being, evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth—is materially different from the mathematics example because evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting.

What, then, of your objections? Clearly, you are attempting to confect an infinite regress where none actually exists. Your series of “can you supply evidence” questions is analogous to trying to divide that smidgen of gold just a little bit further. However, just as the atom provides a natural terminator to gold division (whatever else results from further division, it is not gold), the First Principle provides a natural terminator to the series of questions. The First Principle is primary—step number one. Try as you might to dice it up, it is indivisible—or, at least, following subsequent division, you no longer would be dealing with the postulate (any more than you could split a gold atom and still have gold). As such, it is enough to say my axiom—unlike the mathematics example—is self-subsisting and internally coherent. And thus, on top of this supposition, all my conclusions are built.

Why do I feel confident in my First Principle? The reasons are innumerable. First, throughout humankind’s history, evidence has proven its worth, quite literally, a million times over. The most reliable systems of justice currently in existence revolve around the presentation of evidence. The most effective medical systems in the world are those that discover the relevant facts of illness and base their treatments thereon. In our everyday lives, we all operate according to evidence: When we catch a weather report predicting rain (evidence), we carry an umbrella (utilization thereof). When we notice brake lights illuminate in front of us (evidence), we slow our own vehicle (utilization thereof). When we (hazily) see a knife protruding from our belly and blood gushing everywhere (evidence), we get the knife removed and the wound treated (utilization thereof). The usefulness of relevant facts is manifest…is self-evident…precisely the kind of thing for which one should look in a First Principle.

Another benefit of my chosen postulate is that, far from starting me at the finish line, it could lead me anywhere. My evidentialist axiom could lead me to atheism or theism…to Christianity or Hinduism…to naturalism or supernaturalism. Even now, certain evidence would make me accept Christianity’s truth. For instance, god could speak to every living human being on the planet, sharing precisely the same message and offering exactly the same instructions vis-à-vis salvation. Some people might still reject the deity but, at the least, every human alive would possess direct spoken knowledge of god’s wishes. Alternately, Yahweh, in an instant, could carve his name onto the Moon. Or, on a lark, god could rearrange the planets in our solar system. [Presumably, given his omnipotence, god capriciously could swap Earth and Pluto, yet maintain the solar system’s stability and keep Earth’s creatures alive.] Prayer in Jesus’ name could result in amputees re-growing their missing limbs. Or, spectacularly devout Christian believers could have unexplainable healing powers, along the lines of limb regeneration. Evidentialism in no way precludes acceptance of Christianity’s truth; it simply requires actual evidence. Your postulate, by contrast, does equate to starting the race at the finish line. Atheism vs. Theism? Already answered. Christianity vs. Hinduism? Already answered. Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism? Already answered. Ad infinitum. When you describe your First Principle as being “far fuller,” you unwittingly verify my “start-at-the-finish-line” objection.

There is nothing more to add in rebutting section one, so I next shall turn to the scriptural issues on which we have touched.

In response to my observation that the New Testament is not unanimous in its stated path to salvation, you write, “Oh please. Are you seriously proposing that you are familiar enough with biblical hermeneutics and exegesis to make a serious argument on these grounds?” To my point that a decent argument could be crafted for salvation being granted by means other than saving faith, you respond, “Yes, please do. Make it a post on your blog and let's see how well you do.” Such a post shall not be composed, because it would have as much place on my blog as a post arguing that fairy dust—not pixie dust—is emitted from pixie wings. I do not care about such issues. Suffice it to remark that the documents from which the New Testament was cobbled together were written by several different authors, each of whose theological ideas had unique accents and distinctions. The differences between Mark and Luke, for example, rise above piddling storyline inconsistencies; the New Testament’s several authors did not have identical theological views (although, compared to the apocrypha, they do fall in line) and your claim to absolutely uniform consistency is not in evidence.

The other scriptural issue with which to contend relates to Jesus’ failed prophecy regarding the imminence of his second coming. In my initial communication with you, I quoted Matthew 16:27-28, whereas, in my second post, I quoted Matthew 24:25-35. You respond, “Oy vey. This is exactly what I mean. You jump from Matt 16 to Matt 24 and hope no one will notice! Did you even try to read ch 17-23 before jumping all the way to Matt 24? Why not just go whole hog and insist that I apply the same hermeneutical principles from the genealogy of Matt 1 to Matt 24?” Responding to my declaration that the weight of the evidence pointed to a failed prophecy, you write, “Well, since you didn't offer a counterargument nor present an exegesis of this Matt 24 psg, one can only guess at how you came to that conclusion.”

I do not know the degree to which you respect C.S. Lewis’ biblical scholarship, but I assume you are aware that, according to Lewis, my selection from Matthew 24 contains “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible” (Matthew 24:34). My reason for bringing up both passages was their similarity of language and seeming similarity of prediction. And, whereas, for my original selection, you could employ the excuse of Jesus’ transfiguration, that particular excuse is not available for my second selection. In any case, this also seems to me not to be particularly important. Suffice it to note that historians agree that first century Christians expected Jesus’ return to be imminent—as in, before they tasted of death. Although, of course, the first gospel was not written until around 70 CE, Jesus’ apocalyptic sayings seemingly convinced Paul, who expected the second coming of Jesus in his near future and during his own lifetime. Please consider 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11.

In this area of your response, you say I come across as an atheist fundamentalist. You write, “You just KNOW all this is nonsense and you don't NEED to prove it. It's OBVIOUS. To EVERYONE. Except MORONS and FLAT-EARTHERS….” Your comments here remind me of something written by David Hume in his piece on miracles. Hume writes, for a just reasoner, “a miracle, supported by any human testimony, [is] more properly a subject of derision than of argument.” In the case of, for example, Matthew’s attestation to hordes of zombies roaming about Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53), derision is indeed the best counterargument.

My disproof? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

For a claim such as zombies, that disproof is as sound and devastating as possibly could be mounted. However, I rarely take that argumentative tack.

You addressed several peripheral issues, but I think only three warrant further consideration. First is the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG), which, although your preferred argument for the existence of god, I characterize as philosophical prestidigitation. In response to my assertion that I can “prove” the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish (ECC) using TAG just as easily as you can “prove” Yahweh with it, you write, “And I already explained why that is full of hot air.” In fact, you have not, so I shall restate the point concisely. TAG is the kind of argument that depends upon the nature of god in order to work; that is, certain of god’s attributes make TAG effective. [This is why, for example, you say TAG could not be used to prove Baal or some such deity.] However, you have failed to prove that every jot and tittle of Yahweh’s nature is essential for TAG to work. Unless and until you prove that, one rightly assumes only certain core elements of Yahweh’s nature are required. That being the case, I could endow ECC with the core essentialities that make TAG functional, and then add sundry variables to ensure ECC is different from Yahweh. After so doing, I could deploy TAG to prove ECC, and use the Catfish as my metaphysical foundation. That such an exercise could be done ably demonstrates the fatuousness of the argument; it is little different from Anselm’s ontological argument, as previously noted. If conjuring god with this trick, you might as well wave a magic wand and pull a rabbit from your hat.

Second, you express concerns about Carl Sagan’s observations. You accuse me of being “a product of Western-centrism” when I say that one’s chosen flavor of religion tends to be determined by parental/societal inculcation and coincidence of geography. Your countervailing evidence is (a) there are more born-again Christians in China than in the US, (b) there is a very significant missionary movement in India by Indians, and (c) South Korea sends more missionaries overseas per capita than any other country. These facts would mean more, however, if we did not live in a globalized world. Christians are extraordinarily media savvy, spreading their message worldwide through television, radio and even cinema. Moreover, Christians boast a robust missionary movement, familiarizing third-world-country dwellers with their superstition. Far more convincing to me (and the late Dr. Sagan) would be independent revelation from god himself, directed to people who had never previously heard of Yahweh or Christianity. You cite China, which reminds me of my favorite quote from Christopher Hitchens’ “god is not Great.” Hitchens writes, “One recalls the question that was asked by the Chinese when the first Christian missionaries made their appearance. If god has revealed himself, how is it that he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing the Chinese?” Whatever deities might have haunted Chinese history, none was distinguishably Yahweh. This is telling. Imagine if, around 2000 BCE, worship of Yahweh had simultaneously arisen in the Middle East, China, the Americas and central Africa. What compelling evidence that would have been! In actuality, primitive populations begin to worship Yahweh when believers in Yahweh arrive at their shores.

Finally, you are uncomfortable with my charge that Yahweh has an idolatrous fetish for free will. So what is idolatry? It is worship of any cult image, idea or object (usually in opposition to the monotheistic god character). I chose this descriptor largely because, in traditional Christian thought, god is characterized as loving. For the word “loving” to be comprehensible in the context of god, it must mean the same thing as “loving” in the context of humans: We are familiar with, and can understand, this definition. If, in the context of god, “loving” has a mysterious alternate meaning, then you might as well say god is “oglivok” because both statements would convey no actual information. [This is why I have said, for the statement “god is knowledgeable and/or powerful” to be meaningful, those words must be defined identically as in human affairs. Mysterious alternate definitions make such declarations incomprehensible.] In human affairs, to characterize an individual as loving is to say he has loving intentions and acts upon them regularly. No human who consigned billions of people to a place of endless, agonizing torture could be considered loving. Because you believe god does damn people by the billions, something must be undoing his loving intentions. The standard Christian answer is human free will. God’s devotion to human free will is such that he permits people to make their own choices, even choices that shall result in consignment to eternal agony. Because god’s loving intentions are unraveled by his affection for free will, I rightly observe god, if existent, has an idolatrous fetish for the free will idea.

None of the other points is substantial enough to justify extending this already-lengthy diatribe. However, I must comment on this curiosity: “I pray for your eventual repentance and salvation.” Thank you, Rhology. And I, for my part, shall sacrifice a goat and castrate a sheep on your behalf in order to appease Baal, who is well known as a jealous and angry god. I am sure there is a suitable altar in the Tri-State Region.

In all seriousness, I give you my best. I retain hope that the purest water of reason still—some day—might touch your lips, washing away the unfortunate stain of superstitious primitivism. Yes, the first jarring “splash” might shock you, but this is only the jolt of rising from slumber to brilliant wakefulness.

Warm regards,

Dan

My Concluding Salvo: Putting the Nihilist/Rhology Blogalogue to Bed

Rhology, thank you for your reply, which, undue hubris aside, was an enjoyable read. As mentioned in a comment box, I have to conclude this blogalogue, because of work commitments and an increasingly busy schedule. At summer’s end, when my workflow slows to a relative crawl, I would be happy to commence another extended discussion. If nothing else, our interactions enable me to refine my points, allowing me to find theistic arguments’ deficiencies and exploit them for evidentialism’s (and atheism’s) benefit.

My concluding salvo…

“This type of authoritarianism—I call it moral narcissism—is the point of comparison.”

Rhology: Then where are your cries of "atheofascist" over The Dawkins' calling child abuse immoral? Why restrict this to the Abrahamic religions? There are nearly as many targets for your "-ofascist" label as there are religions out there. Why engage in such special pleading?

Nihilist: I condemn everybody who, after formulating their moral opinions, decides those opinions ought to be inflicted on other people against their will. I do not take issue with Dr. Dawkins because, to me, his argument has less to do with the immorality of teaching children the doctrine of hell and more to do with whether, given the facts of the doctrine’s teaching, it falls under the legal definition of child abuse. One can make a legalistic argument without delving into the morality morass. [I offer no judgment about the legalistic case’s merit.]

Speaking strictly from my own perspective now, I single out Christians and Muslims for the “ofascist” designation because I concur with Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” When one believes a patently ludicrous notion, such as the divine inspiration and absolute perfection of a single book (a book written during our species’ bawling intellectual infancy, no less!), from that notion can spring what I would consider atrocities.

Your own comment box remark is illustrative: “So [if god] had said that it is necessary to prevent homosexuals from copulating, it is every human's responsibility to do so.” Presumably, then, if god had said it is necessary to castrate all practicing homosexuals, and then drench oneself in their spurting blood, you would agree it is every human’s responsibility to do so. Or, if god had said, every Sunday, it is necessary to torture all heathens prolongedly, you would agree it is every human’s responsibility to do so.

Your First Principle is the absolute inerrancy of a single book, from which you unquestioningly take your marching orders. You toss aside common sense, popular wisdom and other tools upon which humans rely for fear they are imperfect as compared to your text. This unshakeable loyalty, to a 2000-year-old cobbled-together tome, which could have contained anything, given the happenstance of history, is so frightening to me that merely assigning the “ofascist” label is being generous.

“However, I am doing no such thing”

Rhology: OK, so relativism is neither better nor worse than authoritarianism.

What's your argument, then, for choosing one over the other? Just whatever you feel like that day, or most days? Whether you have the wherewithal to inflict your ideas upon others or not?

Nihilist: Despite your question, I have been absolutely clear on this, so either you did not read or did not comprehend. Neither relativism nor authoritarianism could be judged moral or immoral in any objective sense, given our demonstrable moral ignorance. [Make a moral statement and then try to prove it—from square one—with no presuppositional appeals. If objective moral “laws” exist, they should be like the universe’s physical constants…unaffected by one’s viewpoint.] In light of this demonstrable moral ignorance, one can judge relativism coherent and authoritarianism incoherent. I am a moral relativist (“moral skeptic” is more accurate) because I strive to behave coherently. I do not impose my evidence-bankrupt moral opinions on others.

“Because it makes no sense for one to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant.”

Rhology: This falls victim to the constant problem that your worldview provides you no way to say OUGHT. It's all just IS.

It may make no sense, but so what? Maybe Joe feels like it. Where's the prescriptive power in your statement? Why SHOULD Joe do that which makes sense? There's a reason we call these questions "moral" questions, as opposed to "arithmetic" or "fluid dynamics", you know.

If these are just opinions on your part, again, where's the prescriptive power? Why SHOULD anyone agree?

Why even make such statements? Why not just think them and be done with it? I'm serious.

Nihilist: My evidentialist principle, although lacking objective moral standards at this time, certainly offers the potential to make “ought” statements. Suppose Axelrod is standing in his living room, and he genuinely wants to go outside. There is a locked door separating him from the great outdoors. If he wishes to go outside, he OUGHT to go to the door, unlock it, open it and step out; that would be coherent behavior. If he wishes to go outside, he OUGHT NOT to walk right into the locked door; that would be incoherent behavior. Furthermore, suppose Comstock genuinely wishes to see a comedy film. However, at his local multiplex, only two films are being screened: American History X and The Naked Gun. If he wishes to see a comedy, he OUGHT to see The Naked Gun and OUGHT NOT to see American History X. No moral judgments, objective or subjective, have been rendered, but we have arrived at clear, coherent “ought” statements. In truth, the only prescriptive powers I lack are those related to areas of demonstrable ignorance.

Incoherency arises in attempting to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant. Ponder “best color” and “best film,” which are analogous to “moral behavior” and “immoral behavior.” It would be incoherent for me, an aficionado of red, to demand that you renounce green and recognize the intrinsic superiority of my color. It would be incoherent for me, a fan of Mulholland Dr., to demand that you throw aside your favorite film and recognize the superiority of mine. These would be manifestly incoherent behaviors, and I do not shy from identifying that. The same goes for inflicting arbitrary moral opinions on others.

