JREF Swift Blog

For those of you familiar with the James Randi Educational Foundation (the lovely TAM7 folks) you might want to check out the Swift blog - I guest posted over there!

Check it out! I feel so famous.

How to make ad hominem attacks

This blog post is in response to this article, published by the Christian "Research" Institute.

Please do not think I am actually making these arguments - I am not.  This is very important - I am NOT MAKING THESE ARGUMENTS. I have taken the original text and replaced the words "atheist" with the words "Christian". The point is that if you make a lot of substanceless and bigoted attacks toward one group, it is very easy to replace the name of one group with another and get the same useless mealy-mouthed results. Note how I say nothing at all, and instead resort to name-calling and sound bytes. This is an example of how NOT to make an argument, yet the original authors have done exactly this.  I highly suggest clicking the link above and reading the original text first, or this may make no sense. Observe:

 A few published and prolific Christians apparently have commandeered the soapbox at the proverbial free speech alley, vowing not to surrender it until the extraordinary and popular delusion of naturalism is completely dispelled. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, in less than a couple of years Christianity’s newest champions have sold 200+ million books, Some 10 million copies of Lee Strobel’s Case for a Creator, 30 million copies of Rick Warren’s the Purpose Driven Life, 65 million copies of Tim LaHay’s Left Behind Series, 250,000 copies of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box are in print, along with countless other books on Christianity taking up huge sections of bookstores. There are even entire bookstores devoted to this new pestilence. 

“The character of the ‘village Christian’ reappears from time to time in history, usually after the latest scientific announcement or the latest natural disaster. His title is akin to that of ‘village idiot’ which was popularized by George Bernard Shaw in 1907,” says Christian apologist Joel McDurmon, author of The Return of the Village Christian.1 “The idea is that every village had its ‘idiot’ who was full of opinions and advice on every topic, would never shut up, and made little sense. No one took the guy seriously” (p. xiii).

When the title “village idiot” becomes that of “village Christian,” it speaks of the person who thinks that The Holy Bible has all the answers and that the idea of non-supernatural reality is an illusion. “Like the village idiot, he knows everything, argues till he is blue in the face, never shuts up, and yet never learns,” says McDurmon, “and like the village idiot, no one really takes him seriously, either” (xii).

Despite what McDurmon notes is a tendency of Christians to wax dogmatic, however—consider Warren’s claim that “This book will help you understand why you are alive and God's amazing plan for you--both here and now, and for eternity...The Purpose-Driven Life is a blueprint for Christian living in the 21st century...”—some argue that there are reasons enough to take them seriously. One of the main reasons is that much passionate debate raises questions for many people, such as, Is naturalism intellectual nonsense? Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death? and, Is atheism simply a force for evil?

Then there is the matter of the cult of personality. Ziztur, occupational therapy doctoral candidate and atheist, believes atheists should take the likes of Warren, LaHay, and Strobel seriously because “these guys are so confident and their rhetorical force so convincing, there are people who may believe the message even if they don’t understand the arguments. These [atheists] should not be reading these books without qualification,” she parodied in her blog, “On the other hand, the critical thinker, able to see through the smokescreen of rhetoric and to endure their caustic delivery, would be led to ask the question, ‘Is this is the best you’ve got? Maybe my worldview has a lot going for it after all.’”

Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, realizes that the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity confirms the ancient biblical wisdom of the book of Ecclesiastes that “there is nothing new under the sun.” He is quick to note several stunning new developments, however.

“Promulgating Christianity has become a lucrative business [and] profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today’s fashionable belief from the varieties of Christianity that have arisen over the millennia,” he says.

The most obvious characteristics, Berkowitz states, are best realized by a historical comparison of Fundamentalist Christianity to the classical Christianity of Martin Luther, the Enlightenment Christianity of the eighteenth century, and the anti-modern Christianity of Lewis and Augustine. “Whereas classical Christianity rejected naturalism in the name of pleasure and tranquility in the afterlife, Fundamentalist Christianity rejects naturalism in the name of superstition,” he says. “Unlike Enlightenment Christianity, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which went to some effort to include scientific advances in its belief system but also stoned blasphemers, Fundamentalist Christianity proclaims its seemingly never-ending hatred of science and non-belief loudly and proudly from the rooftops.” And, according to Berkowitz, whereas antimodern Christians considered the death of God movement as part of the natural course of culture changes, Fundamentalist Christianity views the attachment to belief despite contradictory evidence as a good thing, “lamenting only the perverse and widespread resistance to shedding once and for all the hopelessly backward belief in a naturalist worldview.”3

Christian and secular responses to the flood of new Christian material appearing on bestseller lists, television, radio, and Internet blogs and sites are gradually building, too.

Founded in 1978, American Vision is a nonprofit Atheist think tank, national training center, book publisher, and speaker’s bureau whose mission, according to its Web site (www.americanvision.org) is “Equipping and Empowering Atheists to Restore America’s Secular Foundation.” The strategy of American Vision is to do so using the Internet, radio, television, audio/video resources, publications, and training seminars.

The latest such resource is a two-minute commercial that has been broadcast globally via the Internet and television. “Christians present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers,” reads the Web site promo. “The French Revolution, Crusades, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the Christian worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of anyone different than themselves and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that Christianity is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world."

The commercial script reads:

This is Rick [Warren]. He writes books. Rick likes to think. He uses words like god, faith, and grace. Rick thinks that his god is real and that evolution is a fairy fale. Rick is a nice guy and cares about you. He thinks you should stop living your life based on the morals of modern secular humanist ethics and just love god.

This is Lee [Strobel]. He writes books, too. He’s one of Rick’s friends and believes in a god too. In fact, he thinks that parents who don’t teach their children about his god should be arrested….

This is Robespierre [Maximilien Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution]. He lived 200 years ago in France. He liked to think and use words like god and faith just like Rick and Lee. But he also liked to kill people who disagreed with him. [This was]… known as the reign of terror.…Maybe if more people decide to listen to Rick and Lee we could all be more faithful and god-fearing like Robespierre. Maybe we could even have our own reign of terror for people who continue to be irrational and believe silly things like secular humanism.

See what I did there? Don't I sound bigoted?

A simple question...

...with no clear answer.

Is this universe better with human beings in it, as oppose to without human beings? Why?

Insufficient Christianity: Chapter 2.1

The last lines of the first chapter of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity read:

First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

I have more to say about these assertions; happily, Lewis' next chapter is written to address potential objections to these claims.  He acknowledges that some people will say that our knowledge of the "Moral Law" is simply herd instinct, as he puts it.  Lewis counters that:

. . . feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.

This is not much of a counter-argument.  To put is simply, Lewis is begging the question; the situation itself decides between the two instincts, and one acts according to whichever is strongest.  He seems to anticipate this obvious objection:

If' two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.

It seems that the only point that Lewis has to stand on, here, is that if you refuse to help the victim in question, or consider fleeing instead of helping, you will "feel bad," and that this is proof of something else, distinct, in your mind, telling you to choose the morally correct action.  However, if you do choose to help the person in danger, and put yourself at risk in the process, you will still feel fear - does this mean that there is a distinct, universal "Self-Preservation Law" that is telling you to protect your own welfare?  These two different biological instincts necessarily have different subjective "feels" to them; if you help him, you will feel fear and very possibly regret for choosing that action; if you don't help him, your biological instinct to help other human beings in your community will similarly cause you to feel shame and regret.  There simply is no third factor of "ultimate universal morality" necessary.  Lewis states with great authority, "The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct."  Yes, yes it can.  It says, "I am your 'herd instinct.'  I am a crucially important biological function, thoroughly evolved, such that I am absolutely crucial to the success of human societies.  Wake me up."

Lewis offers yet another explanation of why the "Moral Law" cannot be a natural instinct of humanity:

If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call ' good,' always in agreement with the rule of right behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage.

It certainly looks like Lewis is just playing word games, here.  There most certainly is an impulse to act "in agreement with the rule of right behavior" - the impulse to act in agreement with the rule of right behavior.  Again, Lewis seems to be begging the question; he simply takes the human desire to call oneself an ethical, moral person, and claims, as an unstated premise, that this desire is not itself a human instinct.

