alltruenews
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9
I haven't posted in a while as I try to make each one count. I hope everyone will enjoy this.
Some may remember that I have been having an ongoing debate/exchange with my Christian fundamentalist brother over evolution, intelligent design and god. When I feel I have something worth posting from that exchange I'll put it here. Well, I recently felt a need to explain my beliefs to him so the following is the letter I sent:
__________________________________
I’ll start by giving myself a label
I consider myself to be first a rationalist and second a materialist. In simple terms this means that I rely on what we see and can measure around us to best explain what is around us. I have come to the conclusion that it makes no sense to consider anything as real (or potentially real) if it cannot be seen, measured or tested. To look outside of reality for answers about reality is simply not logical to me. It should also be noted that rational people don’t look outside of reality for information regarding any other of life’s endeavors.
As you know, most theologians heartily debate this materialist worldview. They consider it shortsighted not to include the supernatural as an explanation of this world around us. In my view, this is a terribly flawed argument because it assumes something (the supernatural) before evidence is considered. In other words, the supernatural is the theologian’s or believer’s default position. Let me point out that in all of the studies and all of the tests that have ever been conducted on this planet, not a single result has ever pointed away from a material conclusion. Not one.
As a rationalist I have to point out that no one can argue the presence of the natural world as it’s all around us and ready to be studied and pawed over, and as I’ve mentioned, there is not a single shred of evidence pointing to any supernatural realm. You can’t build a case without evidence so my (natural) default position is that, until it can be quantified and studied, you cannot consider a supernatural explanation for anything… as there is a working testable and clearly visible alternative. Again, it’s not proper to begin your quest with an unproven answer in place. Ironically, starting with the final answer in place is the logic mistake Intelligent Design proponents make as well.
Belief & labels
I have never understood the concept of defining someone by what they don’t believe. This is why I refer to myself as a “rationalist” and not an atheist. You don’t believe in fairies yet I wouldn’t call you an afairyist. If I’m honest about my rationalist method, then I must question why belief in a god or a supernatural realm is anyone’s default position—and those who fall outside of that belief somehow become defined by their lack of belief. If we approach the question of God logically we are forced to begin from a neutral position and not from a position of belief. To do this is not evil or deprived, it’s just using the very same common sense principles that we employ everyday in all other quests for knowledge and I see no reason to abandon it here.
Can something be both true and false simultaneously?
If a supernatural realm exists than that realm would (by definition) be true. How is it then that the supernatural fails to show itself even in the smallest way? Against this fact, prayer has been tested over and over and the results are clear… prayer has been found to have no affect beyond random chance. So how can a personal God who answers prayers both answer them and not answer them? If prayers are being answered then why doesn’t this show in any real-world inquiry? A personal God cannot be both true and false simultaneously. It must be one or the other and I see absolutely no evidence in favor of one.
If the believer attempts to introduce anecdotal evidence to this question or argues for special pleading when considering God, please remember that you cannot do this in any other rational inquiry. Nowhere in science, math, medicine or research can you put forth anecdotal stories as evidence. Evidence must pass a few basic tests before it can be truly considered reliable. This is where religion falls down. Religious faith only can produce the story of the individual or the one-time medical recovery. The logical problem here is that the presenters of these one-off stories conveniently ignore when the praying patient in the other hospital bed fails to recover or when the person praying does not get the promotion at work. This is why there needs to be controls when trying to determine real-world affect. And when controls are in place, prayer has been found to have zero affect.
The supernatural cannot produce even the smallest shred of reproducible or testable evidence yet billions of humans appeal to it on a daily basis. Have you ever wondered why this is?
Many believers will argue for special pleading on this matter with statements like; you can’t test God. Well, if He answers prayers or does anything at all you most certainly can. God would leave a path of answered prayers and fulfilled lives a mile wide and the data would be more than clear. Those who pray would enjoy fulfillment that those who don’t pray lack. Some argue that God refuses to be tested. Well, this is just absurd because (again) this is simply special pleading trying to rationalize the overwhelming lack of results. No results equals no results. Would you accept this twisted thinking from someone attempting to sell you a medical cure or financial services? Imagine if a doctor told you that a medicine worked, but (for some reason) it refused to be tested. Special pleading is the only way one can exit this dilemma and it’s a massive logical fallacy.
We also have the problem of those who recover from an ailment “miraculously” without any prayer or supernatural intervention. If God is engineering this great turnaround, why is he ignoring those who do pray in favor of someone who doesn’t? It just makes no sense until you lift the veil of superstition and begin asking the hard skeptical questions that we ask in every other rational endeavor. Once you do start asking the questions something amazing happens… the answer is actually much more simple than positing a supernatural all-knowing God in the sky. It’s my position that life is random and every single piece of data shows this over and over again.
For as long as we’ve been able to think, humans have looked for correlations in events. In our egocentric ways we imagine that we are somehow the reason for everything. As if the stars themselves wait for our actions. Thankfully rationality has removed much superstition from our worldview, but much remains. We no longer sacrifice animals or other humans to bring us better crops, good weather or prosperity however to believe that an all powerful sky fairy is taking a personal interest in us is no less “magical” in thinking.
To believe that an all-knowing being is ignoring the suffering of some and placing our wishes (or prayers) over those of the terminally ill or starving is downright bizarre. In my view this belief system is deeply morally challenged.
Let’s take my current job changing situation as an example. If I were a believer, I would have been praying over this situation and asking God to guide the hands of those who control where I end up (or don’t end up) in the company. So I’m asking God to help me while I know tremendous suffering is ravaging this planet in the form of weather disasters, war and food shortages? It turns my stomach to think of this. If God did help me and allow me to keep my job… he can have it. There are children in this very country being beaten, molested, going without food or shelter and I’m praying to God to keep a job that I could replace? Thankfully I understand that prayer doesn’t work because I don’t think I could sleep at night believing that God chose to help me out over all of the other truly terrible situations going on. I don’t see how a supernatural view of a prayer-answering personal God can be morally defended.
