Religion | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'religion' Category

Hitchens on Religion, Dogs and Cats

Published

on April 16, 2008

. 3 Comments

If we stay with animal analogies for a moment, owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will draw the conclusion that they are god. (Cats may sometimes share the cold entrails of a kill with you, but this is just what a god might do if he was in a good mood.) Religion, then, partakes of equal elements of the canine and the feline. It exacts maximum servility and abjection, requiring you to regard yourself as conceived and born in sin and owing a duty to a stern creator. But in return, it places you at the center of the universe and assures you that you are the personal object of a heavenly plan.

– Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist (introduction)

Denial of Evolution and "the word of God"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 16, 2008

in bible, creationism, evolution and religion

. 4 Comments

If you’ve ever debated creationists, you’ve probably heard a version of this argument:

Scientists say evolution is true and the Earth is old, but they’re only human and fallible. Between them and God’s word (the Bible), I’d trust God any day.

But how do they know the Bible is God’s word?

An incredible large number of believers will say something like, “well, it says so right in there! Would God lie?”. Sorry to say this, but that is such a ridiculously stupid argument that I can have no respect for you as an human being afterwards. Do realize how idiotic it is to say that something must be true simply because it says so? Would you believe a murder suspect with a lot of evidence against him to be innocent, as long as he said “I didn’t do it, and I’m telling the truth“? If you believe that, then, well, (inspiring music) know henceforth that this blog is the very word of the High God, the more-supreme-than-supreme being who created all human gods, including yours (after all, nothing can exist without being created, so someone must have created Yahweh and so on, right? The High God did it. Ignore the obvious implication.). Therefore, you must believe everything written here, since these are not just my words, but the words of the High God himself. The High God wants you to send me a billion dollars. You doubt it? Are you calling the High God himself a liar?

A slightly smaller number of believers will reply with something much like “I feel in my heart that this is the word of God. When I read it, it touches my soul in a way that no mortal words ever could.”

Well, what if you’re mistaken?

What, you believe you can’t be? Do you consider yourself infallible? Perfect? Incapable of error about something like this? Are you claiming that, just because you “feel” something, those feelings must be true, with no possibility of your being just mistaken or deluded?

Then what about all the other people out there who feel things completely different than you? How do you know you’re right and they’re wrong? How can you be sure your feelings are 100% trustworthy, but those of other people are not?

Most people would agree that claiming “I can’t possibly be wrong; I am incapable of error” is the epitome of arrogance. Then why is it that nobody is called on it when the subject is the belief that a book (written thousands of years ago) must be the word of a god? Or that the feelings in your heart must be justified (even though that is not valid for other people’s feelings)?

Admit it: there’s no way to be sure that the Bible is divinely inspired, other than one of the two: dumb circular logic you wouldn’t accept for anything else, or the belief that you’re infallible about something.

More on this: The Aura of Infallibility, on Daylight Atheism

Religion and the Moral Zeitgeist

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 11, 2008

in morality, religion and society

. 4 Comments

The first time I was faced with the term “Moral Zeitgeist” was when reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and, according to Wikipedia, the term was indeed coined by him. “Zeitgeist” is a German word that means “the spirit of the times”, and, therefore, the Moral Zeitgeist refers to the evolution of society’ views on morality.

Dawkins himself provides a perfect example of how the Moral Zeitgeist has changed throughout history (which I’ve again stolen from Wikipedia):

Slavery, which was taken for granted in the Bible and throughout most of history, was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a woman’s vote, in an election or on a jury, is the equal of a man’s. In today’s enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, Saudi Arabia), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. Any modern legal system would have prosecuted Abraham for child abuse.

In TGD, Dawkins also provides quotes from people who were, in their time, seen as progressive liberals, such as Thomas Huxley or Abraham Lincoln, but which nowadays make one cringe and gasp in shock because of their racism or sexism. This all shows one thing: our perceptions have changed. What was accepted, even seen as highly moral, many years ago, is now seen as abusive and immoral. This does not happen instantly (though it’s more quick than it may appear, especially in recent years, with mass communication and, now, the Internet), nor to the same degree in all places, of course. And changes are not always for the better (e.g. political correctness, which often prevents people from calling things what they are). But, in general, they are. Things do become better. Societies are far from perfect, but people today have more empathy than they used to have, centuries or even decades ago. Racism and sexism are condemned, have been erased from law books, and those who are still racists or sexists are seen as the bigots they are by educated people. We understand, more than we used to in the past, that life is precious, and that the suffering of other people is as real as ours, even if they look different or have different customs.

