Ok, one final point (for now) about perfection. Luckily, this is a quick point:
If we assume that a god is perfect, it also means that he cannot change. This seems obvious enough: what could a perfect being change into? If perfection is the state at which no flaws exist, and no "non-flaws" can be added, then anything perfect can only ever change into something less than what it already is. In simple terms, a perfect being can only change into something imperfect. This would invalidate such a being's initial perfection, so from that contradiction we can understand that a perfect being can never change.
What implications does this have for some of the popular definitions of god? If one equates god with nature, as pantheists do, it has to be concluded that such a god is imperfect. We know that nature changes constantly. The state of the universe when you began to read this sentence is somehow different by the time you reach the period. Such changes and transformations could not happen with an unchanging being.
All definitions of god and theologies must take this principle of perfection vs. change into account.
This also has implications for the god which is defined as omnipotent. Definitions of omnipotence vary. One definition states that the deity can do anything that is in accord with its nature. This definition doesn't conflict with the idea of perfection. A stronger definition does, however. If omnipotence is defined as being able to do absolutely anything, this establishes a paradox in the being also defined as perfect.
I've given examples of some things a perfect being cannot do: a perfect being cannot make a bad choice; a perfect being cannot change, etc. Each one of these "cannots" makes a strong definition of omnipotence impossible. A being can be either perfect, or able to do anything, but not both at the same time.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Problems of Perfection, part 2
Sorry for the delay, all. I finally have a working laptop again.
Picking up where I left off, we had established that a perfect being cannot freely make any choice of importance. In light of this, I'd like to reexamine the claim of a perfect god being benevolent.
If we accept the dictionary ideal of benevolence as "doing good for others", then there is no logical reason why a perfect being cannot be also benevolent. A perfect being certainly can do good things, so that isn't what I find problematic. My contention is that benevolence of this sort, however, isn't deserving of admiration.
To clarify and explain, I will paraphrase a parable from the New Testament. Everyone should be familiar with the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32. To breifly summarize, a man has two sons. The younger demands his inheritance, leaves his father, and wastes his money. The older stays obedient to his father. The younger returns, begging for mercy, and is welcomed by his father with great celebration. This irritates the older, hard-working son, since his faithfulness was never praised in such a manner. The father explains that they must celebrate, for his brother was lost and has been found, was dead and is now alive again.
The reason this parable is important is because it highlights an important point: a moral action is more deserving of praise if the action was highly unlikely to be performed. The unjust son was much more unlikely to obey his father, so when he finally returned, his obedience was commended more highly than the just son's. A person who donates $100 annually to a charity receives less commendation than a homeless man who donates $100. Ebeneezer Scrooge's new-found Christmas spirit was more uplifting than the unwavering spirit of his nephew.
Behind each of these stories of conversion (turning around), the mechanism which allows the change is choice. The prodigal son was rewarded because he chose to return. What does this mean, then, for a being which cannot make such a choice? If all choices of consequence have been predetermined by god's perfection, then god can have no conversion. He cannot make the choice to act benevolently, it's already been made! In this sense, a perfect and benevolent god is like the older son, who never betrayed his father, but never receives real praise. Likewise, if god is already bound to only ever act benevolently, why should he be praised?
Praise is due when a person could make a bad choice, yet does not; or could remain apathetic, but chooses to do good for others. A being which has no choices to make, therefore, isn't due any praise. If a god existed, I would desire a god that was imperfect; a god who could mess up, but overcomes this weakness out of love. A perfect god has no weakness to overcome, no choices to make, and therefore no love needed. The fact that such a god is prone to act benevolently wouldn't be the product of love or compassion; but simply part of it's programming, like a machine.
I don't want a robot god, even if it is benevolent.
Picking up where I left off, we had established that a perfect being cannot freely make any choice of importance. In light of this, I'd like to reexamine the claim of a perfect god being benevolent.
If we accept the dictionary ideal of benevolence as "doing good for others", then there is no logical reason why a perfect being cannot be also benevolent. A perfect being certainly can do good things, so that isn't what I find problematic. My contention is that benevolence of this sort, however, isn't deserving of admiration.
To clarify and explain, I will paraphrase a parable from the New Testament. Everyone should be familiar with the Prodigal Son: Luke 15:11-32. To breifly summarize, a man has two sons. The younger demands his inheritance, leaves his father, and wastes his money. The older stays obedient to his father. The younger returns, begging for mercy, and is welcomed by his father with great celebration. This irritates the older, hard-working son, since his faithfulness was never praised in such a manner. The father explains that they must celebrate, for his brother was lost and has been found, was dead and is now alive again.
The reason this parable is important is because it highlights an important point: a moral action is more deserving of praise if the action was highly unlikely to be performed. The unjust son was much more unlikely to obey his father, so when he finally returned, his obedience was commended more highly than the just son's. A person who donates $100 annually to a charity receives less commendation than a homeless man who donates $100. Ebeneezer Scrooge's new-found Christmas spirit was more uplifting than the unwavering spirit of his nephew.
Behind each of these stories of conversion (turning around), the mechanism which allows the change is choice. The prodigal son was rewarded because he chose to return. What does this mean, then, for a being which cannot make such a choice? If all choices of consequence have been predetermined by god's perfection, then god can have no conversion. He cannot make the choice to act benevolently, it's already been made! In this sense, a perfect and benevolent god is like the older son, who never betrayed his father, but never receives real praise. Likewise, if god is already bound to only ever act benevolently, why should he be praised?
Praise is due when a person could make a bad choice, yet does not; or could remain apathetic, but chooses to do good for others. A being which has no choices to make, therefore, isn't due any praise. If a god existed, I would desire a god that was imperfect; a god who could mess up, but overcomes this weakness out of love. A perfect god has no weakness to overcome, no choices to make, and therefore no love needed. The fact that such a god is prone to act benevolently wouldn't be the product of love or compassion; but simply part of it's programming, like a machine.
