Pope Francis and the Illusion of Progress: Replacing Pope Benedict XVI

Pope BenedictWhen Emperor Palpatine (a.k.a. Darth Sidious, Joseph Ratzinger, etc.) was elected as Pope Benedict XVI, it seemed that a fitting figurehead was put forward for the scandalous Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI had served as prefect in the branch-formerly-known-as-the-Inquisition before bringing a tide of ultra-conservativism to the papacy in 2005, especially in contrast to John Paul II, his moderately chill predecessor. Ecclesiastically, Benedict XVI’s rule has been seen as a restoration of traditional Catholic values. Politically, it was thought of as a drift into the far right. But popularly, this pope is associated with one of the biggest scandals beleaguering the Church in recent history.

Joseph Ratzinger’s elevation to a higher seat of power as Pope Benedict XVI followed the barely year-old John Jay report, a document detailing the history of alleged child rape conducted by Catholic priests. Criticized for his subsequent lack of prosecutorial response, it may come as no surprise that Pope Benedict XVI himself played a part in covering up these allegations. In an article wherein Christopher Hitchens scathingly puts forward that “the pope’s entire career has the stench of evil about it,” he recounts one such cover-up:

In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing “abuse”?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for “therapy” by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger’s deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to “pastoral” work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.

As Pope, Benedict XVI would become the leader of an institution that made possible the torture, molestation, and rape of countless children as well as the following attempts to veil these atrocities.

The strategy, since exposed, was to bounce these pedophilic priests from parish to parish, placing them in new places and replacing them with new faces. In light of this exposure, the consequent public awareness and upheaval, came Benedict XVI’s announcement that he was “deeply ashamed” and that the Church would “do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future.” If true, we could have supposed that this pledge came better late than never. Equipped with 7 years of exposition, we know the Holy See did not honor this pledge and that the church continues to protect and conceal sexual predators using the same strategy. Cardinal Francis George, assessing this Catholic cataclysm, said: “The sins of priests and bishops destroy the church…That is what we’re seeing.” As it turns out, George was one among many protected by Benedict XVI throughout the scandal and had himself protected his share of rapists.

Pope Benedict XVI’s legacy of disgrace was punctuated by his resignation from the papacy in response to the Vatileaks exposition of a homosexual network of prelates in the Vatican. His reign witnessed seven diocese file for bankruptcy and the expenditure of nearly $1 billion dollars by the Catholic Church on settlements and legal fees over the sexual abuse cases. It should be noted that this was not money strictly set aside for legal fees. In at least one instance, Cardinal Roger Mahoney siphoned $115 million from a cemetery maintenance fund to pay off victims. At this point in our discourse, revealing that Mahoney also took part in priest reshuffling and redealing should come as no surprise.

The Church’s propensity to respond to systemic problems with a new coat of paint is neither new nor absent in its selection of popes. With even a superficial investigation into Benedict XVI’s misdeeds, it is clear why he is not seen in a positive light and that his replacement is seen as a new face, a new pope, and, by the lights of many, a new hope. Considering the Church’s poor PR, it does not seem so far-fetched to imagine that this seat-shuffling was an attempt by the Church to repair its image: Benedict XVI is elected as a fall guy. He plays the authoritarian and takes the brunt of criticism, presenting himself as the face of the old, nasty church. Then, he can is strategically replaced by Francis the Reformer, who arises as a Pope of the People.

Regardless of whether these considerations of conspiracy are true, the effect remains the same: The Church’s unfriendly, conservative, conniving face is replaced by a friendlier, less-conservative one, thereby creating the illusion of progress.

And so it is that Pope Francis is with us now and in his smiley-face, ingratiating way presenting the same dogma that the church has always held: the same sexism, hatred, bigotry, corruption, ignorance, and immorality held since its inception. Nothing substantial has changed, nothing substantial will, or even can, change; the church has declared as much. Nothing has changed, except that the man who now sits at the helm endearingly, humbly, heroically takes the bus to work.

Pope Francis

The Antitheist Herald

Christopher HitchensEvery year since his death, I do something to celebrate and commemorate the life of Christopher Hitchens, one of the writers and polemicists who most influenced me in my skeptical inquiry of religion, Christianity and Islam in particular.

On December 15th, 2011 Christopher Hitchens died, and every year since I’ve done something to further one of his causes that I most identify with: To expose and criticize religious attitudes and ideologies that are not conducive to the well-being of humanity as well as the actions perpetrated by the religious adherents and officials under the influence or authority granted them by their religious institutions.

By far, my most outstanding effort in furthering this cause has been my Facebook page, “Antitheist Herald.” Every day this page posts evidence of Christopher Hitchens’ claim that “religion poisons everything.” It’s in his memory that this page was started and it’s my ongoing respect for his work that inspires me to keep the page running. Yesterday, August 8th, 2014, marked the start of the 3rd year that Antitheist Herald has been maintained and I see no evidence of the page slowing down.

As a Christian, I grappled with various problems apologists grappled with for millennia and have invariably come up short on a reasonable, coherent, and satisfying explanation for many of the logical inconsistencies and lapses in reason that seem to be inherent in religious thought; though, the problem that has given me the most grief is theodicy, the problem of evil; a new example of which is highlighted at least once each day on my page.

