Against Christian Faith

Introduction

Few topics are argued with such vehemence as religion. With the recent departure of “W,” religion in politics is something that has been a fundamental part of our political climate for the better part of a decade. With an ever-louder voice, the Christian Evangelicals spout the inerrant word of God in form the biblical rhetoric, and believers of a false god press their opinions upon all who do not think like they do… this is to say all who think. Worse still, the believers spend their lives in denial of pleasures and indeed this life, in an attempt to attain front row seats in something beyond experience and essentially unknowable. If that were not bad enough, this false belief is then forced upon others by means of dictating “legal morality.” The realms of abortion, gay rights and freedom of bigotry are just a few areas that have seen and felt this misguided belief affect, and in some cases ruin, countless lives. It is my hope to show an alternative to, as well as arguments against, this belief structure. Failing this, my desire is to create doubt and critical thinking in persons who “sure” they are right.

I have heard many arguments concerning faith and belief. It is a common retort by evangelicals to atheists, “You have to have faith in science too.” I would like to point out this inherent contradiction of terms. Belief is a broad term that encompasses ideas based upon proof and observation; faith implies a lack of proof. Faith is a type of belief, however belief is not a type of faith. Here are the definitions of the two by Merriam-Webster, “Belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . Faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof .” One does not have “faith” in science, one believes in science; it is a solid, grounded, and well-founded belief. It is a belief worth having. Faith is irrational and oftentimes a delusional bastion which counters reason. It is always blind, since it is based upon lack of evidence. Perhaps most importantly, it can be harmful if used to govern ones actions in the world of proof and physics and germs and the Earth rotating around the Sun - the tangible world of the 21^st century.

Epistemic Issues

Inquisitions into the limits of human knowledge are a fairly common endeavor for those of a philosophical nature. Quite possibly one of the best was David Hume’s Enquiry into Human Understanding, wherein he makes several critical points, some of which I will use. First, he defines our knowledge as falling into two distinct categories: the first being “matters of fact” and the second being “ideas.” Matters of fact are concepts that exist a priori (before experience); they are fundamentally true and do not need to be experienced to be valid. A good example of a matter of fact is the Pythagorean theorem; the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of the legs whether there is anyone there to see a triangle. This is true of all right triangles, always[1]. Ideas, in contrast, are based upon experience: sight, sounds, smells. These forms of knowledge are always slightly flawed, slightly different from person to person. Ideas are not knowledge of the world as it is, only the world, as we can know it. This is not inadequate; it is simply a definition of our epistemic limitations. The vast majority of our every day lives, the entirety of science, and human interactions are all based upon beliefs. These beliefs can be broken down into good beliefs and bad beliefs, based upon their foundations. Take the following example: since as long as I can remember the sun has come up in the morning, even if clouds have covered it, it still gets lighter. Additionally, there is an understanding as to why it appears to rise and it is beyond a simple, subjective experience. It is a universal[2], predictable and measurable experience. Therefore the belief that the sun will come out tomorrow is a good belief. The belief that a giant, flying, spaghetti monster created the universe and now rules on a throne of marshmallows, is based upon nothing be wild speculation and humor. This would be classified as a bad belief. This type of belief has no concrete proof. Regardless of how strongly a person believes it to be reality, no matter how much “proof” that person has experienced, it still lacks any form of objective tangibility[3], as such cannot be classified as anything other than faith.