I don't want a robot god, even if it is benevolent.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Problems of Perfection, part 1
Ah, to be perfect. Isn't that the state which humans strive towards?
Well, perfection is not something I'd wish to obtain, and here's why:
Recently I debated a theist in a chatroom who defined his god with the following qualities:
"All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, merciful, and perfect", etc.
I usually condense these qualties into what I call "the omni's" (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent)
At some point I asked to know how this theist made the jump from a deistic creator to a theistic god. His reply was along the lines of "an impersonal god cannot make a choice. God chose to create the universe out of his free will, and therefore he must be personal."
Let's ignore the unjustified assertion that impersonal beings can't make a choice. I want to focus on two words only: God chose.
Can god choose, based on the qualities provided by this theist? And does he have free will? I intend to show that this god cannot make any choice of importance, and possesses little to no free will at all.
The problem lies in the quality of perfection. In every choice that we can make, there is a option which will lead to a better consequence than all the others. For simplicity's sake, let's work in the context of a choice that has two options: a beneficial option, and a less beneficial or bad option. Being all-knowing, this god would have the capability to see which option of any choice will lead to the best results.
Now, since he is a perfect being, this god cannot ever choose the option which is not the best option. If he were to choose this bad option, it would negate his perfection by engaging in an activity which could be improved upon. (If there is room for improvement, you're not perfect.) So in a choice with one good option and one bad option, the perfect being is incapable of choosing the bad option.
This theist defended his definition by claiming: "God could choose the bad option, but he simply doesn't."
Well, no he can't! If we hold the definition of perfection strictly, it prevents this god from ever choosing the poor option. A perfect being cannot, by definition, act in an imperfect manner. So he is bound by his own perfection to only ever choose the best option. This contradicts the idea of free will. Something has to go: either this god is imperfect, or he does not possess free will. One cannot have both.
"Ok, but what about choices in which the options arrive at equal consequences? God can still make those choices."
First of all, we must realize that an all-knowing being would be able to discern even the slightest superiority among options, and thus this list of equal options must be extremely small. But can you honestly think of a choice that you have made that didn't possess one option that was slightly better than all others??
Even if we grant the premise that absolutely equal options exist, this is all that god is capable of choosing? The extent of his "free will" is only the ability to make choices that have no consequence. If all options are equal, then we don't need a god to make choices. All we need is a coin.
Is this god nothing more than a heads/tails in the sky??
And thus, I don't want to be perfect. I rather enjoy making the occasional poor choice. After all, it is the ability to make a bad choice which makes picking the better option worthwhile and commendable. This will be my topic in the second part of this series.
Well, perfection is not something I'd wish to obtain, and here's why:
Recently I debated a theist in a chatroom who defined his god with the following qualities:
"All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, merciful, and perfect", etc.
I usually condense these qualties into what I call "the omni's" (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent)
At some point I asked to know how this theist made the jump from a deistic creator to a theistic god. His reply was along the lines of "an impersonal god cannot make a choice. God chose to create the universe out of his free will, and therefore he must be personal."
Let's ignore the unjustified assertion that impersonal beings can't make a choice. I want to focus on two words only: God chose.
Can god choose, based on the qualities provided by this theist? And does he have free will? I intend to show that this god cannot make any choice of importance, and possesses little to no free will at all.
The problem lies in the quality of perfection. In every choice that we can make, there is a option which will lead to a better consequence than all the others. For simplicity's sake, let's work in the context of a choice that has two options: a beneficial option, and a less beneficial or bad option. Being all-knowing, this god would have the capability to see which option of any choice will lead to the best results.
Now, since he is a perfect being, this god cannot ever choose the option which is not the best option. If he were to choose this bad option, it would negate his perfection by engaging in an activity which could be improved upon. (If there is room for improvement, you're not perfect.) So in a choice with one good option and one bad option, the perfect being is incapable of choosing the bad option.
This theist defended his definition by claiming: "God could choose the bad option, but he simply doesn't."
Well, no he can't! If we hold the definition of perfection strictly, it prevents this god from ever choosing the poor option. A perfect being cannot, by definition, act in an imperfect manner. So he is bound by his own perfection to only ever choose the best option. This contradicts the idea of free will. Something has to go: either this god is imperfect, or he does not possess free will. One cannot have both.
"Ok, but what about choices in which the options arrive at equal consequences? God can still make those choices."
First of all, we must realize that an all-knowing being would be able to discern even the slightest superiority among options, and thus this list of equal options must be extremely small. But can you honestly think of a choice that you have made that didn't possess one option that was slightly better than all others??
Even if we grant the premise that absolutely equal options exist, this is all that god is capable of choosing? The extent of his "free will" is only the ability to make choices that have no consequence. If all options are equal, then we don't need a god to make choices. All we need is a coin.
Is this god nothing more than a heads/tails in the sky??
And thus, I don't want to be perfect. I rather enjoy making the occasional poor choice. After all, it is the ability to make a bad choice which makes picking the better option worthwhile and commendable. This will be my topic in the second part of this series.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Reply to a Christian
Well, I've been terribly busy with research recently, but I had a comment on my "500 Eyewitnesses?" that I could not pass up criticizing. If you haven't already read that post, I suggest you do, although its not necessary for the purposes of analyzing this Christian's comment.
He or she said:
I am truly amazed with the knowledge atheist have acquired through reading the word of God. Employing the word of God for the atheist "belief" of there being no God is ridiculous, it discredits their own view of there being no God, because they are using the word of God. -All- atheist need to do some serious introspection.
Let's start at the first sentence:
-Don't be so amazed. Typically, atheists are more familiar with the bible than most Christians.
-The phrase "word of God" is unjustified and extremely improbable. At best, the bible is a book written by men about the god in which they believe.