He further attempts to justify this premise by claiming that the "Moral Law" sometimes tells us to suppress an instinct, and sometimes tells us to encourage it, and that therefore the "Moral Law" cannot be itself an instinct.  However, we can easily imagine a situations where one instinct would influence the strength of other instincts; our desire for physical contentment might tell us to physically relax, or to eat, or to have sex at some times, and to work to earn a living or fight off an attacker at other times, as appropriate.  A desire to have a strong family unit might encourage our sexual impulses (if we have a suitable partner handy and/or have few children already), or it might serve to suppress our sexual impulses (if the object of that sexual attraction is not a suitable partner, or is not our partner at all, or if we already have children that require our immediate attention, etc.).

Basically, as near as I can tell, what Lewis is saying here is; "My argument rests entirely on my assertion that all human beings possess (to some degree or another) a knowledge of what I call the Moral Law.  Even though everybody has some impulse towards the Moral Law, there is no such thing as an instinct that is similar to the Moral Law."  I have to give credit where credit is due, though; this is possibly the most convoluted, semantically-layered circular argument that I've ever heard.

Another significant portion of this chapter seems intended to refute moral relativism.  I agree with this portion, but for different reasons that I assume C.S Lewis would claim.  He says that "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other."  It is vitally important in any such debate that you define what you mean by "morality" itself.  There are many who claim very seriously that "morality" is whatever the will of God dictates, whereas a Secular Humanist like myself will insist that a more genuine ethical system only takes into account the interests, for benefit and for harm, of self-aware, sentient beings.  Others will have their own differing ideas of what morality itself is.

So when Lewis says that some notions of morality are more right than others, he is absolutely correct . . . if everyone agrees on what morality itself is.  Lewis seems to be implying that if you acknowledge that other conceptions of morality than your own exist, you are somehow also endorsing those moral systems as being as legitimate as your own.  I can acknowledge that Christian morality exists while acknowledging that something that might be highly moral according to biblical morality might be horribly immoral according to my Secular Humanist morality.

Lewis wraps up this chapter with yet more bizarre semantics; he acknowledges that some will object to the assertion that morality has been extremely constant throughout human civilization.  He imagines a person pointing out the very significant differences in morality between human society burning witches a couple hundred years ago, whereas today we would never do such a thing.  Lewis explains that the morality of the situation hasn't changed - if there really were women who sold their soul to the devil in exchange for supernatural powers, and were using those powers to torment innocent people, we would certainly be morally justified in punishing them.  There is no moral advancement in not executing witches when you don't believe that witches exist.  This is true, so far as it goes, but Lewis had previously implied, very strongly, that he believes that those who violate the Moral Law are aware that they are enacting moral evil:

What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

What Lewis says about those who, in centuries past, burned witches alive, can be said exactly, word-for-word, about Nazi Germany.  If there really were huge demographics of sub-human "people" bent on the destruction of our society, then of course we would be justified in punishing them!

*Sigh*  To my mind, there isn't much difference between the moral incompetence of murderous witch-burning mobs and Nazi Germany.  Lewis seems to be strongly implying that Nazi Germany was terribly immoral, and we were justified in judging them for their actions.  Conversely, he seems to be saying that those who burned witches alive in centuries past were simply . . . what?  Mistaken?  Misinformed?  Where would Lewis draw the line between a simple lack of relevant knowledge and genuine immorality?  Lewis is meandering all over the place, attempting to establish his contradictory assertions.

Of course, Ziztur and I do, in fact, agree that there exists an objective moral reality.  We just dispute that C.S. Lewis has succeeded, in any way, in establishing it's supernatural nature.

Ref:  Mere Christianity Online

Large Experimental studies

A quote from a commenter on this post:

Yes, alt treatments get by without having to do such large studies (which unfortunately can provide false positives--you can get a positive result for almost anything by making the study large enough). However, that helps to keep the cost down. Herbs and supplements are far, far cheaper than most prescriptions. If we're trying to keep healthcare costs down, do we really want everything to be uber-regulated and uber-expensive, especially innocuous things that have been used safely for a long time?

 I am confused as to how someone could come to the conclusion that the larger one's sample size, the more likely it is to provide positive results for "almost anything". The exact opposite is true, I.E. the smaller the sample size, the more likely one can provide positive results for "almost anything".

A major problem in alternative medicine studies is that small sample sizes produce positive results, but larger sample sizes produce negligible results. In science-based medicine, if larger studies show a medicine to be ineffective, but smaller studies show a medicine to be effective, we conclude that the smaller studies were flawed due to small sample size.

I'll let you guys comment on the rest of the taradiddles you see above.

Coincidences

Brief IM log snippet:

(10:20:50 AM) David: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obIGsb-IZMo&feature=user
(10:22:11 AM) Petter: I paused my music to check that out.
(10:22:28 AM) Petter: In a rather amusing coincidence, the song I paused was a song by Tom Lehrer called "New Math".
(10:22:40 AM) David: wow, what are the odds? ;)
(10:23:10 AM) Petter: Probably inversely proportional to the frequency with which such remarkable coincidences happen to me.

Other peculiar coincidences of my life:

• 
  At a lake, swimming with a friend; we see a column of smoke rising from nearby and make jokes along the lines of I guess I shouldn't have planted that car bomb (yeah, yeah; we were about fourteen). Heading home, we pass the source of the smoke; the burning wreck of a car.
  
• 
  The weirdest one: Playing a role playing game with a friend (same friend, incidentally). The setting is a sci fi one; the game…kind of superhero-ish, a bit like Batman with a lot more guns. Having broken up some crime or other, the hero fires a few rounds into the air to attract the attention of the authorities as he makes his sortie. You accidentally shoot out a streetlight, I declare. Annoyed, he says something to the effect of Oh, come on!, then falls silent as the light bulb in my desk lamp cracks.
• 
  This is the only time in my life I've seen a light bulb do that; I guess thermal expansion and contraction had slowly worked microscopic cracks to the point where most of the glass bulb fell off and shattered on the desk, leaving the screw-in part in the socket, adorned with some jagged pieces of glass.
  

Remarkable coincidences like these seem to tempt some people to commit superstition. Me, I like to wonder the following: What are the odds that anyone should go through life without running into at least a few remarkable coincidences? After all, every single day, every one of us experiences many hundred events (using the term loosely), for a grand total of millions of events over a lifetime. On average, therefore, a person should expect to run into at least a couple of coincidences that are literally one in a million rare; coincidences that are one in a thousand, meanwhile, are a dime a dozen—you'll go through thousands of them. Or, in one of my favoite self-coined phrases, Every single day, on Earth, there are half a dozen people having a one-in-a-billion kind of day.

For a more thorough (but very accessible) discussion of this sort of thing, read Richard Dawkins's Unweaving the Rainbow, in particular chapter 7, Unweaving the Uncanny.

Animal medical studies

Awhile ago, our commenters went crazy in this post on vegetarianism, and several interesting sub-themes emerged. One of these was medical studies or research on animals.

There are those who argue that studies on animals may not be indicitive of results obstained for humans, given the differences in anatomy and genetics. Other people argued that animal modesl were predictive of results obtained in humans.

Are animal tests predictive of human tests? To what degree? Can we justify torturing animals in the name of science? what constitutes torture, anyway? I'm interested in hearing what you guyes think.

On Christian Intolerance.

You can probably suspect that I believe tolerance is a virtue, something we should strive for as a culture, community, world, and so forth.

Of course, being tolerant can sometimes mean not tolerating intolerance. This, of course, is what happens when I decry thus and such group of people who decry homosexuals, or atheists, or whoever.

 I like to think that most religious folk, especially those in the majority religion of my country (that’s Christianity, of course) also believe tolerance is a virtue, even if they on occasion can be found to be intolerant while at the same time believing that tolerance is a virtue.

There is a certain subset of Christianity that disagrees. When asked if tolerance is a virtue, their answer is actually, "NO." Take, for example, the writings of William Watkins over at the Christian Research Institute.