Note that I am not saying that morality itself is subjective. Slavery didn’t “become” wrong only in the 19th century, it was always a cruel, brutal suppression of basic human rights. What I’m saying is that the general public’s views on morality have changed, and will continue to change — mostly for the better. One consequence of this is that people might be excused for supporting slavery 500 years ago, but nowadays there’s absolutely no excuse, because they ought to know better.

Of course, the very fact that the Moral Zeitgeist changes and evolves with time proves one thing clearly: that most religious believers don’t get their morality from religion. (Those that do, in the western world, usually have “Phelps” somewhere in their name.) The morality in, say, the Christian Bible is nothing special for its time; not more enlightened, not more advanced or progressive (do believers really think that, before the 10 Commandments, everyone thought that murder was a pretty neat idea?), not “radical” in any way. Jesus himself might sound different, but what he was preaching was mostly an apocalyptic cult whose believers expected the end of the world in their lifetimes; it was Paul that turned Christianity into a religion, with — much like other contemporary religions such as Judaism — all the sexism and support of slavery that was the norm at the time.

While most believers today don’t get their morality from religion or the Bible at all (which is a good thing, too), many still think that they do. But, in fact, their morality mostly fits in with the current moral Zeitgeist. Beliefs such as “God is love”, “God loves everyone” and “God wants us to be happy and free” have no Biblical basis at all; they were made up by believers when society came to appreciate those ideas.

Of course, there are some who do cling, to a degree, to parts of Biblical morality. That is why, for example, churches before the American Civil War opposed emancipation; after all, weren’t people of color the descendents of Ham, condemned to slavery in Genesis? Wasn’t slavery Biblical? Didn’t Paul command slaves to obey their masters?

What about sexism? Well, the Bible clearly states — both in the OT and the NT — that women are the property of men. Who are we to change God’s law? Women should stay at home, not speak in church, and never have authority over men. Guess who opposed equal rights the most.

And don’t get me started on gay marriage.

Of course, eventually even the churches relent, when society has advanced so much that they risk becoming irrelevant. The Mormon church used to forbid black priests; that changed… and, according to them, it was due to a “new revelation”. Christian churches now want to take credit for the end of slavery (because “God loves everyone”, of course), when they were its biggest supporters back then. Churches these days don’t prevent black people from entering, or women from speaking. But all that happened later than with the rest of society. Religion based on scripture, revelation and authority is by nature conservative, and only evolves when forced to, when they are so displaced from society that they face possible obsoleteness or even extinction. One could say that religion, in general, is always behind the Moral Zeitgeist, because it is religion that is always the last to change. And that’s in the west; note how Islam resists change and clings to 13th century morality. They do it through force, fear, and isolation; the more people know, the more they question. The imams know perfectly well how Christianity lost many of its privileges in the west, and want to avoid a similar fate at all costs.

Now, if religion has to follow the rest of society or become irrelevant, if more and more of its original morality is nowadays obsolete and ignored… if society’s views on morality are always in front of religion in terms of progress, and religion has to play catch up… if you realize that in 10 or 20 years the Moral Zeitgeist will have shifted even more, and will be even more different from religion’s original tenets, forcing it to keep adapting… why not dismiss religion as a source of morality altogether?

Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 10, 2008

in atheism, christianity and religion

. 0 Comments

It’s brilliant. Really. Christopher Hitchens is in much greater form here than in, say, the Four Horsemen talk, and Peter is not bad either.

I, of course, agree with Christopher on virtually everything he says, except for his support of the Iraq war — although he presents his case for it very well here, I still think it was the wrong thing to do, was done for all the wrong reasons (oil for Halliburton, and getting the US in a war frenzy so it’s “unpatriotic” to criticize the administration), and was done as badly as it could.

But, on the subject of religion, listening to Christopher’s wit is an intellectual delicacy, not to mention very, very funny.

Get the torrent here. Or look for it on YouTube.

"Atheism being promoted in science class"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 9, 2008

in creationism, evolution, honesty, religion and science

. 3 Comments

Source: Cectic

This shows perfectly what the theists’ beef is, IMO. No matter how much they deny it, their goal is to insert religion in science classes, nothing more… and they won’t be satisfied with a truly neutral position, where science classes only teach science. To them, not saying “goddidit” is “promoting atheism”… and they can’t have that.

"It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 9, 2008

in atheism, bigotry, christianity, fanaticism, hate and religion

. 2 Comments

(Note: you may want to read the prologue first.)