We previously have touched on the fact that, even though your worldview does afford you the right to make objective moral judgments, said judgments are mere derivatives of your First Principle…offshoots of your personal metaphysical foundation. You have failed to explain why, if you live in, say, Oklahoma, your metaphysical foundation should hold any relevance for two homosexuals living in Detroit: Your First Principle is the method by which you interrogate the world. It does not overarch the world itself; the world is not captive to Rhology’s mind.

If existence affords you a metaphysical foundation, it affords one to every person. Setting aside issues of law, if you may live in accordance with your own First Principle, so too may everyone else.

“it makes no sense for laws to be religiously derived.”

Rhology: 1) Go start your own country and see how far you get with that.

2) Oh, the USSR already tried that. Well, maybe you can do better than they did.

3) On what basis would you argue that atheism would be able to justify laws of religious freedom? Humans have no universal rights on atheism. Freedom is not a mandate on atheism.

Nihilist: You have committed gross intellectual dishonesty: You snipped a few words from a sentence, and pretended as though your snippet was my complete thought. Here is the proper quote: “Rather, I contend that, in a country with constitutionally enshrined freedom of religion (and its negative, freedom from religion), it makes no sense for laws to be religiously derived.” [Your choice to snip words from a sentence reminds me of Roger Ebert’s complaint that a word like “fun” will be attributed to him in a movie advertisement, when his real sentence was something like, “This movie is absolutely no fun.”]

If there is to be true freedom of religion—equality of faiths before the law—the government cannot have one religion (or even a few) as its legal system’s foundation. Such is antithetical to freedom of religion: If all religions are equal, Christianity cannot be “more equal” than the rest.

I shall answer in parts, as this seems to demand:

1. Objective judgments vis-à-vis laws can be made without appealing to religion…indeed, without appealing to morality at all. In a democracy or republic, the government works for its citizens, and must comport itself in a way representative of the citizenry’s demands. If a democratic government is formed and the citizens task it with promoting societal stability and preserving individual liberty, that government can create laws that enable it to perform its tasks. Kidnapping and murder could be outlawed because they cause chaotic instability and abridge victims’ liberty. The government need not wade into morality at all; it needs only look at its mandate and figure out which laws shall permit it to complete its duties.

2. The USSR represented nothing more than exchanging one dogma for another. I would argue that, in some sense, the laws in the USSR were religiously derived, in that Marxism/Leninism was imposed with a dogmatic, nay, religious fanaticism.

3. If a new democracy or republic were to arise, and the citizenry wished to enjoy complete freedom of religion, then the government could make it a constitutional tenet, as a way of serving the people for whom it works. We need not try to decipher cosmic truth; we need only to know the priorities of the people for whom the government works. We are not endowed by a creator with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; rather, we value those things, and assign government with safeguarding them (preferably via constitution).

“Recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.”

Rhology: If only your camp would extend such courtesy to ID and not deny ID-ers tenure, a voice, etc, all the while thinking they were ignorant.

Does that work anywhere else? Recognition of ignorance in particle physics does not forbid formulation of opinion on black holes.

Recognition of chemical ignorance does not forbid formulation of opinion on whether I should mix ammonia and bleach and inhale the results, does it?

That's special pleading.

Nihilist: Apparently, it is time for the “square-peg-in-a-round-hole” routine, because your examples are unanalogous; they are mere red herrings employed for obfuscative purposes. Below, please find examples of issues about which we truly are ignorant.

• What is the best color in the spectrum?
• What is the best number between one and 20?
• What is the best film ever made?
• What is the funniest joke ever written?

These are issues about which we are ignorant because, even if facts are discoverable, we have no certainty as to what a relevant fact might be or how the facts might converge to form a conclusion. Is acting quality relevant to the “best film” question? Who decides what acting is good and what is wretched? Is being divisible by two relevant to the “best number” question? If so, who decides whether that would be propitious or deleterious?

Such is morality. Perhaps human suffering is relevant vis-à-vis moral questions, with increased suffering being immoral and decreased suffering (or increased pleasure) being moral. Then again, maybe not. For now, there is no way to know. Although we can ascertain facts about what behaviors cause suffering…or what actions cause pleasure…or what behaviors harm the environment, we have no way of knowing those facts’ relevancy to the question of morality.

Conversely, facts involving radiocarbon dating, for example, clearly have relevancy vis-à-vis Darwinian evolution. In the sciences, facts’ relevancy is generally clear.

Rhology: Been wondering something - Where are these "Christofascists"? Compared to the very large number of Islamofascists, they are a speck if they exist at all. And their modus operandi is so different from jihadists as to warrant the serious question - why the "-ofascist" at the end of the appellation?

You need to point these people out and give a good reason to think they're acting in accord with a doctrine that could reasonably be thought to be of Christ; otherwise you're engaging in poisoning the well. Showing that their numbers even approach that of jihadists would help your case as well. It needs the help.

Nihilist: You keep wanting to make this about behavior when, from the commencement, I have said my Christofascist/Islamofascist comparison involves mindset. Large numbers of Christians and Muslims suffer from the pathology that their arbitrary moral opinions can and should be inflicted on other people against their will. One need not be an abortion clinic sniper to be a Christofascist; one need only be a Christian so enamored of his religion that he feels not only can he make objective moral judgments about other people but can coercively impose his moral standards on them, as well. [Consider your personal delusion here: The fallacy that your metaphysical foundation, and its offshoots, extends beyond your mind.] If one’s Christianity is an unwelcome interference in other people’s lives, one is a Christofascist. I use this standard for Muslims and all other theists. I rarely encounter an atheofascist (that being an atheist who acts coercively toward theists).

“One need only remember the commandment addressing covetousness, which lumps thy neighbor’s wife in with that same neighbor’s ox and ass.”

Rhology: You have completely abandoned your original field of discourse on this topic, that of the "wives, submit to your husbands", since I provided you the context.

Nihilist: I only “abandoned my original field of discourse” in your reply, because you chose not to quote the relevant portion of my response. I said, “My concern is not related to the specifics of the inequality but rather to the inequality itself. You condemn Islam’s ‘mistreatment’ of women but, when one looks at Christianity, it is quite clear that women and men are not treated as absolute equals.” As long as you affirm “the head of the woman is the man,” your condemnation of female treatment under Islam is rather like you walking into a bar—nursing a cold Budweiser— and promptly telling everybody downing shots that they should not imbibe alcohol.

Rhology: You're battered so you retreat to the OT, moving the goalposts.

Nihilist: I did not realize you scoff so easily at the Ten Commandments, to which many Christofascists are happily wedded. After all, you must remember the two-and-a-half-ton Ten Commandments monument commissioned by Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. Presumably, his battle over the monument underscores his viewpoint that the commandments remain relevant today. In raising the aforequoted objection, I assumed you might wish to defend the placement of wives alongside oxen and asses.

“This is not a ‘clean break’ from the Islamic misogyny you excoriate.”

Rhology: Deal with the hypothetical all you want. The Bible denies such hypotheticals - God doesn't change, can't be any other way. It's like asking me if God can microwave a burrito so hot that He can't eat it.

Nihilist: My hypotheticals have little to do with the Bible and much to do with you as an individual.

A couple rounds back, I asked you this:

“…what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men?”

Prior to confirming Jesus did not preach that, you answered:

“I'd submit and conform to it.”

This relates to what I wrote to commence this long rebuttal: If god had said it is necessary to castrate all practicing homosexuals, and then drench oneself in their spurting blood, presumably, you would submit and conform to it. Or, if god had said, every Sunday, it is necessary to torture all heathens prolongedly, presumably, you would submit and conform to it. I know I cannot make objective moral judgments, but your willingness to submit absolutely to a text—a text (!) written by primitives who knew essentially nothing of the natural order—is far more revealing than you might wish to accept.

“Presumably, when that verse was written, god knew quite well that some of his followers would misuse it in the context of hysterical hunts for witches”

Rhology: You're the one who's so fond of freewill. What's wrong if God is a fan of it too?

Man, God just can't win - you won't give Him credit either way!

What's He supposed to do? Zap them out of existence as soon as they start to think a wrong thought about the meaning of the Bible?

Besides, this is just one more moral judgment - you're trying to convince me that these hunts and these Scriptures which supposedly underpin them are morally objectionable. This dog only comes out when the meat is stinky enough, it would seem.

Nihilist: Hold it…I am not making any objective moral judgments. I am using biblical standards as articulated by YOU: After all, you are to apologetics what the finest Oxford fairyologist is to the study of pixies, fairies and elven creatures.

I shall let you speak on behalf of Christians as to the moral righteousness of using torture on suspected witches in order to secure extravagant confessions. “I wouldn't support those gross abuses,” you emphatically stated. You also condemned as sinful executing somebody who was not afforded a fair trial. Undoubtedly, many innocent people were executed as witches, given the miserable standard of evidence that prevailed, the forced confessions attributable to torture and the nonsensical tests confected to distinguish witch from non-witch.

If this spectacle truly were displeasing to god, why would his divinely inspired text include a verse that facilitated and enabled such blood-drenched lunacy? Would omitting/rephrasing that verse have obliterated free will? No. The deity’s alleged omniscience, and his choice to leave the verse “as is,” clearly seems to indicate that god was quite satisfied with permitting the witch-hunts to occur. One wonders why god would indirectly facilitate acts you identify as being sinful.

“it is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia.”

Rhology: B/c it's not mentioned in the Bible? Wow - a ZINGER of an argument!

Nihilist: I have reiterated this point quite a bit on my blog. The notion that a book…any book (but particularly a cobbled-together tome from an ignorant period of human prehistory)…is omnisciently inspired is quite extraordinary. Only the most extraordinary of evidence would suffice to substantiate this notion. So, as I scour the Bible, I look for brand new information about the natural order—information that, prior to the Bible’s writing, was unavailable to humankind. But the Bible, to its shame, fails the test. In a recent blog post, I wrote this…

“…the Bible could have contained some brand new information about the natural order. I have harped on this before, primarily because I think The Argument from Mundanity is one of the strongest weapons in an atheist’s arsenal. After all, Christians claim that the creator of the universe directly inspired the Bible’s very words. Forget about Einstein and Hemingway; forget about Joyce and Sagan—this is the creator of the universe here. And yet, despite god’s omniscient authorship, the Bible wallows in pre-scientific primitivism and yawn-inducing mundanity. As Sam Harris observed, ‘[The Bible] does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.’ There is nothing about the actual age or size of the universe. There is nothing about the germ theory of disease. Earth’s vast geography is shrunk down to claustrophobically local levels. It is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia. If the Bible’s alleged omniscience had been manifest, that tome could have been meaningful evidence.”

If you want to impress me with an omnisciently inspired book, you shall have to do much better than the Bible. Moreover, you shall have to offer up a better justification for Christofascistic tendencies than the fallacious notion that the world is overarched by your metaphysical foundation, that being the prism through which you view it.

Got a One-Way Ticket...But to Where?

In this post, I present a thought exercise for Christians and any other individuals who believe in a deity who passes judgment following corporeal death. I realize, according to Christian doctrine, only god is allowed to judge and any assessment made by a mere human would be guesswork. However, I believe the answers—tentative and uncertain though they inevitably shall be—might be instructive for my readers. With that housekeeping note out of the way, the remainder of this entry shall be a summary of the life of Henry Toole, a character whom I invented for this exercise. I shall be as detailed as necessary, so the case can be properly adjudicated.

Henry Toole was born to a family of Southern Baptists living in Arkansas. His maternal grandfather was a preacher and, thus, even though his parents were not especially devout, Henry was taken to church at least once a week throughout his childhood years. Aside from occasional bouts of fidgetiness, which are so typical among children, young Henry was enthralled by the stories of Jesus and his miraculous doings. For a few years, he even entertained notions of dedicating his adult life to the church. [The life of a preacher was in close contention with game show host, scientist and garbage collector.] As he became older, though, his rapt interest began to decline; when his parents brought him to church on Sundays, he found his mind wandering to other things, ranging from principles learned in science class to that night’s dinner plans. He still believed each of Christianity’s truth-claims; he simply felt as though he had heard it all before, and everything had the faint odor of sameness.

Over the next few years, doubt began to enter Henry’s mind. The tales of Adam and Eve, a global cataclysm flooding the planet and corpses rising from the tomb no longer seemed as convincing to Henry as they had when he was ten. He married a girl from his town, Patricia, who was moderately religious. By the age of 28, Henry had lost all faith and adopted the label of atheist. His abandonment of his religious convictions was not the result of a personal tragedy or being influenced by skeptics around him. Rather, he simply came to the firm realization that he no longer believed any of the dogma with which he had been raised. He ceased all churchgoing activities; Patricia, under no pressure from Henry, adopted an agnostic stance three years later.

Henry and his wife had three sons, none of whom was raised Christian. Henry never addressed the subject of religion with his sons. In fact, he never discussed religion at all; he was not the type to badmouth the church or blaspheme the deity in which he no longer believed. When they started their family, both Henry and Patricia agreed they would not push their children in any direction with respect to religion, choosing instead to let each find his own way. And, in fact, all three sons eventually became Southern Baptists. Henry and his wife never expressed any objections, and joyfully attended each son’s religious wedding.

Henry and Patricia had a happy marriage, which lasted 58 years. Although there were occasional temptations, neither one ever strayed from the other. Henry was a loving, generous, attentive and supportive husband, as well as a dedicated father who provided all he could to his family. In addition to his work schedule, for roughly half a dozen years, Henry found time to volunteer at a local children’s hospital. A fitness enthusiast, he also regularly participated in walkathons and marathons for charitable causes, ranging from treatment of chronic disease to elimination of poverty. Perhaps his most selfless moment was when one of his sons needed a kidney transplant. With little hesitation, Henry agreed to donate a kidney to his son.

Throughout his life, Henry never regained his religiosity, and neither did his agnostic wife. He died at age 83 and had a secular funeral ceremony, as he specified. His family, including many grandchildren, was devastated, overwhelmed with grief from the loss of “pop-pop,” as he was affectionately known.

Where shall Henry Toole be sent?

Blowing Down the House of (Tarot) Cards

Greetings, Rhology! Thank you for your alacritous and engaging response, which demands rebuttal. I get the sense you still do not fully understand my position vis-à-vis morality because, when scrutinized, the “contradictions” you cite disappear quicker than ghosts do in the presence of skeptics. I hope, with this composition, I can provide definitive clarification. And despite my well-established tendencies toward unrestrained, self-indulgent verbosity, I shall be succinct.

“I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom.”

Rhology: But the relativistic view is a view in itself. You claim ignorance about the topic and then go ahead and take a position anyway. Why not just eschew any and all moral statements about everythg if you really believe that?

Nihilist: Although it is true that moral relativism constitutes a view, it contains no inherent contradiction, at least in the formulation to which I adhere. Interestingly, you articulate precisely the same argument as was made by Sam Harris in “The End of Faith.” Harris argues that moral relativism is self-defeating because, if one declares tolerance “better than” authoritarianism, one is advancing an objective moral principle, which would be inconsistent with relativistic thinking. However, I am doing no such thing. Rather, I have patiently argued that neither tolerance nor authoritarianism could be judged moral or immoral in any objective sense. Because there is no known way to prove a moral statement or code, our ignorance on the moral front is manifest and inarguable. Recognizing this ignorance, there is coherent behavior and incoherent behavior. A relativistic stance is coherent, whereas an authoritarian stance is not. Why? Because it makes no sense for one to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant.