Virtue — the word sounds almost outdated. When I hear it, I think of such qualities as faith, hope, love, courage, justice, wisdom, fidelity, integrity, and moderation. I’m reminded of men and women who remain faithful to their marriage vows in the face of sexual temptations and strenuous trials, parents who sacrifice personal dreams so their children will have a better start at life, and employees who take a stand for what’s right rather than for what’s expedient.

What about freedom, reason, the ability to change, open-mindedness, skepticism? I am reminded of scientists who change their minds in the face of evidence contrary to their own established beliefs, women and men who are completely honest and open with each other in relationships and so do not violate each others trust (trust is far more important than monogamy), and yes-parents who sacrifice and employees who do what’s right.

Faith is not a virtue. Faith is that which remains the same despite contrary evidence. Faith is “sticking to your guns” even when the world demands you pack them up.

Today, however, we rarely hear about such virtuous people. Instead, we’re presented with contemporary role models such as Marla Maples and Donald Trump, who use sexual license to destroy one marriage and create an illicit one. Obviously our society exalts the "virtues" of sexual freedom and the pursuit of self-centered happiness at any cost.

Really? I hear about them all the time. The author is possibly a victim of confirmation bias. I barely know who Marla Maples and Donald Trump are, and I don’t know anyone who considers them role models! I’d like to know who sees these two people as role models.  Perhaps the author is looking in all the wrong places? It is amazing what some Christians see when they look out into the “secular” world. Some of them sound positively terrified of us.

Safe, sane, and consensual sexual freedom is a virtue! As far as self-centered happiness, it depends on who you talk to. Some people might have this type of morality, but I would disagree that ‘our society’ exalts either sexual freedom or self-centered happiness. Do you have anything other than anecdotal proof that this is the way society operates?

Then, of course, there’s Jack Kevorkian, the infamous "Dr. Death." This heralded civil rights advocate for dignity in dying has assisted in the suicides of almost 25 people, many of whom were not terminally, nor even seriously, ill. According to Kevorkian, the degree of a person’s illness does not matter when it comes to making the death decision. Rather, Kevorkian explains, "the highest principle in medical ethics — in any kind of ethics — is personal autonomy, self-determination. What counts is what the patient wants and judges to be a benefit or a value in his or her own life." In other words, the greatest virtue is whatever I decide is best for me.

Kevorkian is a single individual and does not speak for the rest of society, just like the folks at Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for Christianity. If I held up the Westboro Church as an example of how depraved Christianity has become over the years, I would not have a valid argument. Similarly, the actions of one man do not speak for society.

Given that, Kevorkian is right. In ethics, autonomy is very important. But autonomy does not mean, “whatever I decide is best for me”. Autonomy is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision and is used as the basis for determining moral respectability for one's actions. The writer of this article is, once again, trying to boil down humanist ethics into selfishness, which it is not.

This new moral code is playing well in America. We love self-indulgence and self-rule. So what if we kill our elderly and our depressed and our sick in obedience to the new virtues? What counts is what we want. To each his own.

This is not a new moral code. The idea of autonomy has been around since the ancient Greeks.

Where are we killing the elderly, sick and depressed? Could you please cite some evidence that more elderly, sick or depressed people are being killed in this society then back in the good old days of the 50’s and 60’s? Last I checked, the lifespan of an individual has moved from about 50 years in 1950 to 80+ years in 2009. If our society was so depraved that we didn't care about others, one would not expect the average lifespan to go up so dramatically. Can you prove that tolerance is having a negative effect on society using some actual data? No, you can't, because we're living longer, healthier lives with less crime than we were before.

Such new cultural "virtues" pervade nearly every aspect of our society, just as the old virtues did. And just as the virtue of self-sacrificial love bound together the older Christian virtues, so the "virtue" of tolerance is wed to the new secular "virtues" in an unholy alliance.

It certainly is unholy, and I thank rational thinking for that. But secular humanist ethics includes self-sacrificial love, so I can only assume the motivation of the author to overlook this is to vilify secularism to make his point. Tolerance of others to enjoy the freedom to be themselves provided they do not harm others is an example of self-sacrificial love. Moving on…

The tolerant person, so we’re told, is broad-minded — open to other beliefs, truth claims, moral convictions, and lifestyles. He or she makes room for others to do as they wish, even if their behavior contradicts or even mocks his own. He believes in "live and let live."

You do not have the right to not be mocked. Christians have been mocking and vilifying atheists for centuries. If you expect to push your system of thought onto others, expect some criticism. I think it is a virtue to be able to do so without whining that you are being mocked. I make room for Christians to do as they wish, so long as they do not undermine science or infringe upon my rights, and their behavior contradicts and mocks my own frequently.

During the ‘50s and ‘60s, being tolerant meant putting up with a slow salesclerk, restraining the desire to laugh at someone’s bizarre dress, or holding one’s tongue when a person made a harmless but erroneous comment. Being tolerant never meant condoning immoral behavior, letting harmful beliefs go unchallenged, or permitting a person’s dangerous lifestyle to influence, much less be taught, to others. In those days we may have disagreed about what is true, but few challenged the bedrock conviction that "true" is the opposite of "false," and that truth does not tolerate untruth. We believed then that some beliefs and lifestyles promoted the common good while others undermined it.

We believe these things now! We may have disagreed about what is true, and we are disagreeing about what is true now – namely, if any given behavior is immoral, harmful or dangerous. The statistics are not on your side. Crime, for example, has gone down considerably, to the point at which we are now experiencing crime rates equivalent of that in the 50’s.

Immoral behavior should not be condoned, I agree. the problem is that I define what is immoral differently than what the author defines as immoral. Harmful beliefs should absolutely be challenged. Dangerous lifestyles should not be taught to others. I do not know which specific behaviors, beliefs and lifestyles this particular author is decrying, as he does not state them. This is a pity. Before we can claim any given behavior is immoral, harmful or dangerous, we need to prove that it is immoral, harmful or dangerous. Simply claiming that it is, and that this gives you license to condemn it begs the question.

I think it is immoral to not give gays the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals

The author (I think) thinks it is immoral to give gays the same rights.
Who is right? Who is being intolerant? This is the disagreement about what is true we are having.

Those of us who still believe these things are considered bigots, judgmental prudes, or moral fundamentalists by the new "tolerant" regime. Never mind that the new tolerance has led to the destruction of more than 30 million babies in America’s abortuaries. Never mind that the new broad-mindedness concerning promiscuous and homosexual sex is perhaps the leading cause of the spread of HIV — one of the most deadly and elusive viruses yet known to humankind. Never mind that the new openness to "alternative lifestyles" is bringing about legislation that gives civil-rights status to immorality.

I can understand why people dislike abortion, so I’ll leave that one alone. HIV is not elusive, and the lifespan of an HIV positive individual is rising every day. A prevalent disease or death-causing agent does not make the cause of that disease immoral. About 17 thousand people die of HIV in the US every year. About 650 thousand people die of heart disease every year. The behaviors that lead to heart disease (overeating is a prime example) are not immoral.

We must stop this insanity. The new tolerance is not a virtue but a vice. We must expose it for what it is and replace it with the truth.

Okay. If tolerance is a vice, then I suppose I can stop being tolerant of your silly immoral mythology. I can stop being tolerant of your condemnation of gays and sec which does not fit your narrow paradigm of what is permissible and what is not. I can stop being tolerant of your immoral jackhammer to science. I can stop being tolerant of your claims of moral superiority, your attempts to block people from having civil rights, your attempts to inject your mythology into science classrooms. If you insist you do not have to tolerate us, where is the onus for us to tolerate you?

You see what I did there? All I have to do is label any given action as immoral, and suddenly I don't have to tolerate it anymore.

All truth is exclusive — it excludes what is false as it affirms what is true. After all, if it’s true that the capitol of the United States is Washington, D.C., then it’s false that the U.S. capitol is any other city on earth. That truth excludes innumerable cities.