If I could speak to a being that could affect the lives of billions, the first thing I’d tell him is to kindly come back when everyone’s had some food and access to a warm dry place to sleep. He’s got no business helping me. And how moral would it be for a god to help me when approximately 2600 children die of starvation every day. I argue that it would be horribly immoral for any god to do such a thing.
Prayer has never made any logical sense to me
Let’s look at what we’re thinking when we pray. Perhaps a tough choice has come up or a difficult person has entered our life causing confusion. Maybe a medical, financial or family problem is causing us stress or concern. Does an all-knowing God need to be told this? Didn’t He put these factors in our life? Do we need to speak to God asking for help repairing the stresses that He engineered? Perhaps we’re praying just to feel a connection to God. If connection is the purpose for prayer, why do we tie these requests for magical intervention to this connection? Honestly, the only way I can make moral sense of this is to look at human nature and see the trail of magical and superstitious thinking that has preceded this. The notion of needing to “fill God in” regarding our lives is just too silly for me to consider viable.
The concept of a personal God would have been unknown to a Christian of just a few hundred years ago. This (personal God) idea is theologically very new and really odd in my view. I can’t square any of the claims regarding a personal god as they leave no evidence and a claim is a direct and testable thing. If someone says that their church helps them get through tough times I can understand it, but if they then claim some kind of supernatural knowledge or that this supernatural knowledge is educating them to a scientific fact such as curing a disease… I must see the evidence.
Is the Bible actually moral?
I won’t get into a scripture war here, but I will point directly to chapter and verse to illustrate that the God of the Bible openly directs gratuitous killings of innocent people (often children) to satisfy bizarre, jealous and uneven laws. God orders genocide and the gathering of women to be offered up for rape. And the culmination of the New Testament is a human sacrifice offered up to God to ultimately protect us from (get this) God’s own wrath. The brutal death of Jesus somehow shields us from God’s own eternal torture. This means that if Jesus hadn’t been killed, we’d all be doomed. Think about that moral message.
If you believe Jesus is God then you’ve got another immoral ingredient swimming in this soup. This being that God came to earth and died a horrible death to save us from… himself. How about offering a path to forgiveness without killing anyone? Was it beyond God’s abilities to offer this? Why is a brutal death even necessary? At each turn I see that the Bible is a blatant product of its savage and brutal time. And these concepts of killing someone to ensure life for others are nothing more than good old-fashioned superstitious fear.
By the Bible’s own twisted logic, Christ’s killers should be heralded as heroes. For without them we would perish in an eternal (God designed) torment. But lucky for us they brutally killed a man so his father would forgive us. If this isn’t human sacrifice I truly don’t know what is. This is just the beginning of the immorality I speak of in the Bible.
God-Ordered Genocide, Rape and Mass Killings in the Bible
Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. They took the women and children captives, and burnt all their cities.
Numbers 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Exodus 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
Numbers 31:15-18 and Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for you.
I’m going to stop here and just say in no uncertain terms that this is absolute immoral rubbish. Is there any defense for this? No! I could go on and on with more “inspired” scripture calling for death and the destruction of families and innocents, but I really only need to present one to make my point. Either the Bible is moral or it isn’t.
Even if one wants to attempt parsing these words and claim that these examples are not actually rape or actually genocide (which they clearly are) you still have God ordering the deaths of children and innocents. And I guess He even has a thing for their animals.
Hopefully you can understand my inability to accept that the Bible (or the God of the Bible) is any kind of moral compass. I will grant that many modern theologies have finally become more aware of morals and have since woven these new concepts into their thinking. However these new ideas of women having rights, people having a right to life and slaves being freed are just that… new ideas. These ideas are extra-biblical.
If the Bible were a moral guide, the morality we search for today would be what God ordered in biblical times. Why would it change? Surely God’s ideas of morality don’t need to change as He is perfect. However, you would NEVER embrace the way in which you’re told to treat your wife and family in the Bible. Why are these moral mistakes so clear to us if the Bible is a moral absolute?
Also, if any moral clarity came forth from the Bible there would be very little moral argument amongst Bible believers yet this is not the case. Christians themselves cannot agree on any matters from the death penalty to stem cell research to gay marriage. The Vatican recently announced an “update” to the seven deadly sins making it now come in at fourteen. Again, why the need for change or alteration if the Bible (or God) is where morality comes from?
If Christianity had some direct line or angle on morality this would be evident in the lives and behaviors of Christian people but it just isn’t. If you want to blame free will for the Christian’s inability to act properly, then (by default) free will removes all hope of ever being moral. If free will is the special pleading answer to Christian failures, then there is no way for anyone to ever act morally as free will destroys all hope of following God’s morality. Please understand that I point my criticism at Christianity here because a real-world claim is being made.
I take issue with the claim that the God of the Bible is (in fact) good. I don’t think any believer would argue against this notion yet God clearly takes part in and orders horrific suffering and even mass death. So, by the theist’s own definition, these things must be “good” because God did them. The drowning of the world’s population minus one family is “good” because God did this in the flood. I certainly don’t believe these things to be “good” so where on earth do I get my morals? Why are my morals different from the God of the Bible’s?
For me, the reason why my morals differ from the God of the Bible is clear… the Bible is a deeply flawed product of a savage time. My (imperfect) morals are a product of this (also flawed and imperfect) time. However, unlike our Bible writing friends, I have the luxury of great thinkers before me having raised my consciousness to the plights of those less fortunate. I also argue that I have the intellectual ability to see this because acting morally is something that benefits a species and therefore it is selected for. I need no sword flinging monster to tell me what’s correct as I may make mistakes and stumble but I certainly know enough not to destroy a city and rape its women.
