Letter to a Christian Nation
By Ryan

It seems that the evangelicals' hatred of the ideas of equality and egalitarianism is born out of religious convictions. I thought it appropriate to discuss those convictions in this topic, for the benefit of everyone. Everyone is welcome to comment.

1. Christians claim that their god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and that despite the requirement of this belief that he preside in the energy that produces every atom of every object and process in the universe, he is never considered responsible for evil. Interestingly, though he is considered the creator of everything and possesses control over everything--including all evil acts and people--he is still not claimed to be evil. As the Greek philosopher Epicurus wrote in consideration of this contradiction:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

2. According to Christian belief, even though their one god is acknowledged as the only entity that allows each individual life and appoints the time for each person's death, abortion, suicide and murder are considered sins generated by people alone. These acts are attributed to a free will, thereby freeing their one god from all responsibility.

3. Despite all the processes and the resulting objects of the universe--including human life--being initiated, controlled, maintained and ended by the direction of one all-powerful, universally-present and all-knowing god who exists outside of time and is claimed by believers to see all events in time, human beings are said to have free will. How can humans truly have a "free" will devoid of all influences of such a god if they must exist within a world controlled by the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology--all of which he is supposed to have created and without his constant presence and maintenance would not exist? It is a contradiction of belief. If such a deity exists as most Christians understand it, then all aspects of birth, life and death are determined and free will does not exist.

4. Because each of our lives would have to be predetermined by this god, all sin would be predetermined and done through this god's rules, essence and direction--the same way as all events in the universe are described by Christian belief.

5. If this reality and the unchangeable processes of nature were not created and maintained by this god, then this god must operate within these rules and would therefore not be omnipotent as claimed by the Christian religion. If a god is responsible for this, then there can be no free will.

6. If this god were not able to see the future or the choices of every human being before their births, then he would not be omniscient.

7. If this god does not exist all places throughout all time, but only exists at different points along the span of time--no matter how complicated or numerous the arrangement of points--then he would not be omnipresent.

8. If this god were omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, being all that we are composed of; creating and controlling all the rules we must follow; thus, not only allowing all which is considered "evil" but also actively participating though these powers and influences throughout all of time--and yet still sent people to suffer for eternity in hell for the lives he chose to give them against their will, indeed without allowing them a will--then this god is malevolent and cannot be a god of mercy or love.

9. If this god is not all-knowing, not all-powerful and not ever-present, then why is he called "god" and given the above titles? This is not truth.

10. The Christian god is also said to act through humans, though throughout time people have done things that oppose supposedly god-directed acts of other followers. Whether or not an action may be considered "righteous" depends on the reviewer's position in society, history and culture. Either the Christian god is fickle, or his followers are acting on their own beliefs and whims without supernatural guidance. If god is only attributed to some of these acts and proclamations and not others, then one must ask who has decided what was god's will and what was the will of a human? No matter what situation is considered from the Christian perspective, it will always yield a completely subjective conclusion.

11. If the "road to hell is wide and the gate to heaven narrow," implying that the majority of people will go to hell; and, all unborn children are indeed innocent, then a merciful Christian should prevent the eternal torture of vast numbers of souls by encouraging abortion--thus preventing that which Christians perceive as a soul from the overwhelming likelihood of going to hell after death. In other words, the possible life gets a "free ticket" to a glorious paradise where this soul would worship the Judeo-Christian god for all eternity instead of chancing the likely afterlife of eternal torture to his supposed displeasure!

12. However, if life is defined as beginning before birth, then all aborted fetuses possess sin and must end up in hell, as "all have sinned." All miscarriages and accidental in utereo deaths attributed to god-controlled and directed natural processes must necessarily end in eternal suffering as well. It is argued by some theologians that these souls would be offered a fair choice between serving god or denying god, though there is no biblical evidence supporting this--it is a manufactured story to explain the curious lackings of manufactured strories. If either point were true, then the Christian god would be niether merciful nor honest.

13. As follows, if such a god truly prescribes all life and all death, and all that exists is composed of his direction, then he is responsible for all life and all death--including abortion. If he holds total control and participation in the universe as required by Christian belief, then a soul's eternity would be his predetermined will as well. If we are to declare that this particular death was the will of god, but this other death went against his will, then he is either chaotically malevolent or he is not omnipotent.

14. In the Roman-assembled, oft-disputed, and heavily-translated text we call the bible--a collection of books that were not written until after all characters had been dead for quite some time and placed together in one text much later--we are told that "all have sinned" and that "all sins are equal in the eyes of god." This implies that no children are innocent to the Judeo-Christian god; and, that if abortion is a sin, then it is equal to lying which is equal to looking a woman with lustful thoughts which is equal to using the Christian god's name in vain, which is equal to planting two different crops in the same field, etc.... The emphasis of concern which Christians place on this act or that act is not biblical, but entirely subjective to their denomination's doctrine and/or culture. Either the great majority of Christians are hypocrites, the bible is contradictory, god is far more sadistic and cruel than often imagined, or the various books of what we call the bible are flawed replicas of the original manuscripts if such manuscripts ever existed.

15. Though often used to make the concept of war acceptable to Christians, Jesus is provinding an answer to the question of taxes when he states "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's," and all other inferences are drawn from culturally and selfishly conjured conclusions about the meaning of that statement. It is notable that most politically-conservative Christians are more vocally upset about the act of paying taxes (which is never defined as sin in the bible) than they are about the act of killing (killling of actual people, not imagined). The act of killing--according to the supposed account of the teachings of Jesus--is defined as a sin no matter what the circumstances may be. Therefore, most Christians have contradictory beliefs that result in a hypocrisy that has continued to allow terrible violence--or god's will is different from his rules forcing humans to fail and suffer, and he is sadistic. It's a good thing killing is equal to lying, is equal to...etc.

16. Let us also note that taxes gathered during the time of Jesus were primarily used to preserve and increase the size of the Roman Empire through violence. Universal health care, support for the impoverished, universal education and other social support systems benefiting all members of a society were either nonexistent or of very low importance. Large armies and luxuries for the richest members of society were the primary uses of tax revenue.

17. Since the bible used by western churches tells us to give to the poor, to not kill and to help each other, it is another example of hypocrisy by politically-conservative Christians that they primarily support tax revenues to be used for purposes similar to those of the Roman Empire, while simultaneously opposing the use of tax dollars for obviously Christian purposes such as health care, social security and education. It's funny how the very things which would make a society more conducive to rearing children are also the very things opposed by those who claim to care the most.

18. In any event, if Jesus did separate the practices of a Christian life from the acts and requirements of governments, then political action by Christians is in contradiction to the supposed teachings of Jesus.

19. Jesus also is supposed to have declared that: "Who of you is without sin may cast the first stone." And, "Do not judge, lest you yourselves be judged." Though free will cannot exist and all sinful acts must be predetermined under an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god, if a free will were somehow allowed to exist within Christian doctrine the choice of whether to commit sin or not must be freely allowed so that each person can make a personal choice to follow Christ or not. These choices must not be restricted by laws or penalties so that people can exercise there supposedly god-given free will. If this is not so, then the choice to not sin is not a choice made of one's free will, or god does not allow free will, or Christianity's understanding of Jesus' teachings are flawed--or simply ignored.

20. History as the western world accepts it--most of which being recorded by Christian people, it should be noted--shows us that various forms of the Christian faith have vigorously resisted science. Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means--"the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"--which is what separates it from faith, therefore appearing to the faithful to be at opposition with most religion.

21. The achievements of science in biology, medicine, chemistry, engineering and physics have increased the availability of food, have reduced disease and increased longevity, prevented disasters and plagues, and have led to a world with far fewer hardships.

22. The achievements of science have also led to terrible weapons of war and methods for environmental destruction. Science has also collectively worked to reduce these risks to humanity.

23. Christianity has historically opposed things accepted by science, such as the idea that the earth is round, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that disease and debilitating conditions are not the result of some penance the afflicted must pay for their sins but simply natural processes that affect both those people considered pious and those considered sinners. However, Christianity has at times embraced monarchy, tyranny, genocide, the use of weapons of mass destruction and the death penalty.

24. Science strives to be neutral in its value judgments, and creates things that fall along the entire spectrum of what we consider good and evil, leaving people to decide what to do with its discoveries. In western culture, primarily Christian societies have applied these discoveries to increase and to decrease suffering. Since the goal of science is the acquisition of further knowledge through the application of current knowledge by human reason and mathematical logic, it is not a process of faith.

25. Faith is the absolute belief in things which cannot be tested or observed; and, when things previously attributed to the magical forces of a god become testable or observable, then a crisis has always inevitably erupted within Christian thought. When intelligent people within the Christian faith finally realize that a new discovery is indeed irrefutable, religion begins to accept that discovery and incorporates it into belief. This often occurs after many years of protest and opposition.

26. Science has been described by many Christians as being anti-Christian, however the goal of science is to develop knowledge and then test that knowledge. Through previously discovered laws of the universe (claimed to be established by the Judeo-Christian god), science has repeatedly tested the theory of evolution and as more information is gathered this theory has been amended and has become more sound. Unlike the idea of creationism, the theory of evolution was developed after evidence was gathered and ideas tested. Creationism, on the other hand, is an idea that was developed on faith before any investigation had taken place; and, as expected, it has had to repeatedly concede previous assertions to irrefutable fact. Much like previously accepted ideas of Christianity (such as the placement of the earth at the center of a static universe) evolution will likely be embraced and accepted by Christianity after much opposition. Conservative Christians often mock the term "theory" failing to understand what the word means within the scientific community; yet no credible Christian opposition has been mounted against the "theory of gravity." Evolution is only a point of contention because--like the archaic ideas concerning the structure of the universe--it conflicts with current interpretations of the Roman bible. Scientists who research evolution do not try to disprove creationism; on the contrary, they try to develop a greater understanding of natural processes using natural mechanisms. If the Christian god is to be considered responsible for all natural mechanisms and physical processes, then the choice to deny knowledge developed though the observation of these mechanisms and processes is to deny the attributed powers and influence of god. Of course, accepting them means that those who fabriacated the ideas in the bible were wrong.

27. Ignorance is defined by one's refusal to recognize something obvious--to intentionally disregard fact when presented with overwhelming evidence. Since the bible directs the faithful to question their beliefs, Christians should closely examine the arguments made against their doctrines before becoming angry and refusing to listen to the challenges of reason. If the Christian tradition as Christians have been told to understand it is what they believe it to be, then thorough scientific examination should strengthen their faith. However, it is more likely that actually taking the mental effort to fully examine their beliefs in an honest attempt to disprove themselves would likely lead them to a different view of their role in life and the universe. The bible does not demand ignorance (most of the time); rather it supposedly requires the opposite. Despite this, ignorance is proudly practiced by the Christian religions most vocal supporters who mistake it for "steadfast faith." "Steadfast faith" (ignorance) allows Christians to hold and promote contradictory beliefs and values.

