One of the most common arguments you will hear from a theist goes something like, "The universe obeys natural laws. This implies a law giver/divine designer." It's a reasonable question to pose, but it's answer is nowhere to be found in religion.
Because what the theist doesn't consider when they pose this argument is that at the time that the monotheistic texts were being written (by men), people didn't know what the natural laws were, and they had no idea what they were actually observing when they looked up at the sky. They thought they lived on a flat earth and that the stars were hung in the sky so as to help them find their way around. There are verses in the Old Testament which refer to the earth as "sitting on its foundation," and not in a metaphorical sense, but such that it is clear that these people thought they were living on a flat earth which was resting on some sort of platform. Thus, answers to questions such as, "Why does the universe seem to obey certain natural laws?" could not possibly be answered by the bible, because when it was being written, these questions had not yet been posed. When you consider that the people who lived at that time and wrote the bible thought that storms and disease were judgments from god - and not results of their living on a cooling planet and microorganisms, respectfully - then nothing more needs to be said to prove this point. In other words, if you think that an outbreak of disease is a judgment from god, you couldn't possibly have any concept of the "laws of nature" and the "order of the universe," because things that have perfectly good natural explanations seem to you to be capricious.
Yes - brilliant scientists have discovered some unfailing natural laws that seem to govern the behavior of all matter in the universe and yes, if you believe in a god, you can use this as a reason to believe that he is the divine law-giver if you'd like. But what you can't do is say that the god of the bible fits that description. He doesn't. He can't. And not just because of the reason I stated above, but also because the bible insists that on many occasions, the unfailing natural laws of the universe were temporarily suspended if people prayed or made sacrifices. People don't rise from the dead; people don't walk on water; the sun doesn't stop in the sky for 3 hours (actually, Copernicus and Galileo showed us that in order for it to appear that the sun was standing still in the sky, it would be the earth that would have to stop moving, which would have sent Joshua and his army flying off the planet and hurdling through deep space); virgins don't conceive children. And if you believe that any of these things happen - even though you weren't there to witness any of them - then you are admitting that you would believe absolutely anything at all.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Working out of Matthew ...
I spend a good deal of time with my bible - as a skeptic of course. From time to time, I will post my critique of a biblical story, asking simple questions and hopefully, provoking further thought on the part of the reader. Today, I will be working out of the New Testament, namely, the first 2 chapters of Matthew.
Matthew (and as such, the New Testament) begins with the genealogy of Jesus. I won't say much on this topic except that it is nearly impossible to reconcile with the genealogy given in Luke. What I will mention, however, is that the seeming purpose of these genealogies is to show that Jesus is a descendant of the Davidic line through Joseph in accordance with prophesy, but since Joseph was not actually Jesus' father (virgin birth), the genealogy doesn't prove anything of the sort. It's funny. If the writers of the New Testament had not lifted the idea of "virgin birth" from other mythologies, their account would actually be more credible in this instance. In other words, if Joseph and Mary had conceived like normal people, "prophesy" would have been fulfilled.
From there, we move to the birth of Jesus. Joseph, suspicious (and rightfully so) as to how his wife had conceived without his doing, "had in mind to divorce her quietly" (Matthew 1:19). But, just in the nick of time, an angel of the lord came to Joseph to let him in on the holy ghost's fertility and all was not lost. This raises a fairly simple question. Why wouldn't god just send the angel to Joseph before Mary became pregnant? Why wait until he was just about ready to divorce her and then pipe up? Why would a loving, understanding god let a "righteous man" (Matthew 1:19) think, even for a second, that his wife was an adulterer? I'll tell you why. Because the bible was not divinely inspired. It was written by men and as is their nature, they were looking to pack as much drama into the story as possible.