Battered wife syndrome and the God of the Bible
I’m sure that you’re aware of the very real psychological phenomenon known as “battered wife syndrome.” In this situation a deeply traumatized person will explain away the horrific actions of their abusive partner to themselves and others by believing that this behavior is (in the end) their own fault. This incorrect thinking has unfortunately lead to the deaths of many women and the traumatizing of children in these highly dysfunctional settings. I challenge you to explain to me how “God’s wrath” is any different. Here we have the very same threat of violence being held over the head of a less powerful being. All efforts are made to conform to the wishes that the more powerful entity demands; yet the less powerful creature lives in constant fear of torment and personal violence. Lead a life that the supernatural being demands and you might be okay… accidentally look at the wrong supernatural being or step out of an undefined line and you’re punished eternally with physical violence and agony. This threat is deeply dysfunctional and completely immoral. Especially when you factor in all of the religions and beliefs that compete for followers. In the Christian theology the deeply faithful Muslim is forever tortured in a fiery hell because he had the simple misfortune of being born in a Muslim area of the world.
A non-believer is just that… one who (for whatever reason) does not believe the supernatural stories presented in the Bible. I have my own reasons, which I think I’ve articulated fairly well, but just like the more than 3300 sects of Christianity, non-believers are not all he same. Non-belief does not make one immoral or lacking in judgment. If it did we would see evidence of this in statistical analysis of those who mistreat others, break the law or are incarcerated. However we do not see this. Perhaps you feel that lacking belief does make a person act in improper or harmful ways, but I ask you if these are “feelings” or something based in fact. If it’s based in fact there has to be facts to illustrate this. The notion that non-belief causes immoral behavior is based in nothingness. There are no facts that demonstrate this or studies that justify this. If this notion were true, there would be something somewhere pointing to its truth.
How can someone without belief get up every morning?
Having no reset button makes one very conscious of the dangers, wonders and beauty in life. Not having a second chance makes one very aware of morality and honesty. I feel that we go around once and therefore I want to leave this planet better for having been here my one and only time. I believe I can do this by being the best husband and father that I can be and therefore my children will have the skills necessary to raise their children properly as well. I do not posit that a god will take care of or forgive my mistakes as I believe that they are mine to fix and that I am responsible for them. This concept is a powerful motivator to get up each day and do the right thing. I do not grant myself either a free pass or a fiery eternal torture because I believe this or that supernatural story. Understanding this serves as a great motivator to act honestly and morally.
Seeing the complexity and wonder in the natural world is deeply inspiring to me. I read an article the other day about a new gene modification procedure that is curing a rare form of infant blindness. This story caused me to consider the mind of the non-believer next to the mind of the believer. In this story we have people being cured of blindness (for real) and it’s happening without invoking miracles or the supernatural… it’s happening because we are unlocking the secrets of the natural world through empirical knowledge. This isn’t happening at the Vatican, Mecca or a snake-handling church down south… it’s happening in hospitals and labs where humans are applying reason and logic to relieve suffering.
Curing blindness is noble, moral and pretty gosh-darn “good.” Teaching children that an invisible great sky fairy is watching them and they’d better get it right… or else, is the exact opposite.
Whether you realize it or not, you are a non-believer regarding 99.9% of gods out there. How do you get up in the morning without the wonder and glory of Zeus? You do not accept the thousands of gods or the many polytheistic belief systems. You don’t “believe” any of them and neither do I. I argue that the God of the Bible is just as likely as any of these other gods as I’ve seen the same amount of evidence exhibited by all of them. I argue that there is no more evidence that the biblical God exists than these other gods that you dismiss without a thought.
A simple truth that can’t be denied
If you somehow discovered tomorrow that there was no God, I highly doubt you would take to the streets looking to rob and pillage. You would continue to love your family and brush your teeth. You would not sit on the couch and drink beer until the bank kicked you out. You would continue to honor your debts and lead a productive and respectable life… I guarantee it. Belief does not make a person moral and disbelief does not make someone immoral.
I sometimes find the Christian view of morality and behavior pretty dark. The idea that we are all sin machines with absolutely no ability to tell good from bad is downright bizarre to me as the evidence plainly shows otherwise. And if this ability to distinguish good from bad comes directly from God, how do we explain the overwhelming good we see exhibited in non-believers. Again we come back to claims and claims require proof to be valid. To claim that good comes from God we have to get past the horrors He commits in the Bible… unless you want to call those events “good.”
Also, the idea that there is no good in us without God is a very, very dark concept. It says that we are (by default) completely evil and have no redeeming qualities without Him. I don’t know about you, but I find this belief to be both negative and dark. And if we do get our “goodness” from God, why do we all have differing amounts of it? Some have very little and some have too much of it and end up actually hurting themselves by giving too much of themselves to others.
Let me tackle the “there is no good without God” myth
The believer has a real problem here because in order to include the God of the Bible, the word “good” needs to be completely gutted and redefined. I say this because I’m certain that you do not consider ordering the murder of women and children to be “good.” However, I will set this aside for the moment and simply point out how insane this myth is.
This baseless myth is debunked whenever a non-believer acts in ways that you would consider “good.” The claim (there is no good without God) is such a simple claim, so disproving it is just as simple. How can this claim be true when it’s obviously proven false each time a non-believer does good? The non-believer did good and he did it without God. If you somehow feel that God jumped in and intervened in order to make the non-believer do something good, then a belief in God (in order to do “good”) is proven completely unnecessary. A claim needs facts to be true and this claim is just an emotional argument and so obviously false.
Do non-believers lack a sense of good or evil?