Second (run-on) sentence:
-I'm glad you put belief in quotes, since atheism is not a belief in and of itself. But what you've tacked on to it renders the quotes unnecessary. Atheism is not the positive claim that no god exists; far from it. All that is required for the label of atheist to be correct is an admission that there is not sufficient evidence to make the belief in a deity justified. That's all. Being an atheist doesn't also require that you assert no god exists, although some do.
-By discrediting the use of the phrase "word of god" and correcting your error in defining atheism, I've rendered the rest of this sentence almost meaningless. But I'll rephrase it to address "why do atheists use the bible in arguments at all?" Well, mainly to point out three things: 1) How a specific claim is actually unjustified, as was the case with the 500 eyewitnesses. 2) To show how your "good book" contains and advocates absolutely immoral actions, committed and commanded both by Yahweh and his followers. 3) To point out discrepancies between biblical accounts or highlight contradictions between what the bible says and what is known about the natural world.
So the use of the bible is in no way an admission that your god exists nor is it a contradiction to our arguments.
Last sentence:
-The very fact that someone uses the atheist label indicates that, probably, they are very familiar with introspection and critical thought. Most atheists were raised in religious households, and did not arrive at atheism without several years of introspection, gradual questioning, and intense research. Yet all it takes to be a Christian, or any theist, is to give into belief. There is no research, questioning, or critical thought required.
-So I return the rebuke back to you, my commenter.
He or she said:
I am truly amazed with the knowledge atheist have acquired through reading the word of God. Employing the word of God for the atheist "belief" of there being no God is ridiculous, it discredits their own view of there being no God, because they are using the word of God. -All- atheist need to do some serious introspection.
Let's start at the first sentence:
-Don't be so amazed. Typically, atheists are more familiar with the bible than most Christians.
-The phrase "word of God" is unjustified and extremely improbable. At best, the bible is a book written by men about the god in which they believe.
Second (run-on) sentence:
-I'm glad you put belief in quotes, since atheism is not a belief in and of itself. But what you've tacked on to it renders the quotes unnecessary. Atheism is not the positive claim that no god exists; far from it. All that is required for the label of atheist to be correct is an admission that there is not sufficient evidence to make the belief in a deity justified. That's all. Being an atheist doesn't also require that you assert no god exists, although some do.
-By discrediting the use of the phrase "word of god" and correcting your error in defining atheism, I've rendered the rest of this sentence almost meaningless. But I'll rephrase it to address "why do atheists use the bible in arguments at all?" Well, mainly to point out three things: 1) How a specific claim is actually unjustified, as was the case with the 500 eyewitnesses. 2) To show how your "good book" contains and advocates absolutely immoral actions, committed and commanded both by Yahweh and his followers. 3) To point out discrepancies between biblical accounts or highlight contradictions between what the bible says and what is known about the natural world.
So the use of the bible is in no way an admission that your god exists nor is it a contradiction to our arguments.
Last sentence:
-The very fact that someone uses the atheist label indicates that, probably, they are very familiar with introspection and critical thought. Most atheists were raised in religious households, and did not arrive at atheism without several years of introspection, gradual questioning, and intense research. Yet all it takes to be a Christian, or any theist, is to give into belief. There is no research, questioning, or critical thought required.
-So I return the rebuke back to you, my commenter.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
"Belief is easy!"
No, it's not.
Not in the way my mind works, anyway.
Today I had a very long debate with a Christian. He didn't present anything unique, but when all out of "evidence" for god, he revealed an attitude which I have come to detest.
He said:
"Why not just believe? Isn't it easier just to have faith than to try to find evidence for everything?"
I had hoped he had misspoken, but these sorts of statements were repeated by him several more times. I tried to explain to him what I will try to explain here, but I'm not sure it truly sunk in for him.
I will never, and probably cannot, abandon my search for truth by evidence in favor of faith. I can only think of this as selling out. In order to give into faith, I'd have to sell out all my wisdom, knowledge of the natural world, and knowledge of the proper paths to truth. I would have to become everything that I am not...and this is supposed to be easy?
Even if it were easy for me to buy into faith, what a hideous proposition! It's almost comical.
Who needs that fancy-schmancy ev-a-dance when you can just have faith?
Well that's just dandy. But why, I wonder, should I limit my faith to just one god? If I'm going to disregard evidence in favor of faith, I'd much rather have faith that the world was created by the thrashing riffs of gods of rock, and that they have defined morality as headbanging and moshing and being an all around rock-star. Now that would be cool. And why should you disagree? Afterall, it's just faith, and it's easy!
But my favorite quote from this theist by far was:
"Why waste time in search of truth and evidence? You can just have faith and then spend more time on more important things like your relationship with your wife, and with your dogs"
Definitely. Shouldn't we all give up the quest for knowledge by evidence, and buy into whatever faith we concoct, so that we can have a bit more personal time with Fido?
What can be said? Once again I find evidence for my conclusion that many theists hate knowledge. They are enchanted by faith, while we Rationalists are keen to avoid it whenever possible. We can see the idiocy of such faith-heads in statements such as these. I think some people are so cognitively lazy that they prefer the easy answers.
Just don't make me think, and I'll believe whatever.
Before the conversation ended, I told him the definition of a theist. (He didn't know he was one.)
Trying to be clever, he replied:
"Ok. I'll believe you. It's easier that way :)"
I yelled at him.
Not in the way my mind works, anyway.
Today I had a very long debate with a Christian. He didn't present anything unique, but when all out of "evidence" for god, he revealed an attitude which I have come to detest.
He said:
"Why not just believe? Isn't it easier just to have faith than to try to find evidence for everything?"
I had hoped he had misspoken, but these sorts of statements were repeated by him several more times. I tried to explain to him what I will try to explain here, but I'm not sure it truly sunk in for him.
I will never, and probably cannot, abandon my search for truth by evidence in favor of faith. I can only think of this as selling out. In order to give into faith, I'd have to sell out all my wisdom, knowledge of the natural world, and knowledge of the proper paths to truth. I would have to become everything that I am not...and this is supposed to be easy?
Even if it were easy for me to buy into faith, what a hideous proposition! It's almost comical.
Who needs that fancy-schmancy ev-a-dance when you can just have faith?
Well that's just dandy. But why, I wonder, should I limit my faith to just one god? If I'm going to disregard evidence in favor of faith, I'd much rather have faith that the world was created by the thrashing riffs of gods of rock, and that they have defined morality as headbanging and moshing and being an all around rock-star. Now that would be cool. And why should you disagree? Afterall, it's just faith, and it's easy!
But my favorite quote from this theist by far was:
"Why waste time in search of truth and evidence? You can just have faith and then spend more time on more important things like your relationship with your wife, and with your dogs"
Definitely. Shouldn't we all give up the quest for knowledge by evidence, and buy into whatever faith we concoct, so that we can have a bit more personal time with Fido?
What can be said? Once again I find evidence for my conclusion that many theists hate knowledge. They are enchanted by faith, while we Rationalists are keen to avoid it whenever possible. We can see the idiocy of such faith-heads in statements such as these. I think some people are so cognitively lazy that they prefer the easy answers.
Just don't make me think, and I'll believe whatever.
Before the conversation ended, I told him the definition of a theist. (He didn't know he was one.)
Trying to be clever, he replied:
"Ok. I'll believe you. It's easier that way :)"
I yelled at him.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Skinner and god
Today I had a discussion with a Christian which was surprisingly civil and respectful. It's always a pleasure to know your words do not fall on closed ears. The debate did, however, spark a novel idea for me. Rather than retell the debate itself, I'll expand upon my realization.
As a psychologist, I'm well-versed in the works and theories of B.F. Skinner, and understand conditioning and learning. Skinner and the behaviorists are opposed to the attribution of "essences, spirits, souls, and internal ambiguous intentions"to objects. It was not long ago that essences and desires were attributed to both animate and inanimate objects, silly as that may seem. Skinner expanded the discoveries of Pavlov and others from "lower" animals to the human animal. The same reinforcement and punishment schedules that shape a dog's behavior shape a human's behavior.
So what's the point I need to make? Well, we can no longer say that someone is trustworthy, or loyal, or hardworking, or loving, honest, friendly, or kind. That phrasing makes it seem that those qualities are some sort of internal, ambiguous force residing in a person. The proper phrasing, in light of behaviorism, is to acknowledge that reinforcement and punishment contingencies have been such arranged to produce behavior which can be labeled "loving" by another human brain. We may incorrectly label the person as being "loving"; we mean, in fact, that their behavior is "loving". Our qualities are the result of behavior being labeled, not unseen forces within us. How else do you know if a "person" is honest? How else do you know if a "person" is friendly? We draw the best conclusions by observations of behavior. (Science!)
So right off the bat we can conclude that labels attached to a god do not describe the god himself or herself, but describe his or her purported behavior. Keep this in mind when theists describe god.
Now, the theist in question was discussing the qualities of god's character. Christians typically claim god is "holy, kind, just, loving, honest, etc.". Understanding that qualities are simply labeled behaviors, what are the behaviors that have been observed in order to come to these labels? Well, it's a complicated question, isn't it? I'm a pretty observant fellow, but I've never witnessed the behavior of an undeniable god. Where are these labels coming from?
The theist said the behaviors are found in the bible. Well, that's not exactly phrased right. The reports of the behaviors are found in the bible. In other words, the behavior isn't directly observed itself, but through the bible one can take the author's word for it. Of course, if there is evidence of the behavior outside of the author's account, it lends credibility for the application of a label. Unfortunately, there is not any physical evidence that supports the biblical intervention of a god at any point in history, including the Jesus story. So all that's left is the author's word for it, and that leads to a high possibility of an incorrect labeling, since no behavior has been observed. Sure we can label the character of the biblical god like we can label a novel figure, but this doesn't equate with a god in reality. Besides, if the author's word for it is all that's needed, you'd require blinders to overlook the evil god of the Old Testament, and still arrive at labels like "loving and peaceful."
This theist also said that the beauty of the Earth is evidence that god is creative and loving. Well, let's just overlook the plethora of ways in which the Earth tries to kill us everyday, and focus on the beauty itself. Is Earth beautiful? It goes back to behaviorism: objects do not have intrinsic essences and qualities, outside of what labels we attach. Beauty is completely subjective. The Earth is only beautiful if we say it is. I've known people who find the Earth beautiful and others who find it ugly. Sometimes, one person can have both opinions in different points of one lifetime. Can a subjective opinion really serve as sufficient evidence to attach a label to an unobserved behavior? Of course not. Besides, there is no evidence of the Earth being "created" in a way any differently than the natural formations of the other billion billion planets.
Of course, there is the behavior of a god which has only anecdotal evidence. "God made my sister better", "God saved me", "God sent Hurricane Katrina because of gay people", etc. I won't spend much time on these anecdotes, because every atheist, rationalist, and psychologist knows that anecdotal evidence is meaningless and often false unless supported by objective evidence. So what if you claim to have a personal account of god's behavior; can you demonstrate objectively by evidence that this was a god's doing, and could not be explained by any other means?? Of course they can't.
So what are these labels based upon, exactly? Do they actually describe the deity's behavior, or do they describe what people expect the deity's behavior to be like? I think the lack of any physical evidence of such a deity's behavior forces the second option to be true. A theist cannot say that god behaves "lovingly, kindly, or holy". The theist can only say that they expect, believe, or hope that god's actions are loving, kind, and holy.
This is where my thought ends at the current moment, but I hope that this line of thinking will come in handy when evaluating claims of god's character in future discourse. I think Skinner has a lot to offer to human knowledge, both in and outside of Psychology, and even in the debate about god.
As a psychologist, I'm well-versed in the works and theories of B.F. Skinner, and understand conditioning and learning. Skinner and the behaviorists are opposed to the attribution of "essences, spirits, souls, and internal ambiguous intentions"to objects. It was not long ago that essences and desires were attributed to both animate and inanimate objects, silly as that may seem. Skinner expanded the discoveries of Pavlov and others from "lower" animals to the human animal. The same reinforcement and punishment schedules that shape a dog's behavior shape a human's behavior.
So what's the point I need to make? Well, we can no longer say that someone is trustworthy, or loyal, or hardworking, or loving, honest, friendly, or kind. That phrasing makes it seem that those qualities are some sort of internal, ambiguous force residing in a person. The proper phrasing, in light of behaviorism, is to acknowledge that reinforcement and punishment contingencies have been such arranged to produce behavior which can be labeled "loving" by another human brain. We may incorrectly label the person as being "loving"; we mean, in fact, that their behavior is "loving". Our qualities are the result of behavior being labeled, not unseen forces within us. How else do you know if a "person" is honest? How else do you know if a "person" is friendly? We draw the best conclusions by observations of behavior. (Science!)
So right off the bat we can conclude that labels attached to a god do not describe the god himself or herself, but describe his or her purported behavior. Keep this in mind when theists describe god.
Now, the theist in question was discussing the qualities of god's character. Christians typically claim god is "holy, kind, just, loving, honest, etc.". Understanding that qualities are simply labeled behaviors, what are the behaviors that have been observed in order to come to these labels? Well, it's a complicated question, isn't it? I'm a pretty observant fellow, but I've never witnessed the behavior of an undeniable god. Where are these labels coming from?
The theist said the behaviors are found in the bible. Well, that's not exactly phrased right. The reports of the behaviors are found in the bible. In other words, the behavior isn't directly observed itself, but through the bible one can take the author's word for it. Of course, if there is evidence of the behavior outside of the author's account, it lends credibility for the application of a label. Unfortunately, there is not any physical evidence that supports the biblical intervention of a god at any point in history, including the Jesus story. So all that's left is the author's word for it, and that leads to a high possibility of an incorrect labeling, since no behavior has been observed. Sure we can label the character of the biblical god like we can label a novel figure, but this doesn't equate with a god in reality. Besides, if the author's word for it is all that's needed, you'd require blinders to overlook the evil god of the Old Testament, and still arrive at labels like "loving and peaceful."
This theist also said that the beauty of the Earth is evidence that god is creative and loving. Well, let's just overlook the plethora of ways in which the Earth tries to kill us everyday, and focus on the beauty itself. Is Earth beautiful? It goes back to behaviorism: objects do not have intrinsic essences and qualities, outside of what labels we attach. Beauty is completely subjective. The Earth is only beautiful if we say it is. I've known people who find the Earth beautiful and others who find it ugly. Sometimes, one person can have both opinions in different points of one lifetime. Can a subjective opinion really serve as sufficient evidence to attach a label to an unobserved behavior? Of course not. Besides, there is no evidence of the Earth being "created" in a way any differently than the natural formations of the other billion billion planets.
Of course, there is the behavior of a god which has only anecdotal evidence. "God made my sister better", "God saved me", "God sent Hurricane Katrina because of gay people", etc. I won't spend much time on these anecdotes, because every atheist, rationalist, and psychologist knows that anecdotal evidence is meaningless and often false unless supported by objective evidence. So what if you claim to have a personal account of god's behavior; can you demonstrate objectively by evidence that this was a god's doing, and could not be explained by any other means?? Of course they can't.
So what are these labels based upon, exactly? Do they actually describe the deity's behavior, or do they describe what people expect the deity's behavior to be like? I think the lack of any physical evidence of such a deity's behavior forces the second option to be true. A theist cannot say that god behaves "lovingly, kindly, or holy". The theist can only say that they expect, believe, or hope that god's actions are loving, kind, and holy.
This is where my thought ends at the current moment, but I hope that this line of thinking will come in handy when evaluating claims of god's character in future discourse. I think Skinner has a lot to offer to human knowledge, both in and outside of Psychology, and even in the debate about god.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Do not forget the evil of theism
Sometimes I forget the power theism holds over certain individuals. I focus on the claims so closely I forget to see the monster making them. With theism, there is always the possibility for absolute evil (in addition to the normal immorality of unjustified belief). This recent debate reminded me of that ugly fact, and repulsed me immensely.
The debate, which took place on youtube via private messages, will be copied and pasted below.
Christian:
I hope you get right with God. It's funny how evil you are to me, yet how much I sincerely want your soul to be saved!
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling children they are guilty, filthy creatures and deserve eternal torture.
Evil, to me, is the mutilation of a child's genitals.
Evil, to me, is the deprivation of a child's education, in favor of bronze-age mythology.
Evil, to me, is god-commanded genocide.
Evil, to me, is religion-fueled bombings.
Evil, to me, is unquestionable dogma.
Evil, to me, is the pushing of legislation to ban homosexuality based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is the opposition of science that can save lives because of mythology.
Evil, to me, is the oppression of women based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is willful ignorance.
Evil, to me, is lying to a child.
Evil, to me, is lying to anyone in order to obtain money or gifts.
Evil, to me, is using fear to gain control of a person and a person's assets.
Evil, to me, is all these things which religion causes.
Therefore, evil, to me...is you.
Goodness, ergo, is opposing evil.
Christian:
Evil to you... evil to you... so what if that's not evil to someone else? What if to a cannibal eating a child for lunch (much less lying to him) is permissible?
Moral relativism is from your father the devil. Only God is good enough to decide what is right and what is wrong
Me:
There's another:
Evil, to me, is telling a person their father is the devil.
I'm only looking at the world, and the path of burnt corpses, bombed buildings, indoctrinated children, murdered doctors, and destroyed lives that religion leaves behind it. If you can't see the evil in that, I pity you.
Besides, I'm more moral than the god of the bible, and I bet you are too.
I would never tell someone: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3
I would never condone the killing of infants, but apparently its just dandy for your "god".
Christian:
No, evil is not telling a person their father is the devil (spiritually) when he is.
That is evil. I know with 100% certainty that you are a true child of Satan, your father. You show disdain and even hatred for God. Until you turn from your old life and to God, you will be a child of the devil.
It would be INFINITELY more evil not to tell you the truth about this when in fact, I hold the key in this debate. But I cannot judge you as I was probably worse than you and very egotistical like you before I got saved.
God did what was good and perfect. He sees the whole picture. What satan uses for evil, God can turn into good. One of God's very names is the Lord of Hosts (armies). Our God is a mighty warrior. By Him, everyone knew the American Revolution was won.
Me: (now disgusted by this point)
Yet another:
Evil, to me, is telling someone that what is only mere faith is truth.
Evil, to me, is justify the killing of infants and women.
Evil, to me, is allowing your "god" to command men to rape virgins and take a knife to suckling babies; while still claiming to be "moral" when opposing abortion.
Evil, to me, is hypocrisy similar to the above.
Evil, to me, is falsely claiming the your god had anything to do with American history.
You are, perhaps, the most morally-deprived person I've talked to. It's too bad that there is no hell for you to go to.
Christian:
Evil, is to you what it might not be to another.
Moral relativism is evil and from Satan, from whom you are taking lessons.
God is why there is American history; otherwise it would be European history still. God is why there is history. God is why we are even alive.
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling a person who strives for truth, donates to the poor, comforts the sick, protects the innocent, helps the downtrodden through crisis, and supports equality that their actions are from "Satan".
Do you really think the above actions are evil?
Funny..in every war that has ever been fought, god was claimed to be on both sides.
Christian:
In themselves, they are not evil. It doesn't stop the truth from being the truth, however. In fact, Satan parades as an angel of light. He is the father of lies.
Maybe mankind claimed God to be on both sides. But the truth is that God of Israel (the true God) was only on one side. So that doesn't matter.
Me:
Well tell you what: I'll keep helping the poor, destitute, sick, lonely, stressed, afraid, innocent, and vulnerable; and you keep making excuses of why it is ok for god to command the death of infants and the rape of women.
If god commanded you to kill a woman and her infant child, as he commanded Saul, would you do it?
Christian:
God also smote the firstborn of Egypt. God does what is right and perfect at all times. Who are we to question our Creator. It is fortunate any of us are breathing.
Oh, but let's not look at the big picture- that would be too hard.
Me:
You did not answer my question.
If god told you to take the life of a woman, and of her newborn child, as he told Saul, would you do it?
Yes or no?
(Prepare yourselves)
Christian:
If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God.
Me: (enraged and repulsed)
Then you admit to being a mindless slave, willing to murder an infant. You are too weak to think for yourself and your mindlessness would lead you to commit horrible crimes that violate everything good about humanity. Your willingness to take the life of a newborn repulses me; makes me want to vomit. I'm embarrassed to share this planet with you, and much more embarrassed to be conversing with you. Your fanatic devotion is no better than that of Osama Bin Laden and the suicide bombers. Your mind is diseased, sick, and twisted. Your faith does not deserve tolerance; it deserves jail time and therapy. You claim I am evil; yet you are the one ready to jab the knife into the stomach of a woman.
For this, I will not corrupt my morals any further by talking to you. Just as you think you cast aside "Satan", I shall cast you aside. If there lay any evil between the two of us, it lay with the one ready to murder. I cannot overlook that, and cannot consort with murderers.
...later..
Now that I think about it...
You said:
"If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God."
Even if everything you believed was actually true; I would STILL never murder a fellow man, especially a baby. But look at your reason! You would kill a child in order to avoid punishment for yourself! Could you possibly be more evil?! How selfish is that?!
You'd kill a child, to save your own skin...
I'd spend eternity in hell before I dare lay a malevolent hand on a child; and if god asked me to, I'd tell him to fuck off.
You evil, sick, selfish, child-killing, slave...how dare you claim to know morality.
Perhaps you think my words were harsh, and perhaps you do not. Frankly, I do not think there are words harsh enough for those willing to murder an infant an a woman just to get a reward. This disgusting pervert does not deserve the respect he demands; he deserves to be locked away.
Never forget, my fellow atheists, that theism is never innocent. Even when we let it slip from our sight, there is always the potential monster behind the beliefs. The only way to rid society of pathological nitwits such as this man is to recognize that the faith of any theist is not benign. It does not make society better, and it does not even "break even". It corrupts society, turns otherwise smart people into slaves, and allows for abominations against human decency.
If anyone desires to give this particular theist a piece of their mind, I will give you his youtube username. Just email me at crgordon@gmail.com.
The debate, which took place on youtube via private messages, will be copied and pasted below.
Christian:
I hope you get right with God. It's funny how evil you are to me, yet how much I sincerely want your soul to be saved!
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling children they are guilty, filthy creatures and deserve eternal torture.
Evil, to me, is the mutilation of a child's genitals.
Evil, to me, is the deprivation of a child's education, in favor of bronze-age mythology.
Evil, to me, is god-commanded genocide.
Evil, to me, is religion-fueled bombings.
Evil, to me, is unquestionable dogma.
Evil, to me, is the pushing of legislation to ban homosexuality based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is the opposition of science that can save lives because of mythology.
Evil, to me, is the oppression of women based on mythology.
Evil, to me, is willful ignorance.
Evil, to me, is lying to a child.
Evil, to me, is lying to anyone in order to obtain money or gifts.
Evil, to me, is using fear to gain control of a person and a person's assets.
Evil, to me, is all these things which religion causes.
Therefore, evil, to me...is you.
Goodness, ergo, is opposing evil.
Christian:
Evil to you... evil to you... so what if that's not evil to someone else? What if to a cannibal eating a child for lunch (much less lying to him) is permissible?
Moral relativism is from your father the devil. Only God is good enough to decide what is right and what is wrong
Me:
There's another:
Evil, to me, is telling a person their father is the devil.
I'm only looking at the world, and the path of burnt corpses, bombed buildings, indoctrinated children, murdered doctors, and destroyed lives that religion leaves behind it. If you can't see the evil in that, I pity you.
Besides, I'm more moral than the god of the bible, and I bet you are too.
I would never tell someone: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3
I would never condone the killing of infants, but apparently its just dandy for your "god".
Christian:
No, evil is not telling a person their father is the devil (spiritually) when he is.
That is evil. I know with 100% certainty that you are a true child of Satan, your father. You show disdain and even hatred for God. Until you turn from your old life and to God, you will be a child of the devil.
It would be INFINITELY more evil not to tell you the truth about this when in fact, I hold the key in this debate. But I cannot judge you as I was probably worse than you and very egotistical like you before I got saved.
God did what was good and perfect. He sees the whole picture. What satan uses for evil, God can turn into good. One of God's very names is the Lord of Hosts (armies). Our God is a mighty warrior. By Him, everyone knew the American Revolution was won.
Me: (now disgusted by this point)
Yet another:
Evil, to me, is telling someone that what is only mere faith is truth.
Evil, to me, is justify the killing of infants and women.
Evil, to me, is allowing your "god" to command men to rape virgins and take a knife to suckling babies; while still claiming to be "moral" when opposing abortion.
Evil, to me, is hypocrisy similar to the above.
Evil, to me, is falsely claiming the your god had anything to do with American history.
You are, perhaps, the most morally-deprived person I've talked to. It's too bad that there is no hell for you to go to.
Christian:
Evil, is to you what it might not be to another.
Moral relativism is evil and from Satan, from whom you are taking lessons.
God is why there is American history; otherwise it would be European history still. God is why there is history. God is why we are even alive.
Me:
Evil, to me, is telling a person who strives for truth, donates to the poor, comforts the sick, protects the innocent, helps the downtrodden through crisis, and supports equality that their actions are from "Satan".
Do you really think the above actions are evil?
Funny..in every war that has ever been fought, god was claimed to be on both sides.
Christian:
In themselves, they are not evil. It doesn't stop the truth from being the truth, however. In fact, Satan parades as an angel of light. He is the father of lies.
Maybe mankind claimed God to be on both sides. But the truth is that God of Israel (the true God) was only on one side. So that doesn't matter.
Me:
Well tell you what: I'll keep helping the poor, destitute, sick, lonely, stressed, afraid, innocent, and vulnerable; and you keep making excuses of why it is ok for god to command the death of infants and the rape of women.
If god commanded you to kill a woman and her infant child, as he commanded Saul, would you do it?
Christian:
God also smote the firstborn of Egypt. God does what is right and perfect at all times. Who are we to question our Creator. It is fortunate any of us are breathing.
Oh, but let's not look at the big picture- that would be too hard.
Me:
You did not answer my question.
If god told you to take the life of a woman, and of her newborn child, as he told Saul, would you do it?
Yes or no?
(Prepare yourselves)
Christian:
If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God.
Me: (enraged and repulsed)
Then you admit to being a mindless slave, willing to murder an infant. You are too weak to think for yourself and your mindlessness would lead you to commit horrible crimes that violate everything good about humanity. Your willingness to take the life of a newborn repulses me; makes me want to vomit. I'm embarrassed to share this planet with you, and much more embarrassed to be conversing with you. Your fanatic devotion is no better than that of Osama Bin Laden and the suicide bombers. Your mind is diseased, sick, and twisted. Your faith does not deserve tolerance; it deserves jail time and therapy. You claim I am evil; yet you are the one ready to jab the knife into the stomach of a woman.
For this, I will not corrupt my morals any further by talking to you. Just as you think you cast aside "Satan", I shall cast you aside. If there lay any evil between the two of us, it lay with the one ready to murder. I cannot overlook that, and cannot consort with murderers.
...later..
Now that I think about it...
You said:
"If God told me to do it, I would definitely do it. There have always been and still are significant consequences for disobeying God."
Even if everything you believed was actually true; I would STILL never murder a fellow man, especially a baby. But look at your reason! You would kill a child in order to avoid punishment for yourself! Could you possibly be more evil?! How selfish is that?!
You'd kill a child, to save your own skin...
I'd spend eternity in hell before I dare lay a malevolent hand on a child; and if god asked me to, I'd tell him to fuck off.
You evil, sick, selfish, child-killing, slave...how dare you claim to know morality.
Perhaps you think my words were harsh, and perhaps you do not. Frankly, I do not think there are words harsh enough for those willing to murder an infant an a woman just to get a reward. This disgusting pervert does not deserve the respect he demands; he deserves to be locked away.
Never forget, my fellow atheists, that theism is never innocent. Even when we let it slip from our sight, there is always the potential monster behind the beliefs. The only way to rid society of pathological nitwits such as this man is to recognize that the faith of any theist is not benign. It does not make society better, and it does not even "break even". It corrupts society, turns otherwise smart people into slaves, and allows for abominations against human decency.
If anyone desires to give this particular theist a piece of their mind, I will give you his youtube username. Just email me at crgordon@gmail.com.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Reality show to convert atheists
A Turkish TV station is airing a "reality" show in which various religious leaders attempt to convert atheists.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/weird/Ill-Take-Eternal-Salvation-for-600.html#nSYL7Jaojdux0qOli6eaOKmGmUxChwsgHH8r0ndfMUdFEE9dsmlNSNu0mI_eZ8iV9AEx7L3RLj9EiSOoB
The show features a Muslim imam, a Catholic priest, A Buddhist monk, and a rabbi confronting 10 atheists.
And, if they convert, tell them what they win, Johnny!
-"That's right, for selling out your rationality to religious dogma, you win a once-in-a-lifetime PILGRIMAGE to the epicenter of your selected doctrine! Enjoy Judaism by banging your head on an old wall! Praise Jesus in scenic capitalist Vatican city! Kill infidels with Mohamed and friends at Mecca! Or just sit and do nothing all day in Tibet! All this and more fairy tales iiiiffff the price is right!"
Seriously, what the fuck Turkey?! This show has obviously sparked outrage from the theistic world. The Muslims have their panties in a bunch and want the show pulled. (What else is new?) But as an atheist, even I don't think this show is a good idea. Why?
Because it degrades the serious thought and consideration that goes into theistic and atheist discourse. These decisions are not commodities to be pitched. Can you imagine the late Billy Mays selling Judaism? We all know that nothing on TV is real; even reality shows have scripts. Doubtlessly, a few lazy atheists will be coaxed to convert and take the free trip. This will give the false illusion that theism of any sort is in some cases a more reasonable alternative to atheism. I predict the show will play to emotions rather than logic. I doubt it will carefully examine the logical fallacies of each religion. I doubt it will be fair and balanced. All in all, I think this show will paint atheists as fools who can be bought over. Maybe I'll be wrong; but I doubt it.
In any case, I'll always be doing my part here in America to show that we will not sell out our logic and rationality.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/weird/Ill-Take-Eternal-Salvation-for-600.html#nSYL7Jaojdux0qOli6eaOKmGmUxChwsgHH8r0ndfMUdFEE9dsmlNSNu0mI_eZ8iV9AEx7L3RLj9EiSOoB
The show features a Muslim imam, a Catholic priest, A Buddhist monk, and a rabbi confronting 10 atheists.
And, if they convert, tell them what they win, Johnny!
-"That's right, for selling out your rationality to religious dogma, you win a once-in-a-lifetime PILGRIMAGE to the epicenter of your selected doctrine! Enjoy Judaism by banging your head on an old wall! Praise Jesus in scenic capitalist Vatican city! Kill infidels with Mohamed and friends at Mecca! Or just sit and do nothing all day in Tibet! All this and more fairy tales iiiiffff the price is right!"
Seriously, what the fuck Turkey?! This show has obviously sparked outrage from the theistic world. The Muslims have their panties in a bunch and want the show pulled. (What else is new?) But as an atheist, even I don't think this show is a good idea. Why?
Because it degrades the serious thought and consideration that goes into theistic and atheist discourse. These decisions are not commodities to be pitched. Can you imagine the late Billy Mays selling Judaism? We all know that nothing on TV is real; even reality shows have scripts. Doubtlessly, a few lazy atheists will be coaxed to convert and take the free trip. This will give the false illusion that theism of any sort is in some cases a more reasonable alternative to atheism. I predict the show will play to emotions rather than logic. I doubt it will carefully examine the logical fallacies of each religion. I doubt it will be fair and balanced. All in all, I think this show will paint atheists as fools who can be bought over. Maybe I'll be wrong; but I doubt it.
In any case, I'll always be doing my part here in America to show that we will not sell out our logic and rationality.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Atheist Blogroll
My blog has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Gay Exorcism
It seems that in my own state, there still exists religious cruelty in the form of homophobic child abuse. This video of an apparent exorcism to remove demons causing homosexuality is taking the internet by storm. It shows a 16 year old boy writhing while surrounded by people shouting babble about jesus. The boy vomited in the course of the exorcism, and was driven to a near-seizure state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhedHERfcXk
The people responsible are Kevin and Patricia McKinney. The latter, and probably the former, is a recovered CRACK ADDICT. Why am I not surprised? Below is a letter I sent to their "church" of 25 people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhedHERfcXk
The people responsible are Kevin and Patricia McKinney. The latter, and probably the former, is a recovered CRACK ADDICT. Why am I not surprised? Below is a letter I sent to their "church" of 25 people.
Dear Kelvin and Patricia McKinney,
As you well know, I’m sure; your videotaped exorcism of a homosexual boy has spread over the internet like wildfire. I recently read of this exorcism in a local newspaper, and was compelled to research more about your “ministry” and the abuses you have commit against this child. It is not sufficient to say that I am appalled; I am thoroughly embarrassed and disgusted that such events would unfold in this state and in this day in age.
As a student researcher in Psychology, I feel insulted that the honest and empathetic studies being done in my field cohabitates with the harsh cruelties of your dogmatic minds. Research conducted by admirable, inquisitive scientists has uncovered evidence linking homosexuality to biological and environmental conditions. And, the evidence of homosexuality’s naturalistic origin is constantly being increased. And you, in blind faith, would contend that “gay demons” are the only explanation! Contrasting the non-judgmental scientific approach with the actions you have taken against this child is like comparing the modern era to the dark ages.
If you are content to ignore the etiology of homosexuality, and instead blame it on causes unsupported by evidence, you have the right to do so. Our constitution guarantees that you have the right to glorify ignorance through your speech and religion. You do not, however, possess the right to inflict suffering and psychological damage on a minor, even with consent. Responsible adults should see the risk inherent with telling a child his sexual orientation is caused by “demons”, but apparently you do not. Based on what I have seen, I can only conclude that you are not responsible adults. Because you preyed on this child’s still-developing mind, with incessant shouting and inhumane treatment, I opine that your actions were not only irresponsible, but positively immoral. This primitive behavior has no place in modern society. Therefore, it is my hope that appropriate legal action will be taken against you for this publicized child abuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