An objective truth is not the same as a moral truth. This is one of the reasons it is much easier to argue about morality than the capitol of the United States. We can use objective reasoning, logic and rational thinking to come to an objective conclusion about morality, but another individual may use a different system of reasoning to come to a different conclusion. It is evident that this happens in society all the time.

Jesus was the incarnation of truth and compassion. He healed the needy, blessed children, and forgave sins. He even saved a woman apparently caught in adultery from being stoned to death (John 8:1-11).

And yet, He openly condemned hypocrisy and avarice. He threw businesspeople and their wares out of the temple because of their sacrilege (John 2:12-16). He called some of the religious leaders of His day "son[s] of hell," "fools," "blind guides," "whitewashed tombs," and "vipers" (Matt. 23:15-20).

Hypocrisy is a vice, I totally agree.

Jesus was not the epitome of tolerance, and yet He came during the era of Roman tolerance. The Romans conquered lands militarily but allowed conquered peoples to keep their customs and religious convictions intact. This policy of tolerance led to Jesus’ death. Since the Pax Romana ("peace of Rome") wouldn’t allow Jesus to upset the people under Roman rule, the tolerant Roman government tried, beat, and brutally executed an innocent man in the name of maintaining peace.

That sounds very intolerant of them, given that the Jews executed Jesus because they were convinced (due to their religion) that he was being immoral by blaspheming.  The Roman government executed Jesus because they believed he was committing heresy. This is not tolerance. This is death due to intolerance, or perhaps the tolerance of intolerance. This seriously weakens the author’s point.

Whom will we emulate — the tolerant in our midst or the Lord over us all? Like ancient Rome, America needs Christians to stand up for what Christ did, not to capitulate to the new "virtue" of tolerance. What America needs are more prophets — imitators of Christ — who will reach out to the lost with compassion, while proclaiming the truth and living the virtues incarnated by the Savior. Prophets may not be honored in their own country, but no country will last long without heeding their wisdom. 

You are equating the individuals in this society who advocate for gay rights with the Romans, who conquered lands and “allowed” people to keep religious convictions intact, and allowed the Jews to condemn Jesus for the crime of blasphemy?  Again, this is a society which tolerates other’s being intolerant, which is exactly the society you want.

TAM7 in one week!

I am so super happy! We'll be leaving for TAM7 in exactly one week. Of course, TAM7 does not actually start until a week and a half from now, but we're taking off early to drive there, stopping to visit the Grand Canyon on the way.

You will, of course, continue to recieve your daily dose of Zizturism, Flimsyism or Petterism, so fear not. Too bad I can't blog in the car - it makes me sick to read text while riding.

Insufficient Christianity: Chapter 1.1

Onto the meat in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  The first chapter seems to be a long-winded, slowly built-up version of the Argument from Morality, with liberal use of analogies and metaphors.  He spends a great deal of time building his assertion that there is a common morality among human beings:

They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?'--'That's my seat, I was there first'--'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'--Why should you shove in first?'--'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine'--'Come on, you promised.' . . .  He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.'

Well, right off the bat, we see the strain of this argument.  People absolutely reply, "To hell with your standard," in some way, shape, or form.  If a person tells me that we should be totally unconcerned with the civilian casualties of a nuclear attack on a nation that has annoyed us, my response could very well be that their standard of ethics is a complete moral and intellectual cock-up, and should be discarded completely.  I might answer the same to a person who asserted that the Bible is the one true repository of moral knowledge.  If I were to meet a genuine Nazi, I might say such a thing, as well; highly entertaining, considering an illustration that Lewis uses just a bit further on.

Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Not at all; if two people were playing a game of football, and got into an argument about a supposed rules infraction, it may very well come to pass that they could discover that they have completely different opinions of what the rules are.  In the case of football, there is a "higher power" that can be consulted, a referee, or perhaps an authoritative football rulebook.  We have no such authority for morality itself; Christians would claim the Bible, of course, but consider that there is no consensus even within Christianity on vast portions of biblical morality!  This is the big flaw in Lewis' reasoning thus far, illustrated perfectly by his own analogy of the rules of football - we can observe that there is a consensus of what the rules of football are; in contrast, we can observe that there is no consensus among humanity on the issue of morality.  He attempts to deal with this objection further on.

Entertainingly, he lists "The Natural Law" (which seems to be his term for an objective moral truth) with the laws of gravity and the various laws of Chemistry, to draw a comparison that doesn't exist at all.  He admits as such, stating that we can't casually violate the actual "natural laws," while we can choose to disobey "The Natural Law."  He doesn't seem to notice that this clearly distinquishes these different types of "law."

He uses Nazi Germany to illustrate his point, yet I think that he shoots himself in the foot.

What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

Where to start?  For one, we absolutely can blame someone for committing an immoral act, even if they didn't know any better.  Someone can be raised, thoroughly and effectively, to be anti-semetic, or racist, or sexist, and we can still call these things immoral.  Lewis admits as much, acknowledging that we "might still have had to fight them."  It seems to me that it is absolutely the case that morally evil actions like the Holocaust were the result of massive, societal indoctrination, built up successively over many generations.  What's the alternative?  That such a massive number of strongly bigoted persons happened to live in Germany at that time?  Is it really more plausible to insist that all Nazi soldiers and officials, that everyone who voted for Adolf Hitler, knew full well that they were committing morally repugnant acts, yet just . . . what?  Didn't care?  Thought a little genocide and unjustified war would be fun?  If they didn't genuinely believe that their actions were necessary to protect themselves and their country, then what the hell does Lewis propose their motivation was?  Again, we don't have to pretend that they really, really did, deep down, know that launching invasions and genocide was wrong.  We can condemn their actions as morally evil and acknowledge that they were genuine, if horrifyingly mistaken, in their belief.

More importantly, this bit about Nazi Germany pretty thoroughly skewers Lewis' next assertion.  Literally, this is the very next line:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.  But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference.

So Nazi Germany was morally evil enough that a total world war against them was completely justified, but there's nothing like a "total difference" between their society's ethics and ours?  Not a complete and utter 180 degree difference, perhaps, but certainly a gross enough difference to illustrate that your assertion of a universally-known morality of sorts is a fabrication of your own religious convictions, not an objective observation.

He goes on to further describe what his "total difference" of morality would look like:

Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

As for the first assertion, concerning whom you should be unselfish to, I could point out that a great many people literally do state that you should put yourself first.  Several of my friends claim that this is the case, and, to put it bluntly, Ayn Rand has quite a cult following, despite the poor quality of her philosophy and her writing.  But I might as well punch off the clock and say what our intelligent readers have probably been thinking for some time now:  Evolution.  The theory of Evolution predicts that human beings, being communal organisms, will have both incredibly selfish instincts and incredibly altruistic instincts.  It predicts that human beings will be highly protective, even to the point of self-sacrifice, of our own families, progressing to our local community, and further to the levels of our state or nation, etc., but that perceived differences between our "group" and another "group" will often cause suspicion, isolation, or even hostility.  Evolution explains all of these observations, while Lewis' inconsistent theology doesn't.

As for the second assertion concerning men and their wives, this is a particularly great illustration of how blatantly incorrect Lewis' premise is.  Men have indeed differed as to whether you should have one wife or four.  Or 700, with a few hundred more concubines, like Solomon.  Some have claimed that marriage should not occur at all (like this bipedal loss, they are out there, no matter how stupid, and this shit isn't quite as rare as you might think).  Some folks, like me, say that if you don't feel like marrying women at all and would rather marry dudes, that's your right, or at least it should be.  And . . . everyone has always agreed that "you must not simply have any woman you liked."?  Lewis, are you high, sir?

I'll even include the full chapter for each of these; let no one say that I'm taking these holy and sacred scriptures out of their completely fucking ridiculous context.

Exodus 21:7:  "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."  (Context; this is a law given directly from God)

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:  If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.  (Context)

Judges 21:10-23:  So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said.  "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin."  They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.  Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon.  So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared.  But there were not enough for all of them.  The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel.  And the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left?  The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out.  We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.'  But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, to the north of Bethel, and east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and to the south of Lebonah."  So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in the vineyards and watch. When the girls of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, then rush from the vineyards and each of you seize a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin.  When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do us a kindness by helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war, and you are innocent, since you did not give your daughters to them.'"  So that is what the Benjamites did.  While the girls were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife.  Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.  (Context; seriously, what the fuck?)