And it continues ... After the birth, a few Magi "from the east" (this is a little vague for my taste) came to Jerusalem and inquired about the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:1-2). We don't really know whom they talked to, but apparently word of the birth of the "King of the Jews" spread and King Herod found out. Herod was not pleased to hear this news, but swallowing his concern, he slyly asked the Magi to report back to him of the baby Jesus' location so he too could worship him (he was trying to trick the Magi, because he wanted to kill Jesus). The Magi, after placing some gifts before Jesus and worshiping him, never went back to Herod, because they were "warned in a dream" not to do so (Matthew 2:12). After this, the lord tells Joseph to "escape to Egypt" to keep Jesus away from Herod. "When Herod realized that he was outwitted by the Magi," (I'm not sure how acting on a warning from a dream qualifies as witty) he launches a campaign of infanticide in order to weed out Christ (Matthew 2:16). This all happens so as to fulfill prophecy (Matthew 2:15 and 17).
This story raises a number of questions. First, what is the point of the Magi? If these Magi hadn't appeared seemingly out of thin air "from the east" to give gifts to Jesus, would Jesus not have been able to minister 30 years later, die and come back to life? In fact, had the Magi never come into the story, perhaps many lives would have been saved. After all, it was because of the Magi that Herod became aware of this whole enterprise. If he hadn't found out about Jesus, maybe he wouldn't have slaughtered hundreds (thousands? we don't really know, but it doesn't matter because none of this actually happened) of babies. But, this apparently needed to happen in order for prophecy to be fulfilled, which once again calls into question the benevolence of god. Jesus was sent to this world, allegedly, to save people, but in order for his entry into the world to fulfill a nonsense prophesy, hundreds of families had to suffer the horror of their children being slaughtered during the head hunt for this messiah. This is not benevolence. It's downright cruelty.
At the end of Matthew 2, Herod dies, and Jesus returns to Israel. Again, I ask a simple question. Why didn't god just wait until Herod died and then send down Jesus to earth? Wouldn't that have been a great deal more peaceful? Perhaps each year when we celebrate Christmas, we ought to have a moment of silence for all of the slaughtered youth at the hands of King Herod.
Matthew (and as such, the New Testament) begins with the genealogy of Jesus. I won't say much on this topic except that it is nearly impossible to reconcile with the genealogy given in Luke. What I will mention, however, is that the seeming purpose of these genealogies is to show that Jesus is a descendant of the Davidic line through Joseph in accordance with prophesy, but since Joseph was not actually Jesus' father (virgin birth), the genealogy doesn't prove anything of the sort. It's funny. If the writers of the New Testament had not lifted the idea of "virgin birth" from other mythologies, their account would actually be more credible in this instance. In other words, if Joseph and Mary had conceived like normal people, "prophesy" would have been fulfilled.
From there, we move to the birth of Jesus. Joseph, suspicious (and rightfully so) as to how his wife had conceived without his doing, "had in mind to divorce her quietly" (Matthew 1:19). But, just in the nick of time, an angel of the lord came to Joseph to let him in on the holy ghost's fertility and all was not lost. This raises a fairly simple question. Why wouldn't god just send the angel to Joseph before Mary became pregnant? Why wait until he was just about ready to divorce her and then pipe up? Why would a loving, understanding god let a "righteous man" (Matthew 1:19) think, even for a second, that his wife was an adulterer? I'll tell you why. Because the bible was not divinely inspired. It was written by men and as is their nature, they were looking to pack as much drama into the story as possible.
And it continues ... After the birth, a few Magi "from the east" (this is a little vague for my taste) came to Jerusalem and inquired about the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:1-2). We don't really know whom they talked to, but apparently word of the birth of the "King of the Jews" spread and King Herod found out. Herod was not pleased to hear this news, but swallowing his concern, he slyly asked the Magi to report back to him of the baby Jesus' location so he too could worship him (he was trying to trick the Magi, because he wanted to kill Jesus). The Magi, after placing some gifts before Jesus and worshiping him, never went back to Herod, because they were "warned in a dream" not to do so (Matthew 2:12). After this, the lord tells Joseph to "escape to Egypt" to keep Jesus away from Herod. "When Herod realized that he was outwitted by the Magi," (I'm not sure how acting on a warning from a dream qualifies as witty) he launches a campaign of infanticide in order to weed out Christ (Matthew 2:16). This all happens so as to fulfill prophecy (Matthew 2:15 and 17).