In one of many of Christopher Hitchens’ assessment of religion he said,

Religion is the outcome of unresolved contradictions in the material world. If you make the assumption that it’s man-made then very few things are mysterious to you: It would be obvious to you why there are so many religions; You will understand why it is that religion has been such a disappointment to our species – that despite innumerable revivals, innumerable attempts again to preach the truth, innumerable attempts to convert the heathen, innumerable attempts to send missionaries all around the world – that the same problems remain with us. That nothing is resolved by this. If all religions died out, or were admitted to be false, all of our problems would be exactly what they are now: How do we live with one another? Where, indeed, do morals and ethics come from? What are our duties to one another? How shall we build the just city? How shall we practice love? All these questions would remain exactly the same. Emancipate yourself from the idea of a celestial dictatorship and you’ve taken the first step to becoming free.

This is a point easily grasped by materialists, atheists, and skeptics alike — but one that is lost on many of our believing friends. One of my other intellectual heroes, Richard Dawkins described the materialistic world thus,

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

I believe Karl Marx was correct in writing that, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” We use religion as a drug to cope with our existential angst, but this opiate addiction is a serious problem and the side effects are grisly. Yes, an opiate has its uses, but only insofar as it aids recovery — I do not believe the analogy fails here.

God With Us

“The Creation of Adam” by Michelangelo (left), the motto Gott mit uns, or “God with us” on a Nazi uniform Koppelschlösser.

Religious beliefs have inspired some of the greatest works of philanthropy and art and has alleviated the mental anguish of many of its adherents, but it has also been the cause and justification of many, if not most, of mankind’s evils towards his brothers and sisters; it vindicates the bloodthirsty, validates the bigoted, offers sanction and sanctuary to zealotry, enforces compulsory doctrine of the irrational, opposes intellectual honesty and humility, proliferates unfalsifiable, pseudo- and un-scientific claims, ideologies, and explanations, promotes unrealistic and unhealthy expectations of people, grants confirmation for believing the preposterous, and through all of this it manages to pervade every aspect of the human condition; from our diet and dress to how we raise our children and care for our partners to how we tend to our planet and understand our place on it — nothing remains untouched, I am tempted to say “uncorrupted,” by the influence of religion.

“Antitheism” is the active opposition to theism. This position goes beyond the understanding that theism is false to saying that it is also harmful — which is what my page attempts to demonstrate.

The Antitheist Herald is not a hate group and I make no financial profit from running it. It is a network of individuals who feel a moral obligation to share the everyday evidence of the dangers posed by religion and its negative effects on humanity and its institutions. I invite you to like it, contribute to it, and share it.

The Lord Thy God I: Jealous and Proud of It

"God Judging Adam" by William Blake

“God being a dick” by William Blake

As previously mentioned in my response to J. Lee Grady’s “7 Things That Prove God Is Real,” if we were to refer only to the Old Testament and not the New, I don’t think many people would think God was very good even if he did exist. The way I see it: The Bible is not very good proof of any god’s existence, much less a very good god. Just read the Old Testament, flip around a bit, and feel free to tell me what you think.

I say that as if reading the Bible isn’t incredibly cumbersome — really, unless you were raised on it or you have a shitty new translation, you’re probably not going to dig it, so, in this series I am going to attempt to highlight at least some of the passages that left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. (Full disclosure, I was raised listening to and reading the Bible throughout most of my formative years, so I’m going to jump around a bit rather than going from start to finish so we can keep to a central theme.)

Recently, I was reading the book of Amos and I began to draw parallels between the characteristics of his god and those of an obsessive, possessive, jealous, and, overall, abusive spouse. In the particular passage I was reading, the Lord is reprimanding the Israelites for the callous and uncharitable way they treat the poor, for their idleness, and for their arrogance — for such unseemly actions by the chosen people I could agree that they were in need of a stern talking to.

But this stern talking to revealed a few actions that the Lord was guilty of Himself — though I’m sure He wouldn’t see it as guilt on His part. But I’ll let Him speak for Himself:

I gave you empty stomachs in every city and lack of bread in every town, yet you have not returned to me. I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain another had none and dried up. People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me. Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, destroying them with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees, yet you have not returned to me. I sent plagues among you as I did to Egypt. I killed your young men with the sword, along with your captured horses. I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps, yet you have not returned to me. I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. You were like a burning stick snatched from the fire yet you have not returned to me. Therefore this is what I will do to you, Israel, and because I will do this to you, Israel prepare to meet your God. (Amos 4:6-12, NIVThe New International Version, or NIV, is one of the shitty new translations I was talking about earlier, but for our purposes, it’s good enough)

tl;dr? This can be summed up by saying, “I have hurt you in the past when you didn’t return to me and if you continue to turn from me, I’ll hurt you again.”

Remember this is God speaking; the same God whose mercy endures forever. In case you’re confused, I should point out that this isn’t merely the god of the Jews, this is the god of the Christians (of all flavors; Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, etc.) and the Muslims (though they’re working from different source material that I would argue isn’t much better).

Imagine for a moment the contemptible position taken up by apologists who argue that man’s free will comes into play here. They might argue that it was the Israelites’ choice and they were being punished for this choice. Any debate on free will aside, this seems to be the same logic held by that of a foreman towards his slave on a plantation in the old south of the United States; “Sure, you’re free to run, but when I catch you I’m going to break your legs if I don’t kill you first.” You’re free to do as you wish, as long as it’s what the Lord wishes, because if it’s not then you’d better “prepare to meet your God.” Is the will free when being prompted by the threat of a lash, wrath, or hellfire?

The evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, commented in his book, “The God Delusion,” that,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

This shotgun blast of criticism requires some unpacking. Many people I know simply do not understand how accurate this description is. It’s not merely a criticism, it’s a description that only someone incredibly ignorant of the scripture (or very foolish) would deny. In this series, The Lord Thy God, I will attempt to back up similar criticisms and descriptions of the god of the Bible and in this article I’ll be focusing on how God is jealous and proud of it.

Provided below are examples that I feel fit the description by professor Dawkins on the matter — I’ve provided the citation of the passages so you can read them in context. If you reach the conclusion that the Lord was justified in these actions I suggest you check out this website.

The Ten Commandments

Do you know the ten commandments? Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal… those seem to be the important ones, but do you remember the rest? How about the first few? (Spoiler: Those aforementioned are not the first few)

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(Exodus 20: 2-7, KJV)

That’s 3 out of 10 commandments that regular jack-offs site as being the foundation of morality and law and they have nothing to do with morality. They’re entirely all about God flexing His muscles and reminding us that He’s the boss. (At least he gives us a day-off on the weekends as his 4th commandment – even if it’s primarily, again, a bit theocentric.)

Because having a set of mostly arbitrary rules in front of a courthouse is totally constitutional.

Because having a set of arbitrary religious injunctions in front of a secular courthouse is totally constitutional.

The rest of the commandments aren’t so bad, honoring mommy and daddy, not envying your neighbor’s ass (or his wife’s ass); but what about the kids? There’s no commandment not to rape, molest, or abuse children, no commandment to help the sick, poor, or hungry, nothing telling us not to enslave others, etc.

Anton LeVay, founder of the Church of Satan, saw a problem with the 10 Commandments and issued the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth and included, “9. Do not harm little children.” Sure, the book was written in the 1960’s and it had the original 10 to respond to, but these give us a bit more to work off of than YHWH’s did (who is supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, etc.).

I’m convinced that God is less concerned with the well-being of his people and more concerned with his reputation — even when he’s giving his followers a code to live by.

Serious Jealousy Issues

I’m not just inserting my, or Dawkins’ view, into the text here. The Bible says ad nauseam how jealous God is. Read it for yourself!

For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24, NIV)

In Deuteronomy it’s repeated again and again (e.g. 5:9, 6:15, 32:16, 32:21). And in the book of Joshua, the main protagonist goes so far as to say “You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.”  (Joshua 24:19, NIV)

At one point in Exodus the writer even says:

Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14, NIV)

Granted, the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were supposedly written by Moses and Joshua (whose book follows the first 5) was Moses’ successor, perhaps their view of God was slightly skewed.

Or maybe not. We see Judah stir up God’s jealousy in 1 Kings 14:22 and in Chapter 8 of Ezekiel the prophet attempts to give a justification for the wrath that God has allowed to fall upon the Jews. What was it that moved God to his actions? Guess. God’s jealousy is mentioned again and again throughout Ezekiel.

In the book of Psalms, the psalmist speaks about how there were those who had “angered him with their high places” and “aroused his jealousy with their idols” (Psalm 78:58, NIV). The psalmist is moved in his next psalm to ask, “How long, Lord? Will you be angry forever? How long will your jealousy burn like fire?”

Perhaps in answer to that question the minor prophets remind us,

The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies… Who can withstand his indignation? Who can endure his fierce anger? His wrath is poured out like fire; the rocks are shattered before him. (Nahum 1:2, 6, NIV)

Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the Lord’s wrath. In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth. (Zephaniah 1:18, NIV)

OC because I'm awesome and proud of it.

(Exodus 34:14)

God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and all sorts of other long o-words — but jealous? That’s not an o-word and it’s an incredibly petty emotion; it’s so human. Maybe, just maybe, we make gods in our image and not the other way around.

If God is so great, I am left wondering: y so jelly tho?

A Response to J. Lee Grady’s “7 Things That Prove God Is Real”

I am a skeptic about many things, especially my own beliefs and understandings. My friends tend to get a little annoyed with my seemingly-contrarian or argumentative demeanor, but I don’t argue just to argue (okay, that might not be true). Perhaps I’m merely misguided, but I generally want to believe as few falsities and as little bullshit as possible—and, being the caring person I am, I seek to dispel illusions, undo delusions, criticize unjustified beliefs, and reveal as many falsities as I can (as I hear that consuming bullshit is just as bad for one’s physical health as it is for one’s intellectual growth).

As a general rule, I try to entertain the ideas and opinions expressed by people who assert things I don’t necessarily hold as a way of challenging my own beliefs, disbeliefs, or lack-thereofs — and that’s how I stepped into this steamy pile of 7 Things That Prove God Is Real.

I was genuinely excited when I saw the title because I simply love to hear new arguments for theism; maybe they’ll stump me, or even better, convince me! The first few paragraphs were a litany of ad hominem attacks on some atheist woman who heads an atheist organization followed by a plug for a new movie and, frankly, I was disappointed—but then I got to the meat.. the baby meat:

First Proof that God is Real: Babies

The first proof author J. Lee Grady gives his reader is babies. He asks the zinger question, “How can anyone deny the reality of God when they see a baby?”

Here’s a picture my friend sent me of a baby puking in a woman’s mouth. Clearly engineered by a god. Loki?

A baby is a wonderful little creature (when it isn’t pooping, crying, drooling, vomiting, costing you tons of money, and diminishing your overall happiness) and I can definitely see how one might be in awe of how this tiny, little person just exists and looks so much like his or her parents (even Violent Jay doesn’t get it). Of course, we know the reason for this resemblance. The well-understood mechanisms of heredity are astounding, it’s what lies at the heart of any accurate understanding of biology.