Let me be unequivocal: I am meticulous in my avoidance of making moral statements, assuming that, when one says “moral statements,” one references claims of moral fact. I make myriad moral judgments, but each is merely my opinion.

“inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.”

Rhology: There's inflicting and there's inflicting. Surely you won't be so blind as to compare sharia law with laws banning the sale of sex toys!

Yet that's what you seem to be doing. That's one of the things that amazes me about these comparisons to Islam. You miss the forest for the trees. You can apparently hardly bear to NOT take a swipe at Christianity and so you miss the presence of the huge threat of people who want to blow you up.

Nihilist: I already have explained that, contrary to your assertion, I never compared suicide-bomb attacks (or imposition of Sharia law) with Alabama’s infantile ban on sex-toy sales. My comparison is of the morally authoritarian mindsets of Christofascists and Islamofascists. “Morally authoritarian” references the pathology that some pastor or ayatollah’s arbitrary opinions should affect other people’s rights and liberties. When American pastors and Iranian ayatollahs are satisfied with charting their own moral courses—whilst leaving everybody else to chart their own—I shall withdraw my objection. And, to be clear, such religious figures are not behaving immorally in any provable objective sense, but rather incoherently in the face of their moral ignorance.

“However, if that truly is your stance (and I hope it is), then you must join me in condemning the Alabama law to which I am opposed....If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and non-Christians alike, religious freedom is retarded.”

Rhology: B/c I believe in religious freedom? That doesn't follow. There is also public morality to think of. I won't support the free exercise of a religion that includes committing 4 murders a year as part of its pietistic exercise, for example.

I'm not saying I do support the law, but it's not for that reason.

Laws limit freedom, you know. You're not permitted to murder someone just for the heck of it, and that can retard religious freedom. We must ask "Which freedoms can be justifiably restricted?" rather than "Should religious freedom be restricted?"

Nihilist: My claim is not that pietistic exercise must be unrestricted. Rather, I contend that, in a country with constitutionally enshrined freedom of religion (and its negative, freedom from religion), it makes no sense for laws to be religiously derived. Only in theocracies are laws traceable to, or inspired by, religious doctrine.

In the face of our manifest moral ignorance, governmental attempts to legislate morality—at the federal, state or local level—also make no sense. Many people seem to forget that laws need not appeal to moral considerations; in other words, illegal acts need not be deemed intrinsically immoral. Although people have multifarious ideas about the purpose of government in contemporary society, most of us agree that it is tasked with promoting individual liberty and preserving societal stability. That is pretty basic stuff. Government can enact laws that enable it to fulfill its tasks, without any appeal to morality. An act—such as murder, rape or kidnapping—can be deemed illegal because it deprives people of their liberty or has the potential to create chaotic instability. One can make those conclusions without reading tea leaves about what acts are righteous and which are wicked.

Wallowing in the swamp of what is “moral” or “immoral” is a waste of the government’s time—not to mention incoherent. Wearing a suit and working in Washington does not cure one’s moral ignorance.

“unconventional sex is sinful”

Rhology: Rather, sex that is harmful or outside of marriage is that which is sinful. Nothing in the Bible really refers to sex toys.

Nihilist: Thanks for the clarification, although I am sure some Christians would beg to differ vis-à-vis sex toys. I would inquire as to the sinfulness (or moral acceptability) of marital felching, but I cannot, considering this is a family blog.

“If I lived in that state, I would be an atheist in name and belief, but would have to be a de facto Christian if I wanted to avoid legal harassment.”

Rhology: Do what you want, but Alabama is not Saudi Arabia. Seriously, stop acting like it is! You're making yourself look foolish and missing the bigger threat.

Nihilist: I never equated Alabama with Saudi Arabia; I equated two authoritarian mindsets. Neither Christians nor Muslims are willing to keep their arbitrary moral opinions to themselves, and that is the basis for the comparison. [Religionists need not hold their opinions silently. Behavioral incoherence only arises when pathological, wrongheaded attempts are made to inflict one’s factually bankrupt moral opinions on others. Analogously, you may say green is the best color and I may say the same of red; if, however, you attempt to impose your color choice on me, incoherency has arisen.]

“Is the latter cell ‘less evil’ than the former?”

Rhology: On your worldview, neither is evil at all.

Nihilist: In my opinion, both cells would be quite spectacularly evil. However, I could not prove it. Recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.

“Just ghastly.”

Rhology: On your worldview, it's not ghastly. It's just painful. Pain is, pleasure is, neither is moral nor immoral. I'm going to hold you to your professed worldview even if you won't.

Nihilist: It is ghastly in my opinion. Its ghastliness cannot be proved as a matter of objective fact because there is no known way to prove a moral statement or code. But again, recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.

“you subscribe to a religion in which wives are supposed to submit to their husbands’ headship.”

Rhology: And, I shouldn't be surprised, you neglected (again) to mention anythg about the husbands' obligations and responsibilities. Pretty typical, though I have come to expect a little more than that from you.

Nihilist: My concern is not related to the specifics of the inequality but rather to the inequality itself. You condemn Islam’s “mistreatment” of women but, when one looks at Christianity, it is quite clear that women and men are not treated as absolute equals. True, your religion might preach equality in god’s eyes, but, on Earth, one gender clearly seems meant to dominate. One need only remember the commandment addressing covetousness, which lumps thy neighbor’s wife in with that same neighbor’s ox and ass. For the writer, it is quite clear that women are a kind of property, not entirely unlike slaves and livestock.

“It seems to me that, in your mind, your beliefs need not conform to popular wisdom, modern mores or even common sense.”

Rhology: Since popular wisdom is so often wrong, yes. Common sense is far from infallible as well.

As an example, just look at how long your moral relativism has lasted throughout your own post! You didn't make it 3 paragraphs before contradicting yourself.

Nihilist: I see no contradictions. I articulated numerous moral opinions, but made no claims of moral fact.

Consider the following quotes from my post (italics added for emphasis):

• “…looking at the period when both institutions were behaving badly (according to my confected standards, that is), I think it is rather a waste of time to talk about which was more horrible.”
• “In my opinion, murder is horribly evil.”
• “In my view, torture is anathema to civilized existence.”
• “In my judgment, donating $1 million to underprivileged children is morally righteous.”

Which of those is a claim of moral fact? The answer: None is. I simply have articulated my moral opinions, baseless though they might be.

“Bearing that in mind, what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men?”

Rhology: I'd submit and conform to it.

Of course, that's not what He preached.

Again you spend time sniping at Christianity when you should be focusing on Islam. No hypotheticals needed there - they DO teach this stuff!

Nihilist: I am not sniping at Christianity, but rather illustrating the hollowness of your critique of Islam. You rail against Muslims for their treatment of women, but, if your 2000-year-old text had instructed you differently, you admit you would treat women in precisely the same manner you now condemn. This is not a “clean break” from the Islamic misogyny you excoriate. Your own views on women’s rights could have been entirely opposite, had different people written Jesus’ lines.

“There is no known way to prove a moral statement or moral code; as such, we are left only with opinion.”

Rhology: Very well. Serious question - why then make all these moral statements, as if someone else should hold them? Why not just hold all moral judgments to yourself?

Nihilist: It seems to me that, at base, you are asking why I bother articulating my opinions when those opinions are not factually proved. The answer to this question is simple: I am an opinionated individual who enjoys throwing my voice into the discussion. And I do not opine exclusively on matters of religion and morality; I enthusiastically express my opinions about all subjects in which I have interest. For example, I am a huge fan of the cinema and, every year, I compile a Top 10 list of films. My annual list does not touch on objective, absolute truth; there is no known way to prove that one film is better than another is. My list simply reflects my opinions. A man can strongly present his opinions without deluding himself into thinking those opinions are facts, and without forcing others to conform to his opinions.

“I would be willing to bet a large sum that, at the height of the witch-hunts, the aforequoted passage was recited more than once.”

Rhology: As if misuse of a passage of text means the text is to blame.

Obviously if I murdered 10 people and then appealed to this very blogpost in court, saying that I took your meaning to be that you were God and you commanded me to murder them, the judge would not and should not hold you responsible for that, right?

Nihilist: The standards for the Bible are a little bit different, in that Christians claim that tome was directly inspired by the omniscient creator of the universe. Presumably, when that verse was written, god knew quite well that some of his followers would misuse it in the context of hysterical hunts for witches (and assorted other heretics and blasphemers). Knowing that god is also omnibenevolent, it stretches credibility to think such a bizarre passage would make the cut; a judicious stroke with god’s ethereal red pen probably would have prevented a lot of the torture and butchery to which I previously referred. But, perhaps the whole omniscient-inspiration notion ought to be thrown out. After all, it is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia.

“by ‘witchcraft,’ you apparently are referencing adults who indulge in children’s folly.”

Rhology: Not all of that stuff is simple parlor tricks. But I'm not a naturalist, so I attribute at least a small amount of that stuff, including miracles in other religions, to demonic activity.

Nihilist: Ubiquitous demonic mischief notwithstanding, tarot cards and Ouija are trinkets, played with by children and those with under-developed minds. Have you an example that is not out-and-out piffle?

“(a) torture was used not to punish people for their 'crimes' but in order to secure extravagant confessions, and (b) the charges oftentimes were jaw dropping in their ludicrousness.”

Rhology: Well, of course I wouldn't support those gross abuses.

And again, not that treating suspected "witches" this way is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.

Nihilist: I never claimed that torturing “witches” was morally wrong in any objective sense. My condemnations are mere articulations of my opinion, which is not factually proved. Once more, recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion. Remember, I compile a Top 10 film list every year, despite the fact that the carefully crafted list is mere opinion.

“exemplifies nothing more than pathetic cravenness.”

Rhology: Again, not that pathetic cravenness or the threatening people with hell is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.

You just can't seem to live up to your own worldview! Since you fit yours so badly, it's the least I can do to offer you one that would allow you to justify making moral claims like you keep doing, namely Christianity.

Nihilist: I never said cravenness was morally wrong (either objectively or subjectively). I said it was pathetic—an assessment by which I stand. I also never said threatening people with hell was morally wicked (either subjectively or objectively). I said it was the weakest possible way to attempt to convert me and, to be frank, nonsensical. As I wrote, drawing from my knowledge of biology and the workings of the human body, I know pain is a function of the nervous system, tissue damage and other physical factors. I have seen no evidence that a wispy, incorporeal essence could be made to feel pain. Even “emotional pain”—the kind that keeps people awake at night—is traceable to brain activity. A wispy, incorporeal essence possesses no brain of which to speak. I equate attempts to torture a “soul” with trying to make the helium in a balloon wail with agony (to say nothing of weep and gnash its teeth). Can nitrogen suffer anguish?

Crystal Balls, Sex Toys, Judas Cradle, Rhology and the Nihilist

Thanks for the reply, Rhology. Because you admitted that, due to my wording, you misunderstood my position vis-à-vis morality, I shall eschew further comment on that. Should you attack my position, I shall defend it. Be mindful of this, though: My embrace of moral relativism does not flow from my unique possession of moral truth; rather, I am a moral relativist because I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom.
Because your post oftentimes responds directly to statements I made in my most recent offering, I think the statements in question should be included, to provide context. I hope the formatting is clear: First, appearing in italics, will be the statement to which you are responding. That shall be followed by your response and, finally, my new rebuttal. Here goes….


“Nobody reading my essay could possibly think I was directly comparing suicide bombing with Alabama’s infantile law.”

Rhology: You yourself said this, though: "Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset."
But I agree that religious freedom (which I believe the US should have) should exist and that your statements about it are correct.

Nihilist: You have quoted me correctly, but taken it in the wrong context. I was comparing Christofascists to Islamofascists, not the sex-toy ban to suicide bombing. In fact, I immediately followed up the quote you selected with a clarifier: “That is, for both Christofascists and Islamofascists, there is an assumption that they have a right to inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.” This type of authoritarianism—I call it moral narcissism—is the point of comparison. But let me assure you, I am happy to know that you believe in religious freedom. However, if that truly is your stance (and I hope it is), then you must join me in condemning the Alabama law to which I am opposed. It is inarguable that the state’s sex-toy ban is inspired by the Christian moral construction. In that construction, unconventional sex is sinful—and introducing toys into coitus is unconventional. If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and non-Christians alike, religious freedom is retarded. If I lived in that state, I would be an atheist in name and belief, but would have to be a de facto Christian if I wanted to avoid legal harassment.


“I readily admit that, at this moment and for the last few centuries, Muslims behave far worse than Christians do.”

Rhology: Well, I'm looking for more than that! :-D Islam behaved VERY badly its first 2 centuries of existence, as an institution. The medieval RCC was bad; institutional Islam was pretty bad too, enslaved and killed far more people, and took far more territory with the sword. In the name of God and in line with their religion (see the link I posted), as opposed to the Inquisition and Crusades, neither of which are fully justifiable on biblical grounds (though the Crusades are justifiable to a decent extent).
Does that make sense?

Nihilist: On this point, we are in substantial agreement. At least since 1700, Islam and its followers have been far worse than Christianity and its masses. I would argue that, from around 1250 to 1700, many self-proclaimed god-fearing Christians engaged in hideous evil, directed particularly toward people accused of witchcraft and those who did not acquiesce to the controlling church powers. However, I concede that, after that point, things were substantially “cleaned up,” as it were.
Nevertheless, looking at the period when both institutions were behaving badly (according to my confected standards, that is), I think it is rather a waste of time to talk about which was more horrible. Suppose that a terrorist group sets off a bomb in Los Angeles and kills 500,000 innocent civilians. Suppose another cell detonates an explosive in New York City, but only kills 300,000 innocents. Is the latter cell “less evil” than the former? Such a question, to me, seems beside the point. And, although my knowledge of Islam is limited, I do know that some of the torture devices supposedly used by Christians are absolutely shocking in their heinousness. The website Medievality.com describes the Judas Cradle as follows: “The Judas Cradle [was] a terrible medieval torture where the victim would be placed on top of a pyramid-like seat. The victim's feet were tied to each other in a way that moving one leg would force the other to move as well - increasing pain. The triangular-shaped end of the Judas Cradle was inserted in the victim's anus or vagina. This torture could last, depending on some factors discussed below, anywhere from a few hours to complete days.” Just ghastly.


“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” [1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)].

Rhology: It's a distinction of role, not of nature.
And you're right - it's SERVANT leadership, much like Christ, the Lord and Creator of the universe, space, time, matter, and energy, washing the disgusting, dirty, and manure-encrusted feet of His disciples and then dying for them, abandoned by them.
That's my calling as a Christian husband.

Nihilist: I would not say that the gender roles prescribed by Christian doctrine are misogynistic per se, but they certainly are antithetical to modern ideas about absolute equality (save for the obvious plumbing differences). In my last post, I simply was making the point that, even though you argue against what I consider to be Islam’s mistreatment of women—and you make your arguments with eloquence and insight—you subscribe to a religion in which wives are supposed to submit to their husbands’ headship. Again, there is quite a difference with respect to degree, but not much difference in the overall gist.
But let me add something here. As evidenced by your comments later on about Jeffrey Dahmer, an individual you believe might currently be in heaven due to his being born again, you are a Christian who adheres slavishly to scripture. It seems to me that, in your mind, your beliefs need not conform to popular wisdom, modern mores or even common sense. That is, if a biblical prescription seemed to fly in the face of common sense, you probably would err on the side of the Bible and presume that your common sense was somehow faulty, at least this once. Bearing that in mind, what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men? If Jesus had made such pronouncements, would you live in accordance with them? I ask not to be antagonistic but because, to me, your devotion to scripture seems uncompromising, nay, absolute.