Faith is innately unfounded; which is to say it is fundamentally a bad belief. However, this does not mean it should be inherently discounted. Rather, faith is something that should be judged on the criteria of whether it is helpful, harmful or simply a feeling. Since the absolute nature of various objects of faith is fundamentally unknowable, the criteria for consequentialist judgment are derived primarily from the real-world impact of the aforementioned faith-based-maxim. Let me develop this point a little further, for it is the crux of my argument. To allow your life to be influenced beyond the point of a fleeting thought by something that is inherently unverifiable is to deny the very life you live, the world that is concrete. By ascribing to your subjective experience of the traditionally Christian God the validity of a universal absolute, by following the teachings you are told are Biblical and therefore universal, by denying yourself the freedom to explore and choose for yourself you are denying the only real existence you can ever know. To assert, “The Bible, and therefore God, says that sex outside of procreation is wrong and the act should not be indulged let alone enjoyed,” is not only baseless, it denies the “faith”-holder the ability to develop and partake in a very healthy and very fundamental part of the human experience. This is an essential example of having a faith that is truly harmful by allowing it to further constrain our already limited existence. In contrast to this, to offer a brief prayer to any deity because, “it can’t hurt” is, by and large, not harmful. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, so too, you cannot disprove its existence. Therefore a small “prayer,” is not an affirmation of an un-provable entity, as much as it is an acknowledgement of our own epistemic limitations. I do not pray to Ares to keep my best friend safe in war because I know the Greek pantheon exists; I pray to Ares because I cannot know that they don’t.

Morality

I have often heard “Christians” state that a person cannot be moral without being religious. This is simply absurd. Religion has nothing to do with morality. What few Christians understand is that they choose their own ethics. More importantly, the belief that you are following “God’s law” when you ascribe your “morality” to the bible is not only delusional, but also false. No matter who you are, your morality comes only from yourself. Religion simply shields the believer from taking on the personal responsibility of his own moral choices, discomfort and at times, hatred.

The King James Bible, the NIV (New International Version) Bible, the ESV (English Standard Version) Bible and the NLT (New Living Translation) Bible, just to name a few, are neither inerrant, nor infallible. Anyone who has read a bible in English or any current, living language has not read original scripture. Anyone who can read the dead languages of the Mediterranean, Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew among others has not read the original scripture. The original canonical scriptures were almost certainly not read by those who canonized them: the Nicean Council. The original scriptures where lost, long before Gutenberg invented the press; therefore, the copies that made it to the stage of mass, identical printing, were translated, interpreted and altered hundreds, if not thousands of times. I have heard that divine inspiration guaranteed what was important stayed, if this were the case, wouldn’t all present bibles be in the same language, in the same form? The very fact that within the English language there exist multiple different “canonical” versions further absolves the “divine inspiration” argument of any validity[4]. How then, can one say that their morality is based on the Bible? Which Bible? Why the Bible, why not any of the dozens of other grossly over read, misunderstood spiritual testaments? The scope of this essay would broaden to absurdity if I were to explore the reasons as to why any particular person chooses the Bible as the foundation to their personal morality; however, my point is thus, everyone chooses their morality based upon what information is presented, but more importantly, what information they choose to believe. Sheepism is at its most apparent when individuals are proud to turn over their moral and ethical autonomy to a higher, divine source.

Homosexuality is no more a sin then eating shellfish, yet eating shellfish doesn’t make people uncomfortable. We are biologically predisposed to be wary of that which is different. Yet, we are beings who posses the ability to override our biology. Is and Ought are not synonyms, nor are they causally linked. I warn those who read, be careful, this argument can go both ways, and thus, making the point of my whole argument. Just because something is biologically, psychologically or anthropologically “true,” does not imply anything as to the way things should be. Should implies an entire presupposed value structure that is as unique as each person themselves. To read the Bible and selectively choose which proposed tenants, shellfish versus homosexuality, to build your personal, moral structure on is no different and no more valid then watching South Park to do the same. The source lacks authority unless the whole of the source is validated and applied. Valid or not, no source can excuse the agent from his own moral choice and responsibility. Due to the inherent contradictions, errors and lack of cohesion, the Bible is a poor choice for the required submission to authority. I am not saying that it is not a useful, guiding tool; however, a Christian’s appeal to its authority for “right” and “wrong” behavior is more often times sick and a means to cover their own exclusionary mindset.