28. When an act of prayer is considered to be answered, Christians consider this the miraculous influence of their god. However, when a prayer seems to be left unanswered and hardship, disease or death befalls the object of the prayer, then it is excused as being "god's will." Studies have shown that people who do not pray have the same chances of surviving or succumbing to disease as those who do pray. If there is a god that operates as Christianity believes, then his will is fulfilled regardless of prayer, or he provides no greater benefit for the faithful, or (most likely) he does not exist.

28. When good and bad things happen to the "faithful," Christians describe the events as prayers being answered or god's will being done, respectively (for Christians cannot declare god to be malevolent). When good and bad things happen to people who do not pray or who have no faith, we call these fates "coincidence." When good and bad things happen in equal ratios to both Christians and non-Christians, Christians call this "coincidence." Coincidence as it applies to this argument is defined as: "A remarkable occurrence of events, ideas, etc., at the same time or in the same way, apparently by mere accident."

29. If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god of good controls all processes of the universe exists as Christians describe, then nothing happens by accident and there is no such thing as coincidence. Therefore, either prayers have no influence on god's will and the many authors of the bible were wrong, or there is no god as described in Judeo-Christian belief.

30. Theists argue that if there is no god (as they explain a god), then what holds society together? What is stopping us from doing whatever we please if there are no penalties for our actions? And, where does a conscience come from? It is excellent that these questions are raised, because all have answers that must be understood in order for people to make choices that produce a sustainable, peaceful and mutually-beneficial society--which was the original intent of the development of religion in ancient societies.

31. Like other social animals, humans require social structures, collected knowledge and cooperation to live. Even those who have exemplified "rugged individualism" required the technology and knowledge others had assembled before them. Rugged individualism alone, however, cannot implement those technologies and distribute that knowledge on a level which benefits human society. Our collective survival and comfort through civilization have always prevailed over the alternative of "every man for himself," and various political systems have been established, fallen, reestablished and amended in the progression of history to address the basic needs of humans (including food, shelter, protection and social interaction). This is an important point, because conservative Christians champion rugged individualism over the ideals of collective support and cooperation--though the authors of the gospels tell us that Jesus promoted the latter and not the former.

32. One cannot be both politically conservative and a Christian if one is not willing to hold contradictory beliefs and therefore make themselves a hypocrite. Promoting universal and democratic freedom could be considered a Christian virtue if other biblical contradictions did not exist, since Jesus is said to have instructed his followers to not control the actions of others--including actions which directly threaten their lives--but to try instead to persuade others through disseminating his message of love, cooperation, tolerance and peace. Certainly, the repeated actions of conservative Christians to increase military and police power, promote war and the death penalty, and to push for legislation restricting the personal actions of others (all things which restrict individual freedom) are not actions which fulfill these instructions. Simultaneously, conservative Christians oppose universal health care, social security, accessible education, and exhaustive diplomacy before military action--objections which have no foundations in the teachings of Christianity.

33. When approached with such questions, conservative "Christians" argue that a society must defend itself; that their wealth should benefit only themselves or only those they choose to benefit. They also argue that the personal actions of others (actions done only by willing and supposedly free-choosing participants--alternatively, actions which must be predetermined by a god if he is as Christians describe him) must be controlled because they conflict with these "Christians'" conservative and contradictory values. In doing so, conservative Christians fail to follow their own beliefs, and become examples of both the rich man who would not distribute his wealth to follow the path of Jesus, and the Pharisees who condemned and persecuted all who did not accept the values they interpreted as being god-given.

34. Monarchy is the only system of government promoted by the bible, and historically monarchs have been considered by Christians to be granted power by their god thereby legitimizing their governance. This belief in god-given rule readily extended to heinous and sadistic tyrants who, like todays conservative Christians, promoted and enacted policies under the banner of their god's will--policies and practices which either had no basis in biblical teaching, and/or which directly profaned the biblical necessity (though impossibility) of the exercise of free will.

35. Freedom and democracy are human-developed ideas that oppose the biblical concept of monarchy. Literalist Christians cannot promote both democratic freedom and literal biblical teachings without contradicting their beliefs. If the argument is made that due to the corruption of monarchs, god intervened by providing an alternative system of government, and--of course--no biblical support for such an argument exists. This argument is also subjective to interpretation, and could be used to support Nazism and Stalinism since no biblical support exists for either of those systems and all forms of government--including various theocracies--violate different tenants of Christian teaching.

36. If the statement, "all things are possible with god" is true, then it must be possible that god is evil, a liar, a homosexual, a flying spaghetti monster, etc. etc., or nonexistent. If this statement were true, it would also be possible that sin is good and righteousness evil, and/or penalties in the afterlife could be arbitrarily dealt to the deceased regardless of their faith or actions. It would also be possible that this reality could be heaven or hell, or that there is no heaven or hell. If it is impossible for god to be or do any of those things, then all things are not possible with god, and such a god must exist within a set of rules that supersede him, or the statement is false, or god does not exist at all.

37. If the statement, "all things are possible with god" concerns humans in relation to god and not god himself, then sin and evil could be rewarded and righteousness punished. Indeed, anything that is considered the opposite of Christian belief could be true. If these things were not possible, then all things are not possible with god, and such a god must exist within a set of rules that supersede him invalidating the Christian belief in god's omnipotence, or the statement is false invalidating the Christian belief in god's omnipotence, or god does not exist at all.

38. All human actions are selfish actions--actions that place the the self above all else--including those labeled as being altruistic, or selfless. When a person appears to place the concerns of others before their own, it is because of personal values concerning what they want their world to be. If someone sells all their belongings and distributes resulting money to the poor, that person is doing so to make their world a better place according to their convictions. Accordingly, a world where all people are provided food and shelter is not only a better world for the less-fortunate, but also a better world for those who strive for such a community of humankind. Concretely, suffering, crime and hatred are reduced when people are fed, sheltered and happy, thus the byproducts of achieving the goals of such philosophies benefit everyone in that society. Allowing a few to live in gross luxery while others struggle to meet basic needs leads to conflict, crime and hatred and never benefits a society; indeed, the concentration and pursuit of individual wealth is the worlds greatest cause of violence and suffering. Religion--often intertwined with the pursuit of wealth--is the second greatest.

39. Though there are people in each congregation that must struggle to properly clothe and feed themselves and their children, and cannot afford to maintain their less-than-modest vehicles if they even own one, almost all pastors live in well-kept houses and have little trouble eating what they please, buying new suits and driving reliable vehicles. Though these poor members often work 40 hours a week or more and still fight to make ends meet, they are asked to contribute money to their beautiful churches and the coffers of their preachers each Sunday while the clergy need only to speak two days a week from a stage and give a few consultations in offices that offer more comforts than the homes of some members of their churches. This is an injustice and hypocrisy at its worst and most apparent.

I guess when you have plenty of money and nothing to do, you have to create fanciful problems to pass the time, like *gasp* the "dangers of gay marriage" or "the genocide of clumps of dividing cells" or "we're not using limited resources fast enough," and so forth. I guess if the religious zealots achieve their sadistic goals, a lot more money will be coming into the churches. "How's this," you may ask? Let's look at the anti-choice movement, for example. Since social support systems like health care and education won't be properly funded, and since it's far more difficult to raise an unplanned, unwanted child if you're working for the average pay of a young woman and unable to go to school without shelling out more, a society which prevents women control over their own lives and bodies would lead to increased church attendence and revenue. People are moved to desparate measures when you purposely leave them no where else to turn.

Our opponents don't hide their true intentions very well. It is obvious the anti-choice movement, the homophobia movement, the anti-rational creationist movement and other related campaigns desire one thing: theocracy. A world governed by contradictory requirements and interpretations of a religion that has no relevance to contemporary civilization other than as a peculiar anachronism of less-enlightened periods of human history. Our fight in my state of South Dakota is more than a fight to preserve an embattled but comparatively-fairer status quo--our fight is one to preserve freedom and democracy. In a theocracy such as the ultimate goal of the evangelical Christian movment, there are two entities that hang from the cross: liberty and humanity, each from a respective rope looped about their necks. And that, my friends, is a world I wish to prevent.

Dear Believer, I know that you are just a tool of those who indoctrinate others to attain their personal goals. Like any follower of a cult, be it the Branch Davidians, Al-Qaeda, Baptists, Aryan Nations or the Weslyans, you're a foot soldier who blindly follows his programming. I don't blame you, but people like you must someday recognize what is being done to you.

Once that happens we as a society can again begin moving forward towards a brighter world.

Note: This is aimed at the general idea of an afterlife, focusing most specifically on heaven, and is not a general attack on any other aspect of religion. Nonetheless I hope it fits the category:

~

Generally speaking, no one desires death; we all wish to prolong our lives and avoid death at all costs. Even the most depressed and hopeless among us would still flinch with fear if faced with sudden death. Surely, part of it is instinctive: a morbid and perpetual fear of dying (or, inversely, a perpetual yearning for continued life) is essential to a species' survival. We have an ever-present libido for life that runs through the entirety of our being, just as all creatures do.

Human beings, however, have an added psychological burden when it comes to our fear of death. We do not, like 'lesser' creatures, have a mindless adherence to preservation that is entirely detached from any emotional subtext. We do not fear death strictly based on instructions in our DNA. Rather, we have strong emotional attachments to our own existence that make the concept of death haunt us more so than it could ever haunt the mosquito or the worm. We are the only beings on this planet that have the ability to fully contemplate death.

This may seem like an unfair burden for us. The gift of our sentience and intelligence is countered by the curse of understanding the inevitability of our own demise. But wait--not so fast! We are also gifted with imagination, and using our imaginations we humans have more or less successfully remedied the problem of death.

How? Well, we've outright done away with it, of course! We've convinced ourselves that death is not, contrary to its logical implications, an end to anything, but merely a transition into something else, something better.

How's a first-class ticket to a shiny kingdom of ethereal towers, majestic landscapes, and neverendingly blissful delights sound? And, as an added bonus, once you get there you'll be reunited with all the loved ones who died while you were still in the dreary realm of the living, and, to top it all off, you'll be permitted to stay for an eternity.

Yes, I'm referring of course to that strange fairytale concept of Heaven (in its various flavors), where the majority of the world's population expect to be heading to once they complete their century or so 'warm-up' here on Earth.

We have, through our superstitious religions, remedied the fear of death by eliminating its finality. We have made ourselves, in our own minds, out to be immortal. And those who do not exactly subscribe to the more absurd notion of a heavenly kingdom still have some vague idea that there will be some sort of 'afterlife', some sort of continued existence beyond the decay of our brains, beyond the shriveling up those neurons that help make us who we are. People less dogmatic in their religious upbringings still ponder on the great 'mystery' of the afterlife. What will it be like? Will we be reincarnated? Will we become roaming ghosts? Will we enter another dimension of existence, reach a higher plain?

I am sorry to inform the deluded, but there is no great mystery at the end, unless the conclusion to this particular mystery novel ends with a blank page.

For that is precisely what death is: a blank page, an end to existence. Our personalities, our memories, our thoughts, our sentience, are all the products of the amazingly complex biological structure of our brains. Like information developed and stored on a hard-drive, the information that makes up who we are is purely physical. The bits on a hard drive do not transcend the physical structure of the drive, no matter how complex they are. Symphonies, movies, games, incredible 3-D imagery--all is purely physical information within the drive. There is nothing supernatural or transcendental about it. And just as when a hard-drive is incinerated, the information in our brains, upon its disintegration, is lost. Forever. It can not be recovered. It does not evaporate into some invisible essence called a 'soul'. It simply ceases to exist. That may sound depressing, but I assure you, it's only depressing in foresight. You won't have much to sweat when it actually happens.

Nonexistence, nonetheless, is a difficult concept to swallow. Just try to envision nonexistence. Contemplate it deeply.

It's difficult, isn't it? Anything that we perceive lies within the context of existence. The very act of trying to perceive nothingness depends on us being something (for the moment at least). The closest one may come is to envision total and absolute darkness, a complete vacuum. But even this seems unreliable. Is darkness not a product of perception, which is a product of existence? So darkness or blackness does not suffice. Nothingness goes beyond that. We have always, as far as we have existed, existed. We have never directly experienced nonexistence, of course. So to ponder nonexistence, to me, is futile.

But that does not make the concept invalid as a fact of what will occur at the point of death. The fact is, of course, that for the majority (the great, vast, overwhelmingly monolithic majority) of time, we did not exist. A typical lifespan does not even register as a blip on Time's vast radar. We were not experiencing nonexistence, because 'we' did not exist yet, but nonetheless, there was no us.

So while it is difficult to comprehend, it is clearly logical that when we die, a state of nonexistence will be returned to. Why all the calamity over this fact? Some may feel that without an eternal afterlife, our lives as they stand become meaningless. Futile, even. But that is absurd. What we do in our lives is made no more meaningless by the fact that it will one day end than a symphony or a novel is made meaningless by the fact that they both come to an end as well. If anything, life being temporary and fleeting should only improve our enjoyment of it, making it more precious to us and each moment more profound.

Just think: a billion billion individuals who could have been, weren't. We are of the privileged few gifted with the opportunity to experience existence in the Cosmos. We are at the recent end of a four-billion-year-long chain of very lucky survivors in the evolutionary battlefield. Only because trillions of creatures before us, be they our primate ancestors, or going further back, microscopic entities swimming around in some kind of 'primordial soup', all survived in the exact manner that they did, and in the exact order that they did, do we exist as we now do.

How is this fact not more riveting than some fanciful idea of a spiritual playground where angels sing while we sit around playing chess with our dead relatives for all time? Is it truly worth sacrificing a realistic perspective for a bit of extra comfort?

A Humanist Treatise

On a Fourth of July, shortly after the turn of a new millennium, I sat amongst friends of past present and future, sipping domestic beer on the deck of an enduring summer cottage. I broodingly gazed over the Russian River, shaded beneath stately Redwoods. She was steady in her current; placid brown water stood in high contrast to gull grey pebbles littering her shore. The summer cottages lining her path through the valley stood as a testament to the deep rooted connection we have to bodies of water; we gravitate to them as if to pay homage to our home of antiquity, the mother which gave birth to all life on this planet. Before the debated topics turned to Harold and Maude and existentialist philosophy, our host felt it fitting to allow us to engage each other in a lighthearted discourse, putting forth the question, “If you could be any animal, what would you be?” Around the table, we introduced ourselves and described what animal we would choose. In turn I stated, “A human.” Most took this as imaginative way to evade the question. However our host, nodding in acceptance, stated, “Yes, yes, humans have it going on.” I couldn't imagine being anything less, for a human may push all envelopes, shatter all barriers, travel faster over land, dive deeper in any ocean, fly higher, further than any other animal, breaking the strong bonds of gravity, traveling through the vast inert vacuum of space to set forth on a foreign celestial body. We are truly free. Humans, of all the species on Earth, may one day break the chain of extinction and bring unity to the order of the universe. Shall we embrace our destiny and realize our common bonds, the universal truths that transcend all perceived divisions, to reach our full potential? Or shall we follow the pattern of virtually every species that has risen from the non-random natural order and end in extinction? The choice is ours, which of itself makes us the most unique and complex species ever to exist.

The quarrel of this treatise will be to adopt a Secular Humanistic construct, to cultivate and implement unifying philosophical principals, the most significant pertaining to the human condition. The dissertation will deal with Humanistic belief in the temporal realm; a call for unity through the core Secular Humanistic principles of science, reason, and freedom of thought in the unending quest for truth.

Before the definition of Secular Humanism can be discerned, it is imperative that one bears in mind the relationship between belief and non-belief. One does not define oneself through non-belief, as a Protestant Christian does not define their belief structure as non-Catholic. It is also imperative that one fully comprehend the definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and secularism, for it is a common mistake to give these terms sectarian characteristics, mischaracterizing Secular Humanism in relation. Atheism is the antithesis of theism, and addresses faith. An atheist simply denies faith in a deity. Atheism is neither a religion nor a belief. Agnosticism is the antithesis of Gnosticism, and addresses knowledge; an agnostic simply denies knowledge of a deity. Secularism, simply translated, means apart from the church or sect; a secularist is simply one who is not associated with a particular religious sect. Contrary to a common misconception, secular individuals or Humanists may fall into any of the three spheres as depicted in figure 1.

Figure 1 > Drawn 25 Oct 2006.

A Call for Secular Humanism
Secular Humanism is Humanism apart from the sectarian concept of religion, entirely outside the theistic realm. It is people united in the service of humanity. Secular Humanism offers a way to unite humanity in our universal commonalities, the tenants of which include: a commitment to “the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems” (FI, 2). Secular Humanism is a “realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence [and puts] reason [before] blind faith and irrationality” (FI, 2). If we are to fully grasp the totality of human existence and the ultimate meaning within the human condition, it will be necessary to abandon our dogmatic divisive ways, and realize our potential destined unity.

Secular Humanism deals with the temporal concepts of universal morality and human empathy. Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor for Science and Understanding at Oxford University, claims there is a definite biological or Darwinian explanation for our morality. At some point in our evolution, natural selection favored socially altruistic behavior. Richard Dawkins stated in conversation with Roy Eisenhardt at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco, that our universal morality would be “the morality one uses to cherry pick the moral truths in holy text as opposed to the morality contained in the holy text”.

It is revealed in the anthropological study of human cultures, that our core commonalities are indeed far greater than our differences, and universal human truths do indeed transcend division. Examples can be found in the shared characteristics of mythological savior figures, or of the universal common morality contained in mythologies between cultures. Brian Flemming interviewed Allen Dundes, Professor of Folklore and Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, in his movie, The God Who Wasn't There. Dundes compared various savior figures from cultures, such as Mithras, Dionysus, and Jesus, using Lord Raglan's 22-point scale from his book The Hero. He ranked the similar divine attributions such as resurrection, ascension, and so forth, of each figure in relation to the scale. Jesus came back with an astonishing 80%.

Reflections of Belief
One cannot date the first moment of deep human introspection. It is undeniable that a great deal of self reflection occurred in the golden age of Greek philosophy, and it is perhaps in this time that we can truly begin to see the emergence of significant modern human philosophical beliefs. It is also in this time that we can see the emergence of disbelief, and it is in this that we shall delve, in order to focus the looking glass on the origins of modern Secular Humanism. The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) set the stage for disbelief with his iron clad logical argument,
If [God] wants to [eliminate evil] and cannot, he is weak. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. -Epicurus (97).

The Deists were perhaps the first secularists, in the colloquial sense. They arose out of the Zeitgeist of the Age of Enlightenment, and chose to break from organized religion all together. Undoubtedly this break was related to the timely Reformation. Deism dealt with the transcendent humanistic commonalties amongst all religions, cutting out all of the dogma.

In the spirit of the deists, Secular Humanists deal with transcendent humanistic commonalities, but do so in relation to the natural world, not only eliminating dogma, but contesting metaphysical belief without basis.

The Architecture of Life: the Laws of the Natural World
Richard Dawkins states “life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators” (World of Dawkins). The archetype, or model of life, would be the replicator; the first self replicating, nucleic acid based model, which gave rise to DNA. Our DNA created us as highly advanced vessels of replication, not by chance. “We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene 1).

Essentially, living organisms are a collection of “survival machines” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene 21) for their genes. Evolution is, put simply, the way in which genes create variations, many of which will inevitably lead to speciation, or the creation of new species. The variance of gene survival in a pool will lead to gradual mutation, as in the classic Darwinian model of Gradualism, favoring those more fit for survival within an environment. By this means of natural selection, a flower that is more beautiful to an insect will be more likely to have its pollen dispersed by the insect; nature will prefer the genetic variation that created the more attractive flower. Speciation will also be affected by geographic isolation, which will cause or allow for divergence, as in the model of Punctuated Equilibrium. In this model, there can be concentrated outbursts of species. At some point a species will reach equilibrium and remain fairly stable for a period of time, yielding to gradualism.

Technology, in my opinion, is an extension of human evolution. Technology has given us the ability to speed furiously over flats of salt at velocities sound itself could not capture, wings to sore the upper limits of the troposphere, and propulsion to break gravity and venture into the ethereal unknown reaches of our solar system. Technology is evolved in relation to humanity as the avian wing to the bird.

Existentialist philosophers often times refer to “The Will”. In this sense, one could say life is the result of the Will of the universe. But what is driving the Will? Life, in all its complexity, did not occur by accident or random chance, but arose out of inevitability. One may say life’s governance is the natural law; at the core of which is unity. To understand this unity, one must delve into the nature of the physical world.

Unity: the Laws of the Physical World
Newton did not explain why celestial bodies gravitate to one another; he did however develop with absolute precision, the mathematical relationships of gravitating bodies in his grand work, Principia. Newton is the father of classical physics. Although Einstein also did not fully explain gravitation through his general theory of relativity, he laid a framework for modern physics. Quantum mechanics seeks to explain the atomic and subatomic framework to understand the nature of the material world. It is the mathematical basis for general studies within physics. Unified field theory attempts to create mathematic formulations within unified frameworks. This culminates into a grand theory of particle field interactions as a result of a single unified interaction. A Grand Unified Field would explain two particles observed, reacting to each other at such proximity that constrained by the limitations of the speed of light, could only react simultaneously and in such a way if there was a grand unifying field between them, beyond their independent fields. Matter will react with matter based on its particular atomic field, which is based on the reaction of a unifying field between the two atomic fields in this model.

We have, in the last century, made incredible scientific advances, expanding on classical Newtonian physics to reveal the governing mathematical frame of the universe. Our natural world is the inevitable result of variation within this mathematical frame, of which the resulting outcome, though nearly infinitely variable, is the absolute inevitable result of mathematically provable material laws. There is a universal architecture in place that can explain the emergence of life, and do so with extraordinary precision.

The Living Social Order
Sociobiology seeks to explain species behavior through evolution. A study of feral children (Wild Child) shows that by age 5, if speech is not learned, the brain will never be able to make the connections to form speech. The progressive development of the biological brain is a result of interaction with society. However, some biological infrastructure must exist in the first place, in order for speech to even have potential. This shows a snowballing effect of progressive evolution, biological and social interconnected. They feed off each other, increasing in complexity to create what is a living social order.

It is not hard to make the connection that Richard Dawkins makes in stating that our empathy and our morality has a biological explanation.

It is astounding, the intricate complexity of the universe. The absolute beauty of life, revealed by the nature of the natural and physical world, is so often lost in the metaphysical search for meaning. The reality of the material and natural world does not in any way detract from its ability to instill a sense of awe; rather the effect is quite the opposite. Luther Burbank eloquently affirmed the optimism contained in the reality of the material world, by stating that “science has opened our eyes to the vastness of the universe and given us light, truth, and freedom from fear where once was darkness, ignorance, and superstition” (Barker).

But why does all of this matter?

Perhaps this quarrel can be revealed in a personal experience. The deep frustration that caused me to seek the truths of the material world was seeded by an experience in high school biology. More than seventy years after the Scopes Trial, Darwinian evolution is still, for the most part, effectively kept out of the schools, because of a populous objection based on blind allegiance to religious faith. In my recollection, a single day was spent on the subject of evolution, half of which was relegated to apologizing to those who may be offended, despite the fact that prior warning of the teaching was given, and written consent was allowed, in order to opt out. It is this experience that began my quest to reveal the truths of the material world. I worry to the extent science is being kept out of the schools. Fifty percent of American citizens (Dawkins) falsely believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that man and dinosaur walked together. I was shown at a young age, the process of investigation. But what of those children that are discouraged to investigate by their imparted faith? Truth is only revealed through open minded investigation. What if we were all taught to be content without investigation; what would our world look like?

Although religion contains moral and ethical truths, it is my opinion that these are temporal concepts of human origin, and in the case of monotheistic religion, anthropomorphically given to a divine deity. “There will always be good people who will do good things, and bad people who will do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things requires religion” (Miller, Jonathan. A Brief History of Faith). Gina Allen in, The Night I Saw the Light, expressed her frustration with her father, a prominent member of the Presbyterian Church, when at the age of 16, she confronted him with the lie she saw to be faith. He stated that “he [too] didn’t believe what the church taught. But he believed that without the church there would be no morality” (Imagine, . There is a lack of faith in humanity, amongst those with faith in God.

Roughly nine out of ten Americans are theists, 76.5% are Christian, and 13.2% are non-religious or secular. The prison population is made up roughly 75% Christian, and 0.209% atheist (Atheist Empire). This certainly does not support the morality claims of the majority theist. Divorce rates show Christians at 27% and atheists at 21%. Although statistically, correlation is not always causation, one could utilize these numbers to make a compelling claim for quite the opposite.

It is not my intent to denigrate beliefs, but rather to call for one to question ones beliefs. To open a much needed dialogue to find unifying common ground. This dialogue is one of the quests of Secular Humanism.

Humanity does not have a future as long as divisive faiths fight to repel unity. If we continue to ignore the truths of the material world, to ignore science, to destroy our environment, then what future have we?

It is said that the last words of Siddhartha Gautama, were “Impermanent are all things in the world” (Armstrong 187). To this end, impermanent is our brief spark of consciousness. Impermanent will humanities reign be on this planet. Impermanent is any state within a universe in constant flux.

The Genus Taraxacum, or common dandelion, seeds its flora by blossoming and scattering to the wind. At some point in the evolution of the dandelion, seeds sprang forth from a tiny stalk, which spawned the spread of its genus to the far corners of continents. We are at a crucial period in our natural history, where we have the ability to do the same, on a much grander scale. We too may disperse like the seeds of a dandelion; on the wings of the will of the physical world and its unity, striving to create larger and more complex frames; under the wind of the will of the natural world and its force which creates evolutionary change and speciation. Only a united humanity can realize this destiny.

When this Secular Humanist looks up into the night sky, it is with certain knowledge the vastness of space holds our future. As many of us gravitate to water, our home of antiquity, others gravitate to the sky, our celestial destiny. It is perhaps why I became a pilot, to reach for a dream. When I fly the small Cessna Skyhawk, it is not a sense of freedom I feel, but rather an affirmation of what it means to be human. It is my small leap from the terra, a way to pay homage to the brilliant future our species may have, for which I long.

Thomas Edison, free thinker, scientist, and inventor of the incandescent light bulb, once pointed to his invention and stated, “There lives Thomas Edison” (Barker). Some seek immortality outside the temporal realm, while many point to their children and proclaim that in them they live on; yet others will point to the human species, in all its grand achievement, and state with such impassioned and optimistic hope, There live I. It is how we choose to live in that brief spark of consciousness that will determine the variable destinies humanity may capture, and whether humanity will live on in perpetuity, in a destiny of our own formulation.
Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith (Harris, Sam).

Works Cited

Atheist Empire. HP 2006 [last update]. Online. Available:
. 15 November 2006.
Armstrong, Karen. Buddha. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, 2001. P187
Barker, Dan. “I am an Infidel”. Free thought today Aug. 1993.
Bothamley, Jennifer. Dictionary of Theories. Michigan: Visible Ink Press, 2002.
Darwin, Charles. “Natural Selection.” The McGraw Hill Reader Issues Across the
Disciplines. Gilbert H. Muller. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. 783-787.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press,1976. P1, 21.
Dawkins, Richard. In Conversation with Roy Eisenhardt. Palace of Fine Arts Theater.
20 Oct. 2006.
Free Inquiry. Feb/Mar 26.3 (2006).
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and The Furture of Reason. New York,
NY. W. W. Norton & Co., 2004.
Imagine There’s no Heaven: Voices of Secular Humanism. Amherst, NY: The Council
for Secular Humanism, 1997. P8.
Inwood, Brad, Lloyd Gerson. The Epicurus Reader. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis,
Indiana, Mar 1994. P97
Munowitz, Michael. Knowing: The Nature of Physical Law. NY: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
Marcus and Andrea’s Universe. Hp. Nov. 2006 [last update]. Online. Available:
< http://marcusandandrea.netfirms.com/> 15 November 2006.
Miller, Jonathan. A Brief History of Disbelief. Video. BBC 4. 31 Oct. 2005.
Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.
The God Who Wasn't There. Dir. Brian Flemming. Video. Beyond Belief . 2005
Wild Child: The Story of Feral Children. Video. Discovery Chanel. 2006.
World of Dawkins. Hp. Mar. 2001 [last update]. Online. Available:
. 15 October 2006.

What is Terrorism?

Webster’s Dictionary defines terrorism as, the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

While an accurate definition puts us off on the right foot, it begs the question; If the purpose of terrorism is to achieve a given political or ideological point, why is it being used by the religious, and furthermore, why has it been such an effective tool throughout history? If the end result is to prove a point, or to force the will of one group on another, aren’t we all to some degree guilty of some kind of terrorism? I think based on these questions, our definition needs refinement.

Terrorism is an act of tyranny. It is when a small group uses force of will to inflict its view point on the majority. Usually when dealing with acts of terror, even when only one man is acting there are numerous hands behind the scenes supporting his actions. As Americans, we know all too well how effective terror tactics can be, we’ve employed them for a long, long time.

The Boston Tea Party was an exercise of terror in that a small group of men sought to enforce their wills upon the English who were taxing the pants off of them. Because we did it, we claim an air of moral superiority about it, but when we look at these things from the perspective of the Englishman, we most assuredly were terrorists. Valley Forge is another example. Our first president took men into a sleeping enemy camp, and slaughtered them while they slept, even though convention at the time dictated that the Christmas holiday was a night of peace. The very thing we called patriotic, when observed through the looking glass, we label as terrorism. Let us return to the initial question.

It could be argued effectively that religion and terrorism are very good bedfellows. If one examines the Torah, or Old Testament one most certainly will find it a bloody and violent text, filled to bursting with acts of terror. If we examine the conquests of David and Joshua, those of us who study morality are appalled to see that they are filled with stories of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the name of a now supposedly loving God. Even before this, if we look to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see that the God of Abraham is well versed in fascism. The peoples of these cities were slaughtered for sexual immorality, and inhospitality. The single greatest act of genocide committed in these texts is, of course the Great Flood. In this all but one man and his family are drowned in a forty day torrential downpour. This man was of such good character that God decided all should descend from him. A Nazi dream come true. From these tales come the three largest religions in our world. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

When you start with a God who seems to like extreme measures for punishing his creation, you start with one foot in the door to fascist tyranny, and terror tactics.

Now add complex political strife. Men seeking to make laws for other men to live by, men trying to enforce their morality on their neighbors, which by definition isn’t moral. Add a few thousand years and the degradation of the original doctrines. Add new interpretations and confusing new sects. Add legalism and fear.

Fear is the weapon of the terrorist, and to bow to their capabilities and lay in fear of their destructive capacity means that you have already lost. This is the power of terrorism. It should be noted that this fear is not always inspired by the enemy, but sometimes is used as a political vessel to create a greater level of control over the population. The citizens enemy is not always as clearly defined as the governments.

Propaganda is used as a tool on both sides when dealing with terrorism. Sadly when dealing with a completely free media we are subjected to a greater volume of coverage. We are inundated with information about terrorist plots, war zone violence, and terrorist threats on a daily basis. This creates in the citizen a fear of loss. A loss of freedom, and a loss of life. This is very dangerous.

When confronted with these types of fears, a society will lash out irrationally and attack any perceived enemy so long as the government labels them as such. Iraq is a perfect example of this behavior. When we entered that war, public support was high. As the war waged on and no evidence of what we used as our reason for attack was found, support floundered. The President acted on our fear of attack to secure a situation in which he would profit. Case closed.

Why would a group resort to terrorism? Strangely enough, the answer is fear again. When you were in school and a bully who was either older, bigger, or older and bigger than you were decided to pick on you, did you openly defy him/her? Probably not. It wouldn’t make sense to attack someone stronger than you head on would it? It would be a one way ticket to an ass whooping. You would find alternative means to defend yourself. Terrorism is much like that when considered from a global standpoint. A group of people who feel threatened, who lack political or military power force their ideals into public by means of violence and threat. They brandish fear like a gun and to give into that fear makes us their victims.

In the case of the Muslims who are using terror today, they feel that they are fulfilling their duty as Muslims. They seek to drive the infidel from their lands. They want to end the Zionism by destroying Israel. This begs a new question. Why don’t we leave? Oil and Christianity. The Christians believe that if Israel falls, the end of times will be upon us. The United States, having a large population of Christians will meddle in the affairs of the region based solely on the belief that if that county falls, the Anti-Christ will emerge. Is this a good explanation for our involvement? I would hope not. The oil explanation is no better morally, but it is at least grounded in reason. Is it wrong for these people to want us to leave them alone? Is not the act of forcing democracy on a people an expression of terrorism in that it is tyrannical?

Christians employ terror as well. The bombing of abortion clinics, the suppression of the rights of homosexuals, and blacks can not be considered an act of morality. No matter who or what your source is, when you force your ethics into the lives of others, you are employing the tactics of the terrorist. When religion and politics mix, terrible things happen. As examples I offer the Crusades, and the Inquisition

During the first Crusade, also known as the Children’s Crusade, thousands of children were lead by priests into the Ottoman Empire to take back the holy lands from the “evil” Muslims. Every child and priest was slaughtered. This served as a launch pad for the next Crusade in that it gave the Church the “moral” high ground. See also, “They started it!” When the Europeans sacked Jerusalem in 1099 AD, every man, woman, and child was put to the sword. It took them a week, and it was done in the name of God. To this day, the Muslim world laments for the loss of those people.

During the Inquisition, women and men of European origin were set against each other by a fear instilled in them by the Church. Neighbors would call each other out and the rallying cry of the day was “Convert or Die!”. Women accused of witchcraft were taken into the middle of town, stripped, shaved bare, and left for several days for public inspection. If a mole was found, a needle would be inserted. If the accused didn’t bleed, she was to be given the option of converting and asking for forgiveness from God, or she would be burned alive. In both of these occurrences, public ignorance was used to fuel propaganda. Fear was the tool. These were flagrant acts of terrorism.

On September 11, 2001 a terrible atrocity was committed by men in the name of religion. These men, although not acting on orders from the moderate end of the religious spectrum, carried out their attacks in the name of their God nonetheless. This was obviously not the first incident of terror on the part of the Muslim world, but it was one of the most effective. Throughout the United States the seeds of fear were planted. This day should not be considered remarkable due to the lives lost, but to the actions of the U.S. following the attacks. A short lived fervor of Nationalism beset the country, and laws were passed…

On the flip side, religion has in some cases provided a light in times of oppression. One can not discuss the evils of religion without examining the acts of Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Mahatmas Gandhi. In all cases, compassion and pacifism were the tools of these great people. Resolve, true resolve emanated from them and not a single one had use for violence. But do these few make up for the evils committed in the name of Imperialistic Religions?

The doctrines of Christianity and Islam call for the spread of their religion, and make this end the personal responsibility of their followers. These two religions have been at this game for centuries, and today, the only difference is the gentle euphemisms of politically correct speech. The Crusades most definitely are still happening, just in a new light.

Is the man knocking on my front door with a Bible in his hands a terrorist? In a sense, yes. He is seeking to subjugate you to his beliefs. This is an act of disrespect so foul that I lack terminology to express it. It is an act of terror in the sense that you are told if you do not accept their beliefs, and learn to share them, that you are damned to an eternity of torture. This is an offense to reason and personal freedom. It is almost as if they require your input so as to solidify their beliefs, and if they fail to convert you, they have failed at having their delusion confirmed. In a land where we are free to practice our beliefs, it is unnecessary to proselytize. There is a popular saying amongst the religious; “There is no compulsion in religion”. To convert in this fashion breeds compulsion and zealotry. This is the new Inquisition.

In Alabama, three young men have spent their adult lives behind bars for murders that the evidence shows, they did not commit. Why are they then imprisoned? For being different. They liked things that the Christian dominated population thought were evil. One read texts on Pagan religions, and they all listened to heavy metal. For this, one of them is facing the death penalty, the others life in prison. Is this the end result of Christian doctrine, or is it just ignorant fanaticism?

In the wake of the September 11^th attacks, the United States passed laws that have started a process of whittling away individual freedoms. Democrat and Republican alike are to blame. The Patriot Act was a step towards totalitarianism in America, and all citizens should fear the broad range of powers attributed to the Executive branch of the government through this legislation. Privacy is a thing of the past, as now the government can tap your phone if the “suspect” you of terrorist activities. The government is also now capable of holding it’s own citizens without habeas corpus, as has already occurred. In this, the terrorists can claim a victory.

Benjamin Franklin once said “Those who would trade essential liberties for temporary securities deserve neither.” To give up your freedom to one form of tyranny in an attempt to protect yourself from another is not a victory, but a defeat. The reality today, some five and a half years later is that we are really not any safer, we just think we are.

Worse yet is that by allowing the political right to seize power and pass this kind of legislation, we have started a slide towards fascism ourselves. We see camps where children are indoctrinated with Christian and Nationalist propaganda. They are taught to give their lives for Jesus and President Bush in the struggle against anyone who is different from them. It is reminiscent of the Hitler Youth camps. If allowed to continue, this could lead to a day when America is not so different from the very evil it sought to destroy in WWII.

History shows us that no matter how secure we feel, there is always a way through that security. The Rhineland in WWII is a prime example of this. The French were convinced that no one could cross this area without allowing them ample time to mobilize their military. We know how well that played out for them. Innovation and improvisation break the barriers of security.

These are tactics that the terrorist is familiar with. Driving a truck full of explosives into an enemy encampment is not innovative. Not getting out of the truck and blowing yourself up in the process of attacking your enemy; that’s innovative.

This is exactly what happened to the United States in Beirut. This was the first act of terror from the Muslim extremists against the United States. 241 U.S. servicemen were killed and consequently the U.S. withdrew its forces from Beirut. Terror was shown to be incredibly effective, and showed that one well equipped man could in fact kill hundreds of enemy soldiers. In the mind of the terrorist, this leveled the playing field.

We could seal our borders, but Isolationism is not going to work, we are already immersed in the problem. If we were to bring our forces home en masse, we would only worsen the deteriorating situation in Iraq that we created. Whether we like it or not, it is our mess and we have a responsibility to clean it up.

Allowing Christian organizations to set up Churches in these areas is not exactly a good idea either. Why is it that in times like this, the religious seek to monopolize on political strife by converting people? To fill their coffers. Money is the obvious driving factor.

We need to understand the needs and wants of the peoples of these cultures. All men seek the illusion of security, but when you live in a country torn by war, that illusion is shattered. We need also to understand our enemy. Who exactly is the enemy here anyways? Is it religion? Is it intolerance? Greed?

Yes. Our enemy is ignorance, both at home and abroad. Our enemy is intolerance, and delusion, and if we don’t think of a way to fight it effectively, with haste, the situation most certainly will worsen.

To declare a war on a concept is to fight in vain. You could declare was on happiness tomorrow, and we could fight until the sun goes supernova and still not have won. War in an of itself is not an effective means to any ends, other than oppression.

The “Trojan Horse” tactic has been infamous since Homer told us of it in the Iliad, and it’s effectiveness against an entrenched enemy is beyond debate. We can not be protected against an enemy who can change tactics on the fly. No matter how great our security measures are, they are still nothing but a falsity. It is in essence a means for the government to whittle away our personal freedoms and secure power. Our fear is our enemy, not the terrorist.

We need to place the peoples of that culture at the helm of their own destiny’s, and stop meddling in their affairs. If oil is a driving factor for our presence, then we should be looking for alternatives to our oil needs.

We must resolve to deal with these people peacefully, no matter how great the threat they pose. We can not strike at them out of fear. Only through dialogue can we hope to accomplish anything. Terrorism is a symptom of a greater problem, and until the disease is treated, the symptom will continue to surface. It is my hope that someday all of my fellow men and women will stand free from the bonds of tyranny, and oppression. Only by removing what makes us different will we gain any ground with this, and when we are left with nothing but skin color as a differentiating factor, hopefully we will be wise enough to not be racist.

EDIT: Double post

Dear All Theists,

Although I am not an atheist, this atheist website is providing others with the opportunity to express their criticisms of the various theistic faiths.  To keep this brief, I will focus on the general arguments that express there is a Designer, and that this designer must exist.  First I will present the first of two arguments for a Designer by going into detail about, what I will call, the “Appeal to Irrelevance” argument; which is usually used to “debunk” evolution.  This will be followed by my first challenge to all theists.  Second, I will develop, what I will call, the “Classic Argument” for the existence of a supernatural entity showing how it takes a huge leap in logic to conclude that the Classic Argument, in anyway, proves any specific deity; thus, issuing a second challenge to all theists.  Lastly, I will show how that if there is a designer, the designer cannot, in any way, be as demanding as the various deity conceptions of many religions. 

            Now, why would I call one of the theists’ main, or at least most commonly used arguments, against evolution, an “Appeal to Irrelevance”?  To explain this title, it is necessary to give an example of this type of argument.  The basic form of this argument is “If you saw Random Man-made Object A in Random Location X, you would conclude that Random Man-Made Object A has a designer due to its complexity that could not have resulted at random”.  Of course they rarely phrase it such a clear way.  A classic example of a more practical use of this argument is “If you saw a computer in the forest, would you say it was built naturally over billions of years or would you say it has a maker?”.  The clever use of language is a different issue that I will not touch upon but that is how this argument is usually phrased.  The reason why this argument is irrelevant to the topic of evolution is because they usually use man-made objects in this argument.  An analogy about a man-made object is totally irrelevant to a scientific theory, which explains how animals developed without man’s interference. 

For the above argument to be relevant, they would have to use an object that is not man-made and at least make some sort of proposal of what it was designed for.  Take the platypus for example.  Does the existence of this creature suggest design?  The original discoverers of the animal did not, in fact, when they attempted to describe the creature to their peers, it was believed to be a hoax.  If looking at the world makes it obvious that there is a design, why would a description of one of the most amazing animals in the world be believed by intelligent people to be a hoax?  Again, I do not hold an atheistic view but it seems rash to simply say “Look at it, its obvious that it has a designer” without showing any evidence or even trying to propose what it was designed for.  So here is the first challenge to all theists: what was the platypus designed for if it was designed?  Tip: saying “Well that’s how god made it” does not cut it.  If science has revealed anything about a supposed Designer, it is that this designer has given us the ability to understand the Creation; therefore, we should be able to determine what the platypus was designed for.

            Moving on to, what I will call the “Classic Argument” as to why a Theist’s chosen deity must exist, here’s the classic version (I call this “classic” since, to my knowledge, the first Theist to make the argument, Thomas Aquinas – b. 1225 d. 1274 – , was follower of Aristotle’s teachings and made the best attempt to argue for his chosen deity without quoting scripture):

1)      Everything that exists has a cause

2)      The Universe exists

3)      The Universe must have a cause [Premise 1) and 2)]

4)      This cause is (Theist’s chosen deity)

Although premises 1)-3) are valid, and possibly even sound (the soundness being a different issue altogether which I won’t get into), 4) simply does not follow.  For example, lets say a Christian is using this argument for the Christian conception of God.  Before the Christian can get to 4), it must first be shown that Polytheism is false and cannot possibly be a cause for the universe.  Then it must be shown that the other remaining monotheistic conceptions of God are false, thus, are not the cause.  Then it must be shown that the Christian conception of God is the correct conception, therefore the cause.  Then the Christian can finally get to 4).  So unless one totally abandons how logic works, it takes a huge leap in logic to get to the ultimate conclusion of  “Therefore (a theist’s chosen deity) exists”.  Thus, we come to the second challenge to theists.  If a theist can show how all other religions or conceptions of God or gods are false and how their chosen religion is true, then you will convince me that your chosen deity exists.  Tip: do not appeal to moral demands and what you believe should be demanded of us especially if you want to make your case scientifically.  Science takes no moral stand on what they discover (ex: gravity has no moral bearing on the universe).

            Now, as I stated in the opening paragraph, I am not an atheist so I do not see my previous two arguments as a refutation of a designer or creator; nevertheless, it seems that if we are designed, we are either designed to not do what we are designed to do, or designed to break free from the designer.  I will illustrate this point through an analogy.  Lets suppose someone designed a machine with a highly developed Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).  The A.I. of this machine was so powerful that it soon began learning things and doing things that the designer did not necessarily design it to do; lets say, the machine was designed to clean the house and then it began reading books.  It seems there are only two possibilities as to what the designer had in mind when designing this machine: 1) The designer either designed the machine to eventually not do what it was designed to do 2) The designer knew full well that by giving the machine such a highly developed A.I. that it would eventually break away from the intended purpose and begin to understand things for itself.  If 1), the designer is a very poor one since when anyone designs something, they design it to do the specific action one wants it to do and if it does not do it they scrap it.  If 2) the designer is highly intelligent but not real demanding of the creation since it designed its creation in such a way for it to determine for itself what is or should be demanded of it.  

            To conclude, if a theist really wants to make case for their chosen deity, they should start by filling the gap between 3) and 4) of the Classic Argument.  Simply regurgitating the Classic Argument in different ways (“We know that whatever was before matter, time, and space was immensely powerful and the only thing with such power is God”) only frustrates those who have heard it time and time again by believers of different religions to defend their belief in their chosen deity.  It is time to start weeding out the true religions from the false ones if you are so sure that your chosen belief system is the correct one.  Also theists, please show that you made an admirable attempt to understand the concept you disagree with.  Arguing against science with cute stories about finding cars in the forest is childish.  How about you try to disprove one of the steps to Evolution as outlined by Darwin.  Tip: simply saying “Look around, this could not have happened by randomness” not only shows you have little understanding of Evolution, but that you also have very little respect and understanding for what Science deems a Theory.  Lastly theists, explain what the designer(s) was thinking if we were designed by a supernatural entity.  Yes, the eye is designed to see, the nose to smell but what was the human being designed to do?  What part does our intelligence play in our design?  Are we even doing what we were designed to do?  If not, we cannot be blamed for a faulty design since we did not choose the design given to us.

It just occurred to me that I've never actually submitted this essay, even though it's been on my blog for months.  I tweaked it a little bit from its original form to take out specific references to RRS.  In this form, it's suitable to be read as is, on or off of these boards.

*********

"Why are all atheists so angry?"

I hear this question all the time.  In fact, if there's one complaint about atheists that I hear more than any other, it's that we're all so angry all the time.  Today I was reading an article about a recent debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and was struck by Warren's statement, "I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry."

My first reaction was denial. Many atheists, myself included, are happy most of the time. My atheist friends are great fun to hang out with. We laugh and joke and drink beer, and hardly ever mention religion.

My second reaction, I confess, was anger. How dishonest of him to try to discount atheism by labeling us all as angry malcontents! This is exactly why people like him make me angry!

That's when it hit me, square in the forehead. He's not being dishonest. I don't doubt that every atheist he's met has been angry. If I met him, he'd almost certainly make me angry, too. That's just it! HE makes atheists angry, so they're all angry around him. So, I forgive him for thinking that all atheists are angry. I understand how he made the mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to reflect on "Atheist Anger" for a few minutes, and ask a couple of questions.

First, why is it a bad thing to be angry? The suffragists were quite angry, and for good reason. New Zealand had granted women equal voting rights in 1893, and America, supposedly the land of equality, was violently opposed to the idea twenty years later. There are still plenty of women who are angry because women make less money doing the same jobs as men in many industries, and women are often not even considered for promotions when they're equally (or better) qualified for the position. Are they wrong for being angry? Should they just sit quietly and wait for men to realize the error of their ways? Some people think so. I've noticed that the majority of them are men.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2007 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

So, what about us atheists? Do we have a right to be mad? Actually, yes. Did you know we've had atheist presidents? We have. I'll let you do your own homework on this, but it might surprise you to learn that many of the leaders of the U.S. throughout history have been openly atheist. Is this possible today? One congressman in California recently admitted to being atheist, and it caused a nationwide stir! It remains to be seen whether he'll be reelected. To be sure, he'll be attacked for being godless and amoral when election time comes around.

Until the McCarthy Era, the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word "God." Money didn't have "In God We Trust." Until the 70s, Christians were not actively involved in politics for the purpose of legislating religious values. Clearly, America is more theist than it used to be, at least politically. So, are things getting better for atheists? I dare say they're not. Unlike women, our situation is not improving. We are not being afforded more respect. Rather, we are being legislatively pushed farther into the margins where we have been quietly lurking for sixty years since the Red Scare.

To bring things back around, recall my comment about my atheist friends and I sitting around having beers and laughs. This is a good picture for you to hold in your mind's eye when you think of me, or any other atheist. This is what we want. We don't like being angry any more than women who'd like to be paid more. I'm sure all the angry feminists would rather things were better for women so they wouldn't have to be angry anymore. It's the same with atheists. If we were a bit less hated, vilified, and marginalized, it would be a lot easier for us to be in the presence of theists and not get angry.

Why are atheists so angry? Because things could be better, and we don't like being marginalized.

  I pledge adherence to the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States -- not allegiance to the stars and stripes’ pattern under possession of a deity whose nativity was conjured from the ancient ravings of scripture’s Abraham. Apparently suffering from an undiagnosed, untreated mental disorder which featured a menacing apparition that commanded he kill his kid, his hallucinations inspired and licensed a cult which begat Judaism which begat Christianity and then Islam. If he were alive today, monotheism’s aspiring patriarch would be properly dosed with an antipsychotic. A timely intervention could have prevented his continuing curse.

  Religion plagues us with abominations like bomb-blasted martyrs who formerly believed they’d be blessed into a realm where they’d enjoy serially knocking off seventy-two virgins. But keeping a tally in all that excitement would be daunting, especially if the reward runs concurrent and not consecutive. You’d surely lose count after a sixth or seventh virtuous woman (even after a few used ones). Cruising the pre-martyrdom world must be discouraging for Jihadists since nowadays the odds of making a love connection with a virgin are bleak. Instead of dying for love, the extremist on the prowl should consider, especially if he sees the head-scarf as first base, that there’s always hope: I’m waiting for the wayward nun with two habits (one bad). Vanquishing the veiled (virgin or vamp) figures to be a turn-on with cross-cultural appeal.

  Self-detonation is a particularly inconsiderate suicide technique since there are no harvestable organs left among Muslim smithereens to bequeath for transplants. The partial-brain Christians like our president (proof of Intelligent Design’s inherent flaw), who oppose embryonic stem-cell research, stifle the hopes of many who wait for scarce vital organs. The organ shortage has raised speculation that medical science could revisit xenotransplantation, a remedy utilizing organs from non-human species -- specifically pigs. Osama bin Laden is reported to need kidney dialysis, and a xenotransplant might help, but the pork factor presents a dilemma since Muslims (and some Jews) consider the pig to be unclean. Also, future side effects are unknown: a post-op guy with the heart of a hog may feel compelled to root for truffles or mount fat white women.

  Muslim pork-aversion could be used advantageously for waging the so-called War on Terror. Since the terrorists don’t fear and even welcome death, a warning video could be produced showing that while Muslims face toward Mecca for daily prayers, we also face their sacred direction -- with missiles. But unlike warheads loaded with ordinary explosives, which would have minimal psychological deterrence, distribute videos of these weapons being packed with oinking livestock. Feature a drove of grunting boars and squealing sows ascending towards the cargo doors; dramatically enhance the audio that resounds from the gnashing pitter-clatter of their cloven hooves as they strike the on-ramp. A new day in weaponry dawns as we've loaded (non-cud) ammunition into an offensive, airborne, swine-only Noah’s Ark with nose cone attachment. For ballast, further stuff the payload with ground pork, pork by-products and fatback basted with bacon grease. Prepare some portion consistent with Pork Bourguignon before sealing. That last flourish sounds a little French, but its intended message screams Patriotism louder than Freedom Fries ever did, and the burgundy flair adds the reviled alcohol, which will ring up a double-shot of Muslim loathing. If the United States threatened to detonate this guided slaughterhouse over Mecca, the imagined horror of this unholy puree deluging Islam’s holiest city should strongly discourage future attacks on America.

  To further enhance our security, we must also announce to the world that we no longer unconditionally support Israel like a fifty-first state, that the Palestine’s post 1948 boundaries are not the borders of our homeland, nor are they of our interests. Unlike other countries of the Middle East, the Jewish state can’t threaten to cutback oil production (they can only withhold the grease their lobby applies to our politicians’ palms).

  Early in our history, the 1796-97 Treaty of Tripoli strove to reassure Muslims of our new nation’s secular underpinnings. In that document’s article 11, it states in part: "As the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion . . .." Despite that evidence of our Republic's early wisdom, we must still fight ignorance among our citizens. The ACLU rightfully helped cast out the Ten Commandments’ boulder which judge Roy Thomas infamously installed in the foyer of the Alabama state courthouse, but defended a Florida woman who fought to wear face-concealing Muslim headgear for her driver’s license photo. Comparing the extent to which today’s cultural outlook has shifted from the sixties and seventies, it’s almost inconceivable that American ideologues associated with the Left were once the terrorists radically committed to blowing up our buildings.

  Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Karl Rove, with the Religious Right, refined that opium into heroin and dosed much of the electorate, knowing that the susceptible in their stupor are easier to con. Religion, tobacco and alcohol are all legal, yet they have toxic effects: Tobacco and alcohol shackle with addiction and disease; religion (especially now) hinders science and interferes with government. To be citizens and not junkies, we must stop hallucinating. We’re not in a cartoon with an ending that dope or prayer can alter.

  But ladies, don’t discard that burka: your boyfriend can wear it when he robs that bank.

                                              -- Bill Paci Philadelphia, PA

   Non-Compassionate Liberal

The phrase “God is dead” has a number of meanings. Firstly, it's diagnosing a condition. People no longer believe in God. Not in the way that they use to. Some have done away with the belief in God altogether, but this isn't all that secularization means. There was a time when God was the explanation for everything, and everything made reference back to “supernatural” causes.[1] Not anymore. Natural explanations abound. There was a time when Christianity was the unquestioned, taken for granted truth in European culture. Not anymore. We live in a continually more global and pluralistic world. People are confronted every day with the fact that others don't ascribe to the same set of beliefs that they do. The process of secularization has been, as Peter Berger explains in The Sacred Canopy, the process of removing religious symbols from the public sphere. In place of this we are left with scientific understanding—the only worldview in which there could even conceivably be consensus, without force to prevent questioning or exposure to other worldviews.[2] There are two types of religious reactions to this state of affairs. Religious moderates embrace scientific understanding and reinterpret their religion as being about values and symbolism, thus sacrificing the integrity of their institutions (loss of autonomy / pattern of vicarious living). Religious conservatives dig in their heals and reject scientific understanding wherever they feel it contradicts their tradition, thus sacrificing the connection their institutions have to common reality (loss of homonomy / pattern of noncommitment). But both of these moves bear witness to the fact that Christianity, along with any other religions in Western society, no longer hold the status of being taken for granted.

Secondly, there's no reason to believe in God, in the traditional sense, which is relevant to the actual truth of the matter. This is understood both empirically (through the institution of science) and logically (through the institution of philosophy). Throughout the history of Western philosophy there have been many “proofs” for the existence of God, but since Hume and Kant it's generally been understood that they all fail. “Proofs” for the existence of God are presented in the form of deductive arguments. But deductive arguments only concern relations of ideas (If A is a type of B, and B is a type of C, then A is a type of C). They can only show whether something is theoretically possible based on its logical coherence (the validity of the argument being made). But whether or not something exists is an empirical question. You can rule out the possibility of something existing through deductive argument by showing it to be a self-contradicting concept (an unmarried husband, a mother without children, a triangle with ten sides, etc.). But if it's logically coherent (a valid argument) and thus theoretically possible, you then have to show that there's positive empirical evidence for its existence to make the argument that it actually exists. Kant understood this when he said, “Existence is not a predicate.” And is there empirical evidence that suggests the primordial state of the Universe was any sort of God, in the traditional sense? No. The philosophical arguments that defend the belief in God now do so on other grounds—that the desire to believe in God is its own justification or that the belief in God is useful. I won't argue against them here. That they're not interested in the objective reality of the matter is all that I find it necessary to point out. For those who don't care about whether their belief in God corresponds with objective reality, I hope your belief serves whatever purposes you're seeking to achieve. I'd appreciate it, though, if when talking to others about your belief you'd make it clear to them that your belief in God isn't based on whether God actually exists, objectively.

The question "Who created the Universe?" is without meaning, because the Universe, if defined in any sort of coherent manner, constitutes everything that exists.[3] The question then becomes, “What, if anything, was the primordial state of the Universe?” In arguing for Intelligent Design, individuals seem to think that it was some sort of person, but this doesn't seem to make much sense. How exactly could a mind form and operate independently of a world? Without sensory input, there's nothing to think about, and without time there's no way to think in the first place. As Richard Dawkins points out, any being complicated enough to have designed the known universe would have to be very intelligent and therefore very complicated itself, and the existence of such a complicated entity requires as much explanation as the known universe does. The only process that we know of that can produce an entity complicated enough to design something is the process of evolution. Proponents of Intelligent Design try to argue that God doesn't require an explanation because God exists outside of time, but designing something is a process, and processes only occur within time. If you say that the universe could exist as a timeless idea independent of any process of design or construction, then it doesn’t make sense to then say that its complexity is a blockade to its existence independent of a designer altogether. Anything that existed outside time and space would be like nothing we have any experience with or could relate to, since all of our experiences and relationships exist within the context of time and space. It would be “as irrelevant to us as the chemical composition of water to a person caught in a storm” (Nietzsche). It would be nothing even remotely human—less human than the rocks or the stars.

Since any degree of complexity would seem to require explanation, the only primordial state that would seem to not require explanation would be a primordial chaos, or quantum foam. As simple and unstructured as possible. A sea of unintention and divine accident, with infinite force and without focus of any kind, that would necessarily produce a sub-universe capable of producing life through "trial and error.”[4] This is the same way that evolution works: the incrementing of random mutation, the continuation of what is structurally sound, and the collapse of what isn't structurally sound—structure arising from non-structure. If we look at the way things develop, we find that complex forms are preceded, generally, by less complex forms. To believe in Intelligent Design is to think that complex forms are preceded by the less complex, and then the less complex, and then the less complex, etc., until we get all the way back to…the infinitely complex. What? Why would you expect that?[5]

If we thought that the known universe was designed, it would make sense to ask what it was designed for. As Richard Carrier discusses in the movie The God Who Wasn't There, if it was designed to produce intelligent life like us, we would expect it to look pretty much like what people in the Middle Ages thought it looked like: the Earth at the center, the Sun revolving around the Earth, four elements, 6,000 years old, etc. Why would God make it any other way? But the universe that we're given doesn't look like that. The Earth is a tiny speck circling around another tiny speck in a galaxy that is filled with many stars and that is one of countless galaxies. Why all the extra space? Why is the Earth’s position so seemingly insignificant? 99% of all organisms that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. If there is a designer, he doesn't seem to be very good at his job. 99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation filled vacuum that you would die instantly if exposed to. That doesn't sound like it was designed for you. There are gases that you can't see or smell but which if you breath in you will die. Why does God hate us? If the lifespan of the universe up to this point were a year, the history of humanity would fit within the last second of the last minute of the last hour of the last day of the last month of that year. That doesn't sound like there's a designer that had human beings as its goal—why all the unnecessary time? Human beings speak, breath, and eat through the same hole, guaranteeing that a certain percentage of us will choke to death. To quote Neil deGrass Tyson, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could eat and breath out of different holes? And that is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, by the way. Dolphins have that, and they’re mammals, so...Santa Claus could bring that one."[6] The list could go on and on. Returning to Carrier’s discussion, the best thing that this universe does is produce black holes. The cosmological constants are just right that this universe will produce more black holes than any other possible universe. So if the cosmological constants are also perfect for life, it would appear that life is just something that would necessarily have to be kicked up in a universe designed to produce black holes. So even from this angle, the argument from design doesn't get us very far.

Now, if to this line of inquiry you were to, rightly, respond, “These matters are beyond human understanding,”—fair enough. But an understanding of these matters is exactly what you pretend to when you say that God created the world. So either 1) Provide reasonable answers to these questions, or 2) Admit that you are ignorant about these matters and cease to say that you think it likely a God created the world. I will regard a failure to do the former as a silent admission of the latter. Perhaps more important than discussing why the creationist explanation is incoherent is pointing out that it is, after all, an appeal to ignorance. We don't know how the universe was formed, so why should we even play this game? Why should we guess? And why should we guess something extremely complex and self-serving at that? What leads you to believe that something produced in the course of human mythology which doesn't fit the evidence we empirically observe has anything to do with the reality of the situation? In Tyson’s presentation he explains how the belief in God, at every point in our intellectual history, has been the excuse to stop asking questions and looking for answers. He puts it quite simply and rightly, “Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance.”

Can we prove that the biblical God doesn't exist? No. Of course not. The biblical God could exist. It’s theoretically possible. But that’s true about just about anything. As soon as we start talking about what's theoretically possible, rather than what seems likely based on the information that we have, game over. There's no way to continue. Just about anything could be the case. We find ourselves at a stalemate. As Sam Harris rightly observes, there's no more evidence for the biblical God than there is for Poseidon or any of the other gods of human mythology. “It's not like someone in the third century actually figured out that the biblical God exists, but Poseidon doesn’t. This is not data that we have.”[7] They could exist, but we have no reason to think that they do that is actually relevant to the truth of the matter. Pascal was right that we must wager about the nature of existence, and that we must do a risk-gain assessment of the situation. He was only wrong in thinking that there are only two possible options (Christianity or Materialism)—when in reality there are an infinite number of possible options. You could be a Christian because you believe that when you die this will get you into heaven if anything will, but find that the whim of the deity was for atheism and intellectual honesty, and thus they will be eternally rewarded and you eternally punished.[8] You don't know. All we can do is our best to understand the nature of existence based on the evidence that we have. Our feelings about “what makes sense” fluctuate all the time. Reason and evidence are our only ticket through.[9] That not everyone understands or appreciates this is beside the point. The understanding has occurred. The words, once spoken, cannot be taken back. God is dead in the same way that a mortally wounded patient or an inmate on death row is dead.

Unfortunately, one of the main culprits that we face in this process is actually language itself. Language is an extraordinary tool. We wouldn't be where we are as a species without it. But because, as a species, we're so hardwired to respond to language with belief, because so much of what constitutes how we experience reality is the result of linguistic constructions, language can become a font of illusion as easily as it can be a tool for the enunciation of truth.[10] Often, hearing is believing. Thus, when you're around people who constantly talk about God, always within the context of the unstated assumption that of course God exists, this has a profound effect on you. When they talk about God in the same manner that they would another person, who just happens to not be in the room at the time, the idea of God fits into the same place in your mind as such a person. The taken for granted becomes accepted unquestioningly as reality because it is taken for granted.

And this isn't just true about the belief in God—it could be used for just about any belief. Children really believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and any number of other things primarily because these things are presented to them linguistically as being empirical realities. And adults believe in things no less fanciful, based on no better evidence. For example, when someone talks about hell, as if it actually exists, you probably think to yourself, “Oh man, I wouldn’t want that to happen. What can I do?” You respond to it, emotionally, as if it were a reality because you are being told that it is. Want to see how this works? Try this experiment: Hang out with people who believe different things than you do. Go visit a Mosque, a Hindu temple, a Buddhist meditation group, a pagan gathering, etc. Read their literature. Get people to talk to you about their beliefs and just listen, or better yet, listen as they talk to each other about their shared beliefs. And see if you can't get the feeling, “Huh. From this angle, this sort of seems true.” Then go back to doing your own thing and watch this feeling dissipate.