From Rep. Davis’ bigoted outburst about atheists, one part “jumped at me”, and I knew at the time (a few days ago) that I would have to dissect that point. That part is, of course, this post’s title.

If you follow, logically, from a correct premise, you will likely arrive at correct conclusions. However, if the premise itself is wrong, then the best logic in the world will still end up with a wrong conclusion… but it’s interesting to analyze those occurrences. This is one of them.

Rep. Davis, when she said that sentence, was being bigoted and ignorant, sure, not to mention hateful and full of “righteous anger”. However, there was something else there, something else you can hear in her voice. Fear.

And, from her original premise, she has every reason both to be afraid and to hate atheists. Because something very, very precious is at stake: the fate of eternal souls.

I’ve talked about this before, but most people — believers and otherwise — have never really thought about the concept of hell, or eternal torture. Or are simply unable to grasp it in its entirety, because humans have not evolved — nor have they ever needed to, for their survival, so it makes sense — to deal with concepts such as infinity. The worst part of “eternal torture” isn’t “torture”, but “eternal”. Even mere eternal boredom, without any active torture, is a fate inconceivably horrible, to an extent our minds aren’t capable of imagining. There is no crime on Earth, which is necessarily finite, that warrants such a fate — and this is why I believe the doctrine of hell makes the Christian god supremely evil, more sadistic than the world’s most sadistic sadist, and I wonder why more people don’t see it. Cultural indoctrination, I guess.

But, even without fully grasping the concept of eternal torture, Christians know very well — even if sometimes just instinctually — that it’s something to be avoided at all costs, something worse than anything that can happen to us on Earth.

Now, think about it. You believe that the most important thing in the world — to such an overwhelming degree that, compared to it, nothing else matters — is to avoid going to hell. Both for yourself, and for those people you care about — and, if you’re a “nice”, well-meaning person, for strangers as well. Nothing you can do or achieve or feel here on Earth is worth anything if you still end up in hell. So, to save yourself (and, later, others) form hell, anything goes. No amount of earthly suffering really means anything compared to it. No amount of ignorance, of lying, of manipulating, of causing suffering to yourself and others is significant. Taken to the logical conclusion, to condemn someone to hours, days, months, even a lifetime of suffering, is a moral act… as long as it prevents that someone from going to hell! Indeed, this was the belief of the Inquisition. Better to be tortured for days or weeks and repent, thus having a chance of being saved, than to lead a pleasant life and then be damned for all time. If you really believe that God sends people to hell, then anything that prevents that is moral… no matter the suffering it causes.

But this is not simply a matter of suffering. It’s also a matter of knowledge. Any knowledge or way of thinking that can lead one to doubt God is dangerous — indeed, more dangerous than anything in the world — and must be suppressed. Whether that knowledge is true or false is immaterial. Evolution may indeed be a fact, and it is compatible with liberal theism, but it can also lead to non-belief, and therefore its teaching must be opposed at all costs, regardless of its truth — simply because it may lead thousands, maybe millions of children to hell. And isn’t saving innocent children the most moral act one can perform?

Recall the preface in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, where he wrote (emphasis mine):

I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Therefore, to a believer like Davis, the mere existence of atheists — and, not only that, but happy, moral, fulfilled atheists — is a threat, one that may cause many people to question their faith, to realize that, yes, non-belief is an option, and doesn’t make you a monster. It may cause millions of innocent souls to end up in hell. Morally, shouldn’t that be fought with tooth and nail? The mere existence of atheists is already a threat that is filling hell with souls that might not have ended there otherwise. But vocal atheists? Publicly seen atheists? Atheists that don’t act like hedonists, who don’t have “horns”, or frighten people? How many are they condemning to eternal suffering?

If one believes that God sends non-believers to hell, then it only makes sense to do anything in your power — including oppressing, lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering — to stop any possible source of non-belief. Whether that source is a person or group, or a book, or an idea, or a philosophy, or a knowledge. Whether that source is itself moral, or is itself true. None of that matters. Hell is what matters.

In fact, why stop there? Yes, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder”, so one can assume that a murderer goes to hell. But what greater sacrifice is there than one’s soul? What is giving up your life for others (say, your children), compared with up giving your soul? What could be more moral, more heroic, more noble than sacrificing your afterlife for that of your children… by killing that soul-damning atheist who is making them, for the first time in their lives, doubt what you’ve taught then since birth?

Compared to that, what is disregarding the Constitution (man’s law… pfft.) and taking away the legal rights of an atheist? I’m sure Rep. Davis considers her bigoted actions to be absolutely moral, and probably won’t even understand what all the fuss is about. After all, she was doing it to save innocent souls… in her eyes, she should get a statue, or something.