Often, believers will claim that non-believers have no moral compass and therefore cannot distinguish good from evil. Hopefully by now you see that the God of the Bible does a better job of muddying the water here than I ever could regarding both good and evil, but I’ll explain how this claim is totally incorrect.
Non-believers are not one single voice and therefore do not all think in one way. However this claim begins with an unproven (that there is a God in which good and evil are defined) and then projects this unproven supernatural claim onto the actions and thoughts of others. I cannot speak for others but I do see both good and evil in the world and I don’t think that my ability to do so is in any way divine. I believe that my ability to see good and evil is simply based on experience and logic. These experiences and logical inferences are a combination of my ability to learn from my mistakes and to stand on the shoulders of great thinkers before me. This explanation is far simpler then searching for a supernatural explanation. The desire to not harm others is something that is rewarded by life and health.
The devil believes in God. Has this belief helped him?
Non-belief and punishment
Most religions claim a form of punishment for non-belief. The Christian faith is clear regarding its belief in an eternal punishment in this regard. Have you ever truly looked at what is stated here? Let’s take my situation as an example:
I’ve heard the word and read the text of the Christian faith and I have serious reservations regarding its teachings and morality. My reservations are based in (what I believe to be) logic and reason. I can clearly articulate them and my examples of inconsistencies are based in Christianity’s own claims and dogma. Yet the price I pay for reasonably questioning this faith is eternal torture? Surly far more intelligent people than I have found even more inconsistencies and they will also pay eternally for simply noticing these things and allowing these observations to guide them.
So the Christian and the non-believer both look at the evidence equally and come to two different conclusions. One is treated to an eternity of bliss because of his conclusion, while the other an eternity of torture. All for looking at the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion. Personally, I find the theological “evidence” for Christianity completely underwhelming and for this application of my brain and reason, I’m forever banished to a fiery hell. Have you ever considered this?
We ask tough questions of everyone who makes claims in our lives. We ask for evidence from the doctor, the electrician and the banker. Virtually no business is done in my office without documents showing the facts being shared openly with all parties concerned… whether they request them or not. Presenting evidence is how we move forward and dispose of incorrect claims.
The bank cannot appeal to special pleading if they show that your account is $1,500 less than your calculations. The bank must produce the evidence that explains the correct balance. The electrician is allowed no wiggle room if his wiring burns a house down as he is held to a high standard of knowledge and reality. An airline pilot is not allowed to blame a supernatural cause if the plane he’s flying crashes. This is the fabric that holds us together.
However the priest and the pastor are asked to meet no such standard even though their claims are the most fantastic of all. Claiming the supernatural and the presence of an afterlife are perhaps the biggest claims ever made. Worse yet, these individuals go so far as to claim that they understand and can explain the supernatural as well. Why would anyone accept this without testable evidence? If I sound like a broken record on the claim and evidence issue, it’s because in no other endeavor do we accept claims without evidence.
If you were struggling to balance your checkbook or find your car keys, would you consider a supernatural explanation or solution? Or, perhaps, would you approach that problem without considering the supernatural?
As in all things we try to understand, we employ a method. Some of us have simplistic (almost child-like) methods when trying to deduce whether something is true or false. Over the years, I have come to apply certain logic to questions in trying to determine whether they are reality or fantasy. Magical thinking and sloppy logic is all around us and I believe that it’s extremely important to remove this from our deductive methods and keep our claims to what we can prove.
The best cultural example of sloppy logic I can think of are those hokey TV commercials that claim radical health reversals by taking supplements or attaching “toxin removing pads” to our feet. To many people these claims seem completely within the realm of possibility because, unfortunately, many people lack critical thinking skills in these areas. They may be very successful in business, fantastic parents or both, but they fail to apply the very same filters that they use in their everyday lives to these claims of medicine or science. Many times these TV ads will employ the window dressing of science by employing stereotypes such as people in lab coats to dispense hogwash, but make no mistake, the human brain is fallible and if these snake oil salesmen apply a few well-worn tricks they can take advantage of our lack of critical thinking and fool us.
Being a rationalist means beginning from a logical position and coming to conclusions only when the evidence supports these conclusions. So if I’m going to determine whether a claim is true, I must start from the position that it may not be true and then assemble the facts to see if I can be swayed. We do this all the time. If a doctor prescribes a medicine, we want to know about its effectiveness and this answer can only be arrived at by testing that medicine by using a method of skeptical analysis. The laboratory that tests the medicine cannot assume that it’s effective before testing. They must employ rational methods of controls and analysis to arrive at a conclusion. They must consider the possibility that the medicine may not be effective. They must ask the question.
This is why I cannot automatically accept the Bible as literal truth of anything. Unlike the medicine example above, the Bible is most often presented as true to a new person (or child) without the slightest critical analysis of its contents. The new church member is told about the power of the Bible, the evil nature of the devil and ourselves and perhaps the life of Jesus, but nowhere is there any critical analysis of the text. This is all presented through the lens of the supernatural. So the basic method employed here is sloppy logic and fear. We are told to fear offending God, to fear the devil and to follow Christ or else. This then becomes more emotion-based than anything else.
This “believe first” method is deeply flawed in my view, and when I apply the simplest of rationally to the Bible I come up empty.
Hopefully I’ve answered some questions you might have had regarding what I believe. I also hope I’ve dispelled with a few incorrect notions regarding non-belief. If I succeed in nothing more, I really hope you’ve come to understand that non-belief is where we start all logical quests. Non-belief does not equal morally flawed behavior and it certainly doesn’t equal some sort of deprived lunatic running around holding up pharmacies.
I hope you see that my writing is not at all meant to attack you or your faith personally. I totally understand that the church that you belong to is a loving environment and has been a great source of comfort for all in your family. It’s just my view that it’s the people of the church who have made all of that happen.
Thanks for taking the time to read this!