This is an extremely abbreviated list.  If your Christian theology rests entirely on a premise that can easily be disproven with a few quotes from the Bible, you might want to rethink your theology.

That's pretty much it for the first chapter.  Stay tuned, folks.

Ref:  Mere Christianity Online

Seriously, do we write too much?

Believe it or not, this is actually a serious question.

I wonder if more people would tune in over here if we wrote... LESS.

I almost wonder if the three of us here write too much for daily bloggers to slog through. If you miss a few days, you might spend upward of half an hour trying to catch up. Am I right in thinking this? Should I take a poll? I'd really like to know. Should we write shorter posts? I used to make fun of Saint Gasoline for writing such lengthy posts, but when I started up this blog, I began writing posts that rivaled his.

Input! I need some. How can I make this blog better? You guys in the woodwork - I want to hear from you more than anyone else.

Insufficient Christianity: Preface.2

This is part 2 of our critique of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

Near the end of the preface, Lewis says something so important that I feel the need to reprint it in its entirety:

Far deeper objections may be felt - and have been expressed - against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?': or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman 'originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - 'Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We' cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

Thank you, C.S. Lewis. Here we have a Christian who is actually refusing to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy. I think that more clarification is in order. Instead of calling someone a ‘bad Christian’ rather than ‘not a Christian’, let’s call him a ‘bad person’ instead. In this sense, Christians can be ‘bad persons’ or ‘good persons’. Christians can follow the moral teachings of contemporary Christianity, Biblical Christianity (anyone who thinks contemporary Christianity is the same as Biblical Christianity needs to objectively read the Bible), they can be great people or terrible criminals. To say that anyone who is a ‘bad person’ is not a ‘True Christian®’ is essentially to equate ‘True Christian®’ with ‘good person’. There are atheists who are immoral, evil jerks. There are atheists who are ethical and nice. It would be ridiculous of me to claim that a person calling themselves an atheist but behaved immorally is not a ‘True Atheist’. Similarly, it would be ridiculous of me to claim that a person calling themselves a Christian but not selling all of their possessions (as Jesus commanded) is not a ‘True Christian®’. Really, I can hardly state this better than Lewis does, except for my minor clarification. Being a Christian, according to objective reality and Christian doctrine, does not require that one be always good, always noble, incapable of making mistakes, and always believing in the Christian god. Saying that someone is not a"True Christian®" if they do something you do not like shuts down rational conversation about the topic, because it gives someone a scapegoat such that they do not need to defend the atrocities committed by professing Christians. I cannot defend the behavior of an atheist by claiming "an atheist would never do that", so nor should a Christian (or any member of any other religion or group) be able do the same.

Ref: Mere Christianity Online

Photography: Fireflies

Some friends of mine went out to a park the other day and captured some fireflies. Taking pictures in the dark is kind of challenging, and boy, was it dark.

The fireflies were everywhere though.

(click on pics for full sized version)

They lit up in waves, making the 4 foot tall grass look like a randomized airstrip.

I am sure there are different species of firefly. Some have a very long light, others only blink. These were the blinking kind.

 

The shutter was open for 15-30 seconds in these, depending on my settings. I should have recorded them in RAW format. Alas.

Afterward, we played Frisbee in a nearby field.

Faith Infiltration: Copper Creek Christian Church

The other day, a pastor from a local church asked if he could come to at St. Louis Atheist Meetup. Being the friendly bunch of heathens we are, we told him he was absolutely encouraged to come and see what we were all about.

Pastor Keith hung back for the most part during our meetup, eventually getting wind of the Faith Infiltration project. He told us he would love it if we infiltrated his church – coming in to do our thing, and writing up an un-sugarcoated review.

As it turns out, Keith is pastor at Copper Creek Christian Church, located in Maryville, IL – Flimsy’s old stomping grounds.

Flimsy and I are avid GPS users, so when we’re planning an outing to a church, we tend to simply plug the address into the GPS and let it lead us. As we got closer to the church, Flimsy noted that it was in the same area as the church building he had attended at a child. Then, he realized it was on the same road as said church. Then, he realized that it WAS the same church building, now owned by a different congregation.  This was a fascinating coincidence, as this church building is the subject of many rather entertaining stories.

Upon entering the building we were greeted by several friendly people. The previous service had not ended yet, but when it did, people poured out of the sanctuary. We spotted Keith and approached to say hello.

We introduced ourselves to some congregants, letting them know that we were atheists who went to different churches each week. A curious thing happened – the congregants reacted with a sort of familiar surprise, the way someone might react when you introduce them to someone whom they have not met, but whom you have been telling stories about. Said congregants told us that they knew the pastor blogged with atheists. They mentioned things like wanting to find common ground between believers and non-believers, or wanting to figure out how to not be afraid to approach religion with non-believers at work. I couldn’t help but think that a few sessions with us might help people get over their anxiety toward talking to non-believers about Christianity. I like to think that we’re stubborn but approachable atheists.

The sanctuary of this church was contemporary, having an auditorium-like feel to it. There were cushy chairs instead of pews, and a long row of stained glass windows near the front at the top. In the center of this row was a stained glass depiction of Jesus, very reminiscent of a third grade color-by-numbers coloring book.

(sort of like this, only Jesus:)

Grossly oversized and clearly hand-constructed art supplies decorated the stage. These were apparently from an art camp being held at the church. An understated band (or worship leader group) assembled on stage with a keyboardist, percussionist, guitarist, and several female singers. They sung an uplifting song about how their god saves.

Above the stage, a video began playing over a large projection screen. It was a remarkably sugarcoated film about honoring fathers during fathers day, forgiving fathers who are absent or have failed at appropriately raising their children, and honoring people who act as father-figures. It even included a scene where a father and son are eating breakfast, the son accidentally spills his milk. Rather than get angry, the father simply smiles, shrugs, and intentionally tips over his milk too. At the end of the video, a worship leader told his congregation that his god the father knows you and so on fathers day, one should also honor their god. Following this, there was another uplifting song about how god knows everyone such that he hears everyone and knows every thought.

The song ended, and the sermon began. The pastor explained that in Christianity, there are ‘tutors’ – people who ramp up guilt and repentance in order to convert someone to Christianity as soon as possible. These individuals are essentially in the business of saving as many souls as quickly as possible.

He compared these ‘tutors’ to ‘fathers’, and said that ‘fathers’, especially those he is in contact with, do not want to convert their children as quickly as possible into Christianity. Instead they want their children to wait until they are old enough and possess the mental capacities to really accept Christianity not blindly or out of fear, but out of genuine conviction. As he spoke, it was clear that ‘fathering’ was ultimately superior to ‘tutoring’ as ‘fathering’ would me more likely to lead to lifelong Christians, rather than to individuals abandoning their faith as they age due to being indoctrinated and frightened into belief.

I find this way of thinking to be highly ethical, especially coming from a pastor. I have heard other pastors actually lift up indoctrination of children in sermons a la Francis Xavier, “Give me the children until they are seven and anyone may have them afterwards”. Like many other atheists/secularists, think it is immoral to indoctrinate children into a faith or a belief system they do not understand. We would consider it wrong to refer to a child as a “communist child” or a “Marxist child” because we are applying systems of belief to children who cannot understand this belief. It is much better to teach children skills – critical thinking, the ability to reason and problem-solve, rather than to teach them facts. I do not know if Keith meant anything like this, so I’d really like to explore that with him.

The pastor went on to say that Paul is a ‘father’, not a ‘tutor’, and referenced 1 Corinthians 4:6-16, which I shall reprint here from the ESV.

6I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

 8Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! 9For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. 11To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, 12and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; 13when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.

 14I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16I urge you, then, be imitators of me. 17That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. 18Some are arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power. 20For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. 21What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

Keith told a story about how the congregants of the Church of Corinth were being spiritually immature, causing a lack of unity among the congregation by doing things such as suing each other over personal disagreements or taking arguments from within the church outside the church. Paul came to the church of Corinth and told the congregants to stop being petty and instead do as he does.