"It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists" - prologue

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on April 8, 2008

in atheism, bigotry, fanaticism, hate and religion

. 0 Comments

Readers of Planet Atheism will probably have already been flooded with posts talking about Rep. Monique Davis’ unconstitutional and hate-filled insults against Rob Sherman, who was testifying against Illinois (unconstitutionally) giving 1 million dollars to a Baptist church. Here is Eric Zorn’s original news report in the Chicago Tribune, and here’s PZ Myers’ post on RichardDawkins.net (which I link to instead of the original on Pharyngula, as this one includes contact information for people to do something about it, instead of just posting comments ).

Well, as this post’s title says, this is a prologue for the next one, about that particular quote from Davis. I wanted that one to focus on that quote itself, which is why I’m introducing the story here, in a separate post. The “real thing” comes later today.

Also, I’m not American, so there’s little I can do about it, but if you are, and care for that pesky thing called the Constitution (not to mention the civil rights issue of having non-believers demonized and insulted by politicians without consequence — imagine if Davis’ rant had been against a particular religion or skin color!), please follow the second link above for ways to make a difference. Even if you’re not an atheist, you should still care…

Darwin Mit Uns?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 26, 2008

in creationism, evolution, honesty and religion

. 0 Comments

I ask my readers (yes, you and that other one over there ) to please, please, spread this image (originally posted here) as much as possible.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think that this is a perfect example. A simple picture shows the utter, disgusting dishonesty of the creationists behind Expelled’s attempt to rewrite history in order to blame evolution for Nazism.

Apparently, the Nazis themselves didn’t agree with Ben Stein…

Judaism, Christianity and Islam: is it really "the same god"?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 24, 2008

in christianity, islam, judaism and religion

. 6 Comments

While it is common for the more fundamentalist believers to believe that following their religion (or even their variant) is the only way to be saved, more liberal believers tend to claim that Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship basically the same god, that they are just varying interpretations of the same deity, and of the same “truth”.

I beg to differ.

Yes, the three main monotheistic religions have the same historical origins. Both Christianity and Islam claim to be extensions of Judaism, revere the same patriarchs (such as Moses or Abraham), but then add new claims, and refuse some of the original ones. I am not disputing this fact. Even the two newer religions’ holy books either include parts of the old one, or are inspired by it.

But having the same historical origin doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the same religion, or that they worship the same god. Not when they claim that their god has completely different attributes — sometimes even opposing ones.

Think about it. Is God a being who needed the blood of his son (which is also himself) in order to forgive humanity for their sins? One religion says yes, the other two say no. And whether the answer is yes or no, it means God has a completely different character than he would have otherwise. Does he need blood, suffering and sacrifice in order to forgive? Or can he do it on his own? Is he the kind of being who believes that guilt can be passed from those responsible to an innocent, or is he not?

I can argue that a god who wants and needs a bloody sacrifice is very different from one who doesn’t. Unless God is schizophrenic, one can’t rationally argue that it’s the same god. Either he wants that, or he doesn’t — to say that he wants it from some of his believers and not from others is far too ridiculous. In other words, if Christianity is right about that facet of God, then Judaism and Islam must necessarily be wrong — and vice-versa.

It’s easy to find more examples. Take hell, for instance. To me, with my human imagination, I cannot imagine something worse, more terrible, than the idea of eternal punishment. Can you even grasp the meaning of “eternal”? Human minds can’t quite conceive of it. Even eternal boredom, without any actual, active torture, would be a fate infinitely worse than any kind of finite torture inflicted on Earth by the worst imaginable sadist. It also follows that there can be possibly no crime — even hypothetically — that warrants such a punishment. No finite action, no finite crime or “sin” is ever deserving of an eternal anything — much less eternal torture. It follows that a god who does inflict such a fate on even one sentient being would be more unjust, more sadistic, more evil than our minds can conceive of.

Yet, of the three monotheisms, two say God is that evil. The other one says otherwise (there is no hell in Judaism, and the Old Testament says several times that death is final). Can “more evil than we can conceive” be the same as otherwise? Either God is the ultimate sadist, or he isn’t; it’s absurd to claim that Jewish sinners die a final death, but Christians and Muslims go to a lake of fire and burn for eternity. If that was so, then either God was insane, or we’d have to be talking about two very different gods.

I could go on. Does God have a favorite group, a “chosen people”? One religion says he does, and therefore doesn’t actively attempt to recruit outside of it. The other two say differently.

