Powered By Blogger

Translate

Saturday, July 11, 2015

How Christians Can Continue to Believe Being Gay is a Sin, but No Longer Look like Intolerant Assholes

Christians, are you sick of being persecuted for being intolerant of homosexuals? As a humanist, I care about the happiness and well-being of all life, and I have noticed that many Christians living in the United States are having a difficult time as of late. It seems fewer and fewer are listening to your warnings that your God is going to destroy America if we accept homosexuals, and now that gay marriage is legal in the U.S., it’s making some Christians look even more hateful as the majority of U.S. citizens are in favor of gay marriage. As an atheist, I know how it feels to be in the minority on an issue, it can be extremely difficult – but I have a suggestion that will allow you to still think homosexuality is a sin but won’t make you look like an intolerant asshole.

I know what you’re thinking, “But why can’t people see how immoral this behavior is, the Bible clearly says it's a sin?!?” That’s true, but fortunately, some people don’t look to ancient books to derive their morals. Some, like myself, use empathy and consequential ethics as a basis for morality. No matter how much you protest and threaten us with eternal hell, we aren’t going to change our stance (unless sufficient evidence is presented to back up your claims) and it will only make you look crazy!

If you want to be taken more seriously, I’d suggest equally being against other “sins” such as divorce and premarital sex which Christians are guilty of constantly! Or better yet, protest the sexual abuse of children that is happening throughout many Christian denominations! 
It’s pretty clear to me that Christians who overwhelmingly attack homosexuality over other sins – is because straight Christians don’t commit that “sin”. It’s easy for a Christian to speak up and feel morally superior when it’s a “sin” they’ve never committed. Non-believers and even Christians who are accepting of homosexuals can see right through this hypocrisy and you end up looking like an enormous asshole.

I know Christians struggle with the balancing of “being in the world but not of the world”; but when following religious text such as the Bible it can make one look extremely hateful and intolerant, and I know Christians don’t want to appear this way. So what can you do? The best solution is to give up using ancient books as a moral guide and replace it with reason and compassion. However, this is easier said than done for a variety of reasons.

If that is not a current option, there is another option which is TRUST IN YOUR GOD. Yes, you read that correctly! If you feel the need to continue believing an ancient myth and need a book which is said to be inspired by an “All-Mighty God”, then show some FAITH that your God exists and that He/it will judge homosexuals when the time comes. I doubt an all-powerful deity needs help condemning sinners. 

You may be thinking, “But if we let this sin continue, God will punish America for allowing this behavior!” No need to worry, when America was founded, slavery was legal, mixed-race marriages were illegal, and women didn’t have the right to vote and according to most Christians - that’s when America was great! If your God didn’t punish America then, he’s probably not going to punish us for extending freedom to gay couples.

So just leave the condemning to your deity - all the persecution you are experiencing for being intolerant will cease to exist and you’ll no longer look like an intolerant asshole.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Christian Admits He'd Commit Horrifying Acts If God Didn't Exist While Discussing Morality


On April 1st, I posted a response to Daniel King's video "There is NO God. Happy April Fools Day!"

Here is that post which includes the video. He recently responded and I thought some might find this exchange beneficial so I've decided to publish it on a new post (even though it can be found on the original post in the comments). 

It is a little long, so I have highlighted what I think are some of the most interesting parts.

If you see that I have said something inaccurate, please feel free to correct me in the comments. However, Daniel may not appreciate it if you do the same for him. 


*The comments have not been edited for grammar or spelling so that no one can claim it was "taken out of context" or edited in any way. 


* * *

Daniel King April 8, 2015
First, it is important to understand that Christians believe the Bible is the very words of God. To quote Psalms 14:1 is not so much “name calling” as it is a statement of fact (from our perspective). Personally, I feel there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence for God’s existence that it is foolish to doubt His existence. I agree that calling an atheist foolish is provocative in the beginning stages of an argument, but in my video, I’m trying to be provocative on purpose.

On the argument from cause, you say, “God didn’t need a cause and has always existed.” Yes, that’s right, you have articulated my position precisely. So, either the universe has always existed or God has always existed. You (and science) don’t really know if the universe has always existed since no one was there at the big bang. But, there are observable natural laws in the universe that show it is highly improbable for us to be here by chance.

There are two stories about where creation came from. Both stories are based on faith. No scientist was present at the beginning of the universe. It requires a great leap of faith to believe that something comes from nothing, that order comes from chaos, that life appears from non-living matter (abiogenesis), and that consciousness appears from non-conscienceless. Atheists criticize Christians for believing in a “magical being” that created everything, but it is just as absurd to believe that everything came from nothing.

Since we exist, something must have always existed. Is it more plausible to believe that the universe simply popped into being one day or to believe that there is an infinitely wise Being who exists outside of time who created the universe? The universe has a cause because it began to exist. God does not need a cause, because He has always existed.

It can be demonstrated scientifically that the universe has a beginning (known as the Big Bang). The second law of thermodynamics tells us “things left to themselves tend towards disorder.” In a closed system (like the universe), the total amount of usable energy is decreasing. This is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible. The total amount of energy in the universe will eventually run out. In millions of years, our sun will run out of energy and become a cold, dark ball. The fact that the sun is shining proves that the universe had a beginning.

Entropy is a fact of life. The universe moves irresistibly towards disorder. My body is wearing out. Unless I force my son to clean his room, it continually gets messier. The AA batteries in my flashlight stop working. Since the universe moves towards disorder, the fact that there is order in the universe today proves the universe had a beginning.


The universe has a beginning; therefore it must have a cause. But, by definition, God does not have a beginning. Since He has always existed, He never began to exist, thus He needs no cause.

Ted Musk April 13, 2015 
Your video demonstrates how weak your “evidence” for God is. So I don’t understand why you would say, “there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence for God’s existence.”

Yes, all evidence suggests the universe we live in started from a single point, but that doesn’t mean it was created from “nothing”. Nothing is a very difficult thing to grasp as even empty space is something. What was before the Big Bang? I don’t know and neither do you, but you think you do because you blindly accept the claims of ancient men who wrote a book claiming to be from the creator of the universe.

It’s very clear that you have not studied astronomy or evolution. So if you don’t understand the claims for how the universe naturally came about or how evolution works, how can you honestly argue against it? At least study it before you disagree with it. By not even attempting to understand the scientific claims it demonstrates that you are closed-minded and have come to a conclusion before looking at the evidence. Clearly a poor way of coming to a better understanding reality.

If after learning about these fields of study you still disagree with the scientific consensus, use the scientific method to demonstrate why it is wrong and why you are correct. Write a paper and then have it peer reviewed. If the evidence shows you are correct, you will be applauded by scientists of all kind (and be rewarded a Nobel Prize) for helping the world come to a better understanding of reality.


But you won’t do that because there is no evidence that a biblical view of the world is correct. Just as no religious view could do this because they all lack evidence and are the result of either con artists, superstition or ignorance.