In summation, morality comes exclusively from within. Although various outside factors play into a person’s ethical structure, ranging from an understanding of enlightened dependant co-origination to strict legalism, the final deciding factor is the amount of responsibility the actor takes for his actions. To acknowledge the inherent gradation of “right” to “wrong” actions, beliefs and maxims, is to acknowledge that you alone posses the ability to determine correct thought and correct action. By submitting authority to an improvable higher power, especially in the form of a flawed book with a multitude of variations, the actor has intentionally released from himself the moral culpability of his own actions.

Conclusion

Sentient beings are rational, emotional, autonomous entities that, by and large, shy away from the responsibility of their own existence. In so doing, they are refusing to acknowledge what it means to be free. I am not talking about freedom from outside forces; powers and principalities shall always hold force over an individual body. However, no such shackles can be affixed to the mind, the will of a sentient agent. Affirming your existence through the explicit denial of your own rational and emotional capacities by ascribing undue validity to a work of creative fiction, results both in a life that is a bare step above that of a caged animal, as well forcing your shallow, petty judgments upon those that are most likely more enlightened then yourself.

---

[1] For this essay, I will not go into the various ideas attacking mathematics as truly being a priori. These are not particularly relevant to the argument I am attempting to make, I am really only concerned with ideas and good versus bad beliefs.

[2] I am not arguing true universality; there may be a random person here or there that discounts the sun coming up for whatever reason; however the exceedingly vast majority of the population of people would agree. Additionally there are mechanisms in nature based upon the sun rising and setting, like the typical morning glory.

[3] I would like to add, that if another person experiences what he thinks to be a flying spaghetti monster, ruling from a thrown of marshmallows, or something similar enough that these two Spaghettionites now feel as though there is an objective truth to their experience, one must ask, “what is in fact being experienced?” What occurred that made these individuals believe that they saw this thing? Just because you do not have an answer does not mean that a personal God or a Spaghetti Monster has a hand in it.

[4] For more on this topic, read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. This is a phenomenal book written by a born-again, evangelical-turned-agnostic theologian, who, during his study of Biblical Textual Criticism, discovered the Bible was so full of anomalies that nothing quoted can EVER be close to what was originally written.

The Christian States of America?

There is no “true” religion. A critical distinction few Americans realize is the difference between the freedom to, as opposed to the freedom from. This aside, our country was founded by a group of secular humanists (albeit some were Deists, though these are not mutually exclusive belief structures) in a manner that allows everyone the freedom to practice whatever they wish so long as everyone is free from the opinions of others. The very concept of a separate church and state implies that ANY religious belief structure must fundamentally be removed from the state. References to “God” made by men like Franklin were to a greater understanding of the universe as a whole and not the Judeo-Christian god as so many would like to claim. References to “God” in various documents were commonplace for the time, and are in no way restricted by a narrow opinion of the title often given to the Judeo-Christian Deity. There is nothing to say that the God in which we trust is the God of Adam, David or Abraham.

We Are Not All "Beautiful"

There is a commercial out, perhaps you have seen it, where a model is taken into a studio and it speeds through the process of physical (makeup, styling, etc.) and digital editing to arrive at “her” picture on a billboard. (1) The end of the commercial states, in plain white letters on a black background, “No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted, every girl deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is.” This commercial has created a stir of support about how the portrayal of beauty by Society and the Media negatively impacts the self-esteem of girls and women. Here are two quick statistics that appear to support this thesis:

• One in four college-age women attempt to control their weight in an unhealthy manner (fasting, skipping meals, excessive exercise, laxative abuse, and self-induced vomiting). (2)
• Girls as young five and six are taking weight control measures. (3)

If taken out of context, this can be incredibly scary, especially to people who are trying to help girls have a more positive self-image. The problem is, the data is taken out of context. Compare the preceding statistics with the following:

• Two-thirds of adults 20 YOA and older are overweight or obese. (This is prime college age) (4)
• 15% of children ages 6-11, and 11% of 2-5 year-olds are overweight. (5)

This information tends to change the perspective of the first set of statistics.