This story raises a number of questions. First, what is the point of the Magi? If these Magi hadn't appeared seemingly out of thin air "from the east" to give gifts to Jesus, would Jesus not have been able to minister 30 years later, die and come back to life? In fact, had the Magi never come into the story, perhaps many lives would have been saved. After all, it was because of the Magi that Herod became aware of this whole enterprise. If he hadn't found out about Jesus, maybe he wouldn't have slaughtered hundreds (thousands? we don't really know, but it doesn't matter because none of this actually happened) of babies. But, this apparently needed to happen in order for prophecy to be fulfilled, which once again calls into question the benevolence of god. Jesus was sent to this world, allegedly, to save people, but in order for his entry into the world to fulfill a nonsense prophesy, hundreds of families had to suffer the horror of their children being slaughtered during the head hunt for this messiah. This is not benevolence. It's downright cruelty.
At the end of Matthew 2, Herod dies, and Jesus returns to Israel. Again, I ask a simple question. Why didn't god just wait until Herod died and then send down Jesus to earth? Wouldn't that have been a great deal more peaceful? Perhaps each year when we celebrate Christmas, we ought to have a moment of silence for all of the slaughtered youth at the hands of King Herod.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Arguments against benevolence.
This is one of the biggest questions believers have dealt with over the centuries. It goes something like, "If god is so good and loving, how can he permit all of the pain and suffering we see in our world?"
Christian apologists have made a living writing books to try and give an answer (one can't help but think of C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain in which he attempts to justify the very thing that drove him into atheism in the first place). Most of the arguments boil down to one of two points: suffering and pain make it possible to experience love to its fullest and in some sense, prepare people for the glory awaiting them in heaven, and pain and suffering befall us because we are, by our nature, evil and have chosen to separate ourselves from god and his divine plan. On the latter point, I would say to a believer that you can talk of "free will" all you like, but what you can't do - if you're going to take the creation story without a grain of salt - is argue that god did not create Adam's nature.
I'll elaborate with a simple syllogism:
1. Anything that was a part of Adam's make up (mind, body, nature) had to have come from god who created him.
2. Adam possessed the capability to do evil.
3. The capability to do evil must have resided in god.
Of course, this whole line of argument presupposes a belief that a god actually did create everything, which I don't subscribe to. But my point is if you are going to take up that belief, then you have to accept its logical consequences, among them: god created evil. Of course, such an exercise involves questioning god (and actually using your mind), which is one of the gravest sins you can commit. What a convenient circularity of obedience.
On the point of pain and suffering preparing one for the glory of heaven, I dare say I'm not sure where to begin. First off, if heaven exists (it doesn't), then nobody on earth knows what it is like. There are several vague descriptions throughout the bible and they hardly agree with one another. All that can be said conclusively is that heaven is the dwelling place of god and apparently, it is where his faithful will go to live with him ... forever. If heaven is the single biggest promise of a life spent doing god's will, shouldn't there be a more precise description of the place? Though, how accurate of a description would you expect given that the people who wrote about it were men who had never been dead? But, as we often have to do with faith, let's suspend our questioning and just assume, blindly, that heaven is the greatest possible place you could imagine. We still have to wrestle with the concept of eternity. How can we enjoy something forever? I'm 23 years old and already becoming pretty bored with life. I shudder to think what I would do if charged with the task of living forever. Further, if our struggles and pain on earth are to prepare us for this eternal glory, for how long will that effect last? After a few billion years or so, I would assume that one would forget whatever had happened in his/her earthly life, thus rendering heaven's experiences rather banal, considering there will be nothing of lesser greatness left to compare it to.