But biology isn’t quite the same as theology, is it? The whole project of science presupposes a naturalistic understanding of the world rather than a whimsical, theistic one. Grady remarks on the amazing fact of how, “The amount of information encrypted in one cell in the human body is equal to that of 1,000 books” and “The total amount of information stored in your DNA is 40 times more than that of the largest set of encyclopedias in the world” (we’ll assume he’s not talking about Wikipedia) but we can understand this in purely naturalistic terms. The author tells us a couple trivial (albeit cool) facts about cells, but they are facts that are well explained by a science devoid of any intelligent designer and understood by anyone who paid attention in their high school biology class.

Second Proof that God is Real: Thunderstorms

Still probably the best city-building game.

Still probably the best city-building game.

“I love to sit on my back porch in Florida and listen to the rumbling of thunder. It reminds me of God’s majesty and power.” You might feel like you’ve caught on here; he must talking about Zeus! Don’t get your hopes up – Grady immediately follows it up with a quote from the Bible that he feels offers the “best evidence of God’s existence” from the delightful book of Romans by the apostle Paul.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen. (Romans 1:20)

If you’re anything like me, you might immediately be perplexed and annoyed by “invisible attributes” being “clearly seen” as some form of evidence, but this is coming from the same guy who says that we need faith to understand the world, faith being defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 KJV). I suppose if Paul can believe something merely by hoping it’s true there’s just no reasoning with him, but we’re talking about thunderstorms that, strangely enough, can be seen — sort of. Thunder is the sound lightning makes — so you see the lightning and not the thunder, but you definitely hear the thunder and you can clearly see where it’s coming from. I don’t think we need to take this one on faith.

Badass.

That aside, we TOTALLY understand how they work. There’s no Zeus hurling bolts of lightning or Animikii flapping their mighty wings, thunder has a profoundly simple, very cool, and totally naturalistic explanation:


But wait, suddenly Grady goes off on a complete tangent, “Nature is actually full of quantifiable miracles. Just consider the fact that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun to support life. If we were any farther away from the sun, we would freeze; if we were even slightly closer to it, we would burn up. It’s obvious God created this home for us!” Perhaps I set the bar too high for miracles, but I get the feeling he sets them waaay too low. For Grady, it would seem that “miracles” are simply “improbabilities”—but improbability alone is hardly an indicator of intelligent guidance. It’s highly unlikely that you’ll be struck down by a meteorite or bolt of lightning on your way to work tomorrow; if it did happen it’d hardly be a miracle—that’s the sort of superstitious line of reasoning that leads to all sorts of problems. I won’t get into the science of the Goldilocks zone (the area around a star that is capable of supporting life) and why it’s a really poor reason to believe in any supernatural feat, but if you want a good break down just check out NASA’s simple explanation. On this I will just say that the Goldilocks zone is much bigger than creationists like Grady would have you believe.

Third Proof that God is Real: Flowers

“Their job is to simply make the world beautiful.” I almost wanted to give up ripping this article apart when I read that line, but, no, we must press on! So, to clear up this misunderstanding, describing the flower’s job as “to simply make the world beautiful” is sort of like saying “Dicks exist to make the world beautiful.” SPOILER ALERT: They don’t.

Flower penises. (NSFW)

Flowers are the naughty bits of plants and their whole function revolves around reproduction. Whether it’s by attracting insects or other pollen transporting agents to get their inter-special freak on or to launch their pollen (i.e. plant jizz) into the air to hopefully land on another flower, flowers are all about reproduction, not to look pretty for humans.

Suddenly, this picture of a girl blowing a dandelion just got way dirty.

“Did they just haphazardly evolve over time, or did a loving God create each individual shape and color scheme for our enjoyment?”

They did evolve and there’s nothing haphazard about it. It’s 2014, if you don’t understand evolution yet you’re missing out on the most interesting and necessary facts regarding biology that’s ever been discovered. If you don’t know where to begin, I suggest starting here:


Just remember, that when J. Lee Grady tells us, “This is why it’s really important to stop and smell the roses!” he’s telling you to go sniff plant dicks.

Fourth Proof that God is Real: The Bible

There’s something problematic that Grady doesn’t seem to grasp when he says, “Paul wrote that ‘all Scripture is inspired by God’ (2 Tim. 3:16).” The “Scripture” being referred to in Paul’s letter to Timothy isn’t the The Holy Bible, it’s the Old Testament — the latter 27 books and letters comprising the New Testament (which contains the foundation of Christianity) would have been mostly in the works (considering that this letter to Timothy itself would not have been considered “Scripture” at the time of its own writing). If we were to refer only to the Old Testament and not the New, frankly, I don’t think many people would think this God guy was very good even if he did exist. Seriously, just read the Old Testament, flip around a bit, and tell me what you think of God (or just wait for my upcoming series: The Lord Thy God).

“There is nothing like the Bible because it carries the same consistent message throughout all of its 66 different books.”

Consistent messages such as the penalty for adultery? Leviticus 20:10 tells us to stone both of the adulterers, but in John 8:7 Jesus says not to. How about God’s personality? Compare Jeremiah 13:14 to 1 Chronicles 16:34 and let me know if you’re getting mixed messages. Hell, all the verses from Matthew 5:21-42 are Jesus telling us that Moses said one thing but that we should do another — even Jesus doesn’t do what Moses told us to do. I find it very difficult to find a consistent message running throughout the whole of the Bible except for on one topic: Slavery.

When Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, in his speech on the subject of slavery in the territories said, “It is enough for me elsewhere to know, that [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God, that it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations” he knew what he was talking about. Whether we refer to the Old Testament (Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46) or the New Testament (Luke 12:47-48, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2), slavery is condoned or treated as something entirely normal throughout– never once condemned.

Don’t get me wrong, the Holy Bible is an excellent collection of books (my favorites are Ecclesiastes and Job). Many of the books contain very compelling stories, fantastic moral messages, and beautiful poetry – but the idea of taking it wholly, literally, or seriously is kind of a problem if you have a modicum of sense. Grady grants us permission to “laugh at this idea.”

Fifth Proof that God is Real: The Global Spread of Christianity

Grady is quick to point out that, “Over the centuries, the gospel message has been vilified and ridiculed” but what he fails to mention is that it was also institutionalized in many of the areas where Christianity was the predominate belief. In Christian Rome under the rule of Constantine I (reigned 306–337 CE), the emperor first prohibited the construction of new temples and later went on to order the pillaging and tearing down of Roman temples — his persecution of non-Christian mores was so severe he even killed his own wife and son for their violation of them. Christian persecution of pagans in the Roman empire lasted until its fall in 476 CE. The Crusades launched by Pope Urban I in 1095 CE to secure Christianity and influence in the Holy Land started a succession of wars that wouldn’t end until 1291 ensuring that Christianity wouldn’t be wiped from anyone’s memory anytime soon after. The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (aka Spanish Inquisition) was established in 1478 and wasn’t disbanded until 1834—during which time Muslims and Jews were given the option to convert to Christianity or leave.

With the way he's being stretched, you'd think paganism would have spread further.

With the way he’s being stretched, you’d think paganism would have spread further. (Okay, that was bad.)

The Portuguese Inquisition established in 1536 CE wasn’t even formally disbanded until 1821 and the Roman Inquisition lasted from 1588 to 1858. Today, children are often brought up in religious vacuums where the only source of spirituality they are exposed to is Christianity and anything else is literally demonized. With trends like this, it’s no wonder Christianity is still around.

“Our faith is spreading because it is the truth—and history shows that when this truth is mocked and scorned, it actually spreads faster!”

You know what also spreads faster the more people interact with it? Herpes. The spread of an idea, just like a virus, has nothing whatsoever to do with its truth or goodness.

Sixth Proof that God is Real: Jesus

I want to say that I expected better, but that would be lying and apparently hoping for better didn’t make it so. When Grady brings up Jesus as his sixth proof that God is real we’re supposed to take this on faith; presumably, faith in the Biblical account of Jesus Christ—as other accounts of his allegedly remarkable existence are surprising rare or devoid of any mention of his divinity. But this is easily circular:

1. I believe the Bible because it contains the truth of Jesus Christ.
2. I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ because it says so in the Bible.

I don’t believe Jesus didn’t exist, I found Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? a very compelling and convincing refutation of the mythicists, but saying anything to the effect of, “He was real, ergo God is real” seems like a long shot for me. Many have claimed to be gods and the sons of gods throughout history and in many of these instances, the primary reason their cults didn’t persist was because another took its place—but if the existence of Jesus proves the existence of YHWH, the existence of any historically present figure who made claims just outlandish as those in the Bible seems to be equally permissible proof for any other god. In Christianity alone we’ve seen divergent sects making different claims about Jesus’ divinity, message, and overall nature and, if we refer back to my discussion of reason five, we can see why many of them disappeared within Christianity. Even the allegedly returned-Christ José Luis de Jesús (who died only at the end of last year) has followers who would no doubt attest to claims similar to those made by Grady in his bit on Jesus Christ. Imagine one of José’s disciples saying this

6. José. The most amazing thing about God is not that He exists, but that He loved us so much He was willing to send His Son to earth twice to save us from ourselves. Jesus/José was with the Father from the time of creation, His arrival was predicted numerous times in Old Testament prophecy, and he spoke of his return in the New Testament. He interrupted history and came to live among us, not once, but twice! His crucifixion is historical fact, His resurrection was verified by hundreds of witnesses, and his return to earth once again can be seen by traveling to his church in Miami, Florida. José was not an illusive fairy tale. He was the living, breathing, touchable Son of God.

If what Grady has said is supposed to be proof for God’s existence, I’m just not seeing it. “Jesus is not an illusive fairy tale. He is the living, breathing, touchable Son of God.” Touchable he says? Show him to me and let me stick my fingers in his holes (no homo). Why believe in Jesus and not José? Why not David Koresh, Alan John Miller, or David Icke? Why not Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Kanishka? I’ll tell you why—it’s because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What Grady has given us is no evidence whatsoever.

Seventh Proof that God is Real: My personal friendship with God

“Atheists may not be convinced that God exists after listening to a storm, smelling a hibiscus or reading the Bible. When I am asked to defend my faith, I don’t start an intellectual argument.”

Clearly.

The Use and Abuse of Pascal’s Wager

Since writing my first article on Pascal’s Wager I haven’t come across any significant criticisms, but the fallacies abound. This isn’t as much a revision of my first article as much as it is a second editionexpanding and elaborating on some key points, proofreading, and sharing newer criticisms of the Wager.