There is an epidemic of excess and complacency that permeates the whole of American society. Herein lies the major problem with the, “You deserve to feel beautiful just the way you are” idea. It promotes satisfaction with a lifestyle that may be, and often times is, unhealthy. This is not to say that obsessive, or unhealthy weight loss is ever a good idea, however by encouraging external beauty, as the only road to happiness in any form is harmful, especially when combined with a mantra of, “you are a ‘beautiful’ person too.”

Now comes the second crux, the equivocation of the usage of the word “beauty.” This is to say, one does not have to be physically beautiful, in order to be “beautiful.” Although this intermingling of meanings is not inherently harmful, it does become so when directly combined with a comparison to physical beauty, as is often the case. Objective Reality is that some people are more physically attractive then others, just as some people are more intelligent, better athletes or world-class musicians and others are not. However, physical beauty is the only term that is used to describe one’s inherent worth as a person. Indeed, when one is told they have a “beautiful personality,” oftentimes this is a way of defining that they posses an attractive set of non-visible characteristics while simultaneously implying they are physically unattractive, because beauty is an aesthetic judgment.

Referring back to the original commercial, the deconstruction of billboard beauty IS helpful to show that perhaps our understanding, and the portrayal of physical beauty is skewed, when we apply the same judgments to people we see walking down the street without makeup, or digital enhancements. However, when the final closing sentiment, the “framing” of the commercial, is revealed, the audience is left feeling horrified that little girls are comparing themselves to fake images and feeling ugly. Herein lies another, more subtle, issue; to focus on the lack (albeit, possibly unfairly so) of any particular, fundamentally unchangeable attribute or attributes is destructive, both to the persons lacking those attributes, as well as to those that do posses them. The harm to those lacking these attributes, namely beauty, is caused by emphasizing their unchangeable short-comings, whereas self esteem should be boosted by highlighting the individuals strong suits, and working to improve any areas that can be. Conversely, by stating, “everyone should feel beautiful,” as it relates directly to physical attractiveness, downplays, or demonizes people who are physically attractive. This is no different than saying everyone in a genius, or everyone should feel they posses the athleticism and physical superiority to be a professional athlete. Not only are these statements oftentimes blatantly false, they also create incredible feelings of disappointment when these unfairly lofty goals are not met. Additionally, by asserting that the elite traits of certain individuals are mundane it devalues both the attributes as well as the individual. Lastly, by asserting that one already possesses these much-desired attributes, it leaves little incentive to strive for goals that are within reach, to better oneself for one’s own sake.

The problems that face the American youth are terrifying, but often not in the ways most people believe. The “Media’s” portrayal of illusionary “beauty” is not the cause of self-esteem issues; rather, it is a symptom. Telling girls that they are beautiful when they are not enforces the idea of illusionary beauty; by undermining and deconstructing the word “beautiful” while still using it’s original definition. It does not enable self-actualization; it enables delusion, which only furthers self-esteem issues.

(1) http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=549997458733
(2) http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty.cfm
(3) Ibid
(4) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm
(5) Ibid

Enlightened Censorship

I received a recent objection to my article, “Message to the Ignorant,” that I feel needs to be addressed. I was told that my attempt to enlighten and argue for clean, fair debate was, in fact, a fascist attempt to quash legitimate discourse and debate. I was quoted John Stuart Mill’s form of liberty of speech, that any form of censorship is wrong due to its possible value to society as a whole[1]. I believe that if you agree with this objection then you fully misunderstand my argument. If you think I am arguing for the suppression of such beliefs or statements made out of ignorance by individuals who lack the understanding and knowledge of what they, themselves think, then you most likely fall into this group and are sadly mistaken. Although Mill’s Liberalism was indeed a governing idea behind our inalienable freedoms, his alone were not the ideas of liberty that our government was founded on. Mill’s ideas on freedom of speech are almost entirely unrestricted, which few, if any, systems of government support. Even within the extremes of libertarianism or anarchy, it is commonplace to put limits on freedom of speech, especially with regards to slander, libel, inciting-to-violence and child pornography just to name a few. Even with his unrestricted freedoms, Mill opposes blatant name-calling and outrageous claims. In fact, as he says, “It is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure of being right.” Although trying to defend all persons, it is clear that he is intending to defend well-founded beliefs and true knowledge. On the matter of true or good opinions/beliefs, I must defer to Hume who definitively argues that good beliefs are those based upon concrete, experiential evidence such as the sun rising tomorrow, and not unfounded beliefs based in nothing but conjecture like faith in god. To further this point, Socrates, as interpreted by McDonald states, “knowledge includes the reasoning that supports the truth.”