I asked my mom once how she planned to enjoy her eternal stay in heaven whilst she knew I was burning in hell. Not before expressing the horror which such a question brought her, she replied by saying that god won't allow her to even be able to think of such a thing while she is rejoicing with him in heaven. But that's precisely the contrast that C.S. Lewis and other apologists describe as necessary in order to be able to receive the gift of heaven. If those in heaven are unaware of those burning in hell (among them, some of their loved ones), then how can they properly gauge how great heaven is? Further, people often talk about heaven as a place where we reunite with our deceased love ones. Coupling this with my mom's argument, we are to believe that a widow would recognize her husband if she met him in heaven, but would have no recollection of their life together if he was burning in hell. And what if she remarried before dying? Are there menages a trois in heaven?
How silly is all of this!?
Allow me to propose a much simpler idea. Life is full of ups and downs, highs and lows, sufferings and triumphs. And at its conclusion, you die ... and that's it. If you did anything of value or importance while you were alive, you will be remembered and loved by those who survive you. And while this may not be the most comforting of ideas, there is no reason to believe that it is not our reality. At its worst, it's discomforting (though, certainly not more discomforting than the thought of eternal torture); at best, it increases the value we must assign to life.
Christian apologists have made a living writing books to try and give an answer (one can't help but think of C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain in which he attempts to justify the very thing that drove him into atheism in the first place). Most of the arguments boil down to one of two points: suffering and pain make it possible to experience love to its fullest and in some sense, prepare people for the glory awaiting them in heaven, and pain and suffering befall us because we are, by our nature, evil and have chosen to separate ourselves from god and his divine plan. On the latter point, I would say to a believer that you can talk of "free will" all you like, but what you can't do - if you're going to take the creation story without a grain of salt - is argue that god did not create Adam's nature.
I'll elaborate with a simple syllogism:
1. Anything that was a part of Adam's make up (mind, body, nature) had to have come from god who created him.
2. Adam possessed the capability to do evil.
3. The capability to do evil must have resided in god.
Of course, this whole line of argument presupposes a belief that a god actually did create everything, which I don't subscribe to. But my point is if you are going to take up that belief, then you have to accept its logical consequences, among them: god created evil. Of course, such an exercise involves questioning god (and actually using your mind), which is one of the gravest sins you can commit. What a convenient circularity of obedience.
On the point of pain and suffering preparing one for the glory of heaven, I dare say I'm not sure where to begin. First off, if heaven exists (it doesn't), then nobody on earth knows what it is like. There are several vague descriptions throughout the bible and they hardly agree with one another. All that can be said conclusively is that heaven is the dwelling place of god and apparently, it is where his faithful will go to live with him ... forever. If heaven is the single biggest promise of a life spent doing god's will, shouldn't there be a more precise description of the place? Though, how accurate of a description would you expect given that the people who wrote about it were men who had never been dead? But, as we often have to do with faith, let's suspend our questioning and just assume, blindly, that heaven is the greatest possible place you could imagine. We still have to wrestle with the concept of eternity. How can we enjoy something forever? I'm 23 years old and already becoming pretty bored with life. I shudder to think what I would do if charged with the task of living forever. Further, if our struggles and pain on earth are to prepare us for this eternal glory, for how long will that effect last? After a few billion years or so, I would assume that one would forget whatever had happened in his/her earthly life, thus rendering heaven's experiences rather banal, considering there will be nothing of lesser greatness left to compare it to.
I asked my mom once how she planned to enjoy her eternal stay in heaven whilst she knew I was burning in hell. Not before expressing the horror which such a question brought her, she replied by saying that god won't allow her to even be able to think of such a thing while she is rejoicing with him in heaven. But that's precisely the contrast that C.S. Lewis and other apologists describe as necessary in order to be able to receive the gift of heaven. If those in heaven are unaware of those burning in hell (among them, some of their loved ones), then how can they properly gauge how great heaven is? Further, people often talk about heaven as a place where we reunite with our deceased love ones. Coupling this with my mom's argument, we are to believe that a widow would recognize her husband if she met him in heaven, but would have no recollection of their life together if he was burning in hell. And what if she remarried before dying? Are there menages a trois in heaven?
How silly is all of this!?
Allow me to propose a much simpler idea. Life is full of ups and downs, highs and lows, sufferings and triumphs. And at its conclusion, you die ... and that's it. If you did anything of value or importance while you were alive, you will be remembered and loved by those who survive you. And while this may not be the most comforting of ideas, there is no reason to believe that it is not our reality. At its worst, it's discomforting (though, certainly not more discomforting than the thought of eternal torture); at best, it increases the value we must assign to life.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
If you're kissing this boy, you better be witnessing to him ...
It was a Friday afternoon and she had just asked me if I wanted to join her and others for happy hour after work. I played it cool and told her I'd think about it. Later on, I committed to the affair. After all, I liked this girl (in fact, I'd been liking her for quite some time, but I was practicing patience), and I took her invitation as a possible sign that maybe, just maybe, she was feeling the same for me. I don't remember all the particulars, but I do remember discussing religion with her that evening. She made it known that she was a Christian and I made it known that I "don't know the answers and don't pretend to." Weeks later, we would begin dating, and I didn't think much of our differences in belief. After all, she knew where I stood. If it were that big of a deal to her, why would she begin dating me in the first place?
I'll tell you why.
Because "strong" Christians think they can change you. They think they have all the answers, they think they know what happens when you die (even though they have never been dead and as such, are not qualified to speak on the matter) and they think that once you "see the light," you'll come to their side.
Sooner rather than later, religion came up again. Her father was adamant about the fact that he wants her to date a Christian, and this was very important to her and her family. Perhaps foolishly, I told her I'd go to church with her some time and hear her out on why she believes what she believes, but I couldn't keep my promise. Every time Sunday rolled around, I backed out and eventually, I backed out of the relationship altogether.
I believe this girl was guilty of two "sins" here. One of intolerance and another of deception. I won't bother explaining these in detail as they speak for themselves.
It was a very sad experience. We had become good friends before anything "extra" happened between us (not "extra extra" of course; Christians aren't into that kind of thing until they get married). Having to say goodbye to somebody that was so extremely intelligent, funny and kind over religious belief seemed (and still does seem) so silly.
I hope some day, she sees the light.
I'll tell you why.
Because "strong" Christians think they can change you. They think they have all the answers, they think they know what happens when you die (even though they have never been dead and as such, are not qualified to speak on the matter) and they think that once you "see the light," you'll come to their side.
Sooner rather than later, religion came up again. Her father was adamant about the fact that he wants her to date a Christian, and this was very important to her and her family. Perhaps foolishly, I told her I'd go to church with her some time and hear her out on why she believes what she believes, but I couldn't keep my promise. Every time Sunday rolled around, I backed out and eventually, I backed out of the relationship altogether.
I believe this girl was guilty of two "sins" here. One of intolerance and another of deception. I won't bother explaining these in detail as they speak for themselves.
It was a very sad experience. We had become good friends before anything "extra" happened between us (not "extra extra" of course; Christians aren't into that kind of thing until they get married). Having to say goodbye to somebody that was so extremely intelligent, funny and kind over religious belief seemed (and still does seem) so silly.
I hope some day, she sees the light.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Fall
I've sat on the fence of religious belief a few times in my life, but once and for all, I've fallen off onto the side of logic and reason, never to climb back over. I suppose I knew all along I'd end up here, but I could never envision being open and honest about it. To a far lesser extent, I'm experiencing what it must be like for a homosexual person to "come out of the closet." For some reason or another, it takes some time to shed indoctrinated guilt, but I've done it. And from here forward, this space will serve both as a means of celebrating that triumph and a vehicle for continuing on in my pursuit of free thought.
Come along with me.
Come along with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