I’m not claiming that there are three different gods, each one worshipped by its own religion. In fact, I don’t believe that even one exists (what with being an atheist and all). My point is that the three monotheisms worship vastly different gods, with vastly different personalities and desires. They can’t all be right, of course. In fact, even if one was right, the other two would have to be abysmally wrong — worshipping not just a slightly different variant of the same god, but one with completely different (and often opposite) traits. Despite the historical origins, whatever the three main religions worship these days can’t possibly be considered the same god — unless, of course, God is the ultimate case of multiple personality disorder.

Arthur C. Clarke on Creationism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 19, 2008

in christianity, creationism, quotes, religion and short posts

. 0 Comments

If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?

– Arthur C. Clarke

(seen on Life Without Faith, in a post about Clarke’s recent death)

Transfer of blame, and child abuse

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 14, 2008

in christianity and religion

. 3 Comments

Source: Cectic

Besides the obvious child abuse shown in the comic — and yes, telling a child about hell is child abuse, no matter how you put it –, I find the mother in the comic morally repugnant for another reason: cowardice. She is unwilling to take responsibility for her actions, and doesn’t come out and say “obey me, or I’ll punish you.” Instead, she has to invoke an external, supernatural entity who will punish the child for disobedience — and when one fails, she comes up with another… one which, sadly, most people don’t outgrow before they’re 5 years old, unlike the former. She’s such a coward that she lies just so that the child doesn’t see her as a source of discipline and therefore never resents her. Never mind that parents should be a source of discipline; it’s their responsibility, after all, what with being parents and everything.

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 4): creating a false, but positive religion

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 13, 2008

in religion

. 1 Comment

Like before, before, before and before, just click on the image to go to the Richard Dawkins site and download / watch the entire discussion.

Sam Harris: You can invent an ideology, which by your mere invention in that moment, is obviously untrue, which would be quite useful if propagated, to billions. I mean, you can say this is my new religion: teach people to demand that your children study science and math and economics, and all of our terrestrial disciplines, to the best of their abilities, and if they don’t persist in those efforts, they’ll be tortured after death by seventeen demons. This would be extremely useful, and maybe far more useful than Islam, propagated to billions, and yet what are the chances that the seventeen demons exist? Zero.

First — and I should not need to tell you this, of course — Harris is not suggesting that we create such a religion. But the idea is intriguing, and certainly worth discussing, I think.

You’ve probably heard many people — both religious and otherwise — praising religion in general as a good thing, regardless of its truth, simply because it supposedly makes people both feel better and behave better, giving special importance to the latter. This is not new — you may have heard of Plato’s “noble lie” –, but I can see several serious problems in it.

One of them, of course, is that it’s not true — and, at least to me, that matters. Another, I think, is that it encourages serfdom and acceptance of one’s fate (indeed, that was Plato’s use for it). Even when it doesn’t, you’d be encouraging people to “be good”, well, “just because”. Accept a command, and don’t think about it. And if you teach people to be obedient, even if their current “commandments” are good, there’s a huge risk that their next set of commandments won’t be. Besides, a religion may begin with good intentions, with a good set of moral rules and so on, but — to quote Ayn Rand — “the moral is the chosen, not the obeyed”. It’s not “morality” to act “morally” just because someone told you to do it.

Finally, there’s the problem that Harris suggests: most current religions are actually very bad ideas, and for every good thing they teach (e.g. “thou shalt not kill”), they also teach many, many rules and ideas that are simply monstrous. In just a sentence, Harris suggested a religion that would be much better both for its believers and for the entire world, which would be much better than Islam, as he says — or than any other religion I know.

Of course, a religion whose main tenet (expanding on Harris’s) was “think for yourself, question everything, and don’t accept anything on authority or on faith” would have a huge problem — you’re basically telling people to leave it!

A fictional example of all of this is a brilliant Star Trek: TNG episode, Who Watches The Watchers, which I intend to dedicate a full post to, in the future. In it, a bronze age alien civilization begins to believe the Enterprise crew are gods, with Picard as their leader, and one of the scientists who were studying the civilization suggests that Picard “show them a sign”, give them some set of good moral rules, and leave them with their new religion. Although that would certainly be the easiest way to deal with the problem they caused by being seen (as the civilization is on the verge of chaos due to their new, fervent belief), Picard refuses; he will not leave those people with a lie, sending them back to the age of darkness and superstition they had already outgrown, and therefore has to work hard to convince the civilization’s leaders that, despite the Enterprise’s advanced technology, they are flesh and blood, not gods.