“702 were tried and executed in Protestant territories”

Rhology: OK, I didn't realise that about Prot territories. Of course, the Salem trials were Prot, (and executed a whopping [less than] 20 witches) but this still compares very favorably with Islam. It's not as simple as this, though. The state and church were not separated or barely separated at that time. Principles like American religious freedom were more or less unheard-of; it's anachronistic to judge them by our modern standards. Finally, I'll just remind everyone that you said above that you can't extend moral judgments beyond yourself anyway.

Nihilist: My position is not that I cannot extend moral judgments beyond myself. Rather, I simply have no pretension that my moral opinions are objective facts. In my opinion, murder is horribly evil. In my view, torture is anathema to civilized existence. In my judgment, donating $1 million to underprivileged children is morally righteous. However, if you asked me to prove those opinions to be factually accurate, I could not. There is no known way to prove a moral statement or moral code; as such, we are left only with opinion.


“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”

Rhology: It's not that I deemphasise certain psgs b/c I feel like it. The key is that this law and so many others in the OT Law were CIVIL laws given for the governance of OT Israel, which was a nation, a theocracy. OT Israel no longer exists. Those civil laws don't apply.

Nihilist: Fair enough…point well taken. I do maintain, however, that such passages provided “theological cover” for the torturers, butchers and murderers. I would be willing to bet a large sum that, at the height of the witch-hunts, the aforequoted passage was recited more than once. However, your clarification vis-à-vis Old Testament law made me think of Leviticus 18:22 and its condemnation of homosexual activity. Is not Levitical law also “out of date,” as it were? Would not the new covenant of the New Testament supersede Levitical law? Should not that particular verse be retired from the contemporary gay rights discussion?


“Neither [witchcraft nor sorcery] exists and neither ever has.”

Rhology: I disagree with this statement. They do exist. Why else would the OT Law prohibit them?
Shoot, they exist TODAY! Have you never heard of a séance, channeling, Ouija boards, mediums, Tarot card readers, thaumaturgists...?

Nihilist: There appears to be a chasm between our definitions of witchcraft. Yes, some people use tarot cards, Ouija, crystal balls and the like. However, none of those trinkets has the powers attributed to it. Tarot cards offer as much mystical insight as a deck of Bicycle playing cards, and Ouija is a children’s toy playing on the ideomotor effect. So, by “witchcraft,” you apparently are referencing adults who indulge in children’s folly. Perhaps the Old Testament, too, was referring to such exemplifications of stunted intellectual growth.


“the pious people who tortured and murdered “witches” centuries ago, in your judgment, are presently in that place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Rhology: Witchcraft was illegal in those areas at that time and was (I'd argue more or less rightly) considered a threat to civil security, so it was treated as a crime. It's not how I'd do it, but it has a fair amount to commend it - the nation would be freer of the evil influence of the occult, the people would be holier in conduct, the gross immorality that usually accompanies witchcraft would be less present, etc.
"Murder" is never justified, so I grant that. Executions after trial are quite another matter.
I don't see why torture would be justified, so I grant that.

Nihilist: The witch-hunt escapade is shocking not only for its brutality and sheer level of hideousness, but also for its absolute silliness. Consider the following passage, from “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,” by Charles Mackay:
“In 1595, an old woman residing in a village near Constance, angry at not being invited to share the sports of the country people on a day of public rejoicing, was heard to mutter something to herself, and was afterwards seen to proceed through the fields towards a hill, where she was lost sight of. A violent thunderstorm arose about two hours afterwards, which wet the dancers to the skin, and did considerable damage to the plantations. This woman, suspected before of witchcraft, was seized and imprisoned, and accused of having raised the storm, by filling a hole with wine, and stirring it about with a stick. She was tortured till she confessed, and was burned alive the next evening.”
You refer to execution after trial with some degree of approval, but do not forget that (a) torture was used not to punish people for their “crimes” but in order to secure extravagant confessions, and (b) the charges oftentimes were jaw dropping in their ludicrousness. Let us just agree that, in that time, the prevailing standards of evidence were rather flimsy. Then again, maybe the wine-filled hole really did confect the tempest. But probably not.


Rhology: On a related note, I believe it is documented on better-than-urban-legend grounds that Jeffrey Dahmer converted to Christianity shortly before his death. If that is true, if he placed his faith and reliance on Jesus Christ to forgive him of his sin and give him eternal life, he is my brother in Christ and will spend eternity in heaven in the presence of Jesus. I am a great sinner, Jesus Christ is a greater Savior.

Nihilist: That is a very telling statement, and supports my earlier assertion that you follow a by-the-book interpretation of Christianity. That is, if common sense—or even your innate instincts—seems to be at odds with New Testament teachings, you still stick with the Bible. It again raises the question in my mind: If the Bible had contained different moral prescriptions—ones that your current self finds repugnant—would you have followed them? In any event, I have seen, on more than one occasion, the televised interview to which you refer. Dahmer indeed does profess born-again Christianity and promotes intelligent design creationism. However, given the fact that Dahmer was a serial murderer, rapist, necrophile and cannibal, I tend to be suspicious of anything he said. As we know from Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, just to name a couple, serial killers tend to be diabolically clever…able to gain people’s confidence and seem completely sincere. If my recollections are correct, Bundy, at various times, convinced his victims he was a plainclothes police officer or a handicapped man needing assistance. Gacy, for his part, made his young male victims so comfortable that they were willing to see Gacy’s “handcuff trick.” Might murdering, raping, necrophiliac, cannibalistic Dahmer have pulled one final con job?


Rhology: These Inquisitors, if they had saving faith in Christ, will be saved. If they didn't, they are condemned and stand in the exact same place as you do - hellbound. I urge you to turn away from your sin and repent, believe in the Savior. You won't regret it; I can promise you that much.

Nihilist: I appreciate your repeated attempts to convert me, but, alas, such represent an enterprise doomed to failure. But worse yet, your attempts at conversion are directed from the weakest possible angle: Somebody who embraces the Christian superstition because he fears damnation to hell exemplifies nothing more than pathetic cravenness. If one must be Christian, one should be so because, in one’s mind, Christianity hits upon truth—not because one is fearful of punishment. In my mind, any creative deity would look more positively on principled, intellectually rigorous skepticism than gutless bet hedging. But let me also stress that I know pain is a function of the nervous system, tissue damage and other physical factors. I have seen no evidence that a wispy, incorporeal essence could be made to feel pain. Even “emotional pain”—the kind that sometimes keeps us awake at night—has to do with brain activity. A wispy, incorporeal essence possesses no brain of which to speak. Therefore, the suffering with which you threaten me seems rather…well…incoherent.

The Rhology Confusion

I was happy to see that Rhology, an eloquent and rather polite Christian, decided to offer a rebuttal to my response to his pithy provocation. Although I have little desire to enter another extended dialogue with him—my final post in our previous dialogue was more than four thousand words, including quotes from him—I feel that some of his points absolutely require a response. Therefore, a response there shall be….


Rhology: #1 - The JN would inflict his moral views on the rest of us, just as he says we should not do. In making the very statement that one should not inflict one's moral views on another, he does the same. As James White says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".

Nihilist: Sorry, Rhology, but a careful reading of my essay clearly shows that I make no statements regarding objective morality. I do not assert that Christofascist and Islamofascist authoritarianism are immoral in any objective or absolute sense (although they offend my confected moral code). I also do not proclaim that leaving each other alone, and embracing a diversity of ethical opinions, constitutes moral rectitude in any objective or absolute sense (although, personally, I find the Zero Aggression Principle persuasive). In the piece, I simply made an inarguable observation about behavioral coherence. Given our manifest moral ignorance—illustrated by the fact that no moral code has been proved objectively correct—the idea of a Christofascist attempting to impose his arbitrary moral opinions on me is precisely analogous to me, an aficionado of red, demanding that Rhology abandon his own favorite color and recognize the superiority of mine. I classify such behavior as neither moral nor immoral; it is incoherent and silly. Given the dearth of moral facts, attempts at coercion are manifestly incoherent. And, let it be known: My embrace of moral relativism does not flow from my unique possession of moral truth; rather, I am a moral relativist because I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom. It makes no sense for one to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant.


Rhology: #2 - He challenges my comparison between "Christian" violence and jihadist suicide bombers with an illustration of a law in Alabama that prohibits the sale of sex toys.

Nihilist: Come on now—maintain a modicum of rationality here. Nobody reading my essay could possibly think I was directly comparing suicide bombing with Alabama’s infantile law. I was presenting an example of the morally authoritarian Christofascist mindset. Moreover, I was explaining that, when such laws are passed, my freedom from religion is being infringed, insofar as such statutes are clearly inspired by the Christian moral construction. I take my constitutional rights seriously. If the right to vote includes an implicit right not to cast a ballot, then freedom of religion includes an implicit right not to indulge in religious observance.


Rhology: I love it - the West, for all its faults, faces an enemy that wants to impose sharia law on all people. It wants women to walk 10 steps behind men, never to show their faces in public, to be prohibited from shaking hands with men, to be worth 1/2 of a man with respect to lawful testimony in court. It wants to charge a heavy tax on/kill those who will not convert to Islam. It wants to behead those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Virtually all of its earliest expansion, both under Mohammed and after him, came through military activity and forced conversions, to the point that all of the Iberian Peninsula, much of France, all of the Balkans, up to Vienna, was taken and held by Muslim forces. The number of men AND WOMEN who strap bombs to themselves every year to blow up civilians and children is almost too numerous to consider. And the JN is concerned about the imposition of a few laws banning the sale of sex toys?

Nihilist: You are preaching to the choir in this instance, Rhology. I conceded this point in the essay to which you are ostensibly responding, writing, “I readily admit that, at this moment and for the last few centuries, Muslims behave far worse than Christians do.” I am appalled by the violence committed in that religion’s name, whether it takes the form of suicide bombings or full-out wars. Islam’s stated policy toward apostates is particularly hideous, in my judgment, given my own Christian apostasy. The mistreatment of women hits me particularly hard, given the fact that I consider myself a feminist and champion for equality of rights. However, I must say, your indictment of Islam’s misogyny rings rather hollow. After all, as a Bible-believing Christian, you presumably affirm the following verse: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” [1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)].
Christianity and Islam differ in their treatment of women, but the difference is of degree rather than kind: Islam is wildly misogynistic, while Christianity merely declares that a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband. When you disavow the aforequoted passage, I will be more inclined to cheerlead your well-informed condemnation of Islam.


Rhology: The JN, in his post, goes on and on about "the church" committing the Inquisition and Witch Trials and such. It's hard to imagine how he could be so uninformed as to think there could be any connection beyond a simple name (ie, they were part of the "Christian church" and I am part of the the Christian church) between my position and that of medieval Roman Catholics. Apparently he missed the multiple posts I've written against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions and the fact that I'm a contributor at Beggars All Reformation Apologetics, which would be hard to confuse with medieval Roman Catholicism.

Nihilist: It seems that you consider your preferred variety of Christianity much more to the heart of the matter than I do. The bottom line, for me, is, apart from Mormons and maybe a few other fringe denominations, Christians—no matter the flavor—are “men of one book,” to co-opt a sentiment attributed to Aquinas. To start, I must correct your attempt to foist all the blame on Catholics. Please forgive me for quoting from Wikipedia, but the source material it cites (H.C. Erik Midelfort, Witch Hunting in Southwestern Germany 1562-1684, 1972) simply would be too laborious to track down. It writes, “One theory for the number of Early Modern witchcraft trials connects the counter-reformation to witchcraft. In Southwestern Germany between 1561 and 1670, there were 480 witch trials. Of the 480 trials that took place in Southwestern Germany, 317 occurred in Catholic areas, while Protestant territories accounted for 163 of them. During the period from 1561 to 1670, at least 3,229 persons were executed for witchcraft in the German Southwest. Of this number, 702 were tried and executed in Protestant territories, while 2,527 were tried and executed in Catholic territories…. Historians today dispute the comparative severity of witch hunting in Protestant and Catholic territories. ‘Protestants blamed the witch trials on the methods of the Catholic Inquisition and the theology of Catholic scholasticism, while Catholic scholars indignantly retorted that Lutheran preachers drew more witchcraft theory from Luther and the Bible than from medieval Catholic thinkers’.”


Rhology: Anyone can claim to "clutch the Bible" as JN puts it. "Who follows its teachings?" is a far better question for two reasons:
1) You're making a claim that the Bible teaches such.
2) You're talking to a guy who claims to follow the Bible in everythg it teaches.

Given all this, perhaps the JN could enlighten us as to how he comes to these conclusions:
-If torture and murder cannot be laid at the Bible’s figurative feet, that tome certainly can be said to have inspired some of this.
-“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is just begging for trouble, especially when there are nonconformists, heretics and ugly crones about.

Ie. What is the context of this command? To whom was it given? When? What connection does that have to the New Testament church, of which I am a part?

Nihilist: The Bible does condemn witchcraft and sorcery, despite the fact that neither one exists and neither ever has. [Admittedly, some sad cases like to play dress up and pretend to cast spells, but the efficacy of such hocus-pocus is underwhelming.] And, in spite of your implications to the contrary, the verse I quoted, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” [Exodus 22:18 (KJV)], did contribute to the alacrity with which some Christians indulged in the torture and murder of nonconformists, heretics and ugly crones. Had that verse been expunged at some point—much like the exclusion of apocryphal writings—perhaps the torturers’ theological “cover” would not have existed.
Look, Rhology, I admit my ignorance of Christian denominational variations. I also trust that different denominations emphasize and de-emphasize certain passages of the Bible, and wed themselves to alternate dogmas. However, I would rather not delve into all that: Even though I am substantially familiar with the Bible, given your scholarship vis-à-vis the text, I would lose a debate on that territory. But, then again, I am sure a “fairyologist” would handily defeat me in an interlocution about speckle patterns on fairy wings. So, I shall not feel bad….
I would like to grant you this opportunity to affirm that which I wrote earlier: “Neither [witchcraft nor sorcery] exists and neither ever has.” I also would like to grant you the opportunity to declare, for all to read, that the pious people who tortured and murdered “witches” centuries ago, in your judgment, are presently in that place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

'Well, At Least We Don't Have Suicide Bombers...'

Since my part-time blogging recommencement, the comment boxes have heated up, and familiar faces have reemerged. Rhology is a Christian with whom I had an extended dialogue several months ago, with each of us lobbing three-thousand-word posts back and forth. Today, he posted a pithy provocation in the comment box for “A Position Declaration: Economically Synopsizing My Worldview.” In that short meditation, I argue that, because our species is ignorant of moral truth—or, at the least, no moral code has been proved correct—it is incoherent for any individual’s moral opinions to be inflicted upon other individuals. The best analogy with which I can come up relates to colors. Suppose that I consider red to be the best color. Further, suppose that “Bill” considers green to be the best color. Because “best color” is not something that can be proved objectively, it would be utterly incoherent for me to demand that Bill recognize the superiority of red. In the face of factual ignorance, everybody should be entitled to create an opinion vis-à-vis best color. The same goes for morality. As such, in the comment box, I rail against moral authoritarianism, taking both Islamofascists and Christofascists to task for their attempts to inflict their arbitrary views on others. Rhology took exception to the comparison, and wrote the following:

“Yeah, the biggest difference might be found in the fact that Christians don't strap bombs to their bodies to blow other people and themselves up. But that's probably just a piddling, minor issue.”