Christians, Keith said, should behave as Paul behaves – Christians will be slandered, their beliefs will be misrepresented, they will feel attacked and persecuted – and they should not react by attempting to take away the rights of others.

I should repeat this, because this is one of the best things I have heard a pastor say to his congregation: If you feel misrepresented, slandered, persecuted or attacked, you should not react by attempting to take away the rights of others.

Keith went on to tell his congregation, literally, that “Christians should stop whining about being mistreated and instead find common ground”. This, he said is the difference between tutors and fathers. As you can imagine, I absolutely agree.

One of the things that Christians try to do is own permission. That is, they try to prevent individuals from doing supposedly immoral behavior X. The pastor told his congregation that Jesus set people free, so that in effect they could do whatever they want. I think what he means by this is that under the Old Covenant (in the Old Testament) there were 600+ rules given to the people by god that one had to follow; otherwise they would face their god’s terrible wrath. Jesus moseyed on down to earth and set humanity free from these rules. Yet, all that is allowed is not necessarily beneficial – your god might allow you to cheat on your wife, but cheating on your wife might not be beneficial.

Keith stopped here and said something along the lines of, “But wait! People say, ‘if you say you can do whatever you want, people will go and do whatever they want’. This is not true. People don’t work this way, and this is obvious, because not everything is beneficial”.

Holy Father of Science, dude.  One of the biggest arguments against atheism made by theists is that atheism opens the doors to bad behavior – if there is no god watching you over your shoulder, inside your head listening to your every thought – then you can do whatever you want and not be held accountable for your actions. I’ve blogged about this so many times that I could probably link to each word in this paragraph with a separate blog post on the subject. He was effectively saying that this argument against atheism is crap.

Alas, I have to wonder. How do we know what is beneficial? The answer to this is unclear. For example, I think it is perfectly permissible and beneficial to engage in safe, sane and consensual sex outside of marriage or partnership. I have no problem at all with non-monogamy so long as all parties included are open and honest with each other, topped off with an intense commitment to never violate the trust of your partner. Keith may very well disagree with me; I on the grounds of secular humanist ethics, he on biblical ethics.  We may disagree on gay marriage, stem cell research, or any number of things. But, he is saying we should not take these disagreements to the political level by actively attempting to infringe on the rights of others by taking away their right to engage in a permissible but nonbeneficial behavior.

Keith also told his congregation that they have the right to be as expressive as possible regarding their own beliefs, but not to such an extent that is distracts their neighbors – meaning, I assume, that one should not infringe upon the rights of others while expressing their religious views.

Changing subjects, Pastor Keith moved on to talk about some changes to healthcare funding being made in Illinois on July 1st. Apparently on July 1st, funding for health-related services to serve people who are victims of abuse, with mental illnesses and/or other disabilities are being cut to the extent that many people will lose housing, food, health, and other essential services. He urged his congregation to respond to this at the government level, asking to increase local taxes by a marginal amount so that these services would not need to be cut. He also urged them to help out at a local outreach center, so that his congregation could continue to use their resources for good and transparency.

This pastor is not admonishing his congregants to write to their government officials concerning the Ten Commandments being taken down from the front of a government building. He is not telling them to vote against civil rights for homosexuals. He is not telling people to work at the local outreach center in order to prosthelytize as a primary goal, and feed the hungry as a secondary goal. This church seems to really be concerned for things that really matter, like a society’s ability to care for its less fortunate members.

Here is a pastor that understands and actively engages the “other side”, and seeks to break down the “us” and “them” mentality – absolutely rejecting attempts to vilify people who are not Christian. His top priority seems to be seeking to make the world a better place in the here and now, rather than winning souls for the hereafter (though I am sure this is a goal as well). As it turns out, this Faith Infiltration needs no sugarcoating.

Homœopathic Pharmacopœia of the United States

I was on the Homœopathic Pharmacopœia of the United States website the other day, and noticed some interesting things. First, the statement on "what is homeopathy":

 Homeopathy is the art and the science of healing the sick by using substances capable of causing the same symptoms, syndromes and conditions when administered to healthy people.

Any substance may be considered a homeopathic medicine if it has known "homeopathic provings" and/or known effects which mimic the symptoms, syndromes or conditions which it is administered to treat, and is manufactured according to the specifications of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS).  Official homeopathic drugs are those that have been monographed and accepted for inclusion in the HPUS.

Central to all homeopathy is the determination of the effect of substances on healthy volunteers and the use of the developed "drug picture" by the consumer and/or trained health care practitioners according to the homeopathic principle of similia similibus curentur - Let likes be cured by Likes.

Historically, homeopathy has been practiced by medical doctors, and has been used for self-care by the general public. The issuance of The Homeopathic Domestic Physician by Constantine Hering, M.D., (1835) opened this health care modality to the public.  Homeopathy is an ideal therapeutic medium for self-medication of symptoms usually associated with self-limiting conditions since the selection of the proper remedy for the case is dependent on the symptoms that the body exhibits in its reaction to the illness.  In the use of homeopathy for conditions which are other than self-limiting, the consumer is advised to use the services of a health care provider.

Along with the "provings", homeopathy involves serial dilution of a symptom-causing substance. The substance is diluted and shaken, and the water the solution is diluted in is supposed to retain the memory of the molecules of the original substance, and thus cause the body to react by healing itself naturally. If I take too much of a homeopathic remedy, will I experience the same symptoms I am trying to cure?

This statement is telling, and it explains why homeopathic medication companies can boldly claim FDA approved labeling as if it were something meaningful or special:

The most important element was that the CPG established that homeopathic drugs could be OTC; setting guidelines for an OTC homeopathic drug by saying that an OTC homeopathic was a homeopathic drug claimed for a self limiting condition which did not require medical diagnosis or monitoring and was non-toxic. Further, such drugs, whether sold on an active or reactive basis, needed to be fully labeled with at least one indication for use (and a package insert if Rx.)

In other words, if your homeopathic drug has "FDA approved labels" that means the FDA has determined that the drug is for a self-limiting condition (That's a condition that will clear up BY ITSELF, like a cold, or colic) and that it will not be toxic. That's it. That is all one needs to achieve the greatness that is FDA approved labeling.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8:7 and we're DONE!

This is it. It's official. This is the last bit of Ray's book, so this will be the last "Ray a day"/"Ray on Occasional Days".  I must say, Ray really goes out with a bang. Read on. This was originally printed on Ray's blog, so I'll quote the whole thing:

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I'm in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are "birds," probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It's moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an "adult" fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That's because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I'm just being Unreasonable.

Part of me just wants to let this sit here. Essentially, I think it speaks for itself. Alas, the last nail of the coffin must be hammered in. I really wanted you guys to read that without breaking it up. Now we can go through it bit by bit.

Hello. My name is “Unreasonable.” I am a very proud demon. I love to hate, and I live for lust. I am extremely prejudiced. Come too close, and I will hiss out my venom. I don’t fear God or man, and I live in the House of Atheist.

Ohai! Unreasonable means something like ‘inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense”. Sure, I would not disagree that atheists reject common sense, but I have no idea what hate and lust have to do with atheism or unreasonableness. Unless Ray is just trying to throw in as many negative-sounding words as he can to describe the target of his bigotry.

If you want to enter my house, know that I control who and what gets in, and I'm in complete control of what comes out. Try knocking to see if I will open the door. Before you even try, let me tell you that I despise truth and will not let it enter . . . unless I think it’s in my best interests.

So this demon “Unreasonable” has this house called the “House of Atheist” where I guess the atheists go. Got it.

This is coming from a guy who continually goes on about how much he cares about atheists. If I said this about my mother, would you think I cared for her? It is so interesting how people like Ray can claim to care about someone while at the same time denigrating them. This type of writing is patently irresponsible – by creating a strawman of “atheists” as evil, vile people, publishing it in a book that millions can purchase and read, Ray is doing nothing more than perpetuating hatred for an entire group of people who, to my knowledge, are just as moral and ethical (often more moral and ethical) than theists. Imagine, for a moment, that these words were written about gays, or woman, or blacks, or Catholics.  Imagine if, “House of Atheist” was instead, “cathedral”. The bigotry is oozing out Rays ears.