Some may remember that I have been having an ongoing debate/exchange with my Christian fundamentalist brother over evolution, intelligent design and god. When I feel I have something worth posting from that exchange I'll put it here. Well, I recently felt a need to explain my beliefs to him so the following is the letter I sent:
__________________________________
I’ll start by giving myself a label
I consider myself to be first a rationalist and second a materialist. In simple terms this means that I rely on what we see and can measure around us to best explain what is around us. I have come to the conclusion that it makes no sense to consider anything as real (or potentially real) if it cannot be seen, measured or tested. To look outside of reality for answers about reality is simply not logical to me. It should also be noted that rational people don’t look outside of reality for information regarding any other of life’s endeavors.
As you know, most theologians heartily debate this materialist worldview. They consider it shortsighted not to include the supernatural as an explanation of this world around us. In my view, this is a terribly flawed argument because it assumes something (the supernatural) before evidence is considered. In other words, the supernatural is the theologian’s or believer’s default position. Let me point out that in all of the studies and all of the tests that have ever been conducted on this planet, not a single result has ever pointed away from a material conclusion. Not one.
As a rationalist I have to point out that no one can argue the presence of the natural world as it’s all around us and ready to be studied and pawed over, and as I’ve mentioned, there is not a single shred of evidence pointing to any supernatural realm. You can’t build a case without evidence so my (natural) default position is that, until it can be quantified and studied, you cannot consider a supernatural explanation for anything… as there is a working testable and clearly visible alternative. Again, it’s not proper to begin your quest with an unproven answer in place. Ironically, starting with the final answer in place is the logic mistake Intelligent Design proponents make as well.
Belief & labels
I have never understood the concept of defining someone by what they don’t believe. This is why I refer to myself as a “rationalist” and not an atheist. You don’t believe in fairies yet I wouldn’t call you an afairyist. If I’m honest about my rationalist method, then I must question why belief in a god or a supernatural realm is anyone’s default position—and those who fall outside of that belief somehow become defined by their lack of belief. If we approach the question of God logically we are forced to begin from a neutral position and not from a position of belief. To do this is not evil or deprived, it’s just using the very same common sense principles that we employ everyday in all other quests for knowledge and I see no reason to abandon it here.
Prayer and a Personal God
Can something be both true and false simultaneously?
If a supernatural realm exists than that realm would (by definition) be true. How is it then that the supernatural fails to show itself even in the smallest way? Against this fact, prayer has been tested over and over and the results are clear… prayer has been found to have no affect beyond random chance. So how can a personal God who answers prayers both answer them and not answer them? If prayers are being answered then why doesn’t this show in any real-world inquiry? A personal God cannot be both true and false simultaneously. It must be one or the other and I see absolutely no evidence in favor of one.
If the believer attempts to introduce anecdotal evidence to this question or argues for special pleading when considering God, please remember that you cannot do this in any other rational inquiry. Nowhere in science, math, medicine or research can you put forth anecdotal stories as evidence. Evidence must pass a few basic tests before it can be truly considered reliable. This is where religion falls down. Religious faith only can produce the story of the individual or the one-time medical recovery. The logical problem here is that the presenters of these one-off stories conveniently ignore when the praying patient in the other hospital bed fails to recover or when the person praying does not get the promotion at work. This is why there needs to be controls when trying to determine real-world affect. And when controls are in place, prayer has been found to have zero affect.
The supernatural cannot produce even the smallest shred of reproducible or testable evidence yet billions of humans appeal to it on a daily basis. Have you ever wondered why this is?
Many believers will argue for special pleading on this matter with statements like; you can’t test God. Well, if He answers prayers or does anything at all you most certainly can. God would leave a path of answered prayers and fulfilled lives a mile wide and the data would be more than clear. Those who pray would enjoy fulfillment that those who don’t pray lack. Some argue that God refuses to be tested. Well, this is just absurd because (again) this is simply special pleading trying to rationalize the overwhelming lack of results. No results equals no results. Would you accept this twisted thinking from someone attempting to sell you a medical cure or financial services? Imagine if a doctor told you that a medicine worked, but (for some reason) it refused to be tested. Special pleading is the only way one can exit this dilemma and it’s a massive logical fallacy.
We also have the problem of those who recover from an ailment “miraculously” without any prayer or supernatural intervention. If God is engineering this great turnaround, why is he ignoring those who do pray in favor of someone who doesn’t? It just makes no sense until you lift the veil of superstition and begin asking the hard skeptical questions that we ask in every other rational endeavor. Once you do start asking the questions something amazing happens… the answer is actually much more simple than positing a supernatural all-knowing God in the sky. It’s my position that life is random and every single piece of data shows this over and over again.
For as long as we’ve been able to think, humans have looked for correlations in events. In our egocentric ways we imagine that we are somehow the reason for everything. As if the stars themselves wait for our actions. Thankfully rationality has removed much superstition from our worldview, but much remains. We no longer sacrifice animals or other humans to bring us better crops, good weather or prosperity however to believe that an all powerful sky fairy is taking a personal interest in us is no less “magical” in thinking.
To believe that an all-knowing being is ignoring the suffering of some and placing our wishes (or prayers) over those of the terminally ill or starving is downright bizarre. In my view this belief system is deeply morally challenged.
Let’s take my current job changing situation as an example. If I were a believer, I would have been praying over this situation and asking God to guide the hands of those who control where I end up (or don’t end up) in the company. So I’m asking God to help me while I know tremendous suffering is ravaging this planet in the form of weather disasters, war and food shortages? It turns my stomach to think of this. If God did help me and allow me to keep my job… he can have it. There are children in this very country being beaten, molested, going without food or shelter and I’m praying to God to keep a job that I could replace? Thankfully I understand that prayer doesn’t work because I don’t think I could sleep at night believing that God chose to help me out over all of the other truly terrible situations going on. I don’t see how a supernatural view of a prayer-answering personal God can be morally defended.