It isn’t often that I hear an appeal to Pascal’s Wager explicitly but I still hear his famous idea echoed when people ask me in regards to belief, “What have you got to lose? Why not believe?” and “Don’t you see how beneficial belief in a God would be?” Pascal’s Wager, while a fine contribution to the archives of philosophical thought-experiments, is a poor reason for believing in a god, much less the Christian God.

In this article, I will explain some of the flaws in this wagerespecially those arguments that would propose that this wager is somehow evidence for God.

Introduction to Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager was first formulated in Blaise Pascal’s book, Pensées, primarily taken from part III, §233. Though he never explicitly formulates his wager in the way it is commonly described, here is what the text says, very much shortened, on the matter:

“God is, or He is not” but to which side shall we recline?…A Game is being played…where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason…you can defend neither of the propositions…But you must wager. It’s not optional. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing…Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Pascal, not being a hypocrite, tells us at the end of this discourse which decision he has made, imploring us to do the same.

[K]now that it is made by a man who has knelt…in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.

Because the argument is commonly proposed by Christians, and Pascal himself was a Christian, the formulation of the wager tells us that if one is a Christian and correct, he has everything to gain. If one is a Christian and wrong, he loses nothing. Likewise, if one is an Atheist and correct, he gains nothing. If one is an Atheist and wrong, he suffers eternally.

So if we were to chart it out, it would look something like this:

Wager on God’s Existence (Theism) Don’t Wager on God’s Existence (Atheism)
God Exists Eternal Gain (Heaven)
Eternal Loss (Hell)
God Does Not Exist No Gain/No Loss No Gain/No Loss

Clearly, being an atheist or non-believer is a surefire way to lose this gamble for eternal loss and eternal gain.

Surely, one can’t win if he doesn’t play but it is important that we understand what game it is we are playing when we decide on our wager.

Problem I: The Problem of Other Religions

The first problem seems to arise when we assume that our only options are the Christian God or no god. Christian’s have their revelations and their holy books on which they base their faith — as do the adherents of other faiths. Muslims have the Qur’an and the majority of Jews entirely ignore the New Testament, which makes them advocates of claims incompatible with those of the Christians (the rejection of Jesus as the son of God being the biggest deal-breaker). Outside of the Abrahamic faiths we have myriad others which profess an entirely different god (sometimes even more than one) each with their own unique punishment for sinners.

So if we want to make a variation of Pascal’s Wager to factor in these other faiths, we realize that even without factoring in atheism as an option, the odds will be highly stacked against us. Imagining that one can only place his bet on the belief in one of these religions he runs the risk of suffering one of the other punishments.

Luckily, we can narrow down this list of possible rewards and punishments because not all religions require belief. For example, in some strains of Buddhism, one is judged on his merits rather than the beliefs he holds. This being the case, in my variation I have selected a few religions which, when ascribed to fundamentally, can conceivably promise reward or punishment based on belief (though works do play a part in many of them as well!).

Christianity is true Islam is true Judaism is true Sikhism is true Zoroastrianism is true
Wager on Christianity Eternal Gain
(Heaven)
Eternal Loss (Hell) No Gain/No Loss (Sheol) Limited Loss (Naraka) Limited Loss (Suffering until the Day of Judgement)
Wager on Islam Eternal Loss (Hell) Eternal Gain
(Heaven)
No Gain/No Loss (Sheol) Limited Loss (Naraka) Limited Loss (Suffering until the Day of Judgement)
Wager on Judaism Eternal Loss (Hell) Eternal Loss (Hell) Eternal Gain
(Heaven)
Limited Loss (Naraka) Limited Loss (Suffering until the Day of Judgement)
Wager on Sikhism Eternal Loss (Hell) Eternal Loss (Hell) No Gain/No Loss (Sheol) Eternal Gain (Unity with God) Limited Loss (Suffering until the Day of Judgement)
Wager on Zoroastrianism Eternal Loss (Hell) Eternal Loss (Hell) No Gain/No Loss (Sheol) Limited Loss (Naraka) Eternal Gain (Heaven)

If we are to take such a wager, it seems the most practical mode of thought would be to adhere to the faith with the worst punishment — thereby removing it as a possible repercussion for one’s belief. Therefore, we can rule out Sikhism and Zoroastrianism because their punishments are finite (however long — 8.4 million life cycles in Naraka in the case of Sikhism) and Judaism because there is no harsh punishment.

Unfortunately, a further problem arises still when we consider that there are different variations of each faith. Some Jews profess there is a hell while others hold to a more Buddhist-like notion of reincarnation. Some Christians believe that God won’t punish someone for their sins if they repent even after death while others believe that God has already elected those who will enter into heaven rendering one’s belief as arbitrary.

In Christianity alone it seems that the existence of all the different denominations (that make mutually exclusive claims as to what precedes salvation) would already illustrate the high improbability that one places his or her bet on the correct option. This is to say that if one adheres to the tenets prescribed as a Roman Catholic he may have very well lost favor in the sight of the Southern Baptist’s god or Lutheran’s god. If one is a Mormon he will have committed sin in the eyes of the Jehovah’s Witness’s god by his heretical beliefs. If one is a non-denominationalist his beliefs may have damned him from the moment he started reading this article on his computer in the eyes of the Amish Mennonite’s god.

Problem II: The Nature of God

The second problem is much in line with the first in that we cannot know the nature of the god in our wager. Before contemplating how exactly we would worship this God (or Goddess; or God-like entity; or plurality of beings, etc.) through a life of religious fervor, we must be sure of what His (Her, Its, Their, etc.) nature is.

Blaise himself seems to have run into this wall as he scripted his famous wager.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason?

Blaise’s admission of uncertainty is the core premise of his wager, but seems to be poorly represented. The reason we wager, in his view, is because we do not know the nature of God. But is a God who rewards the believer and punishes the wicked the only God we can conceive of? In my view, this conception is very unimaginative and below I will compile a new chart to list possible “natures” which a God could conceivably have. I’m sure others have compiled even more comprehensive lists, but I think mine illustrates the point.

Wager on God’s Existence Don’t Wager on God’s Existence
God exists and rewards believers of all faiths and punishes non-believers Eternal Gain Eternal Loss
God exists and rewards non-believers and punishes believers of all faiths Eternal Loss Eternal Gain
God is infinitely just and rewards people based on merit and not belief Possible Eternal Gain/Possible Eternal Loss Possible Eternal Gain/Possible Eternal Loss
God did not create an afterlife Finite Loss Finite Gain
God is infinitely merciful and understanding Eternal Gain Eternal Gain
God only punishes people who believe in false gods Possible Eternal Gain/Probable Eternal Loss Eternal Gain
God only rewards people who believe in the correct god Possible Eternal Gain/Probable Eternal Loss Eternal Loss
God does not exist Finite Loss Finite Gain

As mentioned in my introduction, being an atheist or non-believer is a surefire way to lose this gamble for eternal loss and eternal gain — but those who are on Blaise’s side of the wager do not factor in that if we believe in a God who doesn’t exist and fashion all aspects of our lives around fallacious tenets and make sacrifices accordingly, we will have wasted the only life we know we have for something only speculative.

It is for this reason of a definite life versus a possible afterlife that I am in disagreement with those who say that if God does not exist then our only option, whether believing or disbelieving, is No Gain/No Loss. We need not be a nihilist to be an atheist.

Problem III: Truth, Utility, and Futility

There appears to be another problem with Pascal’s Wager when it is used as a form of evidence in that it merely discusses the utility of a belief if that belief were to be true. This, however, does not lend any credence to the proposition that the belief is actually true.

Simply seeing something as a safer belief is not an argument for the truth of the belief, it merely shows how the belief is useful. I’m sure that there are many beliefs that would lead us to all to live happier lives, but the question boils down to a matter of values: do we value truth?

Are we philosophers or mere hedonists?

Problem IV: Choosing to Believe

There is a false premise at the core of this wager: we cannot choose what we believe. We are lead to believe by that which we understand to be the truth (i.e. what is evident).

I cannot choose to believe something because it is convenient or makes me happy. I may want to believe I am a millionaire, but without the millions of dollars that would constitute the evidence, I will not be able to convince myself. Of course, it could be the case that I have become delusional and believe I am a millionaire without evidence, but even so — I haven’t selected my delusion. Furthermore, if I knew it to be a delusion I would know it is false and would therefore be unable to believe it.

The philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris addresses this idea directly and humorously:

Reason is a compulsion, not a choice. Just as one cannot intentionally startle oneself, one cannot knowingly believe a proposition on bad evidence. If you doubt this, imagine hearing the following account of a failed New Year’s resolution:

“This year, I vowed to be more rational, but by the end of January, I found that I had fallen back into my old ways, believing things for bad reasons. Currently, I believe that smoking is harmless, that my dead brother will return to life in the near future, and that I am destined to marry Angelina Jolie, just because these beliefs make me feel good and give my life meaning.”

This is not how our minds work. To believe a proposition, we must also believe that we believe it because it is true.

Note that there are people who are faced with scientific evidence and maintain beliefs that oppose it. The evidence supplied by science does not sway them, but this is not because they are choosing not to change their mind, it is because they are not swayed — having a round planet is just hard to fathom and billions of years of variation in life is hard for many people to wrap their minds around. They have been previously convinced of something else due to indoctrination, misplaced trust, incompetence, or ignorance — none of which were their choice. Unless that something else is uprooted and then weighed honestly against the evidence their mind will not be changed.

Being slaves to the evidence is what it means to be reasonable. If we do not have good reasons for believing then we are unreasonable and the discussion cannot proceed. Understanding that a belief may be favorable or unfavorable will not sway a reasonable person into believing it — therefore, Pascal’s Wager — especially when pressed into the function of evidence — is a sham from the start.

Problem V: A God Worthy of Worship

Ultimately, this wager hinges on a deity who takes account of an incredibly arbitrary factor, belief, while ignoring something much more important, merit.

If it is truly by faith alone that we are to receive salvation and not by works, then faith is empty — the epitome of unreason. A god who would deem faith in himself necessary for the works of man to play any role in salvation or damnation is a prideful, arrogant, and jealous god — a god who never got beyond the egocentric phase of toddler-hood. Shame on those who expect us to be delighted at the prospect of singing “hosannas” to such a pitiful being for eternity.

If a deity were to hinge salvation on belief and didn’t provide evidence, then such a deity would be either sadistic or incompetent. Furthermore, if this deity were to care more about belief in himself instead of merit, he would be forgoing justice. The only rectification I can imagine of this extreme injustice would be through some form of mercy in which the deity would allow those who did not believe to withdraw their disbelief when faced with his reality — not doing this would further stack “unmerciful” onto this deity’s résumé.

Prideful, arrogant, jealous, sadistic, incompetent, unjust, and unmerciful; not a single one of these appears to be a trait that a good god would share, therefore the god of this wager is not a god worthy of worship.