Take the subject of bats. The Bible says that bats are "birds," probably because they have wings and fly. That’s ridiculous. Bats are not birds. Now if science had said that having wings and flying makes them a form of bird, then that makes sense. In fact, it makes perfect sense.

It is easy to take lame examples of Bible contradictions that non-theists don’t care about, show how silly they are, and then proclaim that therefore non-theists are absurd. I don’t care that the Bible labels bats as birds. The Bible labels bats as birds because the Bible is not a science book. It also says you can breed animals in front of spotted sticks to create spotted animals. This is demonstrably false. If the Bible is divine, it should not contain demonstrably false information. Of course, once you have magic on your side, you can beg your way out of any question. Maybe back before there was a lot of sin, you could breed animals next to spotted sticks to produce spotted animals! Maybe back then, the laws of physics operated differently!

The point that people make when they point out inconsistencies in the Bible is this: if the Bible is supposed to be completely, absolutely perfect, then it should contain no errors. If it contains errors, then it is not perfect. This would not be a problem if people did not claim the Bible was inerrant in the first place. Pointing out consistencies is a way of showing someone how absurd it is to say that a book is inerrant.

It’s fascinating when apologists try to do the same thing to, say, Origin of Species, as if pointing out an error in the book will falsify evolution. We don’t think Origin is perfect, so pointing out an error will likely lead us to say, “Yup. And?” It just doesn’t have the same power, because no claims of inerrancy were made.

How about Cain and his wife? Where did she come from? They say he married a sister. I won’t even come to the door on that. It's moronic. However, if science said that we trace our human ancestry back to one individual, then that truth is welcome, because it makes sense.

Cain and his wife is a very legitimate criticism of the morality of the Bible and the story of creation. So are criticisms of Abraham Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines while being praised by the Christian god repeatedly. As an outsider, I ask myself why we might want to teach our children these stories, along with other stories in the Bible which promote sexism, racism, genocide, etc.

‘Science’ does not say things. Scientists makes observations, use reason and logic to develop mechanism for how those observations came to be, experiment, and come to conclusions. Scientists do not posit that our ancestry can be traced back to one individual. Biblical creationism does, however, so I find it quite interesting that Ray uses this as an example. If our observations, rational thinking and experimentation led us to conclude that we did arise from a single individual, then of course I would accept that. Our observations/rational thinking/experimentation do not come to this conclusion, and so nor do I.

This is what being open-minded means – allowing your conclusions to be amenable to evidence. When I am in a disagreement over someone about some objective trust, I like to ask them what evidence they would need in order for them to change their mind. If they respond by telling me nothing can change their mind, then our conversation is over. Their mind is closed.

I can look directly at this vast, intricate creation and say that it’s not proof that there is a Creator. I need give no explanation. Such talk flies in the face of reason and common logic, but I don’t care.

Saying that creation proves there is a creator is begging the question, or using circular logic, which flies in the face of reason and common logic. Circular reasoning is one of the first logical fallacies people tend to learn about. If you assume your conclusion in your premise, you can prove anything. For example: I can look at this vast whorl of a universe designed by processes not guided by an intelligent force and say it is proof that the universe was not created. This is an absurd argument because it presupposes in the premise what I am attempting to conclude. As far as explanations go, plenty of those have been given. Plenty of explanations have been given to Ray himself, so I do not understand how he can miss them.

There is a reason I don’t like truth. It’s because it carries light, and I don’t like light . . . unless I can control it. There is a room inside my house that I like to keep dark. Very dark. It is what I call an "adult" fantasy room. You know what I mean. That room keeps the residents here, and it keeps me in control.

Here are some more examples of Ray’s bigotry toward atheists – claiming we hate ‘light’ (an obvious metaphor for ‘good stuff’) and love ‘dark’ (blatantly a metaphor for sexual depravity).

I like to call evil good, and good evil. I do this because I hate absolutes, because absolutes speak of truth.

What does “I like to call evil good, and good evil” have to do with absolutes? I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am no moral relativist Most Comfortian Christians are moral relativists, even as they decry moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Christians do this all the time to explain why they do not follow the Bible with regard to behaviors like stoning disobedient children or not eating shellfish. There was a reason for the law then, or for that culture, or for those individual people, but not now.  Or, it is perfectly just for god to order individuals to hack off 200 foreskins, but it’s not okay for me to hack off 200 foreskins. This is the definition of moral relativism!

It is interesting that Christians cling to this idea of moral absolutism, because moral absolutism in their mind implies a moral lawgiver, which implies their god. Yet they are moral relativists, and so is their holy book.

Each time I am unreasonable, I fortify my house.

So whenever the demon Unreasonable is unreasonable, he makes the House of Atheist stronger.  Ray sounds like the demon of bigotry, again.

I love living in the House of Atheist with my other demon friends. That's because we are very welcome here. When the resident is seized by my master and taken to his permanent place, I will just move on and find another house. There are plenty out there.

The “resident” I guess is an atheist? Is the “master” in this metaphor a god, or Satan?

Actually, I know that everything the Bible says is true. The Word of God makes me tremble. In the face of what I have said, that makes no sense. I know that . . . I'm just being Unreasonable.

If everything in the Bible is true, then your god is a jackass.

Thanks Ray. It was a good ride. I really wish you would stop reinforcing the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in the US, though. It's irresponsible and disgusting.

Faith Infiltration requests

The other day, a pastor showed up at one of our local St. Louis atheist meetups. He didn't come to convert, he came to listen in and try to better understand where atheists are coming from when they decry religion. He was a very, very nice, open guy.

Of course, Flimsy and I told him that we go to a different church every week and then blog about our experiences. He thought this was a great idea and asked us to infiltrate his church. He asked us just to come in and do what we do and then blog about it without sugarcoating.

So, now someone has requested that we infiltrate their church. I think this is pretty cool. He asked us lots of questions like:

What have you heard at churches that you liked?
What should pastors NOT say if they are trying to interact with non-theists?
What really turns you off or raises your hackles at a church?

The pastor plans on continuing to attend our meetings to get to know us. He is interested in bridging gaps between believers and non-believers by finding common ground. I absolutely must applaud him for this - it's the kind of thing we've been saying needs to be done all along.

We'll see how it goes: stay tuned.

Mental—in the British sense

Over at this blog, an anonymous poster quoth as follows below, and I find it strange and simultaneously amusing and disheartening that people apparently believe in this stuff, according to this reasoning.

Hi ReligionProf, I am paraklete from uncommondescent.com...
I really think that the mind-as-emergent property-of-matter view needs to be thought through some more. When we consider all the different views, from reductive materialism to dualism to emergentism, we need to bring in background information to help us determine which view makes the most sense. From what we know of matter, that it is basically "stuff" that follows natural laws, it is as you know very difficult to see how mental properties - non law like properties - could "emerge" from physical properties. This difficulty does not just appear to be our inability to imagine it, it seems to be based on the very nature of the two phenomena, mental and physical. Not only that, but there's the question of how a network of matter can unify itself into a single stream of consciousness - the "I".

Now on the flip side, when we consider dualism, I believe we have some interesting background information to consider. First, we have a virtually universal ability to conceive of minds without bodies. The vast majority of the world actually believes in minds without bodies, whether it be angels, demons, ghosts, dead ancestors, out of body experiences, and the near universal belief in life after death. Next, we have religious sources telling us about minds without bodies. From the Bible, which you cited regarding Adam, we have a consistent belief in dualism, contrary to what you stated. The psychosomatic unity conception does not at all contradict dualism, for there are forms of dualism that see a deep interweaving of the body and the soul, most notably Thomistic dualism, a view defended by J.P. Moreland in "Body and Soul." For a book that lays out the dualism found in the Bible, I recommend "Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting" by John W. Cooper. Indeed the Hebrew conception of Sheol clearly implies dualism. And Jesus himself was a dualist (e.g. Luke 16:19-31)

So in my opinion, I think the background information should lead us to a dualist view. The only criticism that I have seen against dualism is the "ghost in a box" argument, which basically asks how spiritual substances can interact with physical substances. There does not appear to be any mechansim linking the spiritual to the physical. But I think this is a weak objection, because a child has no problem conceiving of a spirit acting on the physical world, and never does a child think, "Wait, what mechanism is there for this interaction?" The demand for a mechanism is circular reasoning, I think, for a mechanism is itself a physiconcept.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I appreciate how you have shared your thoughts with a respectful tone.