If I could speak to a being that could affect the lives of billions, the first thing I’d tell him is to kindly come back when everyone’s had some food and access to a warm dry place to sleep. He’s got no business helping me. And how moral would it be for a god to help me when approximately 2600 children die of starvation every day. I argue that it would be horribly immoral for any god to do such a thing.
Prayer has never made any logical sense to me
Let’s look at what we’re thinking when we pray. Perhaps a tough choice has come up or a difficult person has entered our life causing confusion. Maybe a medical, financial or family problem is causing us stress or concern. Does an all-knowing God need to be told this? Didn’t He put these factors in our life? Do we need to speak to God asking for help repairing the stresses that He engineered? Perhaps we’re praying just to feel a connection to God. If connection is the purpose for prayer, why do we tie these requests for magical intervention to this connection? Honestly, the only way I can make moral sense of this is to look at human nature and see the trail of magical and superstitious thinking that has preceded this. The notion of needing to “fill God in” regarding our lives is just too silly for me to consider viable.
The concept of a personal God would have been unknown to a Christian of just a few hundred years ago. This (personal God) idea is theologically very new and really odd in my view. I can’t square any of the claims regarding a personal god as they leave no evidence and a claim is a direct and testable thing. If someone says that their church helps them get through tough times I can understand it, but if they then claim some kind of supernatural knowledge or that this supernatural knowledge is educating them to a scientific fact such as curing a disease… I must see the evidence.
The Bible and Morality
Is the Bible actually moral?
I won’t get into a scripture war here, but I will point directly to chapter and verse to illustrate that the God of the Bible openly directs gratuitous killings of innocent people (often children) to satisfy bizarre, jealous and uneven laws. God orders genocide and the gathering of women to be offered up for rape. And the culmination of the New Testament is a human sacrifice offered up to God to ultimately protect us from (get this) God’s own wrath. The brutal death of Jesus somehow shields us from God’s own eternal torture. This means that if Jesus hadn’t been killed, we’d all be doomed. Think about that moral message.
If you believe Jesus is God then you’ve got another immoral ingredient swimming in this soup. This being that God came to earth and died a horrible death to save us from… himself. How about offering a path to forgiveness without killing anyone? Was it beyond God’s abilities to offer this? Why is a brutal death even necessary? At each turn I see that the Bible is a blatant product of its savage and brutal time. And these concepts of killing someone to ensure life for others are nothing more than good old-fashioned superstitious fear.
By the Bible’s own twisted logic, Christ’s killers should be heralded as heroes. For without them we would perish in an eternal (God designed) torment. But lucky for us they brutally killed a man so his father would forgive us. If this isn’t human sacrifice I truly don’t know what is. This is just the beginning of the immorality I speak of in the Bible.
God-Ordered Genocide, Rape and Mass Killings in the Bible
Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. They took the women and children captives, and burnt all their cities.
Numbers 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Exodus 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
Numbers 31:15-18 and Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for you.
I’m going to stop here and just say in no uncertain terms that this is absolute immoral rubbish. Is there any defense for this? No! I could go on and on with more “inspired” scripture calling for death and the destruction of families and innocents, but I really only need to present one to make my point. Either the Bible is moral or it isn’t.
Even if one wants to attempt parsing these words and claim that these examples are not actually rape or actually genocide (which they clearly are) you still have God ordering the deaths of children and innocents. And I guess He even has a thing for their animals.
Hopefully you can understand my inability to accept that the Bible (or the God of the Bible) is any kind of moral compass. I will grant that many modern theologies have finally become more aware of morals and have since woven these new concepts into their thinking. However these new ideas of women having rights, people having a right to life and slaves being freed are just that… new ideas. These ideas are extra-biblical.
If the Bible were a moral guide, the morality we search for today would be what God ordered in biblical times. Why would it change? Surely God’s ideas of morality don’t need to change as He is perfect. However, you would NEVER embrace the way in which you’re told to treat your wife and family in the Bible. Why are these moral mistakes so clear to us if the Bible is a moral absolute?
Also, if any moral clarity came forth from the Bible there would be very little moral argument amongst Bible believers yet this is not the case. Christians themselves cannot agree on any matters from the death penalty to stem cell research to gay marriage. The Vatican recently announced an “update” to the seven deadly sins making it now come in at fourteen. Again, why the need for change or alteration if the Bible (or God) is where morality comes from?
If Christianity had some direct line or angle on morality this would be evident in the lives and behaviors of Christian people but it just isn’t. If you want to blame free will for the Christian’s inability to act properly, then (by default) free will removes all hope of ever being moral. If free will is the special pleading answer to Christian failures, then there is no way for anyone to ever act morally as free will destroys all hope of following God’s morality. Please understand that I point my criticism at Christianity here because a real-world claim is being made.
I take issue with the claim that the God of the Bible is (in fact) good. I don’t think any believer would argue against this notion yet God clearly takes part in and orders horrific suffering and even mass death. So, by the theist’s own definition, these things must be “good” because God did them. The drowning of the world’s population minus one family is “good” because God did this in the flood. I certainly don’t believe these things to be “good” so where on earth do I get my morals? Why are my morals different from the God of the Bible’s?
For me, the reason why my morals differ from the God of the Bible is clear… the Bible is a deeply flawed product of a savage time. My (imperfect) morals are a product of this (also flawed and imperfect) time. However, unlike our Bible writing friends, I have the luxury of great thinkers before me having raised my consciousness to the plights of those less fortunate. I also argue that I have the intellectual ability to see this because acting morally is something that benefits a species and therefore it is selected for. I need no sword flinging monster to tell me what’s correct as I may make mistakes and stumble but I certainly know enough not to destroy a city and rape its women.