In no way am I arguing against dissent, I am arguing against ignorance, and unfounded “knowledge”. I am not arguing that you should not have the right to be ignorant, I am simply requesting you refrain positing your absurd “opinion” for everyone’s sake. As far as my classifications for informed opinion and intelligent dissent, read more Mill and supplement Hume. Repeat twice daily until cured (as prescribed by my girlfriend).

We absolutely should not tolerate ignorant, abhorrent ideas and ideals, it is our duty to point them out and protest them. We must unveil sheepism and demagoguery for what it is, for it is our duty as rational beings, and Americans. We should NOT tolerate hatred and bigotry. To hide behind liberal subjectivism and spout it as tolerance is horribly misguided and dangerous. We should not quash speech, though we have a moral requirement to uphold the truth to the best of our abilities. Be careful of your slippery slope argument. Governmental repression of non-harmful ideas (notable exceptions include: libel, slander, inciting a riot, child corruption, etc.) should be fought on all counts. However one restriction does not imply other restrictions. Each issue should be fought on it’s own merits and future issues should hold minimal sway on the argument at hand.

---

[1] I realize this is a gross oversimplification, and to truly understand it, you must read On Liberty by J.S, Mill, however I feel it does justice to the argument I was presented with.

A Message to the Ignorant

“A nation of well informed men who have
been taught to know and prize the rights,
which God[1] has given them, cannot be
enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance
that tyranny begins.” –Ben Franklin

I feel as though our social and political climate have reached a point where I can no longer stay silent. These offenses as “mundane” as Facebook posts and images, as well as recent biases and falsehoods propagated by certain media enterprises to the abhorrently disrespectful outbursts by state representatives in response to various presidential addresses. These statements range from Rep. Wilson’s infamous “you lie,” to images like the following:

These, combined with the completely unfounded ideas of Death Panels, healthcare being about keeping down the white man, as well as defamatory[2] propaganda, which truly has NO bearing on Obama’s ability to govern (such as his possible Islamic leanings, or his being Islamic, or his father being Kenyan), have driven me to write a response to some of these allegations.

In a recent statement, former president Jimmy Carter stated that, “a radical, fringe element’s,” unprecedented attacks against the personhood of the President are driven by racism. This statement brings up several critical issues we are faced with today, especially within the “political” arena (I put political in quotes because I find the vast majority of opinions expressed not only by the public, but also by senators and various members of the media, to be ill informed and incredibly ignorant both in general and of our political system specifically). There have always been, and will always be, attacks against the policies and politics of the person residing in the office of the presidency, as well there should be. “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.” However, the attacks that Pres. Carter refers to are not political attacks, they are personal attacks based upon propaganda spewed by hate mongers such as Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin to name a few. It is bad enough to listen to and agree with such fear mongers, however it takes a much deeper form of bigotry to allow the personal attacks said by such extremists to take root and be internalized (calls for the death of OUR president, legitimate fear of death squads, etc.). Rational people do not form this type of hatred for a person simply for their political ideas, period[3]. If you feel that personal attacks are, in fact, justified, then I demand your reasoning behind their relevance. As to the actual statement made by Pres. Carter; assuming you agree that comments such as asking for the death of Barack Obama or other such statements/threats pointed out in his statement are unwarranted, disrespectful, and harmful to the American people as a whole, are NOT driven by racism, what then, would you propose drives it? A large number of people strongly disliked Pres. Bush’s policies, which actually harmed people[4], and were driven by a belief in an unsubstantiated deity, yet his death was not called for, nor were serious attacks made on his person, only his impeachment was requested (which I opposed).

Secondly, to the absurd and truly ignorant claim that Obama is not a US citizen and therefore not eligible to be the president on the United States of America: Barack Hussain Obama IS a United States Citizen regardless of where he was born or who is father was! According to Title 8 of the US Code § 1409 paragraph (c), because his mother was a US Citizen, he is, by blood a US citizen. Now for all of you Fox “News” listeners, there has been a bit on controversy over the wording and the intent of the requirements for President. The wording does not define whether “naturally born” refers to jus soli or jus sanguinis this is, born on soil vs. born to parents. In a bipartisan legal review of JOHN MCCAIN (yes that’s right all you Republicans, McCain was born in Panama) it was found that either form of birthright is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. Get out of your mud slinging gutter and talk about something intelligent.

Point three. Read the following quote and tell me if you agree that this is an idea of America as a whole. “The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement... It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.” How many of you agree with this? I would bet a very large number! Another phrasing of an ideal that I consider to be the American Dream is, “a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.” How do you feel about this definition of the American dream? It sounds pretty good to me. Making sure we all get what we earn and what we deserve based upon what we put in, while simultaneously making sure we all get an equal and fair start. How do you feel about institutions like our Law Enforcement services? Fire fighters? Public education? If you like the last quote, or any of these three services, then I’m sorry, but you like socialism in one of it’s many forms. Unfortunately too many Americans would rather sit by and parrot what they hear the demagogues say than research what these terms and theories actually mean and how they are implemented in our everyday lives. In the famous words of Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” and this intentional ignorance of our populous shames me and allows the demagogues control whose precedent is only been superseded by that of the McCarthy era. I have been witness to multiple individuals screaming, fear-filled calls of, “ Keep Government out of my/our Medicare!” Has our culture really become this shallow, this uninformed? Keep your socialist agenda out of my socialist health-care? That is what you are yelling about. Quit picketing; quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and start thinking for yourself. Socialism, like capitalism is not inherently a bad thing, or a good thing. It is a tool and it has its place, like guns, biotechnology and nuclear power, we don’t need to arm our police officers with hand-held nuclear weapons in order for them to protect themselves or us. We don’t need to run in fear every time someone says socialism. We need to learn what these ideas entail and learn that all things have a place and a use.

Finally, images, comments and statements made out of ignorance do nothing to further your point. Often times they only go to show that you, yourself, do not understand what you are saying. To equate our duly elected, legal president to Hitler[5], or the Joker (of Batman infamy) is not only offensive, but goes to show you truly have no understanding of the issues at hand, and are simply responding out of fear to what someone in “authority” is telling you. I beg you to consider what you are saying when you put up and image or post a status update on your Facebook. You may feel you are asserting your first amendment rights to free speech (and you are), however another more poignant phrase comes to mind, “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

---

[1] I’m sorry bible-thumpers, this is not the Judeo-Christian god, but a Deist god, a god of science. Our country was NOT founded on Christianity as many of you would like to think. I would be more then happy to prove it to you if you really want me to, and you trust books written on the subject, but scholars who are devoted to the subject.

[2] This is truly sad to me that these can even be considered as defamatory. A man’s religion, or heritage, especially one of peace that does not in any apparent way influence his politics, can be held against him.

[3] There are possible exceptions to this; the most common opposition would be that of Hitler. However, Hitler’s political views were not the only influencing factors to the Final Solution. In fact, the political ideology behind this final solution should not require one’s hatred, rather the ruthless and brutal subjugation and removal of autonomy of entire groups of people for no reason but their birthright should be the only factor motivating this “hatred.”

[4] State sanctioned rough interrogation, no child left behind, HUGELY decreased world image, abstinence-only sex education, restrictions on stem cell research, failure to act in a responsible manner with regards to environmental problems, common and repeated refusal to acknowledge proven scientific data in a multitude of fields, just to name a few.

[5] I do understand that Hitler was, in fact, also duly elected, however this is where the allegory ends.