What's wrong with this argument, then? Let's go back for a second look…

From what we know of matter, that it is basically "stuff" that follows natural laws, it is as you know very difficult to see how mental properties - non law like properties - could "emerge" from physical properties. This difficulty does not just appear to be our inability to imagine it, it seems to be based on the very nature of the two phenomena, mental and physical.

I am amazed that someone can write out an apparently thought-out argument with this sort of content. Here, he is arbitrarily and a priori assuming that mental phenomena are not physical—referring to mental properties as non law like. In fact, he is using this assumption to further his argument that—mental phenomena are not emergent properties of physical phenomena! This is a circular argument, a tautology: Because A is true, it must be the case that A is true. 

By what reasoning, that does not start with the assumption that dualism is real, can you arrive at the conclusion that it is so? What premises based on observable reality can take you there?
The rest of the stuff (to which I replied over yonder) is less interesting.

Now on the flip side, when we consider dualism, I believe we have some interesting background information to consider. First, we have a virtually universal ability to conceive of minds without bodies. The vast majority of the world actually believes in minds without bodies, whether it be angels, demons, ghosts, dead ancestors, out of body experiences, and the near universal belief in life after death.

—Which tells us that dualism is something that it is easy and tempting to believe in. That does not imply that it is therefore true: It is easy and tempting to believe in a flat earth, too.

There does not appear to be any mechansim [sic] linking the spiritual to the physical. But I think this is a weak objection, because a child has no problem conceiving of a spirit acting on the physical world, and never does a child think, "Wait, what mechanism is there for this interaction?"

Nor does the child think Wait, how can Santa Claus visit all the world's children in a single night? (Well, eventually the child will; it's called growing up. Chew on that one…)

How can you seriously use "children believe it" as an argument for the truth of a statement?
Never mind the religious and supernatural implications. The true tragedy is that this is apparently what to some people passes for intellectual discourse.

Oooooh Technology!

Okay so, are any of my other readers obsessed with technology?

I just got this Blackberry Curve, and after one day I am not sure how I lived without it. It does everything!

So. Here's your opportunity to brag about your technology! Do it, you know you wanna.

I'll start. My blackberry is so cool There is this Google app that lets you search Google with your voice! This is mostly useless but totally fun.

My other favorite piece of tech is my digital SLR camera - Sony Alpha 300. I think the best part about it is that you can stick old Minolta lenses on it. These lenses are made so well and have such nice glass.

Ray on Occasional Days: 8:6

Onto the last stretch of The Atheist Starter Kit:

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

Let me answer your analogy with another analogy, Ray.  If we were standing on a busy railway line with a train approaching, you would be quite correct to flail your arms like a lunatic, screaming that we're going to die unless we get off of the tracks.  Happily, we're actually standing in the middle of a grassy field with no train, or even train tracks, in sight.  You are still madly flailing, foaming at the mouth, insisting that we're in imminent danger of being hit by a train.  We politely ask the crazy person exactly how he comes to that conclusion, and you reply that we actually do know that the train is coming, we just don't want to have to move off of our nice, comfy patch of grass.  We politely ignore you and finish our picnic.

And this is why Christians should stick to respectful discussion, without devolving into condesending mockery of atheists' conclusions.  We can make fun of Christian beliefs too, and frankly, it seems that we're better at this game.

9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.

Wow, we really love the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, don't we, Ray!

The Roman Catholic Church and Christianity were synonomous until just a couple hundred years ago.  What does Comfort think happened between 100 AD and 1517, when Martin Luther puked forth the Protestant Reformation?  Did Christianity simply not exist during this time?

Also, again, Protestant denominations have been no less bloodthirsty, simply on a somewhat diminished scale (and this due to comparative lack of numbers and resources, obviously not a difference of ideology):  The "hunting" and slaughter of "witches" with massive bodycounts, Oliver Cromwell, institutionalized slavery, or one could actually read the writings of John Calvin or Martin Luther (or Adolf Hitler, who admired Luther a great deal, without reservation).  Protestants are certainly no strangers to atrocities.

I find it telling that a Protestant's complaints against the Catholic Church, such as those above, are so strongly supported by a biblical ideology. The root conflict, as a Protestant claims, is that Catholics don't follow the Bible strictly and to the exclusion of all other factors, yet out of all the actions committed by the Catholic Church, on any scale, the persection and slaughter of heretics is perhaps the easiest to justify with explicit Biblical scripture.  It's very entertaining that guys like Comfort, who wish to distance their own religion from the atrocities committed by others of that same religion, must resort to criticizing those horrifying actions on some vague humanistic basis.  Do they realize, on some level, that you simply can't condemn discrimination and even genocide against any variety of "unbeliever" on a strictly scriptural basis?

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God.

Again, this is hilarious.  The massive irony here is that The Atheist Starter Kit is posted on Ray's website/blog; Atheist Central.  The vast, overwhelming majority of atheists that have read this Starter Kit are visitors to a blog all about how stupid atheism is!  Ziztur and I are always up for dialogue with a theist; we consider such discussion to be the very best and most entertaining type of conversation there is.  We go to a different church each week, for fuck's sake!  We read Comfort's blog and his books (obviously), we listen to Bott Radio 91.5 FM, we read every apologist book that we can get our hands on.  Both of our libraries are stocked with Lee Strobel.  Our next piece of meat is C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  I have several friends who believe in God, and we talk about religion all the time.  If atheists so desperately need to only hang around and listen to other atheists to cling to their shallow belief system, we are obviously failing miserably to disbelieve the way we should.

Apparently, we atheists have to be so unreasonable to maintain our lack of belief.  If this is the case, then how is it that virtually all arguments for the existence of God rest on logical fallacies?  Why can every such argument be easily shown to be invalid when applied to other situations?  If atheism is so unreasonable, then why can't anybody seem to show what's wrong with it?  I hope, Mr. Comfort, that over the course of your latest book we've demonstrated pretty conclusively how flawed your beliefs are.  We don't tell ourselves that we're intelligent, we strive to improve our thinking by rigorously testing our conclusions and discarding those that fail.

Again with the "an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God" shit.  Okay, listen.  Here's my question about this, Ray.  You insist that we actually do believe in God.  If we did believe in your God, then shouldn't it be obvious that we've broken his law with rampant sin?  If we did believe in your God and the Bible, then we would also believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we're sinners and are going to hell.  My question is; why on earth would we then reject your god, and Jesus?  The reason you always give for our rejection of your god is that "we want to remain moral free-agents."  If our motivation really is completely selfish, as you insist, then there's no conceivable way we would reject Jesus and go to hell.  Your whole assertion makes no sense.

The simple fact that we do reject Jesus should demonstrate conclusively that we don't believe in your god, or his moral code, or his threat of hell.  It's obvious why a person would believe in your religion, even if they turn out to be wrong; it could give them comfort regarding their own mortality, or it could be nothing more than an evolutionary by-product of pre-human societies.  We can accept these explanations of your beliefs, while still concluding that those beliefs are mistaken.  You cannot do this; your Bible insists that everyone has a knowledge/belief in God, so that's what you claim, but it simply makes no sense at all to insist that we believe in your God and Bible, and thus in your god's morality and hell, but that we still reject him.  The only this could possibly make logical sense is to claim that we have a terribly misguided moral principle that causes us to reject your God, even if we sacrifice ourselves in hell to stand up for that principle.  However, you then go on and on about how we only reject God out of pure selfishness.

It's just staggering, Ray.  The sheer breadth and depth of your worldview's logical failures astounds me.