It's the same thing with values. If you're around people who constantly talk as if something is wrong or is right, you'll probably come to think both that values are objective and that the specific value judgments of that group are accurate, whatever they happen to be. Likewise, if you're around people who constantly talk from the assumption that God exists, you're likely to find this a reasonable proposition. In contrast, if you're around people who either talk from the assumption that God doesn't exist or who merely don't reference God at all, you're likely to find the belief in God a ridiculous proposition. (I think this, by the way, is probably the primary reason why religious groups want the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer to take place in school. The more instances something is mentioned in a positive context, the more taken for granted it will be. In contrast, having children spend the majority of their time at school in which the belief in God is not assumed is highly threatening to the indoctrination process.) The less you go to church or other faith activities to have your programming updated, the less sure about the existence of God you'll probably become.

Language allows for these sorts of magic tricks, cognitive illusions, to be performed on you. From different perspectives, different things will “feel” true. If you come to understand and circumvent this process, to be able to say, “I know that this seems true because I'm being told it's the case, but I also know I'd feel the opposite in the opposite situation, and I'll only base my beliefs about objective reality on reason and evidence,” you'll become more powerful. You'll become more able to see through bullshit and lies and to search deeper for the truth. This is especially useful when listening to politicians. Those that seek to manipulate you are able to do so in large part because of language. The masses are more powerful than the elite, and the elite know this. But the elite also know how to manipulate the masses through the use of words. Become you own magician, and show others how these tricks are performed.

Thirdly, the phrase “God is dead” can also be taken to mean that “God is death.” Monotheists, out of despair, seek to transcend life and existence, and so they disparage them. Life is seen as a disease, and death as the cure. Nietzsche’s words are best for this:

“The Christian conception of God—God as god of the sick, God as a spider, God as spirit—is one of the most corrupt conceptions of the divine ever attained on earth. It may even represent the low-water mark in the descending development of divine types. God degenerated into the contradiction of life, instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yes! God as the declaration of war against life, against nature, against the will to live! God—the formula for every slander against 'this world,' for every lie about the 'beyond'! God—the deification of nothingness, the will to nothingness pronounced holy!”

To say that there's a God is to say that there's an upper limit on what life can achieve. To say that there's no God is to say that there's no upper limit. “The Godly thing is simply this: that there are gods but no God.” Thus spoke Zarathustra. To this I would add that there are heavens but no Heaven, devils but no Devil, sins but no Sin, hells but no Hell, and forgiveness but no Forgiveness. These things exist relatively, but not ultimately. You may “sin” against someone—act in such a way as to harm them, for example—but you can't do anything objectively wrong. You are their devil, but there can be no enemy of being, since everything that exists is itself an incarnation of being. Someone can forgive you—bring you back into their trust—but the Universe cannot forgive you, because everything that you do it is also doing through you. There is nothing to forgive. You're never out of sync with it, so it can't bring you back into sync with it.

To believe in God is to believe in tyranny: that one consciousness arbitrarily has all knowledge and all power, that its good is the only good and the good of all others are pronounced meaningless, and that all other consciousnesses, equally arbitrarily, exist as servants to that one. Might this ultimate tyranny exist? It might. But let's hope not. There was a time when we believed in kings. No longer. When will our ideals live up to our practices? When will we believe in the “Republic of Heaven”? Divine justice is injustice. The only real justice is that which beings work out amongst themselves.[11] God is always a deus ex machina. That Cronus was defeated by Zeus is, in a strange way, perhaps the greatest tribute to Cronus. Cronus succeeded in contributing to the production of something greater than himself. Yahweh has never done anything so great. On the contrary, everything that Yahweh produces seems to fall apart without his constant attention. From a Christian point of view, creation and revelation occurred in the past and we are constantly moving away from the source of life and truth. The world is in a constant state of decay. In contrast, from a scientific point of view, we are constantly moving towards greater and greater understanding. There is only life, continually expanding and refining itself. A God that is outside of the rest of life seems to necessarily be its opposition. Instead of all beings acting as independent and fully actualized beings, they are bound to the dictates of one consciousness that possesses the essence of life.

Lastly, “God is dead” means that the existence or nonexistence of a God is existentially irrelevant. Consider the movie The Iron Giant. The Giant was a robot. He did have a creator—or creators. He was designed for a purpose. He was made to be a war machine. He was built to destroy. But he decided he didn't want to be a war machine—and there is no basis for criticizing his decision. What we were designed for—or whether we were designed at all—is irrelevant. We choose what we are going to do and to be. Some God that is separate from you cannot provide you with an ultimate meaning—because the kind of God that could present you with a meaning in that way would itself be a subject. God’s meaning would be yours only to the extent that you agreed to it. And if you found something else to be meaningful, its meaningfulness would be just as real as any that God could assign. All we can do is seek to actualize our ideals to the best of our ability. Whether or not there is a God, our actions are exactly the same. If there is a God, we cannot know the will of God, except through what is revealed through nature—that is to say, if something occurs in nature, we know that God must allow it. But what we can know with a fair amount of certainty is this: anytime that anyone says that God wants something, they're saying that because they want that thing, and for no other reason. An all powerful being cannot want anything. Anything it willed would be instantly actualized. If it's God’s will that we have free will, then it's up to us to do what we want. Otherwise our free will would be the free will of a slave. (They can do whatever they want—we're just going to beat them if they don’t do what we want.) Is that what you mean by God? Is that what you mean by free will? God the trickster? The micromanager? An all powerful being that created everything, allows you to do as you please, and then pulls the rug out from under you?

Okay, so what do you want to say, Christian right? That obeying God will bring you prosperity and denying God will bring you suffering? So then you're saying that might makes right? One should obey whoever is the most powerful because that person is the most powerful? But even if your beliefs about God were true, which there's no evidence for, this doesn't provide an objective ground for ethics. We're the ones that say we want prosperity and don't want suffering. It's still predicated upon the subject positing values—not any sort of objective standard. That this subjective standard may be universally endorsed only provides an inter-subjective ground for ethics, not an objective one. Were there a being that wanted hell for itself, you would have no basis for criticizing its decision. But in that we want prosperity and not suffering, we have an inter-subjective ground for ethics without God, so God adds nothing to the equation.


Notes:

[1] “Why is it raining?”
“Because God wants it to be raining.”
“Why is that person sick?”
“Because God wants that person to be sick.”
“Why is that person in charge?”
“Because God wants that person to be in charge.”
Ad nauseam.

[2] My only problem with the institution of science is that it's too religious and not scientific enough. Look how they brutalized Rupert Sheldrake for having the audacity to dare and question their materialist assumptions about the world—and to do so experimentally as well as theoretically. For the more visually inclined, watch the fourth session of the “Beyond Belief” conference, in which the audience of scientists seem almost personally offended that Stuart Hameroff would dare to theorize that consciousness might be something more than simply an epiphenomenon. How far have we really come since Galileo? But I'm not asking you to be uncritical, rather extra critical. The question should always be about what the evidence actually shows, but the institution of science, too, has its prejudices. Certain hypotheses are not taken seriously because they fly in the face of certain entrenched worldviews. These hypotheses don't have to concern any sort of extra-physical reality (Joan Roughgarden argues in the third session of “Beyond Belief” that male chauvinism and loyalty to traditional Darwinian theory have prejudiced the institution of science against different hypotheses concerning the nature of sexual selection) though they may (a la theories such as those presented by Rupert Sheldrake or Stuart Hameroff). I'm not here arguing that the theories of Sheldrake or Hameroff (or Roughgarden, for that matter) are necessarily correct, but I do think they are good examples of scientists employing the scientific method who are treated poorly by the scientific community simply for presenting theories which are controversial. So, in order for science to work effectively, we all have to think critically about the data and question our own and one another's assumptions. This doesn't mean that there are good reasons to hold beliefs in favor of things like Intelligent Design or against things like global warming. I'm certainly not suggesting that the dogmas present in the institution of science should lead to considering institutions with an even greater degree of dogmatism (conservative Christianity) or deeper degree of vested interest (the oil companies) somehow on equal ground with the scientific community in terms of their epistemic claims. I doubt that anyone who thinks the performance piece of ID is a reasonable alternative to the scientific theory of evolution has thought very critically about the matter at all. Similarly, I think anyone that thinks global warming is a hoax has probably been getting their information either from people not really interested in the truth of the matter, anecdotal evidence, or nowhere at all.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-4-1

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-3-3

Some of this is taken from my discussion with Brett Paatsch:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Methodology-for-the-Matu-by-Ben-Dench-090102-788.html

[3] To define the Universe as "the created order" or "everything but God" is to beg the question—to presuppose that there's a God to begin with. Whereas if the Universe is defined as "all existent things," that definition will hold and remain coherent whatever the particular structure of reality happens to be. I will thus use Universe with an uppercase "U" to refer to existence as a whole and universe with a lowercase "u" to refer to the known universe—a relativistic subset of the Universe based on humanity's understanding, which is constantly expanding.

[4] Is this, too, a metaphor that appeals to human sensibilities? Yes, I think so. But it's certainly much less so than “Intelligent Design.”

[5] Jhuger has a great parable about this called “The Watchmaker” which I think puts things in perspective:
http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker

[6] You really should hear him tell it. The presentation he gave at the second session of the “Beyond Belief” conference was excellent and enlightening. I highly recommend it.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-2-4

[7] Sam Harris says this during the course of a great speech he gave at the 2005 “Idea City” conference in Canada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

[8] Richard Carrier discusses why just this would seem to be the more likely option in his article “The End of Pascal’s Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

[9] Sam Harris discusses Bertrand Russell’s excellent teapot analogy at the “Beyond Belief” conference. In addition, here are links from Paul Tobin’s website reviewing:

Irreducible Complexity:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/behe.html

Fine-tuning:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/finetuned.html

And a review of God "proofs" in general:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/god.html

And this site on evolution is absolutely excellent. Be sure to check out the mainstream scientific replies to common creationist arguments:
http://www.talkorigins.org

[10] By the way, Ricky Gervais's new movie, The Invention of Lying, is brilliant. I highly recommend it.

[11] Justice in the ideal sense always involves taking antagonistic parties and moving them from a zero-sum to a win-win situation. Anything less than this may be an approximation of justice, but it isn't complete justice. It's up to us to bring about ideal conditions, because there's no one else to do it. But the Abrahamic God doesn't seem to serve ideal justice at all. The Jewish God (as portrayed in the "Old Testament" or Jewish Bible) seems only interested in advancing the interests of the Jews against all other peoples. Whereas the Christian and Muslim God is infinitely worse—damning individuals to hell for all eternity!


If you identify with the message of this article, please email it to people, tell your friends, even print out copies to pass around. Together we can raise awareness. Thank you.