I felt a public response might be valuable.

Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset. That is, for both Christofascists and Islamofascists, there is an assumption that they have a right to inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them. Although I have seen no coverage of pervasive suicide bombing in Iran or Saudi Arabia—two hotbeds of Islamofascism—I readily admit that, at this moment and for the last few centuries, Muslims behave far worse than Christians do. However, let us not ignore the similarities between these two branches of Abrahamic superstition. Christianity and Islam both preach that women should submit humbly to the headship of men. [The Bible explicitly avers, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”] Both religions push bizarre sexual repression. And both superstitions have indulged in the most hideous of violence.

Remember that, only a few centuries ago, the church was torturing and murdering innocent people (mostly women) for engaging in “witchcraft” and “sorcery,” neither of which, incidentally, even exists. There are many hysterical estimates out there for the number butchered, but I stick with the conservative 40,000. [Now that we are here, I often have wondered why, in light of god’s omniscience, he was not more careful about the Bible's phraseology. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is just begging for trouble, especially when there are nonconformists, heretics and ugly crones about.] Evidence suggests that, in 1252, when Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture during the Holy Inquisition to crush heresy, Christians embraced their newfound freedom with distressing alacrity. Soon, we saw the employment of the torture rack, thumbscrews and the hideous Judas Cradle. Mind you, although the pious did not do all the torturing, Christians of the day clutched and read the same Bible that you, Rhology, also treasure. If torture and murder cannot be laid at the Bible’s figurative feet, that tome certainly can be said to have inspired some of this. Before moving on, I have a question that I have been putting to several Christians lately: In your judgment—bearing in mind the innocence of the 40,000 executed for witchcraft—is it more likely that the torturers and murderers are now in hell, or chilling with the deity in heaven? Should you be lucky enough to go to heaven, would you want to spend eternity with the operator of a torture rack…with the person who manned the thumbscrews?

Enough with all that, though. As I said, that mostly was cleaned up by 1700. My concern here is what I have termed moral narcissism—that is, authoritarian moral imposition by a religious majority. The example I will use—perfect for its clear illustration and debaucherous nature—is Alabama’s infantile statute forbidding the sale of sex toys. Because none of these products ever has harmed anybody—except, perhaps, through inappropriate or unsanitary use—the statute clearly demonstrates the Christian moral authoritarianism running through Bible Belt states such as Alabama. The United States is supposed to enjoy freedom of religion. Presumably, much as the right to vote includes an implicit right not to cast a ballot, freedom of religion includes an implicit right to abstain from supernatural indulgence. If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and atheists alike, there is no freedom from religion at all. Should I be unfortunate enough to live in the home state of Bull Connor, I would be an atheist in name and belief but a de facto Christian, if I wanted to avoid legal harassment. True freedom from religion includes the right to throw out Christian theology as well as the entirety of the Christian moral construction.

I know that I am biased, but I cannot help seeing my stance as much more accommodating than the Christofascists’. If you, Rhology, as a Christian, find sex toys to be immoral, you have every right never to buy or use them. However, if other people find them morally acceptable—and, dare I say, pleasurable—they would be allowed their (in your mind) “deviance.” For Christofascists, not only shall they abstain, they wish for the government to force everyone else to, as well.

In the battle of Christofascism vs. Islamofascism, none is more tolerable.

Deafening Silence

I must admit, fundamentally misguided though they might be, most of the Christians with whom I interact on this website (and more broadly in life) are pleasant people who genuinely believe the doctrines they preach. Even though individuals such as Pat Robertson—a loathsome creature if ever one existed—seem to dominate media coverage of Christian activism, my recent interlocutors have been hesitant to introduce the “fire and brimstone” rhetoric that alienates freethinkers and obliterates dialogue. I appreciate their open-mindedness and respect their deeply held convictions, however erroneous I believe those convictions to be. Nevertheless, a more antagonistic species of Christian does occasionally crawl about this site. These individuals accuse me of atheistic dogmatism—of being unwilling to consider any evidence that is contrary to my current viewpoint. These accusations are hurled despite the clear articulation of my single germane presupposition: I presuppose the centrality of evidence in the discovery of truth. And that is my only relevant presupposition. I presuppose neither a godless cosmos nor materialism nor naturalism nor ultimate meaninglessness. Rather, my atheism springs from every religion’s lack of evidence. If any religion boasted a good deal of evidence, I most likely would accept its veracity. In short, my atheism is neither dogmatic nor presuppositional because I could change my mind, given the right evidence. The question, then, is simple: What is “the right evidence”? To answer this, I shall begin with three things that could have happened (but did not), and then toss in several more that still might.

First, the Bible could have contained some brand new information about the natural order. I have harped on this before, primarily because I think The Argument from Mundanity is one of the strongest weapons in an atheist’s arsenal. After all, Christians claim that the creator of the universe directly inspired the Bible’s very words. Forget about Einstein and Hemingway; forget about Joyce and Sagan—this is the creator of the universe here. And yet, despite god’s omniscient authorship, the Bible wallows in pre-scientific primitivism and yawn-inducing mundanity. As Sam Harris observed, “[The Bible] does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.” There is nothing about the actual age or size of the universe. There is nothing about the germ theory of disease. Earth’s vast geography is shrunk down to claustrophobically local levels. It is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia. If the Bible’s alleged omniscience had been manifest, that tome could have been meaningful evidence.

Second, worship of Yahweh as the singular creator deity could have arisen independently in numerous geographically isolated areas. Any delusional belief system, if designed cleverly enough, has the potential to “catch fire,” as it were, and spread pervasively throughout our species. Much less likely, however, would be for the same delusional belief system to arise independently in many different places. Imagine if, around 2000 BCE, worship of Yahweh had arisen, nearly simultaneously, in the Middle East, China, the Americas and central Africa. What would have been the odds of an identical god character—with distinctive quirks, commandments, preferences and fetishes—being invented by completely different populations? They seem infinitesimal. However, there is no evidence of Yahweh-worship arising independently; however spiritual they might previously have been, primitive populations begin to worship Yahweh specifically when believers in Yahweh arrive at their shores. Perhaps my favorite quote from Christopher Hitchens’ “god is not Great” touches on this. He writes, “One recalls the question that was asked by the Chinese when the first Christian missionaries made their appearance. If god has revealed himself, how is it that he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing the Chinese?” Whatever deities might have haunted Chinese history, none was distinguishably Yahweh.

Third, archaeological evidence could have substantiated the biblical narrative, but it does not. Because Christopher Hitchens’ scholarship and eloquence exceed my own, I simply shall quote him: “…much more extensive and objective work was undertaken, presented most notably by Israel Finkelstein of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and his colleague Neil Asher Silberman. These men regard the ‘Hebrew Bible’ or Pentateuch as beautiful, and the story of modern Israel as an all-around inspiration, in which respects I humbly beg to differ. But their conclusion is final, and the more creditable for asserting evidence over self-interest. There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert (let alone for the incredible four-decade length of time mentioned in the Pentateuch), and no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date. No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing, and Egypt was the garrison power in Canaan as well as the Nilotic region at all the material times. Indeed, much of the evidence is the other way. Archaeology does confirm the presence of Jewish communities in Palestine from many thousands of years ago (this can be deduced, among other things, from the absence of those pig bones in the middens and dumps), and it does show that there was a ‘kingdom of David,’ albeit rather a modest one, but all the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded.” Hear hear!

In the absence of the aforementioned evidence, what evidence, even now, might be sufficient? Yahweh, in an instant, could carve his name onto the Moon. Or, on a lark, god could rearrange the planets in our solar system. Presumably, given his omnipotence, god capriciously could swap Earth and Pluto yet still keep the solar system stable and Earth’s creatures alive. Or, perhaps everybody could wake up one morning and suddenly find themselves on the surface of Mars, with a gaseous formation overhead spelling out, “Yahweh did it.”

Perhaps god could endow some ministers with the ability to raise the dead. My metaphysical naturalism certainly would be shaken if I witnessed a preacher resurrect a corpse that, prior to resurrection, had been chopped into 16 pieces and burnt beyond recognition. That would be something. It also would be notable if, when people declared, “I am telling the truth, or let god strike me dead,” god obliged, zapping the liars. Metaphysical naturalists would have a difficult time explaining that one.

Let us also consider prayer as we weigh what good evidence would be. If prayer resulted in amputees’ missing limbs growing back, it would be hard to dispute prayer’s efficacy. As things stand, when people indulge in the folly of prayer, they almost always pray for things that might happen anyway. A husband prays that his wife gets that lucrative job. A mother prays that her son, who is trapped in a mine, gets out safely. Parents-to-be pray that they have a healthy son. Grandchildren pray that their grandmother beats her cancer. By contrast, few widows pray that their dead husbands reanimate and come back home. Even though god is supposed to be omnipotent, people have the good sense not to pray for things that are impossible; after all, the illusion of prayer’s usefulness must be maintained. And that is why amputees do not pray for limbs to grow back. It is also why, if they did pray, and their limbs did re-grow, there would be evidence value.

If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that, if god existed, the deity’s presence would be apparent—just as the sun is apparent; just as trees are apparent; just as insects are apparent. Nobody can disbelieve legitimately in the sun, trees or insects; they are apparent and their existence inarguable. The Christian god is much another matter. [Ignore silly claims that god’s obvious existence would create “Christian robots”; some individuals, myself included, never would worship the Old Testament’s blood-drenched ogre. Also, forget this piffle about discovering god in your heart through pious contemplation. Humbug.]

Walk onto the streets one day, perhaps during your lunch hour, and bellow the following skyward: “God! Prithee, show yourself to me! As your humble servant, I beg you: Please make yourself known!” I predict that, other than chuckles from amused onlookers, the silence shall be deafening. Make a show of it…if only to convince atheists such as me. If god existed, his existence would be apparent.

Wander your streets…your alleys. Now, as ever, god is nowhere to be found.

Reply to Soldier4Him (My Latest Christian Interlocutor)

I love how you completely disavow any evidence before it is able to be presented to to you.

I only disavow bad evidence. My response to good evidence, I assure you, would be alacritous.

You say prove to me that something happened but don't use any methods that A COURT OF LAW uses to prove something.

No courts of law employ 2000-year-old texts to prove their cases. If somebody wishes to provide testimony, he must do so personally and the opposing side must interrogate his story. The Bible amounts to hearsay, given that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were composed decades after Jesus’ death. And hearsay is not admissible.

For example you say that you want Christians to prove that Jesus really did rise from the dead, but then you say don't use the only methods that are available to us because of course they had no way of recording events except to write them down.

The problem is not my standard of evidence; rather, the problem is your claim. You are trying to substantiate a wholly extraordinary claim by appealing to the most ordinary of evidence. Your anecdotal evidence fails for the same reason that stories about Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and alien abductions are unconvincing: One cannot substantiate the extraordinary by appealing to the ordinary. 2000-year-old stories are not of interest to me.

Now as for scientific evidence it is rather hard to prove something that is not of this physical world. I know as I say this any atheist will say "Now he is bringing theology into it or some other such nonsense", however I would argue that anyone who brings forward a view will have many different underlining presuppositions that come along to help make a decision. For example you would probably agree and stop me if I am wrong, that evolution proves that there is no need of any such nonsense as a Creator Being. That seems to be the conclusion scientists come to when talking of orgins. It was a huge explosion in the cosmos and slowly planets formed then water fell and then chemicals mixed and the first organism appeared.

Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life and just as little to add to the debate about whether god exists. Evolution deals with the origin of biodiversity—that is, evolution deals with how Earth came to be populated with so many different species. The origin of simple life is another field of research. There are also many Darwinians who believe in a god character. After all, the overwhelming majority of scientists is Darwinian, but only half or so of them are atheists. Therefore, there is no absolute relationship.

However, I would ask if that is not coming to the table of science with an improvable unscientific question. There are many things that science cannot prove, where I think it is the job of other studies to prove.

The value of science, other than explaining the natural world, is demonstrating the centrality of evidence if we are to understand anything at all. Science is built upon evidence; that is what makes it so useful.

Now, I say all this because it is impossible for us to prove scientifically that it is possible for people to rise from the dead since we have very little physical evidence to work on, however it is possible to prove that someone did if you have good evidence. Now this brings into question the Bible. You come to the table of this discussion with the presupposition that the Bible is a piece of garbage that is all lies and moonshine. However, we know that the Bible is considered a marvel among scholars for its accuracy to the original texts compared with other works such as Homer's Odyssey. But this does not prove that what is actually written in it. Scholars agree on the authors of most of the New Testament and while all of the Gospels may have been written ten, twenty or even later, it does not mean that they are inaccurate, because they were written by the same generation that was with Jesus and all the Gospels' basic stories all agree.

Of course, I would dispute your assertion that all the gospels’ basic stories agree. There are innumerable contradictions contained within all the books, but Matthew and Luke, in particular, have a difficult time converging on common facts. I assume you have some background in apologetics, so I will not repeat the contradictions to you. Also, I have to correct your implication that the gospels were written by those who were of Jesus’ generation. In fact, most scholars have concluded that Mark wrote his gospel around 70 CE, which is roughly 40 years after Jesus’ death. Luke, Matthew and John—probably in that order—came even later. Given the short, hard lives people lived in that age, it more likely was the generation after Jesus’ own. I also must stress that, in all probability, the gospel writers never met Jesus at all, and were simply regurgitating stories. Finally, the prevailing standards of evidence in that age were very weak, given the relative ignorance of the people. As Christopher Hitchens observed, those who composed the Bible did not have the smallest idea of what was going on.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to assume that these early Christians would have been stupid enough to create something that would get them killed. Why hold on to something so steadfastly if it you created it and by admitting so you could live and not be killed in a horrible manner. All of the disciples in particular would have to be insane.

You, again, are appealing to Bible stories. Unless you can prove the veracity of the stories, I am not interested in them. Moreover, I am not arguing that every early Christian was crazy or deliberately spreading a lie. Rather, in a time of such manifest and pitiable ignorance—a time when the germ theory of disease was centuries from being formulated and people attributed weather events to deities—it would be very easy for a special person to develop a cult following and, after the leader’s death, for the cult to advance stories that spread like wildfire through the ignorant population. There were many savior figures during that period; there also were plenty of uneducated dolts happy to follow them.

So, I would contend that the Bible can be considered accurate and since eyewitness testimony is considered the best possible evidence a human can present in a court of law that eye witness testimonies can be accurate and since the disciples were not the only ones who saw a resurrected Jesus it would be horrible wrong to say that over 500 people who say him can all be insane liars who are saying these things so they can gain so how.

As I already stated, in all probability, neither Mark nor Matthew nor Luke nor John ever met Jesus. Therefore, their gospels are not eyewitness testimony. Second, again as already stated, the prevailing standards of evidence at that time were extremely poor. Even many centuries later, during the infamous witch hunts, the evidential bar was set so low that some 40,000 innocent people (mostly women) were slaughtered by their Christofascist oppressors for engaging in “witchcraft” and “sorcery,” neither of which actually exists. Third, again to repeat myself, you are presupposing the validity of the Bible in your defense of the Bible’s validity. Where are the 500 people to whom you refer referenced? Oh yes, the Bible. This is called question begging. Fourth, eyewitness testimony is weak evidence by any objective measure. That is why prosecutors like having lab work to present to jurors.

Now the only other argument I think of now is that Jesus was not dead but simply swooned on the cross and escaped that way, however there is a problem with this. Romans were not in the habit of letting their prisoners swoon and further more we know the spear pierced a lung by the fluids that came out of the wound so when he was put in the tomb he was dead.

I have read the Bible; the tale does not require synopsizing. The problem is that a 2000-year-old book is not sufficient evidence. Testimony in general is not sufficient evidence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you can provide none, the problem lies with your claim, not my evidence standard.

So he have a very dead body in the tomb and then we have over 500 people saying he rose from the dead and then many of those people going and dieing many horrible deaths for what? something a few of those people made up?
Right..

You are still begging the question. You are presuming the Bible’s validity even while trying to prove the Bible is valid.

I pretty much have made the point already: The Bible was written in ignorant times. If the most intelligent people living during Jesus’ time were resurrected and introduced in 2008, they would know much less than the average fourth grader. Think of the bounds and leaps made on every front since 30 CE: medicine, technology, biology, chemistry, meteorology, ecology, etc. The germ theory of disease was not formalized until fairly recently. Given all this, we cannot give much credence to the beliefs of men who knew essentially nothing. The “cargo cult” phenomenon shows how easily the primitive can be deluded.

One more thing before I end I would like a fuller description of what you mean by evolution, a neo-Darwinian view the view taught in text books or what, thanks.

Evolution presents the case that every living (and extinct) species descended from a single common ancestor. This is the theory of universal common descent.

Let me break down Darwinian evolution to its core. [If you put your faith in Michael Behe, you need all the explanation you can get!] Presumably, you acknowledge that sexual reproduction is an inexact process, during which new mutations can and do occur. I also shall presuppose that you acknowledge heredity, which basically means those mutated genes can be passed down to offspring. (Whether any single offspring possesses the phenotypic variation in question is not particularly important). The only other core element of evolution is variable fitness in the natural environment. Fitness in this context means only the ability to mate and reproduce. In essence, within the same species and same population, some creatures are more “fit” than other creatures. And so, if a particular mutation is propitious to a creature’s fitness, statistically speaking, those genes will be more likely to be passed down. Over stretches of time, propitious mutations will grow much more prevalent in the gene pool and deleterious mutations will die out. The changing genotypic makeup of a population results in phenotypic modification—observable evolution. (Please note: Evolution is only coherent in the context of populations. Individuals do not evolve, and placing any great emphasis on one individual or “family” is misguided. Our primary concern is gene prevalence in a population.)

Let us not fall into the trap of vague generalities. Creationists often have a tendency to cite examples which, in actuality, hobble their own unscientific dogma. One such example is the eye, which often has been falsely labeled as irreducibly complex. In truth, the natural world demonstrates a beautiful continuum of eyes, ranging from exceedingly simple to amazingly effective. Human eyes, for example, are quite spectacular in comparison to most. However, ospreys, just to take one example, have eyes which make our own seem quite pathetic and primitive. In any event, it surely was a propitious mutation when the first creature on the planet was endowed with a few light-sensitive cells. It is not at all hard to observe that such a mutation would increase the creature’s fitness compared to its compatriots. That is all that is needed for the gene(s) in question to begin its path to prevalence in the population’s pool. Another suitable example would be wing nubs—precursors to the array of wings we observe today. Even if 1% of a wing was the first mutation, there is a height from which a creature possessing the nub could fall and survive, whereas, for a creature lacking the nub, the fall would likely result in death. This is a clear example of increased fitness; increased fitness results in a gene’s increasing prevalence in the population’s pool. This is all that is needed for the phenotypic cornucopia we see today. (Note that, if one population becomes split into two geographically isolated subgroups, the process of speciation is essentially bound to occur, particularly if different environmental selective pressures are in effect for the two subgroups.)

A Torturous Thought

To their limited credit, Christians have mellowed over time. Christians’ practices—if not Christian theology—have become rather benign, at least when compared to the wanton savagery that occurred on the European continent between 1250 and 1700. Centuries ago, inquisitors butchered roughly 40,000 innocents for “witchcraft” or “sorcery.” Historical evidence documents the hideous torture to which the accused were subjected, and the pious glee with which the inquisitors inflicted their agony. I often reflect on the fact that, when contemporary Christians clutch the Bible in church, they are holding the very same tome that helped to inspire delusional primitives to torture, mutilate and roast thousands of their fellow creatures. A bloodstained Bible, and perhaps a Malleus Maleficarum, was doubtless next to many a torture rack. I often wonder whether, in the imaginations of Christians, the Inquisition’s devout savages are basking in the ethereal delights of heaven or roasting in the bowels of hell. True, the Bible indeed avers, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” but, given that no sorcerers existed to be uncovered, thumbscrews and the Judas Cradle seem rather more evil than, for example, homosexual copulation.

What say you, Christians? Is Pope Innocent IV presently in that place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”? An atheist can hope….

Ten Notions for which I Require Extraordinary Evidence

Greetings, all! Although I am not ready to end my blogging hiatus, I have written two pieces since I have been away. I decided to share those pieces presently, rather than wait until I once again blog full time. I hope everybody enjoys them, and has a wonderful holiday season, full of family togetherness and appreciation for what we have.—Ed.

Dr. Carl Sagan, eminent among thinkers and scientists, famously observed that extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation. This profound truth, in my estimation, is a key that frees us from religion’s shackles, because each faith lacks the requisite evidence to substantiate its fantastical claims. Dr. Sagan’s oft-quoted observation is self-evident (a First Principle or worthy maxim, if you will) given humankind’s abundant, demonstrable fallibility. Mindful of this, ten simple requests for the Christian faithful follow....

1. Please present extraordinary evidence in support of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

2. Please present extraordinary evidence that, after wandering about for awhile, Jesus rose bodily into the cosmos.

3. Please present extraordinary evidence that Jesus was born via mammalian parthenogenesis. It should be noted that parthenogenesis is not possible in the human species, which makes evidential demands even more pressing.

4. Please present extraordinary evidence that the following biblical characters attained the following ages:

(4a) Adam, 930 years.
(4b) Noah, 950 years.
(4c) Abraham, 175 years.
(4d) Sarah, 127 years.

5. Please present extraordinary evidence that immaterial, immortal “souls” haunt our fleshy carcasses.

6. Please present extraordinary evidence that it would be possible to torture and torment such an immaterial, immortal soul. To me, it seems rather like trying to persecute a tank of helium.

7. Please present extraordinary evidence that Yahweh exists, while the myriad competing god characters do not exist.

8. Please present extraordinary evidence that a cataclysmic flood—covering the entirety of our planet and exterminating all living things, save Noah, his family and his zoo—actually occurred in the real world.

9. Please present extraordinary evidence that evolution—the cornerstone of modern biology—is incorrect. As a corollary, please utilize extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that immediate special creation of all species is a better explanation of, for example, the neatly ordered geologic strata.

10. Please present extraordinary evidence that serpents and donkeys have spoken in human language, as portrayed in the Bible. Here, I do not request a generally applicable principle but rather evidence to support singular biblical instances.

Bonus Question

11. Please present extraordinary evidence that Lot's luckless wife was turned into a pillar of salt.

Three Notes of Import

(a) If a particular belief is not applicable to you, as a Christian, feel free to pass it over. One is not obligated to substantiate that which one rejects.

(b) I am not interested in generalized evidence but rather extraordinary evidence for the particular claims that I have cited. Evidence for a major flood “of some type” is not sufficient to establish Noah’s flood in particular. I am open to the idea of a localized catastrophic flood in historical times, but I dismiss a global cataclysm that destroyed the entirety of life. Use evidence to dissuade me.

(c) Bear in mind Hume’s maxim: No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish. In short, say-so does not amount to extraordinary evidence, nor has it ever, nor shall it.

Atheist Musings for the Fundamentalist Christian "Soul"

The following seven questions/challenges/musings are intended for fundamentalist Christians. Liberal believers may not recognize themselves in this address.

1. The historical evidence for biblical truth-claims is thin, to be sure. I know of no secular historian who reports on Mary undergoing parthenogenesis, for example. Because this is the case, it seems to me that Christians ought to present some credible secular historical evidence to support their most cherished folklore. It is in this spirit I request the names and relevant works of at least two secular record-keepers—who lived at the same time as Jesus—who specifically mention Jesus as well as at least one of his alleged miracles (for example, bringing dead-long-enough-to-stink Lazarus back to life). Despite persistent requests, I have yet to be presented with any qualifying names.

2. Biblical-literalist Christians generally reject evolutionary theory, in spite of its near-universal acceptance in the scientific community. Evolution teaches us that various orders of animal roamed the planet (and, indeed, went extinct) before other orders of animal even came to be. Creationists argue that all orders of animal were created at about the same time; that is, humans and dinosaurs co-existed. As luck would have it, Young Earth Creationists have a way to falsify Darwinian evolution: the geologic strata. It is in this spirit I request at least two examples of horse fossils found in the Paleozoic strata (among trilobites and other such life forms). Alternatively, I, along with the late Dr. J. B. S. Haldane, request at least two examples of fossil rabbits found in the Precambrian.

3. According to fundamentalist Christians, the Bible is the word of god. That is, the Bible’s very words were directly inspired by him. Because the Christian god conception incorporates omniscience, a fundamentalist Christian must conclude the Bible boasts omniscient authorship. However, I think the evidence for such a conclusion is lacking. It is in this spirit I request two examples of biblical passages that provide brand new information about the natural order, which previously had been unavailable to humans living during biblical times. I shall relate an example: If the Bible had mentioned the true age and size of our universe, that would qualify as brand new information about the natural order, because first century commoners did not already possess this information. If the Bible lacks brand new information about the natural order, its claims of omniscient authorship are groundless.

4. The Yahweh-worshipping crowd’s delusion truly would have been convincing and persuasive if Yahweh-worship had appeared independently in several different cultures, rather than spreading when one population actively attempts (forcibly or not) to convert another. Consider the following example: The atheist would have had a difficult-to-defend position if, when Christian European explorers arrived in North America, they had discovered a significant percentage of Native Americans was already worshipping Yahweh. The odds of that deity (with his fantastical nature, distinct characteristics and unique demands) coincidentally being invented by two different populations are vanishingly small. If the Clovis people had worshipped Yahweh, it would have been good evidence that the deity revealed himself separately to at least two populations. It is in this spirit I request at least one well-evidenced example of Yahweh-worship being discovered in a geographically isolated population, which never previously had been exposed to a Yahweh-worshipper. [Editor’s Note: Credit goes to frequent commenter Tommy, who planted the seed from which this idea sprang.]

5. Our universe is a breathtakingly vast space. There are about 130 billion galaxies, each containing as many as 400 billion stars. Nobody is certain of how many planets are in our universe. A reasonable (albeit very rough) estimate is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is reached by multiplying 130 billion (galaxies), 400 billion (stars per galaxy) and one—representing planets (because an as-yet-unknown percentage of stars has planets, whilst some lack them). When one examines reality through the lens of cosmology, it seems laughable to think this entire creation is for us. After all, our planet is an infinitesimal speck within our own galaxy—let alone our entire universe! The corners of the cosmos hospitable to humans are exceedingly few. One would think that, if our universe was designed with us in mind, we would be able to explore it a bit, rather than being trapped on a metaphorical sidewalk square within an endless Metropolis. It is in this spirit I ask why, given the enormity of our universe, fundamentalist Christians think god crafted the cosmos for us.

6. Our universe is incredibly old. The best scientific estimates indicate that our universe is 13.7 billion years old. Allow me to quote Dr. Victor Stenger, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado: Referencing the deity, he says, “Instead of six days, he took nine billion years to make Earth, another billion years or so to make life and then another four billion years to make humanity. Humans have walked on Earth for less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth’s history.” This being the case, why should humans conclude everything was made for us? I shall put a finer point on this: Why would any god, who created a vast cosmos existent for nearly 14 billion years, containing roughly 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets, care about what human primates do whilst naked?

7. Homo sapiens sapiens have existed for tens of thousands of years, or more. The earliest inklings of the Abrahamic monotheism came several millennia ago—probably about four thousand years. Bearing this in mind, why did god wait tens of thousands of years to introduce hominids to the One True Religion? Assuming that the fundamentalist Christian ideology is sound, hominids living 25,000 years ago would have benefited from knowing about Yahweh and his regulations regarding behavior. Lacking god’s revelation, these primitives probably descended into all manner of silly superstition and false belief. If humans truly are god’s children and everything was created for us, why wait until 2000 BCE to roll out the correct religion?

Religion as an Accident of Geography

Today, just a quick thought, directed mainly at any Christians (or other theists, really) who might be visiting my slice of the internet. It is a sad fact that most people remain in the religion into which they were born. That is, most children inculcated into Catholicism remain Catholics, most children indoctrinated into Islam remain Muslims, most children raised as Hindus remain so, etc. A relatively small percentage of the indoctrinated eventually becomes “agnostic” or atheistic; I count myself among this percentage, because I abandoned Roman Catholicism roughly six years ago, as I became more educated and knowledgeable about Darwinian evolution, anthropology, philosophy and other subjects. Another small percentage of people switches from one superstition to another. For example, Cat Stevens, an entertainer from the ’60s and ’70s, changed his name to Yusuf Islam when he converted from Christianity to Islam. Again, though, Stevens is the exception to the rule: Most people, once inculcated, remain so.

Therefore, I pose a question to my theist friends who still follow the religion into which their parents indoctrinated them: Do you feel lucky to have been born into the correct religion? Researchers have concluded 19 major world religious groupings exist on this planet. Those groupings are subdivided into roughly 10,000 distinct religions (which is not to mention all the religions that have gone extinct over the millennia). Scroll through this list of religions, and ponder just how different your life would have been had you been born into a different superstition.

Please consider the following suggestion: If a devout Christian, who was born in Topeka, Kansas, had instead been born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he would have been a devout Muslim. If Osama bin Laden, who is a devout Muslim, had instead been born in Athens, Alabama, he would have been a devout Christian. I have said it before, but it warrants repetition: Religion spreads, passively, by the coincidental geography of one's place of birth and, actively, by parents’ talent for inculcating their defenseless, trusting young. Some people seemingly have a genetic predisposition to religious zeal; the religion to which they wed themselves has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with inculcative history. The Christian apologetics that is utterly convincing to a person born in Hendersonville, Tennessee, would be infidelic venom to that same person, had he instead been born in Tehran, Iran.

Perhaps religion finally shall go extinct once more people realize that one’s piety, at least with regard to a particular superstition, is a mere accident of geography. A fundamentalist Christian, in other words, in an alternate reality, would be just another mujahid.

Reason Strikes Back: Revenge of the Nihilist

In this post, Rhology's quotes shall be in Verdana, whilst my rebuttal shall be in standard Arial.—Ed.

Greetings, Rhology!

Rhology: In response to this post...the JN and John Morales apparently want me to write my positions in my own words, make a big deal out of it. I understand, but at the same time, I'm parroting and expounding on Bahnsen's ideas. You may consider his words mine in this case (it’s not imitation, it’s emulation ;-) ). Not everyone has time like apparently the JN has to type stuff. Though I could wish I did.

Nihilist: Obviously, the fact that you, to this point, had not explained your own ideas was problematic. However, I do not consider it the central weakness of your presentation, because I think your arguments (borrowed or not) range from unconvincing to specious. In any event, I simply mean to show that, for example, I never say, “I believe what Dr. Dawkins believes,” in response to one of your points. I think people should articulate their own arguments in their own words. Again, however, this issue is not one in which we should become ensnared.

Rhology: Unfortunately, the conversation has degenerated into a Who's Begging the Question Worst? match. Consider this most recent offering from the JN.

“You asked that I provide evidence that could substantiate the value of evidence. I did precisely that. My first principle, as I repeatedly have said, can be summarized as “The road to truth is paved with evidence.” That is, in order for human primates to happen upon truth (or its close approximation), the most reliable route is that of evidence (or, alternately phrased, the relevant facts).”

Of course, what's the predictable response from me? Yep - Fine, evidence is the evidence for the idea that the best way to discover truth is to examine evidence. What is your evidence for that, since we want to discover the truth about that idea?

And on and on. This may get tiresome for you the reader, but just imagine how it is for me! I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again while getting roasted by the JN's sycophants in his comboxes and my own.

Nihilist: Here, you seem to be denying the nature of a First Principle (or axiom). In truth, it was unnecessary for me to show that evidence itself can substantiate evidence’s worth; First Principles, by their nature, are fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. One generally does not seek to prove one's First Principles and axioms, because they are assumed self-evident and undeniable.

In showing that evidence, indeed, can be used to demonstrate the value of evidence, I simply showed that my First Principle is self-subsisting. That is, it supports itself and does not contradict itself. If evidence were not able to show evidence’s value, then my First Principle would be self-defeating. However, that is anything but the case. I have used evidence to support evidence, and thus crafted a self-subsisting First Principle.

Rhology: The very next sentence is classic:

“My first principle only would be self-defeating if it, itself, could not be substantiated through evidence.”

He then attempts to substantiate his principle by appealing to it. Which is, of course, circular.

Nihilist: Again, a First Principle or axiomatic statement should not need to be proved, because its truth is self-evident and it is essentially undeniable. I define evidence as being “the relevant facts” as they pertain to a larger, more complex truth. It is self-evident that the relevant facts guide us to larger truths. Again, I am not talking solely about scientific evidence here, such as what can be found under a microscope, but rather simply “the relevant facts” of any given matter.

I also find your criticism of evidence to be disingenuous. I have already given an example of why this is the case. Imagine that you are driving on the Interstate on a breezy evening. You notice that, on the car in front of you, the brake lights have illuminated. Upon noticing that fact, you apply the brakes on your own car. By taking that action, you have just utilized evidence. You took the other car’s brake lights as evidence it was slowing down. From there, you reasoned that, to avoid smashing into the slowing car, you also must slow down. That is just one example of a process you go through a thousand times every day. You notice the relevant facts, analyze them (if only for mere seconds) and climb to larger truths on the back of that evidence. In short, you prove my First Principle every day of your life. That is why, when you deny evidence’s utility, you are being, at best, extremely queer and, at worst, shamelessly hypocritical.

Your life—and my own—validates my First Principle.

Rhology: Then, we hear:

“Perhaps your questions are ‘easy’ for the theist because they are designed presupposing the theistic worldview.”

Not really, though one only wishes that the JN would then follow that line of reasoning.
The questions I've asked are not all that "specialised", when you think about it. I'm not asking "How do you think the Eucharist is best celebrated?" or "What do you think about the baptism in the Holy Spirit?" Far from it. Rather, the questions are designed to show that an atheistic worldview can't make sense of such important questions, whereas the biblical worldview can (as the JN has just admitted here).

Nihilist: In our engagement, it has become clear that you subscribe to The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). All your questions tend to presuppose that argument’s soundness. I, however, emphatically have not been convinced of its soundness. In fact, when posed by Christians, the argument is so much question begging. When posed in a more vague way, which does not presuppose the Bible’s factuality, it does not work to prove the Christian deity at all, but rather any “sufficiently similar” god.

I think the Sufficiently Similar Deity refutation needs to be fleshed out, and now seems like a good time to do so. In my previous interactions with you, you have said that Yahweh uniquely satisfies TAG (whilst Brahman, Vishnu and others do not) because Yahweh is (a) infinite, (b) solely god, (c) eternal as god, and (d) unlike humankind. However, as I also have previously mentioned, I could invent a god named Hargazorn and endow it with the same core essentialities. Then, I could add variables to the deity to make it different from Yahweh, yet still sufficiently similar to maintain TAG’s soundness. In that case, I could use TAG to prove infinitely many sufficiently similar deities, all of whom happen to be (a) infinite, (b) solely god, (c) eternal as god, and (d) unlike humankind. Yes, with TAG, I could prove infinitely many “sole gods.” Something, we must conclude, is wrong with the argument.

Rhology: This may be my favorite admission from the JN:

“This question is fallacious because it presupposes that communication, reasoning and logic require ‘grounds’”

For someone who purports to be after the "truth", one really has to wonder what this could mean. So perhaps he means they don't require grounds - they just ARE. And God isn't. Which brings up a whole host of problems, not least of which is how the universe (ie, matter and energy) could arise out of non-personal abstract concepts. They are immaterial - where is material from?

But of course, if he can presuppose that logic just IS, then I can presuppose that God just IS. We are at an impasse now until each of us takes on the other's worldview to see which one comports to reality.

Nihilist: I reject the basis of your implicit comparison. To say a notion, such as logic, just “is” is different from saying a complex creature just “is.” There is no reason to think a supernatural consciousness is required for logic, mathematics, reasoning, communication or any other such thing. There is nothing statistically improbable about logic, math or reason—except creatures (humans) able to comprehend those things. We, as a species, are improbable. Our big brains are improbable. Our ability to engage in abstract thought is improbable. [Darwin’s elegant theory of evolution “climbs Mount Improbable” beautifully and effortlessly.] Given all those natural endowments, humankind discovering logic, rationality, reason, communication and the rest should not be seen as improbable.

By contrast, your god conception is vastly improbable. You are proposing a creature who can (a) create a universe, (b) fine-tune that universe’s constants, (c) send somebody to earth to die for humanity’s sins, (d) monitor everybody on the planet constantly, (e) hear prayers, (f) answer those prayers, (g) perform miracles, (h) offer comfort, (i) keep Heaven up and running, and (j) build things like logic and communication. Such a creature is millions of times more complex than, for example, a human eye. It is millions of times more complex than a pocket watch. Such brain-melting complexity—the very height of improbability—demands an explanation. You have no explanation at all for god’s existence, except to say god has always existed. To my intellect, that sounds a lot like saying, “The human eye always existed,” only millions of times worse in its evasion. The creationist dogma of “complexity requires a designer” is self-annihilating. In the case of greatest complexity (of all places!), religionists drop their intelligent design requirements.

Rhology: So, let’s do so. We will see that the JN or any atheist, by engaging the topic, has conceded the issue. The reason for that is that their presuppositions do not allow for the coming-forth of beliefs that are reliably believed to be true. This is the point of Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) (see Plantinga’s statement here), and I’d state it two ways.

1) The way Darwin himself stated it:

“With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin 1887)”

Related specifically to evolution.

Nihilist: I think, in posing this argument, you are mistaken in your understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution. True, Darwin’s theory recognizes that all life forms on this planet have a common ancestor. This is called Universal Common Descent. However, on the vast Tree of Life, there is amazing diversity; having a common ancestor does not mean everything is the same. Saying a human brain is interchangeable with a monkey brain is like saying a tiger is interchangeable with a housecat. It simply is not the case. Through millions of years of evolution, our species has been endowed with a large, complex, wondrous brain. We far outshine even our closest relatives, the common chimpanzee. We are not “glorified monkeys” and birds are not “glorified dinosaurs”; the differences are substantive. I am the first to admit that humans are just another species of animal, roaming about the planet and trying to survive. However, it is irrational to deny our materially different physical endowments, leading to materially different abilities.

Rhology: Or,

2) Why would I believe that my own or anyone’s cognitive faculties are reliably geared to producing true beliefs when they are nothing more than neurochemical reactions? They are atoms banging around. As I’ve said, I don’t argue with my bottle of lotion, nor do I ask a fizzing can of Dr. Pepper who has the upper hand in the debate between the JN and me. Doing such would make as much sense, after all, as asking who is winning the debate on the other side of the room between the fizzing can of Coke and the fizzing can of Mountain Dew. The liver secretes bile; the brain secretes thoughts. How can we have confidence in these thoughts, these secretions of the brain?

Nihilist: I never declared my utter and ultimate confidence in anything. Humans, being fallible primates, make mistakes. However, upon examination of evidence, we tend to get things right eventually. Every conclusion we make is tentative, based upon what information we have and our cognitive limitations. But, the fact that we can be utterly certain of nothing does not mean we are unable to know anything. Again, the human brain, for all its limits, is a wondrous contraption.

I think, though, your main failing in this case is your refusal to recognize emergentism. That is, the pieces of the puzzle coming together—working together—to create something greater than the sum of the parts. Human thought depends upon emergentism, as does much of what makes humanity beautiful.

I shall quote my friend Francois Tremblay, with whom I have had some stinging debates about whether morality is objective or subjective:

“The reasoning of the theologian … is that matter does not contain properties such as logic, consciousness, morality, and that therefore no material system can contain those properties. But we cannot infer properties of the parts to the whole, insofar as the human mind is not a set of banging atoms but rather atoms which are assembled from birth to serve specific cognitive purposes. This is called emergentism – the fact that units, having a specific nature, assemble accordingly with that nature (a phenomenon we call ‘causality’) and form higher systems with new potentialities.”

…

“Emergentism is a fact of reality whether one likes it or not. Atoms form neurons, and neurons form nervous systems. Cells form brains, which form awareness. How this arises, is the role of science to find, not philosophy.”

To reduce everything to the level of atoms, and then to say everything composed of atoms is equal, is to deny emergentism, deny biology, deny observation and deny reality. To equate a human with a can of soda (which is not alive, much less in possession of a brain) is to betray a total misunderstanding of science, as well as atheism.

Rhology: This is what results when I take on the atheist’s worldview. Can we presuppose reason and not God? Sure, let’s see what happens when we do. We have several problems now:

The question of the origin of the universe. Since there is no personal First Cause, there is no answer to how matter and energy came into existence.

Nihilist: I readily admit that I cannot present a thoroughgoing explanation of our universe’s origin. Perhaps we live in a grand cosmic multiverse, of which our universe is merely a daughter. Perhaps aliens from another realm planted a cosmic seed, from which our universe grew. Perhaps an Ethereal Cosmic Catfish spit up a ball of slime, from which our universe sprang. Perhaps our universe’s mass-energy has always existed, infinitely changing forms. The fact that the origin of the universe remains unknown does not mean one should appeal to a god character. Indeed, appeals to a deity only exacerbate the problem. From whence did the deity come? If statistically improbable complexity demands an explanation, then god, the most statistically improbable being conceivable (based upon brain-melting complexity), demands an explanation of his own origins. And, if you believe god has always existed, why not cut out the middleman and just say our universe’s mass-energy has always existed?

Rhology: The question of why we should trust reason in the 1st place, as stated in the above 2 arguments.

Nihilist: Your arguments were based upon misconceptions (of science and evolution) and denials (of emergentism and species’ unique natures). I have addressed these sufficiently.

Rhology: Just b/c we presuppose reason does not mean that we presuppose logic.

Nihilist: Reason, logic, rationality, communication, utilization of evidence, mathematics, etc. are not improbable notions. Humans are improbable. Our brains are improbable. Our capacity for abstract thought is improbable. But, given our physical endowments, our ability to discover reason, logic, rationality, communication, utilization of evidence, mathematics, etc. is not improbable. They come with the territory of being biologically “blessed,” if I may steal a term.

Rhology: If we presuppose logic and reason, that means we have presupposed the existence of immaterial entities. If immaterial entities exist, materialism is defeated. I’m not sure whether the JN is a materialist, but if he presupposes logic and reason as brute facts, he can’t be a consistent materialist.

Nihilist: I believe that logic and reason, along with mathematics, could best be described as “abstractions of the material.” I do not necessarily think that logic and math were floating around in the universe, waiting for a human to evolve to use them. Rather, I think, once humans evolved, we developed certain tools to make sense of our surroundings. Logic, reason and math enable us to survive on this planet, and make our lives better and more productive. In any event, the existence of logic and reason as concepts is not equivalent to the existence of immaterial consciousness in the form of a deity. If you are attempting that equivalency, I call bullshit.

Rhology: So I’m not feeling too comfortable now as far as this goes. OTOH, the God of the Bible fulfills the role as grounder of intelligibility b/c these things flow out of His character, how and who He is. He is logical. He is reasonable. Our thinking processes and trust that our cognitive faculties can be relied upon to produce true beliefs in many instances reflect the fact that His cognitive faculties, if you will, are that way. How do we know this? Remember, now we are presupposing the Christian worldview and testing how far it comports with reality. A criticism of the Christian worldview, therefore, would need to presuppose it and then try to show how it is internally inconsistent on its own grounds, not on the grounds of some other worldview like naturalism.

Nihilist: I have sufficiently shown how your “trying on” of atheism is based upon misconceptions and denials (as well as an implicit presumption of TAG’s soundness). You deny emergentism, misunderstand evolution, irrationally equate everything composed of atoms, demand “grounds” you cannot prove necessary and presuppose one deity whilst shunning a sufficiently similar one. Even assuming TAG’s soundness, you have failed to show why Yahweh must be the grounds rather than Hargazorn, a competing deity I have defined as (a) infinite, (b) solely god, (c) eternal as god, and (d) unlike humankind. Your argument has no uniqueness proof, which hobbles it fatally.

Here is another problem with using a deity as the grounds of logic, morality, communication and everything else. If all those things are dependent upon the deity, as you claim them to be, they are contingent on the deity. That is, god could arbitrarily change them at any time, for any reason. As things currently stand, the fossil record serves as evidence for Darwinian evolution. But, perhaps, should god feel the need, he might make evolution evidence for the fossil record. If evidence is contingent on god, he could do that. If morality is contingent on god, he could make arson morally virtuous and feeding the poor morally reprehensible. If logic is contingent on god, he could make “X” equal to “not-X,” or make “Q” unequal to “Q.” When everything is contingent on a deity, he can change everything at any time, making the entire world senseless, arbitrary and incomprehensible.

Let me anticipate your response: “God is possessed of a particular nature and, because of that nature, God would not alter the rules.”

The problem is that you, like many Christians, define god as being infinite. If god is infinite then, presumably, god also is possessed of an infinite nature. It would be downright asymmetrical for an unlimited creature to be possessed of a limited nature. By contrast, human comprehension is limited. Bearing in mind that 840 billion is 0% of infinity, even if humans knew 840 billion elements of god’s nature, humans would still have 0% knowledge of his nature. I think, with 0% knowledge of a subject, one should be cautious in drawing any grand conclusions about what god would or would not do. Indeed, even declaring god infinite is overly speculative, in my judgment.

You say that god condescended to reveal himself to humanity. I draw an analogy of humans revealing ourselves to gnats. Gnats simply do not have the capacity to comprehend humans—even if we, as humans, deliberately reveal ourselves to them. Even this example, though, is woefully insufficient; humans are not infinitely greater than gnats but merely much greater. There is no analogy in the natural world of an infinite thing revealing itself to a finite thing. But, if there were, it would be even more devastating than my human-gnat attempt.

Rhology: Finally, when I say that the JN borrows capital from the Xtian worldview to attack the Xtian worldview, I mean this. He presupposes the worldview that includes the 4 major problems I listed above, which cast serious, serious doubt on the reliability of his or anyone’s cognitive faculties to produce true beliefs. He needs to deal with those problems and then we can talk.

Nihilist: Dealt with.

Rhology: Otherwise, his worldview precludes him from having any confidence in intelligibility or rational thought, which means that he has to implicitly stand on the platform of a worldview where intelligibility and rational thought ARE supportable. That worldview is the Xtian one.

So he stands on Xtianity in order to use its framework for rationality and intelligibility (b/c those things reflect how God is and how He has revealed Himself to be) and then employs intelligible, rational arguments to assert that this God does not in fact exist. He stands on my stage and denies my stage exists.

Nihilist: Again, why does the Hargazornian worldview fail this test? Remember, I have defined Hargazorn thusly: (a) infinite, (b) solely god, (c) eternal as god, and (d) unlike humankind. If you insist upon your fallacious reasoning, you, at the very least, must confront the Sufficiently Similar Deity challenge. If you believe only Yahweh can be the grounds, you must demonstrate how each and every part of Yahweh’s nature is materially crucial to TAG.

By the way, you have not done the hard explanatory work I requested:

1. Explain why, in a godless universe, smoke pouring out an apartment window would not be evidence of fire.

2. Explain why, in a godless universe, a primate grasping his throat whilst turning blue would not be evidence of choking.

3. Explain why, in a godless universe, a primate could not figure out X cannot simultaneously be not-X.

4. Explain why, in a godless universe, a community of primates could not invent a language of guttural yelps to pass along messages.

Rhology: I have recently taken up a contributing role to the Beggars All Reformation blog, and so my time at that blog is going to cut into my time here and in this discussion with the JN. Please note therefore that my substantive responses, if any are necessary, on this subject may be slower in coming than before. Patience is appreciated, and I commend the JN, John Morales, Tommy, and the other commenters (Lucian excepted) for not busting my chops for running away just b/c I haven’t said anythg in a while.

Nihilist: I do not intend to bust anybody’s chops in this discussion. I eschew insults, ad hominem attacks, schoolyard taunts and other such nonsense in the name of intellectual seriousness. I take my arguments seriously, and I believe I can win on their merits, without recourse to juvenility. I have enjoyed our interaction over the weeks, and I have neither ill will nor animosity toward you.

However, all good things must end. This discussion cannot go on in perpetuity. Therefore, I propose an end game. I assume you shall be desirous of responding to this essay; I welcome your response. However, assuming you accept this plan, I shall not rebut you point by point as I did this time. Instead, I shall offer a closing summation. Then, I shall grant you the last word, letting you make a closing summation. Then that will be that, with no further arguments from me. If you are satisfied with this proposal, please let me know in the opening of your response.

Yours,

JN

How "The Transcendental Argument" Begs the Question

I posted a refutation of The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) on a few internet forums, and have generally gotten positive feedback. However, some people seem to have trouble understanding precisely why I believe TAG begs the question. For that reason, I have decided to break things down systematically, in hopes that my analysis becomes clear and inescapable.

1. TAG intends to prove the existence of god. Because god’s existence is the argument’s conclusion, god’s existence may not be presupposed in the argument’s premises. If god is presupposed, the argument begs the question.

2. TAG, in short, says that rationality, logic, induction, communication and other such things are only possible if god exists. Because humans employ rationality, logic and all the rest, god exists. Indeed, says the presuppositionalist, in order to deny god, the atheist must utilize god’s gift of reasoning.

3. Indisputably, this argument depends upon god having a particular nature that suits it to be the “foundation” of rationality, reasoning and logic. The argument is not called The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of Rutabagas or The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of Sea Monkeys. TAG inescapably implies that god possesses a particular nature and set of characteristics, which suit the deity to be the “foundation.”

4. Therefore, because this argument depends upon god having a particular nature that suits it to be the “foundation,” anybody proposing the argument holds certain things about god’s nature to be true.

5. We must wonder: Where did these proponents get information about god’s nature? The answer, for Christians, is the Bible.

6. The Christian Bible offers descriptors for god and dispenses information about the deity’s nature. Through reading the Bible, Christians come to know that god is infinite, solely god, eternal as god and other such tidbits. In short, TAG’s presuppositions about god’s nature come from the Bible.

7. Anybody seriously proposing TAG obviously hopes to prove god exists. Therefore, such a proponent accepts the argument’s premises as true. [If a serious person rejected the premises, he would abandon the argument.] Because god’s nature has been shown to be part of the argument’s premises, one can conclude that proponents of the argument accept the truth of god’s nature.

8. However, to accept the truth of god’s nature is to imply the Bible is truthful. If god’s nature is revealed in the Bible, and god’s nature is accepted as true, the clear implication is that the Bible is truthful.

9. The Bible is rife with stories about god doing and saying things. The deity fills the pages of the Bible, acting as a very real and present character. Therefore, if the Bible is presumed truthful, the god contained therein is presumed truthful. That is to say, god is presumed to exist.

10. TAG begs the question because it presumes god existent (because it presumes the Bible truthful, which cannot be denied because it presumes god’s nature truthful, which cannot be disputed because god’s nature is central to the premises).

Rhology: A New Beginning

Well, I have gone back on my own words, returning to a never-ending spiral of a debate with Rhology. Below, find my most recent rebuttal. For clarity’s sake, note the distinctive format: After a short introductory paragraph, there will be a quoted snippet from one of my previous responses, followed by Rhology’s reply to it, followed by my rebuttal to his reply. Enjoy!—Ed.

Rhology, I have perused your most recent posting and, to me, it seems like just another flawed pseudo-philosophical argument for the existence of god. It has been hashed out and rehashed on the internet for years. I do not intend to respond to some guy’s opening statement; I hope you noticed I never directed you to respond to anybody but me. Therefore, the following reply has been written from the perspective that you still have not presented evidence for your presuppositions (because another person’s opening statement in a debate does not constitute substantiation for your specific stance). I want explanations in your own words.

“I think your most recent posting is unhelpful”

This is entirely due to the question-begging way in which you responded to me. If I ask you a question and then you beg it twice, and then I point that out twice, the direction of blame is clear.

You asked that I provide evidence that could substantiate the value of evidence. I did precisely that. My first principle, as I repeatedly have said, can be summarized as “The road to truth is paved with evidence.” That is, in order for human primates to happen upon truth (or its close approximation), the most reliable route is that of evidence (or, alternately phrased, “the relevant facts”). My first principle only would be self-defeating if it, itself, could not be substantiated through evidence. After all, presumably, a first principle is judged true by its holder, and I have said humans reliably discover truth through evidence. That is why, in my post entitled, “Refuting Rhology: A Defense of Rationality and Reason,” I used evidence to substantiate evidence. Indeed, this exercise comprised a great deal of that lengthy post. You have refused to consider my evidences.

“only serves to obscure the issues upon which we have hit.”

I disagree 100%. The questions I've asked are easy for a theist and impossible for you. Which is what I wanted to make clear.

Perhaps your questions are “easy” for the theist because they are designed presupposing the theistic worldview. For example, you asked me something along the lines of, “In an atheistic universe, what functions as the grounds for communication, reasoning and logic?” This question is fallacious because it presupposes that communication, reasoning and logic require “grounds” and presupposes that your god character represents sufficient grounds. Now, I know I am much more verbose than you are, but could you not devote a few paragraphs to explaining explicitly why those things require “grounds” and why your deity fulfills that requirement? It seems, when dealing with your own truth-claims, you too often fall into two-sentence sound bites of questionable worth.

“you repeatedly pluck single sentences from my composition and then demand they be justified or explained.”

And would it kill you to go ahead and justify/explain them?

Why even talk to me anymore? Oh wait, you're not. ;-)

I do not write in sound bites; I write in paragraphs. Generally speaking, my paragraphs are coherently organized and thematically unified. Plucking a single sentence is tantamount to handicapping my argument from the start. In the future, I would strongly encourage you to deal with my comments as they were written—a stringed together chain of thoughts connected by a central theme or argument. Sometimes, debating with you reminds me of film advertisements in the newspaper, where a critic is quoted as saying, “Fun.” Issues of this magnitude transcend single sentences, and I encourage you to recognize that.

“The problem, of course, is that you intentionally do not quote the very justification and explanation I already have provided in the composition to which you are ostensibly responding.”

1) Then point that out and make it obvious to me and the readers. Make me look like a fool.

2) All justification and explanation you have made are question-begging. In light of your accusations that I do so, I'm pointing out your inconsistencies.

Here is an extended quotation from my composition entitled “Refuting Rhology: A Defense of Rationality and Reason”:

“With that clarification in mind, I shall use evidence to prove that evidence is the single most reliable method by which fallible humans can discover larger truths. Let us consider the American criminal justice system as an example. Say a football star is charged with inflicting brutal, sadistic torture on innocent canines. The only reliable way to decide whether this football star is guilty or innocent is to examine the evidence in the case. Certainly, the jury arbitrarily could declare the person guilty or innocent based upon rhetorical flourishes and prosecutorial aggressiveness (or some other basis unrelated to evidence), but we surely would have many innocents rotting in jail and equally many thugs roaming the streets. ‘The truth’ exists apart from the examination, and presence, of evidence. However, for the best chance of finding that truth, evidence is the road on which one must travel. The reason? ‘Evidence’ is just another way of saying ‘the relevant facts’ as they pertain to a larger truth-claim, incident, phenomenon, event, etc.

“Quickly, let us consider another example. Say you (god forbid) have a relative who is gravely sick with cancer. Numerous types of treatment are available to be tried, but they must be done exclusively, rather than in combination. I have a feeling that, in this hypothetical instance, you would gladly accept that evidence (the relevant facts) is a damn good guide to reaching the larger truth about which method of treatment would have the best odds of saving your beloved relative’s life.

“Every day, we all operate according to evidence—that is, according to the relevant facts. We carry an umbrella when we see storm clouds or hear a negative weather report. We go to the doctor when we feel a strange, unfamiliar lump on our body. We call the police when we see a swarthy miscreant looming outside our house in the dead of night.

“Once again, to be obnoxiously repetitive and abundantly clear, ‘evidence’ is nothing more than ‘the relevant facts’ as they pertain to a larger, more complex truth. Through the collection and examination of the relevant facts, fallible humans grant themselves the best opportunity to capture truth—as imperfectly as we do so.”

In any event, I still agree with blacksun that this whole exercise is absurd. It is insanity to question the importance of relevant facts (evidence) as they pertain to a larger, more complex truth. Essentially every discovery humankind has achieved has been the result of gathering facts, analyzing those facts, comparing them to other facts and then reaching conclusions approximating larger truths. If anything is self-evident, it is the value of evidence.

“So, most of the answers to your questions can be easily found by reading my previous response.”

Well, they're "answers" in the sense that they are words on a page found directly after a point I made.

This, along with single-sentence plucking, illustrates the “intellectual bad will” on your part that provoked me to terminate debate. You asked for evidence of evidence’s validity; I provided it. I supported my first principle (“The road to truth is paved with evidence.”) by employing that very principle. And, luckily for me, the value of evidence is self-evident to everybody who is not already blinded by bias.

“Another problem with your most recent round of questions is that it presupposes your own worldview”

Precisely. Interestingly, insofar that you assume that communication, reason, and logic are in force in talking to me, you presuppose my worldview as well. You just won't admit it.

I refuse, however, to take on a worldview like yours, which is irrational and cannot even account for the questioning I'm engaging in, in a discussion. As you said, absurdity in, absurdity out. I want to presuppose a worldview that actually makes sense.

Once again, in your haste to be concise and respond quickly, you leave out all substantiation with respect to your truth-claims. Please explain, in your own words, the relationship between Christianity, on one hand, and communication, reason and logic on the other. Additionally, please explain, in your own words, why a universe lacking your god character necessarily also would lack communication, reason and logic. The connection is completely unclear and I am incapable of refuting what you staunchly refuse actually to explain.

Consider, for example, the statement “X cannot simultaneously be not-X.” This is a statement of logic, and a true one. Explain why, in a godless universe, a person could not comprehend that logical statement. I fail to see your connection. Additionally, explain why, in a godless universe, primates would be unable to string syllables together to pass along messages (the art of communication). Again, the connection is visible only to you, and your coyness with respect to your reasoning makes me feel as though you have spectacularly weak substantiation, if any.

“Go back to my 3636-word, three-part response a couple rounds back. Of all Rhology’s truth-claims that I called into question, which has he substantiated?”

1) All that is intentional. I wanted evidence that evidence is trustworthy 1st. Which you didn't provide. Why should I continue on a futile quest?

2) You keep trumpeting how long your post was. Do you want a gold star for the "Most Words Typed" category?

As I have already articulated, it is insanity to question the value of relevant facts (evidence) as they pertain to a larger, more complex truth. Every day, you utilize the relevant facts in making decisions. That is, every day, you utilize evidence. You cannot pervasively utilize evidence whilst simultaneously decrying evidence. I shall take any further questioning of the value of evidence as a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Please, Rhology … we need to break free from absurdity.

“OK, then explain what you mean by ‘grounds’ and explain why those things demand such a foundation.”

"Grounds" = a justification for the foundation of the thing in question.

I can trust evidence, logic, reason, induction, and communication b/c they reflect the character and attributes of a Creator God. W/o Him, they seem to me to be impossible. I'm asking you to justify them. I want you to explain your faith in empiricism.

How things “seem to you to be” is profoundly irrelevant. In your own words, explain why, in a godless universe, evidence, logic, reason, induction and communication would be either nonfunctional or nonexistent.

• Explain why, in a godless universe, smoke pouring out an apartment window would not be evidence of fire.
• Explain why, in a godless universe, a primate grasping his throat whilst turning blue would not be evidence of choking.
• Explain why, in a godless universe, a primate could not figure out X cannot simultaneously be not-X.
• Explain why, in a godless universe, a community of primates could not invent a language of guttural yelps to pass along messages.
• Explain why all these things would disappear or become nonfunctional were god divorced from the cosmic equation.

Once again, your reasoning here is invisible to all but you. I have no idea of your argument’s basis and, thus, you have immunized it to the disproof I would readily offer.

“Explain why your god character represents sufficient ‘grounds’ while competing god characters (Vishnu, Enlil, Brahman, Ammon-Ra, Zeus) represent insufficient ‘grounds’.”

Sure. See how easy it is? Why couldn't you do the same?

1) None of those named are solely God; ie, there are other gods.

2) Several (maybe all) of them have not eternally been God.

3) None of them claim to be the grounds. Why should I think they are if they don't claim to be?

4) All of them exhibit characteristics of having been devised by human imagination. i.e., they are presented as being able to die in their own essence, have sex w/ humans, are gratuitously cruel, etc.

OK, I have an announcement to make. Last night, as I was half-asleep in my bed, I experienced a brush w