Conclusion

Before Blaise formulated his famous wager, the problem of belief and its divine corollary was considered by many philosophers. The philosopher for who has influenced me the most on the matter is the ancient Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius.

Although a polytheist himself, in the second book of his Meditations, Marcus writes millennia earlier,

Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly…[I]f there are gods, [it] is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?

We see then that whether or not a deity exists, one should live a virtuous life. If the deity is just, then it is not a thing to be afraid of. If it is unjust, one should not wish to worship it. If the deity doesn’t care or doesn’t exist, then what does it matter? One would have lived a worthwhile life — with the people who survive him able to benefit as a consequence of his living.

Let us revisit that question of belief: what have we got to lose in structuring our lives around an unsubstantiated belief? We have our only life, which consists of everything we know we havethis is what we are wagering; this is what we have to lose.

The only reasonable choice is to not take part in this silly wager on belief and to wager instead on virtue.

The Elf on the Shelf is Watching You

The Elf on the Shelf is Watching You 1

In Alpine regions, Santa Claus has more than happy little elves to assist him on the holidays, he is accompanied by a demonic and frightening figure. While good Saint Nicholas is rewarding the well-behaved children with gifts, Krampus is tormenting the misbehaved with a good caning.

It seems that in recent years a similar distortion of the holiday spirit (it’s about being good for goodness sake, right?) has taken hold of Christmas in the United Statesthough, it is a terror of a different nature: the Elf on the Shelf.

The Elf on the Shelf is a doll that is described to children as being an agent of Santa, reporting back to the jolly fat-man who’s been naughty or nice (presumably to decide whether you get an iPod, some coal, or a visit from Krampus if you’re an unlucky Austrian child). Notions of Big Brother immediately came to mindand the doll’s song doesn’t quite alleviate such thoughts.

The elf on the shelf is watching you —
what you say and what you do.
The elf on the shelf is watching you —
each and every Christmas!

It seems to me, first and foremost, that we are introducing a superstition to our children that we know isn’t truevaluing truth, I find it slightly offensive. But more worryingly, we’re teaching our children, under threat, to do the right thing.

A dilemma I’ve found myself pondering lately is: If the consequences are the same, is it better that a child does the right thing because they wanted to do the right thing (Goodness for Goodness sake) or is it somehow cheapened if someone does the right thing through coercion (coal, a beating, a bad report to Santa, etc.)?

In other words: Does character matter?

If it does, then what are we doing by introducing a new “Christmas tradition” that celebrates this sort of morality-at-gunpoint?

Adrian Hawkes, of Phoenix Academy is not alone in saying:

If there is no God, there is no Lawgiver, why does it matter what I do? Why is rape wrong? Why is pedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong?…I think that all people, if they think they can get away with something and, it is, there is no consequenceswe actually tend to do that. I think that is the reality…

Many sophisticated and unsophisticated theologians seem to agree with this principal on this principleRavi Zacharias and Ray Comfort come to mind.

But, really? Without the threat of hellfire or bribery of eternal bliss would we really become immoral rapists and pedophiles? Without the Elf on the Shelf do children become immoral troublemakers?

I sometimes worry what a child will do when they find out Santa doesn’t exist primarily due to the feeling of betrayal that comes from being lied to, not because they’ll become evil, little heathensbut what happens if men like these, who base their morality on a threat or commandment, find out God doesn’t exist?

The Elf on the Shelf is Watching You 2

Merry Christmasor else!

Have We Forgotten?

Have We Forgotten 1

When the World Trade Center was attacked eleven years ago on this day, the media was buzzing with visuals from ground zero. The most popular clip I had seen was of the second plane hitting a tower, in which you can hear the newscasters saying, “Oh my God.” On a rarer video tape I had seen years later of the first tower being hit you can hear a man behind the camera crying, “Holy shit.” It is obvious that the problem is best identified as more the latter than the former.

Religious moderates and political liberals have characterized the actions of the terrorists as having to do with socio-economic problems due to oppression, poverty, occupation by foreign powers, etc. The people who actually orchestrated the attacks beg to differ. In the aftermath of September 11th, it was a religious organization that claimed responsibility.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a spokesman for Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda group, gave a statement declaring that this is nothing less than a holy war:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies.

I would like to touch on one important point in this address. The actions by these young men who destroyed the United States and launched the storm of planes against it have done a good deed.

They transferred the battle into the US heartland. Let the United States know that with God’s permission, the battle will continue to be waged on its territory until it leaves our lands, stops its support for the Jews, and lifts the unjust embargo on the Iraqi people who have lost more than one million children.

The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God’s permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nation’s youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live.

When a religion is founded on conquest and military strength, the fruits of its actions will not be those of peace. September the 11th was not the first attack and has not been the last. According to the (obviously biased) website thereligionofpeace.com:

Have We Forgotten 2

Facts, however, are not biasedand I encourage you to do research on these numbers for yourself. In my view, the 2,977 victims of 9/11 are fact enough  to support my point.

A counter-crusade is not necessary and should not be an action that crosses the mind of good people — but reason is. For any civilized people, reason is key to their success. It is unreasonable to ignore this problem. Simply type, “Islamist” into Google News every morning for another glimpse into this problem. The destruction of the World Trade Center was not a punctuation mark in a statement of one religion’s turmoil nor was it just a brutal chapter in international, political history; it was a restatement of one religion’s thesis. My thesis is that you should never forget this.

We should and will move on (most of us already have) because that is what reasonable people dobut we should never forget the day that the epitome of unreason was expressed in our lifetime.