Battered wife syndrome and the God of the Bible
I’m sure that you’re aware of the very real psychological phenomenon known as “battered wife syndrome.” In this situation a deeply traumatized person will explain away the horrific actions of their abusive partner to themselves and others by believing that this behavior is (in the end) their own fault. This incorrect thinking has unfortunately lead to the deaths of many women and the traumatizing of children in these highly dysfunctional settings. I challenge you to explain to me how “God’s wrath” is any different. Here we have the very same threat of violence being held over the head of a less powerful being. All efforts are made to conform to the wishes that the more powerful entity demands; yet the less powerful creature lives in constant fear of torment and personal violence. Lead a life that the supernatural being demands and you might be okay… accidentally look at the wrong supernatural being or step out of an undefined line and you’re punished eternally with physical violence and agony. This threat is deeply dysfunctional and completely immoral. Especially when you factor in all of the religions and beliefs that compete for followers. In the Christian theology the deeply faithful Muslim is forever tortured in a fiery hell because he had the simple misfortune of being born in a Muslim area of the world.
Understanding Disbelief
A non-believer is just that… one who (for whatever reason) does not believe the supernatural stories presented in the Bible. I have my own reasons, which I think I’ve articulated fairly well, but just like the more than 3300 sects of Christianity, non-believers are not all he same. Non-belief does not make one immoral or lacking in judgment. If it did we would see evidence of this in statistical analysis of those who mistreat others, break the law or are incarcerated. However we do not see this. Perhaps you feel that lacking belief does make a person act in improper or harmful ways, but I ask you if these are “feelings” or something based in fact. If it’s based in fact there has to be facts to illustrate this. The notion that non-belief causes immoral behavior is based in nothingness. There are no facts that demonstrate this or studies that justify this. If this notion were true, there would be something somewhere pointing to its truth.
How can someone without belief get up every morning?
Having no reset button makes one very conscious of the dangers, wonders and beauty in life. Not having a second chance makes one very aware of morality and honesty. I feel that we go around once and therefore I want to leave this planet better for having been here my one and only time. I believe I can do this by being the best husband and father that I can be and therefore my children will have the skills necessary to raise their children properly as well. I do not posit that a god will take care of or forgive my mistakes as I believe that they are mine to fix and that I am responsible for them. This concept is a powerful motivator to get up each day and do the right thing. I do not grant myself either a free pass or a fiery eternal torture because I believe this or that supernatural story. Understanding this serves as a great motivator to act honestly and morally.
Seeing the complexity and wonder in the natural world is deeply inspiring to me. I read an article the other day about a new gene modification procedure that is curing a rare form of infant blindness. This story caused me to consider the mind of the non-believer next to the mind of the believer. In this story we have people being cured of blindness (for real) and it’s happening without invoking miracles or the supernatural… it’s happening because we are unlocking the secrets of the natural world through empirical knowledge. This isn’t happening at the Vatican, Mecca or a snake-handling church down south… it’s happening in hospitals and labs where humans are applying reason and logic to relieve suffering.
Curing blindness is noble, moral and pretty gosh-darn “good.” Teaching children that an invisible great sky fairy is watching them and they’d better get it right… or else, is the exact opposite.
Whether you realize it or not, you are a non-believer regarding 99.9% of gods out there. How do you get up in the morning without the wonder and glory of Zeus? You do not accept the thousands of gods or the many polytheistic belief systems. You don’t “believe” any of them and neither do I. I argue that the God of the Bible is just as likely as any of these other gods as I’ve seen the same amount of evidence exhibited by all of them. I argue that there is no more evidence that the biblical God exists than these other gods that you dismiss without a thought.
A simple truth that can’t be denied
If you somehow discovered tomorrow that there was no God, I highly doubt you would take to the streets looking to rob and pillage. You would continue to love your family and brush your teeth. You would not sit on the couch and drink beer until the bank kicked you out. You would continue to honor your debts and lead a productive and respectable life… I guarantee it. Belief does not make a person moral and disbelief does not make someone immoral.
I sometimes find the Christian view of morality and behavior pretty dark. The idea that we are all sin machines with absolutely no ability to tell good from bad is downright bizarre to me as the evidence plainly shows otherwise. And if this ability to distinguish good from bad comes directly from God, how do we explain the overwhelming good we see exhibited in non-believers. Again we come back to claims and claims require proof to be valid. To claim that good comes from God we have to get past the horrors He commits in the Bible… unless you want to call those events “good.”
Also, the idea that there is no good in us without God is a very, very dark concept. It says that we are (by default) completely evil and have no redeeming qualities without Him. I don’t know about you, but I find this belief to be both negative and dark. And if we do get our “goodness” from God, why do we all have differing amounts of it? Some have very little and some have too much of it and end up actually hurting themselves by giving too much of themselves to others.
Let me tackle the “there is no good without God” myth
The believer has a real problem here because in order to include the God of the Bible, the word “good” needs to be completely gutted and redefined. I say this because I’m certain that you do not consider ordering the murder of women and children to be “good.” However, I will set this aside for the moment and simply point out how insane this myth is.
This baseless myth is debunked whenever a non-believer acts in ways that you would consider “good.” The claim (there is no good without God) is such a simple claim, so disproving it is just as simple. How can this claim be true when it’s obviously proven false each time a non-believer does good? The non-believer did good and he did it without God. If you somehow feel that God jumped in and intervened in order to make the non-believer do something good, then a belief in God (in order to do “good”) is proven completely unnecessary. A claim needs facts to be true and this claim is just an emotional argument and so obviously false.
Do non-believers lack a sense of good or evil?
Often, believers will claim that non-believers have no moral compass and therefore cannot distinguish good from evil. Hopefully by now you see that the God of the Bible does a better job of muddying the water here than I ever could regarding both good and evil, but I’ll explain how this claim is totally incorrect.
