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.