You don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics, you are repeating this argument from other Christian apologists who also didn’t understand it. Why are you doing this? Yes, in trillions of years all the stars in the universe will eventually die and the universe will go cold (at least that is the current understanding) but until then our planet is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. The earth gets its energy from our host star aka the sun, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t help your case.

Daniel King April 8, 2015
On the design argument, for every watch there must be a watchmaker. The complexity, order, and purpose of a watch strongly suggests intelligent design. When I look at a watch that tics every second in perfect synchronization I know it exists because of a skilled watchmaker. Logic tells me that in order for an intricate, marvelous, wonderful creation to exist, there must be a Creator. When I see the balance and beauty of creation, I know it was made by an intelligent designer.

The parts hidden within a watch are irreducibly complex and each part cannot function on its own without the other interconnected parts. Darwin admitted a flaw in his theory when he wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Like a watch, the DNA contained in the human genome is irreducibly complex.

Where do houses come from? Houses are built by builders. All of our experience tells us that houses do not build themselves. Hebrews 3:4 uses the argument from design, “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.”

When I see a house, carefully planned by an architect and built by a builder, I know that house is no accident. It did not just pop into existence by itself. When I think of who caused that house to be built, I realize that this universe we see must also have someone who caused it to appear and I say, “Yes, God is THERE!”

Where do paintings come from? The existence of a painting strongly suggests the existence of a painter. Paintings do not paint themselves. For every painting, there must be a painter.

Where does creation come from? Creation was created by a Creator. Just as a house does not build itself and a painting does not paint itself, so creation does not create itself.

Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary explanations. The random change of evolution can’t explain our existence.

A tiny bird is far more complicated then a 747 airplane. The bird has millions of interlocking cells all working together in unison to keep the bird in flight. The design of the bird is more precise then our most complicated airplane. It is absurd to imagine that a plane put itself together. So, why are evolutionists applauded for proposing that birds created themselves out of nothing? The evolutionist replies, “Birds appeared over millions of years of evolution.” But, if I start with nothing, that nothing will still be nothing if I wait one year or a million years.

The addition of millions of years of time does not solve the fundamental impossibility of design appearing from nothing. Take a piece of iron ore. Lay it on your desk. How many millions of years will you wait before the ore spontaneously forms itself into the intricate springs and levers that enable a watch to accurately tell time? Adding time to the equation does not adequately explain how order appears from disorder.

The argument from design is persuasive to me. The building does not build itself, a watch does not suddenly appear, and automobiles are carefully designed by intelligent engineers. A tornado spinning in a junkyard does not suddenly create a 747 airplane. Only a fool intent on denying the existence of a Creator believes that the intricate design of the human body could drag itself from the ooze of primordial mud.

Ted Musk April 13, 2015
I already addressed your design argument, do watches reproduce on their own like life can? Of course not! Watches are not organisms. Do you really think I don’t understand that watches, houses and paintings have creators? I obviously agree that they do, not sure why you continue to make the case for this. But again, they do not reproduce on their own. That is the problem with your argument. Please read about natural selection.

If you understood evolution, I think you would disagree that evolution can’t explain our existence. Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by those who understand it and overwhelmingly denied by those who don’t.

Daniel King April 8, 2015
Let’s look at the claim that the earth is precisely designed for our existence: Norman Geisler writes:

“1. Oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent, fires would erupt, if 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.
2. If the gravitational force were altered by 1 part in 1040 (that’s 10 followed by forty zeros), the sun would not exist, and the moon would crash into the earth or sheer off into space. Even a slight increase in the force of gravity would result in all the stars being much more massive than our sun, with the effect that the sun would burn too rapidly and erratically to sustain life.
3. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
4. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike earth.
5. If the thickness of the earth’s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life untenable.
6. If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.”
7. If the axial tilt of the earth were altered slightly, surface temperature differences would be too great.
8. The precise tilt and rotation of the earth give us the seasons of the year. If the earth was tilted a few degrees more in either direction, life on earth would become impossible.

For more on the anthropic principle, I would refer you to William Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-teleological-argument-and-the-anthropic-principle

I see your video from Neil deGrasse Tyson and raise you with this video about the fine tuning of the universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

Ted Musk April 13, 2015
I have to admit, it’s really frustrating having this conversation since you don’t understand science or the scientific claims on these issues. The fact is I completely understand your views as I used to believe them. But those views were very simple minded and were the result of poor critical thinking skills.

Are you going to at least admit that what you said in the video was inaccurate? Do you think someone who is intellectually honest would ignore all the evidence for why the universe is not designed for life and only look for reason why it is?

Obviously we are able to live on earth, so it’s not hard to find reasons for why we are able to live here. But to say the universe is design for life, is to ignore the fact that over 99% of the universe is completely inhospitable to us and would mean instant death. There is a reason why there isn’t life on every planet having this same discussion.

Daniel King April 8, 2015
On the changed lives argument, obviously I find my own life experience to be persuasive for the existence of God. I don’t expect you to accept my testimony, but my story multiplied by millions of other Christian stories should bear some weight. By the way, concerning your claim that every religion claims to better/change individuals lives I would assert that Christianity is the best of all the religious choices. For example, it can be argued that Christianity has a much better effect on people’s lives then say, Islam.

Ted Musk April 13, 2015 
The fact you think your testimony and others should bear some weight, tells me you don’t understand logical fallacies. There are millions of stories from other religions, should those hold weight as well?

It's easy to make the claim that Christianity is better than Islam these days, but 1000 years ago that wouldn’t be so obvious. I think Buddhism or even Judaism make a better case than Christianity for improving one’s life these days, but it still doesn’t increase the credibility of their religious claims either.

Daniel King April 8, 2015
On morality: Yes, if I believed there was no God, I would behave in much more immoral ways. Many atheists have chosen not to believe in God, not because of intellectual reasons, but because they want to live life free of God’s moral laws.
The atheist’s intellectual problems are often a smoke screen covering moral rebellion (Little, Know Why You Believe, 24). For the atheist, there are no objective moral values. For the atheist, there is no difference in ultimate meaning between what Hitler did and what Mother Teresa did. But, the fact that atheists know there is a difference between right and wrong, proves that there is an objective moral standard of right and wrong.

The atheist denies the existence of God in order to escape the responsibility of what would be required of him if God did exist. If God does not exist, nothing would stop me from robbing a bank (if I could get away with it) or murdering my neighbor. If there is no ultimate right and wrong, then there is no personal right and wrong. All is permitted as long as it makes the individual feel good. This relativism ultimately leads to hopelessness and purposelessness. If the universe has no meaning, what meaning can there be for me to go to work in the morning or to love my wife or to even be alive?

Everyone in the world has an inherent sense of right and wrong. This is what Kant calls a “categorical imperative.” He calls it “categorical” because it is universal, everyone has a category of understanding that some things are wrong. He calls it “imperative” because everyone is impelled to act upon this moral understanding. Even when we try to ignore or erase our moral sense, it still remains. If we try to deny our moral sense or act against it, we feel guilt. It is this sense of guilt that everyone, both apologist and atheist, can agree upon.

If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there is no objective morality, society would quickly fall apart. Without an external morality the only rule that would survive is that “might makes right.” Whoever has the biggest gun would rule. Without a supreme moral law giver there would be no moral distinction between right and wrong. Everything would be permissible based on one’s own preferences. Indeed, we see that when God is removed from the equation society slips towards the philosophy that, “If it feels right for me, then it is right.” This creates a society that celebrates homosexual marriage, uninhibited sexuality, and the killing of unborn babies.

Atheists might reply that rules are created by society and that anything society approves of is right and what society disapproves of is wrong. But, this approach gives us no reason to say that the pedophilia of Roman times was wrong or that the slavery of past eras was an injustice. If society determines what is right and wrong and their ancient societies approved of that behavior, who are we to judge them by the standards of our society?

There is a strong desire inside humans for justice to be done. When someone is murdered, we want the murderer to face justice for his evil deed. However, in this life sometimes justice is not meted out. Sometimes the innocent suffer unjustly and sometimes the guilty are never punished. This was the lament of the Psalmist, “Lord, how long will the wicked, How long will the wicked triumph?” (Psalm 94:3 NKJV). Despite the lack of justice in this world, we long for justice. Fortunately, the place where this justice will occur is in the afterlife.

If there is true justice, there must be a just judge who dispenses it. This judge must be morally perfect. In order to make perfect judgments, this judge must be omniscient. Only a judge who knows everything could perfectly dispense justice. But, in order to enforce his judgment, the judge must also be omnipotent, all-powerful. Thus, our inherent desire for ultimate justice requires a completely moral lawgiver who is all-knowing and all-powerful. This perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent judge is the One we call God.

Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Can you name one of these atheists you talk about? Because that makes absolutely no sense! I have never heard an atheist say, They have chosen not to believe in God because they want to live life free of God’s moral laws.” Try telling that one to atheist who are part of the Clergy Project and see what they say!

If there is an atheist who doesn’t believe in God for that reason it is extremely foolish. It sounds like something you heard as a child and have continued to believe it. Let’s think about this claim of yours, how would “not believing” in God help someone become free of God’s laws? Because if one is trying to free themselves of God’s laws then they would be recognizing that God exists as his laws couldn’t exists without him. This idea is very silly and clearly something Christians just made up.

If I thought there was evidence for the Christian God, I would believe in him but I couldn’t worship him as I think endorsing slavery (including giving instructions to sell ones daughter into slavery), genocide, killing children, demanding a woman to marry her rapists after he pays her father, etc. is immoral. Apparently you think these are instructions worthy of worship. But if I’m wrong and you agree these actions are immoral, how did you come to that conclusion if you believe “God’s” laws are objective? Because nowhere does God say just kidding!

I know you think these instructions no longer apply today, but the fact that anyone would defend these instructions at any period in time is completely immoral. I don’t need to worship a being to tell me that - I can figure that out on my own.

If you admit you would go out and commit horrible actions such as you have if God wasn’t real, then I’m not sure I want to encourage you to question the existence of god. I seriously don’t want you hurting people. I’m shocked that you would say those things, and really don’t know how to continue after such statements. But for me and most atheists, we appreciate our lives and want to make the best of our short time on this planet.
          Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Your comments demonstrate just how immoral religion/Christianity is, despite it thinking it has a monopoly on morality. It seems in your view, morality is mostly determined by what one believes and you only believe because you’re afraid of what Yahweh would do to you if you didn’t believe in him. Plus, you think he’ll reward you with heaven if you do. This isn’t morality, morality is about being good despite the promise of a reward. If a moral god existed and heaven were real - this isn’t how a moral god would decide who is deserving of heaven. But apparently your God grants heaven to those who are willing to believe extraordinary claims on bad evidence. Basically, he thinks being gullible is the quality that is most deserving of heaven.

But I’m curious, why didn’t you mention immoral acts such as eating bacon, eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics? Your God was pretty clear about those in “his book”. You don’t eat pork or shrimp do you?

I mention these because it demonstrates how ridiculous it is to think the Bible is the word of an all-mighty moral law giver.

You say, “Without an external morality the only rule that would survive is that ‘might makes right.’ Whoever has the biggest gun would rule.” Yet that is precisely how you have determined that your God is moral.

(And BTW, it is disgusting that you think people are celebrating abortions just because they are pro-choice, no one is doing that and it shows how very little you understand the issue.)

Atheists don’t say, “anything society approves of is right and what society disapproves of is wrong.” It’s as if you haven’t taken the time to understand the views of most atheists including my own. I think you get your ideas of atheists from apologists like William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort, because they say silly things like this as well. Most atheists (at least atheists who are also humanists) decide if something is moral based on how it affects the lives of others. If an action doesn’t negatively affect others we tend to be okay with it, however, there are many issues that are complex and you can find atheists with many different views.

There is no evidence for an afterlife. If a god didn’t exists, injustice is something that we would experience all the time. And as you mentioned, that’s exactly the situation we find ourselves in. What does it say about a supposedly all-powerful and moral god who would let that be the case? I know if I was a god, I wouldn’t let those things happen on a regular basis.

You said, “If there is true justice, there must be a just judge who dispenses it. This judge must be morally perfect. In order to make perfect judgments, this judge must be omniscient. Only a judge who knows everything could perfectly dispense justice.”

Question, is it justice if a serial killer gets away with numerous murders, and then gives his life to Christ shortly before he dies - therefore spending eternity in heaven? Just curious how that is justice…

Daniel King April 8, 2015 
Did Jesus rise from the dead?

Throughout history, there have been many religious teachers and wise philosophers. But, Jesus is unique in history because of the claim that He rose from the dead. All the other religious leaders have died and stayed dead. Buddha, Moses, Mohammad, and Confucius are all dead. But, Christianity claims that Jesus is alive.

If Christ truly rose from the dead and lives today, then His teachings must be taken seriously. If He was simply a first century human teacher who rotted away in the grave, then there is no harm in ignoring His teaching.

According to Paul, Christianity rises and falls on the resurrection of Christ “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). If Jesus died and rose again three days later, then the Bible is true, but if Jesus is still dead we all might as well pocket our tithe and lock the church doors on our way home.

The resurrection of Jesus is not a repeatable experiment. One cannot scientifically kill Jesus again and observe the resurrection in the laboratory. The resurrection of Jesus was a one-time event that must be judged through the lens of historical reports. It is in this arena that there is a great deal of evidence for the resurrection.

Eyewitness Testimony Proves Jesus Rose from the Dead
Jesus showed himself alive with many “infallible proofs” over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3). He appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32), to the eleven disciples hiding behind closed doors (John 20:19-23, 26-29; Mark 16:4-8; Luke 24:36-52), to some of his disciples who had returned to their fishing nets after the crucifixion (John 21:1-14), during his ascension (Luke 24:50), to Peter (1 Cor 15:5), to five hundred of his followers (1 Cor 15:6), to James (1 Cor. 15:7), and to Paul at his conversion (Acts 9:5; 1 Cor 15:8).

Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Not true at all, many deities have had similar qualities as Jesus and all predate him. Their characteristics vary from being born of a virgin, being the son of a god, and even traveling to another dimension/heaven. Extremely similar storylines as Jesus. So you can no longer claim, “Jesus is unique in history because of the claim that He rose from the dead” as it is simply not the case.

Dionysus, Krishna, and Osiris were all believed to have died and come back to life (there are many other deities like this and not everyone agrees on the details of these gods, but what we are certain of is that narratives similar to Jesus were very common in deities.) and most likely their stories were inspiration for when creating the Jesus character. What are the chances that an all-mighty God would think, “oh I like what those people did there – that’s a great idea, and maybe I’ll use that same plot for when I send my son down there”. Logic says no. Just as many ancient people stole characteristics from past gods when creating new ones, same thing happened when Jesus was invented.

You say Eyewitness testimony proves Jesus rose from the dead? First off, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence, even today people think they see all kinds of crazy things and we don’t believe them and often each eyewitness sees something that contradicts other witnesses. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and eyewitness claims is the worst type of evidence.

Second, it’s not even eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels (and we don’t even know who wrote the Gospels). All you have is a story either passed down and exaggerated over time and then wrote down 30-80 years later or the story was invented.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, what kind of God would decide to have the most important event ever in the universe in an area where most couldn’t read or write? Didn’t he know that over in China their society was far more advanced and his story would have been spread more accurately if he revealed himself there? Why would a God only communicate with one area of the world and leave it up to them to spread his message? This scenario/plan is exactly what we would expect to see if a society invented a god.

Daniel King April 8, 2015 
Here are five theories about the resurrection of Christ. Take your pick which one is true:
1. Jesus did not really die on the cross. He only passed out and was later revived.
- The Roman army knew how to kill people. People crucified by the Roman army do not survive the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a horrible way to die.
- Even if Jesus had survived the crucifixion and passed out on the cross, there is no way he could have escaped the tomb in his weakened condition. In front of the tomb was an enormous stone and it was guarded by Roman soldiers. Even if Jesus had survived the torture of the crucifixion, it would have been impossible to move the stone or sneak past the guards.
- Even if Jesus had survived the crucifixion and managed to escape the tomb, his body would have been in such a horrible state that no one would have mistaken him for being resurrected. The people who saw Jesus reported that he had a glorified, resurrected body, not a body recovering from a tortured state.

2. The resurrection was a conspiracy perpetrated by some disciples who stole the body.

- If it was a conspiracy, how did the disciples steal the body? It was being guarded by Roman soldiers. They knew their lives would be forfeited if they failed in their assignment to guard the body.
- The disciples all gave their lives for their belief in the risen Christ. People may lie for personal profit, but few people continue the lie when their life is on the line.


3. The disciples hallucinated His resurrection. His resurrection was simply their imagination.

- There was no precedent for thinking that someone could come back from the dead. The Pharisees believed there would be a general resurrection at the end of time, but no one imagined that an individual would resurrect.
- Some of the people who witnessed the resurrected Christ were not his disciples before the resurrection. They became disciples because of witnessing his resurrection.
- The reports of Christ’s resurrection are not of the type that can be produced by a hallucination. Hallucinations are always individual occurrences, but over five hundred people saw Jesus at one time.


4. The account of His resurrection is a legend, a myth that grew up over a long period of time.
- Paul wrote 1 Corinthians within twenty years of Jesus’ resurrection. The witnesses to the resurrection that he mentions were still alive and available for anyone to interview. Paul’s words are written too soon to be myth. He regards the resurrection as a verifiable historical fact.

5. Jesus really rose from the dead.
- After all the other options are eliminated, we are left with only one. Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Ted Musk April 13, 2015
I’ve got to be honest with you, this conversation has been discouraging because you haven’t admitted that you were incorrect about even one thing and there were many things you said in your video that were incorrect. It demonstrates that you don’t care about what is true and are fine with making incorrect statements as long as they support your beliefs. This is incredibly dishonest.

I think the point of these types of discussions is to challenge our current views, because not everyone’s view can be accurate and we can all be wrong about some things (it’s why acknowledging facts and following evidence is so important). We clearly have different views yet it seems only one of us cares about evidence and facts. The way you defend your faith is the same way people of other faiths defend theirs. If one’s beliefs are so fragile that simply acknowledging facts would ruin their argument, then perhaps their beliefs are the result of wishful thinking.

What is encouraging, is that I think that there are even believers who will read this and see how poor your arguments are.

I do acknowledge the tough situation you are in. I understand that for many years you have been telling millions of people around the world that your biblical view is correct and rarely have to give good reasons for why. But when confronted with someone who simply challenges those views, you are faced with two options - either follow the evidence or defend your beliefs despite the evidence. I just hope that one day you will care more about understanding reality over defending a belief you want to be true.

Consider how ridiculous the story of Jesus dying for us is with this comic,

Son: Why couldn't God just forgive? Is that something he doesn't have the power to do? Like feeding starving children?

Dad: God can forgive, but He is also just. There must be a just punishment for sin. Jesus died in our place. He took our punishment.

Son: But Dad, it's only justice if you punish the people who did the bad thing, like when you send me to my room for asking too many questions. Punishing someone who didn't do anything isn't justice, and not punishing the people who did bad is mercy.
Dad: Son, go to your room!


*You never commented on Galileo and Giordano Bruno, since the Bible was the book men used to justify their actions toward these 2 scientists, I thought you would want to comment on that. Do you want to? I understand if not.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Response to "There is NO God. Happy April Fools Day!"

Many months ago I had a conversation with Daniel King about whether or not God exists. It was an enjoyable and respectful conversation despite our different views. He recently sent me a new video of his and asked if I would share my thoughts on it. I was happy to!


* * *
Let me start by saying, quoting Psalms 14:1, is equivalent to name calling, it’s childish and shows a lack of ability to provide good reasons for ones Christian beliefs. As an atheist, I and many others don’t even say, “there is no god”. I say, there is no evidence to support the existence of a god and would change my mind if presented with sufficient evidence, but only a fool would quote a book written by ancient men with little to no understanding of the universe.

If the Bhagavad Gita had a passage that said, “only a fool denies Krishna”, it would be foolish for someone to believe in Krishna simply because they didn't want to be labeled a fool –  even Christians who quote Psalms 14:1 would think that is a foolish reason to believe. Religions want to grow in numbers, so it shouldn't be a surprise when a religion has a passage that boils down to, “you’re stupid if you don’t believe my unjustified claims”. So when Christians use this verse, they are the ones who end up looking foolish.

I’ll give Daniel King credit for not stopping at Psalms 14:1, at least he attempts to give reasons for why god exists. However, many of his reasons demonstrate that his views don't match up with reality.

His first reason for why god exists is “cause”. Everything has a cause, he says,

“You can’t have nothing and then suddenly something appears”. 

But how did God get here? Oh, God didn't need a cause and has always existed. Well, then there goes his argument, because if God (the most complex being/entity) didn't need a creator, why can’t something that is not as complex as god (such as the universe) not need a creator? If there is reason to believe that something can exist through natural processes, then to conclude it was created through a natural process is the most reasonable explanation. Inventing a deity to explain the universe doesn't solve the mystery of how the universe began, it only creates a bigger mystery that needs solving.

The second reason he gives is “design”. He uses his iPhone as an example and says, it would be ridiculous for him to believe his phone would appear after millions of years if he took a bunch of plastic and little pieces of metal and through them out into a field. And I agree, that would be ridiculous! But does he think that’s the claim evolution makes for the appearance of design? Since he uses that example, there are two conclusions one could make - he is trying to misrepresent evolution in hopes of sounding more convincing to those who don’t understand evolution or he doesn't understand the claims made by evolution.

Evolution gives the appearance of design through a process of natural selection; in order for evolution to occur the life-form must have the ability to reproduce. Obviously pieces of plastic and metal do not have this ability. 
Note: Evolution does not make any claims for how non-life becomes life, this field of study is known as abiogenesis, and scientists are still unsure how that occurs. Science is humble enough to say it doesn't know something and doesn't just make up answers to appear knowledgeable, unlike religion.
After the phone example, he says,
“everything in the universe is carefully designed for humans to exist.” 
REEAAALLLLY!?! That would be great if it were true, especially for NASA and SpaceX, but unfortunately it's not. There are many examples of how the universe is extremely hostile for humans, but this fact isn't so obviously unless one has left earth's atmosphere.   
Instead of listing examples of how the universe is not designed for humans - I’ll let my favorite astrophysicist explain why his claim is bunk.

Daniel then says,
“We (Earth) are in a precise position, the exact right distance from the sun in order for us to exist. If we were a few degrees closer to the sun, we would burn up. If we were a few degrees farther we would freeze.” 
I would be very interested in where he received this information. My guess is that it is something he’s heard most of his life (such as I did when I was Christian) but has never questioned it or studied astronomy.

The fact is, earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle – it’s an oval and its distance from the sun fluctuates throughout the year. The earth is 93 million miles on average from the sun and could travel 4.5 million miles closer or 34 million miles farther from the sun and still be in the habitable zone AKA the Goldilocks zone.

Daniel’s next two reasons for why god exists is “changed lives” and “personal experience” which are basically the same thing, and neither are a reliable way to determine if something is true. People of all faiths have similar anecdotes. Religions tend to pay attention to life changing stories only within their religion and not interested in hearing about others. If these stories can happen in all religions, then obviously something else is going on that doesn't require a deity for people to see a change in their life. Belief can be powerful and sometimes just having the belief that something incredible has taken place can induce change in ones life, but it has no bearing on whether the belief is true or not.

His next reason is “morality”, which I don’t understand why he thinks this is a reason. His bullet points are:
  • If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  • Objective moral values exist.
  • Therefore: God exists.
If by objective morals he means moral laws given by God via the Bible, then why do Christians now agree slavery is immoral? God or Jesus never condemned slavery. In fact, there are many instructions “given by God” to enslave other nations. The only time it seemed God was against slavery was when his “own people” became slaves. It’s as if the Bible was written by ancient men to justify their own actions, rather than a book written by an all-powerful moral law-giver.

In addition, I find his bullet points rather scary, is he saying that if he lost his belief in God, that he would go out and rape and murder people? I would hope not, but if he really believes these bullet points, why wouldn't he? It seems in his view there would be nothing deterring him from committing such acts and that immoral acts don't even exist without God. However, I don’t think Daniel would behave this way, which demonstrates the failure of his argument.

His last reason for why god exists is because “Jesus is alive”. If there were evidence for this, then he wouldn't have needed the first five reasons. This statement is equivalent to saying, Spider-man exists because I read about him in a comic book. That fact is, a belief in Jesus and that he is the Son of God still requires faith. I won't even get into the problem of the Trinity, but the image to the right may give you some hints.



He then invites people to say a prayer with him so they will know Jesus is real. But after the prayer he says,
“If you've prayed that prayer with me, I want to give you a book that will help to explain what it means to be a Christian.” 
If god exists, I’m really confused why anyone would need a book explaining what it means to be a Christian. Daniel mentioned earlier in the video that he talks to God every day. If this is true, anyone could get this information straight from God. I don’t see why a book from a fallible human would be beneficial if a God exists who can personally tell us. It’s almost as if people who want Christianity to grow need to tell others what to think because Yahweh (the name of the Christian God) isn't real to do it himself, the same way false religions have to operate.

At the end of the video he says,
"For every person who accepts Jesus, they go from darkness to light, from being a fool to being one of the SMARTEST people in the whole world.” 
It’s funny he said this because it’s exactly how many Christians act. They think believing something makes them moral and that barely reading one book makes them smart. Daniel’s reasons for why he thinks God exists, demonstrates that becoming a Christian will not make you one of the smartest people in the world.

I’m not saying Daniel isn't smart, but he certainly isn't one of the smartest people in the world and frankly, neither am I. The difference is that he is no longer curious about the universe because he's satisfied with accepting the beliefs and ideas of ancient men, while I am curious and open to changing my views based on the evidence. I understand that men in those days had very little knowledge of the world, and in fact anyone reading this has probably never met someone with as little knowledge as those who wrote the Bible. We now understand natural occurrences such as lightening, rain, hail, lunar and solar eclipses, etc. which to the men who wrote the Bible would have appeared to be magic which only a deity could produce.

The Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for claiming the earth orbits the sun. How smart were those Christians? I know Mr. King is not Catholic, but all Christian denominations today stem from Catholicism. Had his denomination been around the time of Galileo, it would have disagreed with him as well. 

Giordano Bruno is another example, he proposed that stars were distant suns that had planets similar to ours which could host life. Because these ideas went against Catholic doctrines they felt it was necessary to kill him by burning him at the stake for the crime of basically thinking. Again, how smart were these Christians? How moral were these Christians?

Becoming Christian does not make one moral or smarter, but it can give one an over-inflated sense of morality and the illusion of knowledge.  

Friday, February 13, 2015

Christian Says the Bible Doesn’t Instruct Christians to Deny Anyone Rights – Doesn’t Think Gay Couples Should Have the Right to Marry

This is a conversation that took place on the Discovering Reason FB page. The image you see below was posted which started the conversation.
The conversation has not been edited for grammar or spelling so that no one can claim it was "taken out of context" or edited in anyway.

Christian) This post seems to contradict the spirit of the last post where NDT celebrates independent thought. Should your readers accept you telling them what to think and not to think?


The post he is referring to said, 
"Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think." 
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Discovering Reason) Of course they shouldn't, they should follow the evidence. And if the evidence suggests that this post is wrong, I'll be happy to change my mind.

However, the Bible is full of verses that support this post. Do you have any evidence to show it is wrong? If so, I'll be happy to take down the post and re-post your evidence. Just please don't cherry pick verses and leave out the ones about killing non-believers or enslaving other nations.

Christian) You won't find anything in the new Testament that instructs Christians to deny anyone's rights, except themselves. The historical context of 1st century church doesn't even allow the possibility of Christian influence on politics.

But that's besides the point. Even if you were correct, you've still told your readers what to think.

Discovering Reason) Well trust me, my "readers" have a mind of their own and think for themselves. If I were to say something they disagreed with they would have no problem questioning it or simply dismissing it outright.

But it says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 " Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

Sounds like a denial of free speech based on gender...

But why do you not want to make that same claim about the OT?

Christian) That's correct. The passage you cited was a Christian passage, directed to a Christian church. Paul did not tell the Corinthians to go to the town square and stop women from talking.
Likewise with the Old Testament. It was written to Jews, contains eternal moral principles, but lays no lasting cultural or civic burden on Christians. That's the whole point of the New Testament books of Hebrews and Galatians.

Discovering Reason) Well I disagree with your interpretation, but I wish more Christians viewed it is as you do. Because many Christians quote the Bible when they are arguing that gay marriage should not be legal. I'm glad to hear you think they are all wrong and hope you are on their pages debating this with them and fighting for the rights that they are trying to deny.

Christian) You’re moving the goal posts, my friend. I never said a word about gay marriage. I just noticed the back to back posts: one in celebration of free thought, the next clearly designed to indoctrinate.

Discovering Reason) Not at all moving the goal posts! I understand you think they contradict each other, and maybe I shouldn't have used the phrase "Let's stop thinking" but the post is accurate.

I'm just congratulating you on not wanting to deny gay couples the right to marry. We may disagree on whether a deity exists, but at least we can agree on that. You do want gay people to have the right to marry, yes?

Christian) You don't seem to know what moving the goal posts means.

You took the liberty of defining the word "Christian" based on a contemporary issue. Let's go back to the source to determine what the word means. I hoped to draw attention to your line of reasoning and away from the emotive nature of your post. By offering me another emotionally charged question, you are showing that you aren't comfortable with your reasoning from a logical standpoint. But I'll play this along.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, we have to recognize that often times protecting the rights of one group necessarily infringes on the rights of another. Take the recent court cases concerning bakers and florists...the court is painted into a corner because either way they decide, someone's rights will be denied. It's hard to choose between gay couples and florists, but I believe the rights of children trump the rights of adults. Specifically, every child should have the right to be raised by both parents. Obviously that can't always be the case, no matter if we're talking about gay or straight marriage. But if the government is in the business of protecting rights, it should be the rights of children first. So to answer you directly, no I don't think the government should endorse gay marriage. But one need not rely on a religious argument to see the logic of that position.

(leaves this link)

In other words, this isn't an issue of Christians trying to deny the rights of others. It's an issue of recognizing whose rights are more important: children or adults? Based on your support for gay marriage, I could just as easily accuse you of attempting to deny the rights of children. But that would be somewhat sophomoric.

Discovering Reason) That is absurd! Some gay couples don't even want children. If that were really your position - you would say gay marriage should be legal but they aren't allowed to raise children.

Which if a gay couple were to have a child it would most likely be by adoption, which in that case the child needs parents and you are denying them a couple that will love and raise them.
(Yes, there are other ways they could have a child, but if it was really about children's rights you could make them illegal.)

This ended the conversation between us, however, he did respond to the excellent comment below, completely ignoring my response.

Click here to see original post.

Conclusion
Clearly the Bible denies rights to others, but seeing an image that points this out is unsettling for a Christian - and prompted the Christian to defend his deeply held irrational beliefs. He claimed his position on gay marriage was purely secular, but it is clear (based on his poor argument and lack of effort to find a solution so that gay couples can have the same right to marry as he does) that his position stems from his Biblical beliefs, and is trying to make it appear rational. 

Saturday, January 24, 2015

The Question Christians Won’t Attempt to Answer

Christians are asked all sorts of questions about their beliefs. These questions often come from those who were once a believer and extremely familiar with its core beliefs. There are a wide range of questions Christians are asked, but the most common question asked by non-believers seems to go something like… “How can you worship a god who endorses slavery and genocide among other horrific acts?”

Christians commonly respond by saying, “Slavery in the Bible was not the same as it was in American history. Sometimes a person was sold into slavery because they had a debt to pay and if they did not have the money to pay it, forced labor was the custom of the day.” (This was an actual response from a Christian)

Christians usually acknowledge indentured servitude as this Christian has done, but they completely ignore Leviticus 25:44-46, which clearly states one can purchase slaves from other nations and make them their property which can be passed down to their children.
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”  - Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV)
Even when this verse is pointed out, they say it is taken “out of context” or simply deny it exists.

Others will response by saying, Jesus came to abolish those laws, and they no longer apply. They say this not knowing that in Matthew 5:17-20, it says Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV)
This seems to be how all discussions go when a non-believer asks a Christian a tough question about their beliefs. It’s as if they think their first answer was a good one because that’s what someone they respected had told them, and that’s that. End of discussion. They no longer have to think about it, and the Bible is still a moral guide.

But I have stumbled upon a question that they don’t even want to attempt to answer. (This question is only for Christians who believe in the Trinity) It goes like this….
If Jesus is God, does that mean you believe Jesus was the one giving instructions in the Old Testament for how to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) or how to beat your slave (Exodus 21:20-21)? (include any other horrific actions that are authorized in the Old Testament) 
It says in the OT God gave those instructions, and when these instructions are brought up - many Christians say, "Jesus came to abolish those laws." But if Jesus is God, then who gave those instructions?
The rational explanation for the Bible condoning such actions, is that it was not written or inspired by a god. Ancient men wrote it claiming to be speaking for god, just as other holy books were created.

*This post is not intended to catch Christians in a “gotcha question”- but to encourage those who struggle with this question to be skeptical of their faith just as they would be with other religions. It is so easy for people of all faiths to justify their beliefs with bad reasons, and for those who care about the truth, they shouldn't be afraid to question their own.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

If You’re Humble and You Know It. . . Religion and Arrogance

Recently I was listening to an episode of The Thinking Atheist titled What You Don't Know About Religion (but should) with Dr. Ryan Cragun and in the episode Ryan discussed how the religious are always claiming that the non-religious are too proud (which keep them from being religious). In his book, What You Don't Know About Religion (but should), he completely debunks this claim in chapter 15, and with his permission, here is that chapter. 

IF YOU'RE HUMBLE AND YOU KNOW IT... RELIGION and ARROGANCE

Do you remember where you were and what you were doing on April 7, 2004, from 11:42 to 11:53 a.m.? Most readers probably don’t. I do. I remember it very clearly. I was chatting with my younger brother, Josh, via an instant messaging client. (It helps that I keep my chat logs.)

I left the Mormon religion in the summer of 2002. The fallout of that decision continued for several years as I had to negotiate a new relationship with my still- Mormon family. Part of that negotiation was dealing with my family’s version of why I left the religion. The motives they attributed to me and my decision were and, frankly, still are, hurtful. In retrospect, I should have expected something like this (for reasons I’ll explain later), especially since I was being trained as a sociologist at the time. But actually going through it is far different from simply studying it.

Josh was serving as a missionary for the Mormon Church when I left the religion. I’m sure it was hard for him and my other younger siblings as we were all close and, I believe (in part because they have told me so), they had looked up to me as a faithful member of the religion. My brother had the courage to discuss my decision to leave the religion on several occasions despite warnings from church leaders not to associate with “apostates.” We had discussed my leaving several times before the conversation reported below, but this conversation was the culmination of those discussions.

Here is basically how it went (edited for spelling, grammar, and flow, but still in chat format):

Josh: So you tell me, once and for all, completely honestly, was there sin involved or not? . . . And I’ll believe you (not that I didn’t before. . .).
Ryan: I left because I do not believe what Mormonism teaches, not because of

102

IF YOU'RE HUMBLE AND YOU KNOW IT. . . • 103

sin. Of course, it helps that I no longer believe in sin, but based on your definition of sin, I left not because of sin.
Josh: But what I’m getting at is: did you come to that conclusion because of sin?
Ryan: If doubting the existence of god is a sin, then I obviously sinned. If not reading your scriptures every day is a sin, then I obviously sinned. If believing prayer is ineffectual, then I sinned. If being critical of the church and its leaders is a sin, then I sinned. But in the sense you mean, no I was not a sinner.
Josh: Well that answers that. The rumors are circulating, and, much as you said, they tend to lean toward saying you sinned and were too proud to repent.
Ryan: Um, who said this? Because that is a bunch of shit.
Josh: Someone came to the conclusion that you slept with someone while you were out here away from Debi [my wife] and that’s when you went AWOL, which I thought was laughable, but I didn’t really know the truth. So, I didn’t refute anything.
Ryan: Sick, wrong, delusional, and typical Mormon bullshit.
Josh: LOL. Yeah, I thought you would like that.
Ryan: Um, who came up with this? I have never had sex with anyone other than Debi—end of story!
Josh: I don’t know. Shortly after I came home [from his LDS mission in Spain], that was the rumor circulating among the family—not necessarily that you slept with someone, but that a mixture of sin and pride led you away.

Let me summarize just to be clear. After I informed my family that I was no longer going to be attending or participating in the Mormon religion, someone in my family suggested that the reason why I had decided to leave was because I had an affair and was too proud to repent. And, yes, it was an immediate family member who suggested this, either a sibling, one of my siblings’ spouses, or one of my parents (I still don’t know who).

The accusation of adultery is, in fact, a brilliant accusation. If they had accused me of, say, piercing my scrotum or getting a tattoo on my ass, I could have easily dispelled that rumor. But accusing me of adultery is smart because, while I can deny it, there is no way I can prove that I did not commit adultery.

But the point I want to emphasize here is not that my family accused me of committing adultery, which is a really terrible thing to do. The point is they accused me of being too proud to repent of my sin. While I no longer think my family believes I committed adultery, I’m fairly certain they remain convinced that my

104 • WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT RELIGION (but should)

pride is keeping me out of the religion. I recently had a Mormon friend confirm to me that he thinks that is the major impediment keeping me from returning to the religion—I am too learned and arrogant in my “worldly” knowledge (i.e., science and scholarship), preventing me from seeing the truthfulness of religion. Accusations of pride are a common weapon in the arsenal of the religious. This chapter will remove that weapon from their arsenal (and give it to the nonreligious).

—§—

Pride is a tricky concept to tackle. Pride, in one sense, is actually an important element of positive mental health. Everyone should be proud of who they are in the sense that they have a reasonable sense of self-respect. Not being proud of who you are and lacking self-respect is actually an indication of poor self-esteem and poor mental health. Used in this sense, pride isn’t bad at all and really is something to be sought after.

However, the religious typically don’t think about pride this way. When they level their accusations of pride at those who disagree with them (because you can’t disagree with them on logical or reasonable grounds), what they really mean is more along the lines of either conceit, which is an excessive appreciation of one’s own worth, or arrogance, which is an attitude of superiority that is often manifested by making presumptuous claims or assumptions. Alleging pride in nonbelievers is quite common among the religious and appears in scripture regularly, like the following verses:

Proverbs 16:5—The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.

Proverbs 16:18—Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

While the religious mean arrogance and conceit when they accuse people of being proud, what they are really doing is accusing people of dissenting. Religious people don’t actually hate that some people are arrogant or conceited (else they would hate themselves). What they hate is when someone challenges them or dis- agrees with them. To curtail dissent, they call it “pride” or “arrogance” and they use this to demean those who question. In a remarkable manipulation of language, the religious have completely inverted the meaning of pride. When the religious say you should be humble, they actually mean “claim to know stuff you don’t.” And when the religious say it is bad to be proud, they are actually criticizing those who question and doubt.

IF YOU'RE HUMBLE AND YOU KNOW IT. . . • 105

To question something isn’t arrogant; it’s exactly the opposite. Those who question are unsure of what they know or believe. What they are exhibiting is humility, not conceit. Yet it is those who question who are accused of being proud. Confusing, isn’t it?

Among the most common recipients of accusations of arrogance by the religious are people with advanced education who question or don’t believe. Believers assert that those with “worldly” education believe they know more than the leaders of religions (which, not surprisingly, is often true).

I have had several friends and family members accuse me of being arrogant because of my education. There is a great deal of irony in this. When I was a Mormon, I was an arrogant asshole. I condemned people to hell, regularly. I refused to associate with people who I believed were sinners. In fact, one of my closest friends in high school did not disclose to me that he was having sex with his girlfriend because he thought I would stop hanging out with him. It pains me to admit it now, but he was probably right—I would have pitied him for having no self-control and for sinning, and would have cut him off so I would not be tainted by his sinfulness. And, more relevant to the point at hand, I thought I knew everything there was to know about Mormonism and I was certain that what I believed and did was right without question. As I noted in the story that began this chapter, I left Mormon- ism because I learned more about it, not because I was too proud to repent (for a sin I didn’t commit, no less). When I was religious, I was proud and arrogant, yet called myself humble. Now that I’ve left religion, I’m accused of being proud by the religious, yet I’m much more humble. I now admit that there is a hell of a lot I don’t know about most things. My wife has even pointed out that the nickname she gave me when we met, “Arro” (short for “arrogant”), no longer fits.

Before I left Mormonism, I had a lot of people come to me when they had doubts or questions. I frequently answered them, thinking I had all the answers. Yet, now that I actually have more knowledge and information about Mormonism, most Mormons refuse to talk to me. They don’t consider me trustworthy anymore. Religious believers will turn to someone with virtually no formal education for answers so long as the answers validate their existing beliefs, but will shun someone with formal education who has evidence that doesn’t validate their beliefs. Which of these two informants is proud: the uneducated person claiming to know things he doesn’t, or the educated person who provides the limited information available to him bounded by the limits of probability?

What the above suggests is that, based on objective definitions of arrogance, pride, and conceit, it is highly likely that nonreligious individuals will be less arrogant than religious individuals. Arrogance includes making presumptuous claims. Claiming to know things when you don’t know them is arrogant. While many lib-

106 • WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT RELIGION (but should)

eral religious people phrase their beliefs in tentative terms, more fundamentalist people do not. They insist that the things they believe are real. In fact, they typically will not say things like, “I believe in a god” or “I hope there is a heaven.” What they will say is, “I know there is a god” and “Heaven is real.” They assert that these beliefs are facts with no evidence. Is that humble?

Contrast religious assertions with scientific assertions. Science is, at heart, a tentative endeavor. Scientists may assert that they “know” certain things, but they only do so once the evidence for those things is overwhelming! For example, a scientist could assert that earthquakes are due to shifting tectonic plates and say, “Earthquakes result when the plates that make up the earth’s crust move.” The evidence behind this claim is compelling enough at this point that no scientists question it. It is a defensible assertion given the mountains of evidence that exist to support this claim (pun intended). What you will rarely, if ever, hear a scientist say is that she knows something is true when she has no evidence to support the assertion.

This is basically how social scientists frame everything we write. We know there is discrimination against racial minorities in the United States. But we don’t know how extensive it is or to what extent the discrimination accounts for the higher rates of poverty among many racial minorities. We can assert that discrimination against racial minorities contributes to higher rates of poverty among those groups, but you will not find a reputable social scientist who would say, “I am 100% certain that racial discrimination accounts for 53.748534% of the difference in poverty rates between blacks and whites.” We just aren’t that certain. We make estimates, but those estimates are always couched in various levels of uncertainty. We don’t speak in definitives. We speak in probabilities, despite having evidence to support our assertions.

Contrast these two positions. The religious person, without any evidence, asserts that certain things are true. This is done purely on faith. Scientists, who have evidence to back up their claims, typically couch their claims as tentative and probabilistic (i.e., more or less likely). If arrogance is making presumptuous claims or assertions, which of the two groups is more arrogant: those who definitively claim to know things without evidence or those who suggest they may know something based on evidence? I’ll help you: it’s the religious who are arrogant, not scientists.

I don’t mean to suggest that all nonreligious people are scientists or think scientifically (though many do and a large percentage of scientists are nonreligious). But nonreligious people are much less likely to assert that they know things than are religious people. The empirical evidence bears this out. Figure 15.1 displays the results of several questions from the World Values Survey that illustrate various aspects of arrogance.

IF YOU'RE HUMBLE AND YOU KNOW IT. . . • 107

Figure 15.1. Characteristics of Pride by importance of religion 
Source: WVs

 The questions depicted in figure 15.1 ask whether the respondent considers him or herself to have specific characteristics. The first question asked respondents if the following statement described them, “I enjoy convincing others of my opinion.” The most religious individuals around the world are the most likely to agree with that statement. They are also the most likely to agree with all the others shown in the figure, including, “I serve as a model for others,” “I own many things others envy me for,” “I like to assume responsibility,” and, the coup de grĂ¢ce when it comes to arrogance, “I often give others advice.” The most religious score almost 20 percent higher than the next most religious and 30 percent higher than the nonreligious. In other words, if anyone has an inflated sense of self-importance, indicative of conceit, it is the highly religious. The nonreligious are, on most measures, the least conceited. Other researchers have arrived at the same conclusion using other data—highly religious people are the least humble and the most arrogant as they claim to know things when they don’t, while the least religious do just the opposite. 

There may be some readers who are surprised by this finding. I don’t find it surprising at all. Many people turn to religion precisely because it gives them a sense of importance and significance. Think about it this way: the modern world is a big, scary place. It is virtually impossible today to not be aware of your insignificance. Very few people have the influence and fame to be considered actors on the world stage. Most of us are bit players in local productions with no chance of ever making a name for ourselves outside of our family, let alone our neighborhood or our city.
Modernization breeds a sense of insignificance.

Religion, particularly exclusive, strident, fundamentalist, monotheistic religion, offers an antidote to insignificance: a personal relationship with a supreme, supernatural being. The world may pass you by; your family may even reject you.

108 • WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT RELIGION (but should)

But your god knows you, cares about you, and will alleviate all of your problems in the afterlife. What’s more, this “personal” god will actually listen to you when no one else will. He (sometimes she) is always listening—literally, always. How better to make someone feel significant than to give them an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, always approachable, and always supportive buddy?

Additionally, for monotheists, the god they worship epitomizes arrogance. He is (allegedly) self-described as jealous, supreme, superior, all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect. If you met someone who described himself/herself as having just one of these characteristics, let alone all of them, wouldn’t you consider that person to be arrogant? Worshipers of an arrogant god who hypocritically demands humility happen to be arrogant. Is anyone surprised by this?

Of course, it’s not just the god of monotheists who is arrogant or proud. Any religious leader who claims to be able to interpret god’s will better than any other person can only be considered to be arrogant as he/she is claiming to have superior knowledge to others—ironically by claiming superior knowledge about the unknowable.

Gods are proud. Religious leaders are proud. And highly religious people are proud. This is not pride in the “pride-is-good-for-your-self-esteem” sense but in the “we’re-better-than-you-and-claim-to-know-shit-we-don’t” sense. It seems, then, that the cornerstone of religion is not humility, but pride.

—§—

Religions’ use of pride is a brilliant bit of marketing and doublespeak. Religions and religious people decry pride as being a terrible thing. They assert that pride will lead people out of religion or keep people from becoming religious. And yet, the more religious you are, the prouder, more arrogant, and more conceited you are. Religious people consider themselves to be more righteous than nonreligious people; religious people consider themselves to be better than nonreligious people; and religious people claim to know more than nonreligious people. Religious people exhibit all the characteristics of pride, but they call it humility. They’re humble and they know it.


The references to the scientific research for this chapter are at the back of the book and not included here. Go here to purchase a copy.