Non-believers are not one single voice and therefore do not all think in one way. However this claim begins with an unproven (that there is a God in which good and evil are defined) and then projects this unproven supernatural claim onto the actions and thoughts of others. I cannot speak for others but I do see both good and evil in the world and I don’t think that my ability to do so is in any way divine. I believe that my ability to see good and evil is simply based on experience and logic. These experiences and logical inferences are a combination of my ability to learn from my mistakes and to stand on the shoulders of great thinkers before me. This explanation is far simpler then searching for a supernatural explanation. The desire to not harm others is something that is rewarded by life and health.
The devil believes in God. Has this belief helped him?
Non-belief and punishment
Most religions claim a form of punishment for non-belief. The Christian faith is clear regarding its belief in an eternal punishment in this regard. Have you ever truly looked at what is stated here? Let’s take my situation as an example:
I’ve heard the word and read the text of the Christian faith and I have serious reservations regarding its teachings and morality. My reservations are based in (what I believe to be) logic and reason. I can clearly articulate them and my examples of inconsistencies are based in Christianity’s own claims and dogma. Yet the price I pay for reasonably questioning this faith is eternal torture? Surly far more intelligent people than I have found even more inconsistencies and they will also pay eternally for simply noticing these things and allowing these observations to guide them.
So the Christian and the non-believer both look at the evidence equally and come to two different conclusions. One is treated to an eternity of bliss because of his conclusion, while the other an eternity of torture. All for looking at the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion. Personally, I find the theological “evidence” for Christianity completely underwhelming and for this application of my brain and reason, I’m forever banished to a fiery hell. Have you ever considered this?
I See a Double Standard in Religious Faith
We ask tough questions of everyone who makes claims in our lives. We ask for evidence from the doctor, the electrician and the banker. Virtually no business is done in my office without documents showing the facts being shared openly with all parties concerned… whether they request them or not. Presenting evidence is how we move forward and dispose of incorrect claims.
The bank cannot appeal to special pleading if they show that your account is $1,500 less than your calculations. The bank must produce the evidence that explains the correct balance. The electrician is allowed no wiggle room if his wiring burns a house down as he is held to a high standard of knowledge and reality. An airline pilot is not allowed to blame a supernatural cause if the plane he’s flying crashes. This is the fabric that holds us together.
However the priest and the pastor are asked to meet no such standard even though their claims are the most fantastic of all. Claiming the supernatural and the presence of an afterlife are perhaps the biggest claims ever made. Worse yet, these individuals go so far as to claim that they understand and can explain the supernatural as well. Why would anyone accept this without testable evidence? If I sound like a broken record on the claim and evidence issue, it’s because in no other endeavor do we accept claims without evidence.
My application of methods
If you were struggling to balance your checkbook or find your car keys, would you consider a supernatural explanation or solution? Or, perhaps, would you approach that problem without considering the supernatural?
As in all things we try to understand, we employ a method. Some of us have simplistic (almost child-like) methods when trying to deduce whether something is true or false. Over the years, I have come to apply certain logic to questions in trying to determine whether they are reality or fantasy. Magical thinking and sloppy logic is all around us and I believe that it’s extremely important to remove this from our deductive methods and keep our claims to what we can prove.
The best cultural example of sloppy logic I can think of are those hokey TV commercials that claim radical health reversals by taking supplements or attaching “toxin removing pads” to our feet. To many people these claims seem completely within the realm of possibility because, unfortunately, many people lack critical thinking skills in these areas. They may be very successful in business, fantastic parents or both, but they fail to apply the very same filters that they use in their everyday lives to these claims of medicine or science. Many times these TV ads will employ the window dressing of science by employing stereotypes such as people in lab coats to dispense hogwash, but make no mistake, the human brain is fallible and if these snake oil salesmen apply a few well-worn tricks they can take advantage of our lack of critical thinking and fool us.
Being a rationalist means beginning from a logical position and coming to conclusions only when the evidence supports these conclusions. So if I’m going to determine whether a claim is true, I must start from the position that it may not be true and then assemble the facts to see if I can be swayed. We do this all the time. If a doctor prescribes a medicine, we want to know about its effectiveness and this answer can only be arrived at by testing that medicine by using a method of skeptical analysis. The laboratory that tests the medicine cannot assume that it’s effective before testing. They must employ rational methods of controls and analysis to arrive at a conclusion. They must consider the possibility that the medicine may not be effective. They must ask the question.
This is why I cannot automatically accept the Bible as literal truth of anything. Unlike the medicine example above, the Bible is most often presented as true to a new person (or child) without the slightest critical analysis of its contents. The new church member is told about the power of the Bible, the evil nature of the devil and ourselves and perhaps the life of Jesus, but nowhere is there any critical analysis of the text. This is all presented through the lens of the supernatural. So the basic method employed here is sloppy logic and fear. We are told to fear offending God, to fear the devil and to follow Christ or else. This then becomes more emotion-based than anything else.
This “believe first” method is deeply flawed in my view, and when I apply the simplest of rationally to the Bible I come up empty.
Hopefully I’ve answered some questions you might have had regarding what I believe. I also hope I’ve dispelled with a few incorrect notions regarding non-belief. If I succeed in nothing more, I really hope you’ve come to understand that non-belief is where we start all logical quests. Non-belief does not equal morally flawed behavior and it certainly doesn’t equal some sort of deprived lunatic running around holding up pharmacies.
I hope you see that my writing is not at all meant to attack you or your faith personally. I totally understand that the church that you belong to is a loving environment and has been a great source of comfort for all in your family. It’s just my view that it’s the people of the church who have made all of that happen.
Thanks for taking the time to read this!
Last edited: