Humans Are Not Rational Creatures

Humans are not rational beings.  This is true even for those of us who value reason and logic and evidence.  Scientists, philosophers, lawyers, plumbers, priests and ministers and rabbis and mullahs, accountants, engineers, and on and on.  If you are human you are not, at your core, a rational being. You may have learned how to be rational in some areas of your life, perhaps even many.  But it is not your go to knee jerk response.  By the way let me say that this is neither a bad thing nor a good thing.  It just is. At times it is good. At other times, not so good. 

I had this truth of our non-rational nature brought home to me in a discussion with a group that largely expounds the value of reason and logic, my fellow atheists. Atheists, like every other human group, due to our own motivations that can run “deeper than reason” (“The Varieties of Atheism” by David Newheiser, page 8), can find ourselves prone to certain wrong beliefs. 

 My most recent experience verifying the truth of this is with two beliefs that are popular among some (although I do not think most) atheists.  The first is the belief that a man named Jesus whose life and teachings were the basis for the creation of Christianity did not actually exist and was really nothing more than the concoction, either deliberately or unconsciously, of a particular society at a particular time. In other words, Jesus was totally fictional.  Related to this is a second belief that Nazareth either did not exist or was not inhabited during Jesus’s time.  They believed this despite the fact that the vast majority of historians and biblical scholars say the evidence strongly supports the claim that a man named Jesus existed.  And that Nazareth was inhabited during his time.

To be clear here, what these historians and scholars are saying is that evidence strongly supports that Jesus existed.  He was a man who was an itinerant, likely illiterate, preacher who was charismatic and had unique teachings that touched lives.  He was likely an apocalyptic preacher too. This preacher was found to be a threat to the Romans, as many thousands were, and was crucified and died.  End of his physical story.  But though dead his life and teachings were remembered and then added to so that eventually Jesus Christ came into being.  He, a man, was the kernel at the core of the myth.  

So, even though there is no claim that Jesus actually did miracles, that Jesus raised the dead, that Jesus was the Son of God, or that Jesus died and was resurrected and, instead, that he was merely a man (exceptional, but still man), many Atheists object and deny this evidence. 

Now I am not going to go over why the great majority of historians believe the evidence that Jesus existed is very strong and do not doubt that the man indeed did exist.  Or that Nazareth was inhabited during the time of Jesus.  Instead, I am going to discuss the form of arguments being used to defend the idea that Jesus did not exist and show how they mirror the arguments used by young earth creationists against evolution, climate change deniers, those who claim the 2020 elections were stolen, flat earthers, etc.  In fact, you usually will find variants of these sorts of arguments used by all of those defending irrational beliefs. Which should not be surprising given that if evidence and reason do not support your position then you almost have to go with something else.

• Impugning the motives of these historians and scholars.  When I pointed out that these historians’ personal religious views covered a wide range – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist – and yet they all agreed that Jesus as a man did exist, the responses I often received back was that historians could not be trusted on this due to them needing a paycheck and a career.  This is a very common argument I have seen used by climate change deniers and young earth creationists in regards to scientists. 
• Ignore and deny.  Often this is accompanied by moving on to another point they feel favors them.  As an example, they would ignore the fact that I provided archaeological evidence for Nazareth being populated during Jesus’s time and, instead, added more and more “evidence” of another nature that the person thought proved Nazareth was not.
• Presenting false “facts”, incomplete “facts”, or twisted “facts”.  For example, one said that the gospel of Mark does not call Jesus a Nazarene.  While technically correct in that Mark did not call Jesus a Nazarene, Mark in the first chapter does state that Jesus came from Nazareth.  Or a different person pointing out that Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, ignoring that most towns in that area were not mentioned in the Old Testament.  Towns were mentioned only if something or someone of importance came from that town.  In Nazareth nothing important happened until Jesus was born there.  So, no mention.  
• Not providing sources when asked.  Often/usually I was told that I should be able to find it on my own.  Again, a tactic common among young earth creationists and climate change deniers.
• Requiring unrealistic standards of proof.  For example, them pointing out that Roman records during Jesus’s life do not mention him. If the historians claimed that the Jesus who was a miracle worker with many thousands of followers and who rose from the dead and called himself the Son of God, then possibly they might have a point.  However, that is not what the historians are saying.  They are saying that Jesus was an illiterate, itinerant apocalyptic preacher.  Why would the authorities notice him? They had them by the scores in Palestine and crucified many of them.  It was a routine day in Palestine.  This is as wrong an expectation as that of the young earth creationist who shouts out that if evolution happened then why are there still apes!  Most illiterate poor people are not mentioned at the time.  Or ever for that matter. 
• And finally, the one that really blew my mind a bit.  I am used to occasionally being called a Christian. But I think this was the first time that someone had said that some atheists are engaged in Christian apologetics.  I was told that Bart Ehrmann was a Christian apologist.  That the atheist historian I referenced was one too.  And that I too am a Christian apologist, even though I have been an atheist for 49 years and have it documented on my blog going back to 2009.  

The irrationality of this latter claim, that I and other atheists are Christian apologists for believing and arguing that Jesus exists is made clear when you consider that the Christian religions consists of believing not only that Jesus was a man but that he was also God, is eternal, and died for our sins so that we too can have life after death and that this three in one man performed miracles and raised the dead.  If you deny these aspects of Jesus then you are not a Christian apologist and no Christians would consider you a Christian. Even though you agree that a man named Jesus whose words and teachings became the basis of Christianity existed.  

Acknowledging that there is a man who, by the way, was extremely unlikely to have ever claimed any sort of divinity, and who, though charismatic and with teachings that inspired people, did not perform miracles of any sort and who died, thoroughly and eternally died, after being crucified in no way supports that fundamental basis of Christian belief.  It, in fact undermines it, totally and completely.  To say that just acknowledging this reality is Christian apologetics is akin to saying that since I believe Muhammad existed then I must be a Muslim apologist, or since I believed that Siddhartha Gautama founded Buddhism then I must be a Buddhist apologist, and so on. 

As for why people hold these beliefs against both reasons and evidence, I would imagine there is no one reason, but a varied assortment the specifics of which depend on the person and belief.   I am not  going to explore this in detail here, but let me mention one that that I do know of from past experiences and conversations.

I found in my discussion with young earth creationists that their belief that the earth is young is one of their greatest and most important beliefs.  Likely because it is part of their religious belief in a literal Bible, a belief that provides comfort and makes sense of an often senseless world.  And gives hope. This provides a great deal of emotional motivation to protect that belief and means that all other information and evidence and reasoning is not as important and has to be made to either fit into the young earth idea or explained away, no matter how irrational the reasoning needed to do so.  After all, when all other alternatives have been eliminated then the one left, no matter how outrageous, has to be true.  

The equivalent of this for some atheists is a belief that not only does God not exist but that Christianity is evil and a lie.  This is likely sparked by their own experiences with both religion and Christianity and so has a powerful emotional component.  Such a belief shapes their view and understanding of the world, as the young earth does for the creationist, or the political fear of a big government to many climate change deniers.  All new information, reasoning, and facts have to be worked around that fundamental belief in some way, shape, fashion or form. 

Now, these are not the only motivations or reasons.  As I said, there are many.  But it gives an idea as to what I think is often going on in these conversations. It is not our learned reason but, instead, our core irrational side, our emotions.

In regard to the blog on this subject, evidence and reason show that a man named Jesus existed.  He was born and raised in Nazareth.  His teachings and words were the spark that created Christianity.  However, he was not God.  He did not perform miracles.  He did not believe he was God, or the Messiah in the sense it is meant today, and probably not then either.    That is not Christian apologetics.  It is just reality.  One that is distasteful to most Christians and that they would strongly and fervently disagree with.  A distaste that some atheists also share, although for different reasons. 

Atheists, like all humans, hold irrational beliefs, some of whom will strongly defend them despite their irrationality.  In this case, arguing fervently that Jesus did not exist at all, despite the evidence.  Even more interesting is how they use the same tactics of young earth creationists and climate change deniers to justify this wrong belief.  Thus, showing that they too are merely human, an inherently irrational creature who has learned to reason but cannot always (nor should they) hold all their beliefs rationally. 

Read Full Post »

The United States, Democracy, and Their Founding Christian Values

I have seen many Christians argue that the United States is a Christian Nation, founded upon Christian values and thought.  They usually claim that democracy and the idea of human rights is due to Christian thought and values, that without Christianity democracy and the idea of human rights would not have existed.  Or, at the very least, been very much more limited in scope. 

However, this claim faces many severe problems showing it is not true. Or, at best, just a very small bit of the truth. 

The first problem is the 10 Commandments.   In fact, the First Commandment of this integral part of both Jewish and Christian religions creates a severe problem with this claim.

“³ Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 20: 3 – 5. 

Contrast that First Commandment with the United States Constitution’s First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments is in direct conflict with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Of you should now look at how this First Commandment has played out in history you come across the Second problem with this claim of Christianity being the foundation and cause of the United States Constitution and Democracy.   None of the early Jewish states allowed for freedom of conscience. Instead, these states often harshly punished those who believed in a pagan religion.  The Christian countries that followed them also followed their examples and understanding of the First Commandment.  The countries of Christian Europe outlawed blasphemy, heretics and other religions (including Jews of course, often greatly limiting the free speech, free press, and free assembly of those who did not believe rightly. And, like the Jewish states before them, they too often killed those who believed differently, even and especially other sects of Christians.  For that matter, in most of Colonial America this persecution of those who believed different was just as true on our shores as on European shores, and the earlier Middle Eastern shores. 

You find this same lack of all the human rights we take for granted today in our day – freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. – until very recent times, the late 18^th century. 

Yes, there were precursors of some of these rights to be found in the Bible.  For that matter, such precursors of some of these rights can be found just as strongly in many sources other than the Bible: the Law Code of Hammurabi, the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great, the Qur’an, the Analects, the Hindu Vedas, some of the Incan and Aztec codes of conduct, the Iroquois nation and more.  

But none of them included the complete package.  Many of them had limits on these rights that we do not recognize today in regards to people and places.  And very, very few of these were applied to entire governments rather than individuals. 

But that is human rights.  What about the idea and form of our government?  Democracy? Perhaps they had a Christian origin. 

Again, there is the problem of history for this claim.  Both the Popular Democracy and the Republican form of Democracy, were originally pagan institutions.  Yes, there are passages in both the New Testament that talk about the equality of all people before God.  Yet, again, this was before God and was about individuals.  The ancient Jewish state was not democratic, and nor were the early Christian nations of Europe. 

So, no.  Christian values and ideals were not the foundation of the creation of the United States government and its Constitution.  Yes, there were some ideas and beliefs within it that were conducive with many of the right, and with the idea of democracy.  However, you will find those same ideas expressed in other religions, and often much earlier than in Christianity and Judaism.

Another fact that creates problems for this claim is the fact that you not find discussions or mentions of the Bible and Christianity in the records of the Constitutional Convention as our founders hammered out our founding document.  You do find a great deal of discussion of and references to the writings of Locke and Rousseau, Greek and Roman democracies, the Venetian Republic and so forth.  But not the Bible. Not Christianity. 

In fact, still another problem with this idea of a Christian origin for the Constitution is that after the Constitution was published before it was ratified by the people of the United States, there was a great deal of criticism of it not including at least a general reference to Christianity, or at least to God.  Despite the challenges involved in the Constitution’s passage, none of the writers of it seriously considered changing it in order to make it’s passage more assured. 

So, this claim fails the test of historical fact.  However, that does not mean Christianity does not contain elements within itself that can lend themselves to democracy and rights. 

The thing about being a condominium of either 66 books (Protestant Bible) or 73 books (Roman Catholic Bible), or 81 books (Ethiopic Bible) is that there are materials in there for several directions and views, often conflicting ones.  Some of the ideas within these varied books are easier to see and use than others, but they are all still there, ideas waiting for just the right collision with new thoughts and views to come to fruition. 

Among these ideas within the Bible and Christianity there are some that can and were used to support the ideals of democracy and rights and freedoms for all, not just the majority or the powerful minority.  The first is, of course, Jesus’s words: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matthew 22:21., as well as verses discussing all men being equal before God, and the Golden Rule.

This is one reason why the first person to advocate for a total and complete separation of church and state was not Locke or Rousseau, but was, instead, an Enlightenment era Calvinist theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America, John Williams.  His arguments included not only the items mentioned above, but also the fallibility of man.  No man, and hence no man-made institution, no matter whether divinely inspired or not, is perfect.  Not only can they be wrong but will be wrong at times and on some issues.  And if wrong in areas such as salvation the consequences would be severe – eternal damnation for those forced to believe. 

Because of this Roger Williams argued and believed that religion and state should be totally separate. The state should neither help nor hinder religion, nor should the church influence the state.  In fact, he held to a stricter standard than is held today on this issue.  And showed he believed it when he founded Rhode Island with this being one of its bedrock principles, and held to them even in regards to a religious group he despised, the Quakers.  His book, “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience” is considered by many to be a classic defense of the right of freedom of conscience. 

So, yes, Christianity did help in promoting some of the values and ideas in our modern democracies and in our current view of human rights.  But, they did not create them.  They were not foundational in the creation of the United States Constitution.  And some variation of them would have come about even if Christianity had never existed. 

But wait. There is one other possible meaning that those who claim Christianity was responsible for the founding of this nation, and that without Christianity human rights and this country would never have come about.  This involves a more basic claim than democracy and rights.  A claim about the whole concept of right and wrong, of morality.  I have seen some Christians argue that without Christianity the morality and respect for all individuals that is needed for a democracy would never have come about. 

And yet, this too has severe problems with historical fact.  Mainly the same ones mentioned above.  you find democracies arising first in non – Jewish and non- Christian cultures and nations. The same with respect for individuals and morality.  Morals and the idea of right and wrong, as well as the idea of an orderly universe pre-date both Christianity and Judaism, and is present in cultures all across the world.    

Let me end this with a challenge for those who still believe Christianity was responsible for the creation of the United States Constitution and of the rights protected therein.  Here is a list of the rights contained within the Bill of Rights. 

• Freedom of religion.
• Freedom of speech, press, petition, and assembly.
• Freedom to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. 
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, and double jeopardy. 
• Right of accused to a speedy and public trial.
• Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
• Freedom form excessive bail as well as cruel and unusual punishments. 

Please find me the relevant Bible passages as well as the history of how these have been manifested throughout history in ancient Israel and Christian Europe before the 18^th century.  As well, do a search for those rights you think are in the Bible and in the history of Christian nations to see if they were also present in other non- Christian nations, in other religions, and if they pre-dated Christianity. 

I think such an exercise will make it very clear indeed how little support there is for this claim. 

Read Full Post »

Deluded about Delusions

In discussions/debates/arguments between atheists and theists, two arguments appear with some fair regularity.  Both involve mental abilities and health.  One is used by some theists.  The other by some atheists.  And both are the same, just flipped sides of the same coin.  And both are wrong for the same reason. 

On the Christian side we have the “Lord, liar, or lunatic” argument popularized by C. S. Lewis.  Although most today know this argument due to C.S. Lewis’ use of it, he did not originate it. The earliest use of this argument was by Mark Hopkins in his 1846 book “Lectures on the Evidence of Christianity”.  Also, the Scots preacher “Rabbi” John Duncon used this argument around 1859.  Others since have used it. 

However, since today Lewis’s use of this argument is the most well known let me quote him on this. 

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. (Mere Christianity, 55-56)”

Most who argue against the divinity of Jesus do say that he was a great moral teacher (my own view).  Lewis though is trying to say that you cannot, in essence, have your cake and eat it too.  You cannot say that Jesus is a great moral teacher but not divine. 

If Jesus made these claims about himself, about being divine, and he is not actually divine, then he cannot be moral. He can be a liar.  He can be a demon.  He can be a lunatic. But, according to Lewis, he cannot be a moral man nor a moral teacher. 

This argument is flawed for several reasons.  I go over these in a blog I wrote last year called “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic – or Wrong”.  I’m only going to focus on one right now, the delusion one, as it is the same flaw found when atheists use the delusion argument against theists.    

and wrong distinctions that are out of kilter with the reality of human behavior.  As well it just ignores the possibility of people just being wrong without being mentally ill. 

Usually in both the case of the theists and atheist, delusion means lunatic.  And lunatic means not to be trusted.  So, let’s take a moment to define what a lunatic is.  The word itself is nebulous and can refer to many different mental health issues.  In the Lewis  case though since we are talking about a man who, it is claimed, claimed that he was the Messiah, the son of God, divine we are talking about being delusional. 

What is fun here is that some atheists also claim those who believe in God are delusional and so not really trustworthy, and/or not capable of sound reasoning, and/or several other bad things.  Some have even argued that those who believe in God should not be allowed to make decisions affecting the lives of others. In one discussion in which I was involved the atheist was arguing that no president should be a theist as that shows them to be delusional and you do not want a delusional person in charge of the nuclear button.  So, it seems that both C. S. Lewis and atheists are in agreement about those who are delusional not being trustworthy.

However, lets start with a basic question – can a delusional person be moral?  Can a delusional person be a good teacher?  Can a delusional person function well and effectively in society? 

In fact, lets back it up further.  What is a delusional belief?  How is it different from being just wrong? Something that all of us have been and currently are on many matters.   I went over those questions in some detail in my blog about why Joan of Arc was not delusional and was not a lunatic. 

Now, there are delusional beliefs that are a form of mental illness and harmful.  They can arise from conditions as schizophrenia.  But not all such “delusional” beliefs arise from mental illness.  Many such are just a result of being wrong.  A commonality among harmful delusional beliefs, the type that are indeed a mental illness, is that they create an impairment in a person’s life.  A diminishing in that person’s ability to function and live. This is not to say that wrong beliefs cannot create difficulties for a person, family, and country, but only that holding a wrong belief does not mean a person is mentally ill. 

In fact, to be truly delusional, as used by mental health professionals, the belief would also have to be counter to the beliefs of those in their social group as well as being dysfunctional and decreasing their ability to live effective and happy lives. 

For the atheists who use this argument – sorry, that belief, the belief in a God, is very much a part of our cultural matrix.  It is atheism which is more likely to the be outlier until recently.  As for being effective and/or moral, let me mention some of those people who have suffered this “delusion” – MLK, Newton, Galileo, Jefferson, Washington, Nelson Mandela, Francis Collins, Florence Nightingale, Harriet Tubman, and on and on and on. 

In the case of Jesus, beliefs in Messiahs and such was common for the culture. It was far from abnormal.  And he seemed to have been a very charismatic and effective person, one who managed to inspire his followers to change the world, and which, even today, have many of those who do not believe him divine thinking him a great moral teacher. Him being wrong about being the Messiah does not make him delusional.  It makes him almost the norm for the time.  And it does not detract from his real accomplishments. 

Bottom line, do not think being wrong about an issue, even on an important and fundamental issue, means that a person is suffering from delusion and is not to be trusted, is not capable.  Humanity is filled with people who are wrong on important and fundamental issues.  It is part of being human. More needs to be provided before saying someone is mentally ill and thus ineffective, immoral, dysfunctional than just providing their belief or lack of in regard to God.   Much more. 

These terms and claims are used way too often as a lazy way to reason, avoiding considering the full range of human behaviors and being.  Human thought and behaviors are complex and very messy. Arguments that are based on this, the definition of a person’s mental health, whether used in religion or politics, are to be treated with suspicion and skepticism.  Too often they are not true. Unfortunately, too many  take the easy road even though it is likely to be wrong. Which is also a very human trait. 

Read Full Post »

Myths Of Atheism: Hypatia

Humans live in the realm of myths.  We have myths that explain our experiences and relate us to the world around us.  One of the definitions of myth provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is, “a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone especially: one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society.”

One thing to keep in mind about myths is that, despite what many believe, myths can be true, or have elements of truth in them.  Of course, they can also be totally wrong.

Many atheists seem to believe that atheists do not have their own myths, their own stories that embody the ideals of our particular segment of society (keeping in mind that atheism has subgroups too). However, that particular myth is not what I am discussing here.  Instead, my focus will be on one story told in support of the overarching theme that war has always existed between science and Christianity,  the atheist myth of Hypatia.  I should say that this is not an exclusively atheistic myth, but one held in common by other groups too.  But, it is one that many in the atheist community hold close and have helped promote over the years.

Note: This topic was prompted by my reading “That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible for the demise of Ancient Science” by David Lindberg, from the book “Galileo Goes to Jail: and Other Myths About Science and Religion” edited by Ronald L. Numbers.   Although this was my starting point, a great deal more research was done and other sources used before writing this blog.

 

The Story

For those not familiar with her story, Hypatia was a woman who lived in Alexandria, Egypt around 400 AD.  She was a noted philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, and was a popular teacher.  She was also a pagan.  In March 415, despite being well thought of by both pagans and Christians, a mob, urged on by the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, and led by the lector (a man who read parts of the Bible aloud during Church services) Peter, found her, stripped her naked, and murdered her by using oyster shells to cut her body into pieces. They also cut out her eyes and then dragged her limbs through the town to burn them.

According to the story, the reason they murdered her was due to her being pagan, and is widely considered to be an early act of Christian fanaticism and intolerance, and evidence of early Christian opposition to science and knowledge.

Attached to this story is the story that after her death, the famed Library of Alexandria was burned and destroyed as well as pagan temples torn down, all on the orders of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria.  Because of this, Cyril was later made a saint by the church.  Because of this, Hypatia’s death is often considered a marker of when the classical age of paganism and ancient science died and the age of Christianity began.

In short, the story tells of the glory of pagan learning, a learning that was destroyed and persecuted by intolerant and fanatical Christians who opposed learning and knowledge.  It shows that Christianity has always been opposed to learning and  always been violently against all views other than their narrow beliefs.

To help support this, this is often quoted, from the 7^th century Egyptian Coptic Bishop, John of Niku:

“And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through her Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city honoured her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending church as had been his custom… And he not only did this, but he drew many believers to her, and he himself received the unbelievers at his house.”

In support of the more general take aways from this story – the willful ignorance of Christianity – these passages from ancient Christians are often quoted.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.”  Colossians 2:8

 

“Now pray tell me, what wisdom is there in this hankering after conjectural speculations? What proof is afforded to us…by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity, which is tricked out with an artful show of language? It therefore served Thales of Miletus quite right, when, star-gazing, as he walked… he had the mortification of falling into a well… His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean, who persist in applying their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural objects.”  Tertullian (155 – 240), early Church Father, as recounted in “Christianity and the Demise of Ancient Science” page 12.

 

“If what is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle says, and faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of God, then everything that is outside inspired scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil of Casesarea (330 – 379) Saint and Bishop.

 

A Few Factual Corrections

While the story is accurate in many ways, namely in the manner of Hypatia’s death, it is incorrect in some facts and most importantly, incorrect in regards to motivation.  First, the factual errors.

This story usually states that Hypatia was a young woman.  However, she was most likely in her 60s when she was murdered.

The Library of Alexandria was not burned and destroyed, with the pagan scholars fleeing the city.  There are no ancient records of the library being burned at this time, and, in fact, Alexandria continued to be an active intellectual center for many years after Hypatia’s death.  There is also a great deal of evidence that the Library was already in decline at the time of Hypatia and may not have still been in existence during this time.

As a side note, it is also an interesting historical fact that the first purging of intellectuals from Alexandria occurred before Christianity, in 145 BC during the reign of Ptolemy VII Physcon.  Also, during Roman times funding and support for the Library diminished.

These links take you to articles from Ancient History Encyclopedia and Ancient World Magazine.  The quote below is from the latter and probably is a good summary of the reality of what happened with learning and the Library of Alexandria.

… there is little evidence to support the idea that Great Library was specifically targeted by Christian fanatics. Civil unrest and wars caused the loss of numerous monuments in the Brucheion during the third and fourth centuries AD, including the Tomb of Alexander.

………

The Great Library of Alexandria may have never experienced any one cataclysmic destruction which brought Alexandria’s intellectual legacy to its knees. Instead, a succession of buildings, possibly many libraries or many branches of one, took damage from centuries of turmoil. Alongside these physical destructions were social, political, and religious shifts that changed the intellectual landscape of Egypt.

At no point was the literary heritage of the Great Library completely erased. The great works of Classical literature continued to be studied in Alexandria throughout Late Antiquity, and the city’s gradually declining importance as an intellectual capital had more to do with the rise of other cities such as Rome, Constantinople, and Damascus.

 

A Question of Motive

Here I will discuss the main reason why this story is so prominently known by atheists, the heart of the story, that of the motive behind Hypatia’s murder.  As traditionally told, and as believed by many atheists, the motive behind her murder was religious intolerance and fanaticism and the suppression of early science.  However, this is not true.

First, realize that Alexandria was not a peaceful little university town.  In fact, it had the reputation of being violent and riotous, something alluded to in the Ancient World link I provided above.  This included not only religious conflicts, but also political ones too.

The earliest, and primary, source for both the life and death of Hypatia is Socrates Scholasticus’s  “Historia Ecclesiastica,” finished around 439 AD.  In it he states,

“Anyway, she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. Since Hypatia had frequent interviews with Orestes, the Christian populace calumniously thought that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop.

Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, and led by reader named Peter, waited her returning home in ambush.”

Note, he does not mention religious motivation, but rather a political one.

Within Alexandria there were two main political factions – that of Orestes, the recently appointed Roman Prefect of Alexandria, and that of Cyril, a recently appointed Bishop of Alexandria. Cyril wanted to increase his power into the more secular areas controlled by Orestes.

Hypatia was a close political ally of Orestes, who was a Christian.  With her close ties to both pagan and Christian people within Alexandria as well as her moral status within the community as philosopher and teacher, she was instrumental in holding Orestes’s opposition to Cyril together.  Many of her students came from wealthy and influential families and went on to hold important posts both within the church and government.  Her murder was a major blow to Orestes.

Edgar J. Watts, professor of history at the University of California, San Diego, believes that her murder caused Orestes’s coalition to collapse and allowed Cyril to overturn a law placing control of some of his followers, the parabalani (Christians who took care of the sick and the burial of the dead, and also functioned as attendants to Bishops), under Orestes’s control and to have him wind up dominating the Alexandrian council by the early 420s.

One, final, item of interest to note.  As the years flowed on from her death, Hypatia’s life and death took on several different symbolic meanings.  First, she was immediately considered a Martyr of Philosophy.   However, later, during the Middle Ages she became a symbol of Christian virtue – likely because of the fact that due to the form of Neoplatonism that she believed and followed she was a lifelong virgin, and because Neoplatonism greatly influenced many of the early church fathers such as Saint Augustine.  Later still she became a symbol for opposition to the Catholic church and, even later, a symbol for women’s rights.

Her life and death have provided the fodder for many different stories and myths, including that of the war between Christianity and science.  Her life, in reality though, does not support that story.  Her murder was due to politics, not a conflict between Christianity and science.

Read Full Post »

Atheism Destroyed!

I just came across this article “Ex-Atheist Dr. Sarah Salviander Destroys Atheism with One Tweet” and thought to myself…Wow.  So, I looked.

Apparently Dr. Sarah Salviander has “a Ph.D. in astrophysics, and is an ex-atheist”.  I did not bother to check on either of these claims.  Instead, I wanted to focus on this amazing tweet to see if it really does live up to its claim.  So, here is the tweet whose few words are going to destroy my thoughts about the existence, or rather non-existence of God in the space of a few words.  If you are an atheist, be prepared to have your views on life, the universe and everything rocked!

How to Design Your Own Atheistic Personal Philosophy

1. Start with the assumption of no God
2. However, also start with Christian morality
3. Remove the bits you personally don’t like
4. Proclaim that it’s self-evident
5. Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe

The article then states that since Ms. Salviander” receives the same criticism and arguments from atheists over and over, she’s pinned a tweet to the top of her page linking to an article answering commonly asked questions and arguments from atheists.”  However, since the article then follows this with the statement that “ the above tweet is apologetics gold.”, let me save her link for another blog and, instead, focus on the many problems and wrong assumptions contained within these 44 words.

First, it is not an argument for God or against atheism being true. This article states that Salviander in addition to being a scientist is also a Christian apologist. Christian apologetics, according to BibleStudy.org is:

Christian apologetics is the body of knowledge that defends the philosophical, historical and doctrinal truth of true Christianity against attacks by others who possess (usually) a very different belief system.

Apologetics attempts to respond to questions or assaults on Christianity using rational and logical arguments, rather than ones based on faith alone. Some of the questions tackled include – Who IS God? Is the Bible the word of God? Can miracles happen? Is the theory of evolution true? Why does a good Creator allow evil to exist? Did the doctrines in the New Testament come from paganism? If the Eternal can do ANYTHING can he LIE?

Nowhere in her tweet do we see any of this.  Instead of an apologetic it is a criticism of a perceived problem on how atheists create their own beliefs and morals, from her perspective. It makes no claim on whether God exists or not, but addresses, again, a perceived, problem in creating an atheist sense of purpose or morals. At best, it offers a poor criticism of how atheists might ignore evidence of God.  And that is at best, something this is far from being.

 

1. Start with the assumption of no God.

Not me. I started with the assumption of God.  I was a Bible believing church going Christian first.  The start of me becoming an atheist lay in my reading the Bible, specifically the story about Moses and the Pharaoh.  As I discussed in my blog “The Start of My Journey to Atheism”,  the interactions between God, Moses, and Pharaoh raised several significant moral problems for me. Problems that at the time I was sure  would be answered if I just read a bit more and talked to some knowledgeable people – ministers and such.

Instead though I came across more moral problems and no satisfactory answers. At least if taken literally. Going the non-literal route of understanding the Bible did help, for awhile. But other philosophical questions joined those of my supply of moral questions, and when combined with a lack of evidence for the existence of a God, well, I became an atheist.

So, there was no assumption involved. Instead the initial assumption was God existed. An assumption I found myself unable to sustain as I read and thought and examined.  Now, I may be wrong (isn’t that a fundamental attribute of being human?), but there was no assumption made. Just a great deal of thought and research.

2. However, start with Christian morality.

OK, now this one I did.  However, how could I not?

First, that was the morality I was brought up in.  However, I would also point out that labeling something as Christian Morality does not mean that it is exclusively Christian morals. What I mean is that most moral ideas and systems are very similar.  In broad terms there is a great deal more of agreements than disagreements.

Further, Christian morality is not a monolithic construct. There are disagreements within the Christian community on many different issues. And it has changed over time; slavery was considered moral and Christian not so very long ago.  Today, the same process seems to be occurring in regards to LBQT issues.

Final, and most important, is that she seems  to believe that the only type of morality possible is a top down one- one where morality is decreed from above. However, that is false. A more accurate picture about the origins of morality show it to be a bottom up creation.  In other words, the roots of morality lies in what we evolved to be – a highly social and highly moral creature. From that basis, in what we are, comes our morality. Which means that since we are all humans, the morals created by the different societies are going to be very similar. Not exact, but similar.  This includes those that consider themselves “Christian morals”.

3. Remove the bits you don’t like.

Most of my response to this is included in my one to point two. However, let me emphasize, again, that Christian morality is not a monolithic entity, and that it has changed over time.  The bits within it are not the same across all Christians and across all time. Does she then claim that Christians also pick out the bits they don’t like?  Even the first Christians had to choose.

Further, this is normal and often a good thing.  Slavery for example.

4. Proclaim that its self evident.

Not sure where she gets that from.  As I said, there is a good amount of evidence of the bottom up theory of moral origins.  A good book in regards to this is “Moral Origins: the Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame”.  Also, the books by   Fran de Waal, such as “Good Natured” provides some good information on this.

So, no, not self evident. Rather it is the exact opposite. It is evidence based.

5. Ignore the meaningless of a godless universe.

Not sure how a supposed meaningless is evidence that the atheist is wrong. Perhaps an uncomfortable and disturbing truth, but whoever claimed that truth is comfortable and always warm and fuzzy?

A lot here depends on what is meant by meaning. If you mean a purpose built into the universe, then yes it is meaningless. If, however, you realize that meaning is something created by humans and not given by the universe or a god, then there is meaning. The meaning we create.

So, again, not something that destroys atheism. Not even close.

Read Full Post »

Christianity and Science: Friend or Foe?

The belief that religion, in this case Christianity, is responsible for slowing down the progress of science, and that if not for Christianity science would be hundreds of years further advanced than it is now, is almost an article of faith for many atheists.  Perhaps most.  However, like most articles of faith, it is wrong.

The reality is something much more complicated with the evidence showing that Christianity (and for this blog I will stick to this religion) and Christian organizations being a strong net benefit to science rather than a net harm.  I have discussed this before, most notably in my blogs Religion vs Science Part 1: Its More Complicated Than That and Part 2: Copernicus and Galileo.  But, this is one of those subjects that is worth visiting again since it is still very actively believed among  atheists.

Let’s start with what I am not saying. I am not saying that the Church has always been supportive and has not at times suppressed science and knowledge.

I am not saying that the Church has not on many occasions muddled minds and society in regards to science and knowledge.

I am not saying that Christian culture has not at times pushed against and tried to shout down science.

They have.

I am also not saying that without Christianity there would be no science.  There would have been.  Although I think it likely science would have been slower to develop or been developed by another religious group if Christianity did not exist.

In other words, what I am saying is that the Church has done many things that have helped science. I am saying that overall, when you look at the pluses and minuses, the Church has provided a strong net gain in the development and promotion of science.

I am fully cognizant of Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin; the big three that are usually used to illustrate the “truth” of the above meme.  Along with that is a more theoretical argument that believing in a God shuts down science and doesn’t allow for questioning.  However, those who make this argument overlook three facts.

First Fact: The Church as an organization, as well as its religious individuals, supported science and knowledge, and made significant contributions to science.  In fact, just looking at Catholic clergy who have made significant contributions to science is impressive.   Here are just a very few.

• Roger Bacon: Considered one of the foundational people in the creation of the modern scientific method.  He also made significant contributions to optics and mathematics.
• Georges Lemaître: Came up with the big bang theory. He was also the first to derive Hubble’s law and made the first estimate of the Hubble Constant.
• Bonaventura Cavalieri: Worked on the precursors of infinitesimal calculus and in optics and motion.
• Gregor Mendel: founder of modern genetics.

This is just four important contributors to science out of literally hundreds if not thousands among the Catholic clergy.  .

And let us not overlook the contributions of religious people other than Catholics to science.

• Theodosius Dobzhansky: one of the creators of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
• Lord Kelvin: Did important work in thermodynamics, electricity, and physics.
• James Maxwell: Formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation which for the first time brought together electricity, magnetism, and light.
• Robert Boyle: Widely considered to be the first modern chemist.

Then there is the fact that the Catholic Church strongly supported science for centuries.  The American historian of science J. L. Heilbron, in his book The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories, wrote that “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.”

In fact, it was the Catholic Church and other religious schools which provided education and supported learning and the libraries that were so necessary for the creation and furtherance of science

Fact 2:  It was often not as simple as a religious disagreement with the findings of science.

Much of Catholic beliefs on science were taken from Greek thinkers such as Aristotle, and not the Bible.  It was the conflict between the Aristotelian tradition and the new findings there were often the issue, and not a conflict with the Bible per se.

Even more important is that many of these discoveries were not obvious and were not fully supported by the evidence available at the time.  Just as when new discoveries are made today, the available scientific evidence often does not fully support one side or the other.

For example, there were serious problems with  Galileo’s proposal that the earth revolved around the sun, some of which were not resolved until the 19th century.  “The Case Against Copernicus” by Christopher Graney and Dennis Danielson, published in a 2014 issue of Scientific American highlights what those problems were, and though focusing on Copernicus does discuss Galileo and applies to his work too.  One interesting item to note here is that there were not just two competing theories – the geocentric model and heliocentric model – but three.  The third one was a geoheliocentric model, or Tychonic model, put forth by Tycho Brahe.  While Galileo’s observations were a problem for the  geocentric model, they were fully consistent with the Tychonic model.

In 1674 Robert Hooke, curator of experiments for the British Royal Society admitted, “Whether the Earth move or stand still hath been a problem, that since Copernicus revived it, hath much exercised the wits of our best modern astronomers and philosophers, amongst which notwithstanding there hath not been any one who hath found out a certain manifestation either of one or the other.”

By Hook’s time a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties.

Or take Darwin and evolution.  Yes, many religious groups and people condemned it.  However, there were many who supported it.  In fact, in the United States, evolution’s strongest supporter was a very religious scientist, Asa Gray.  In fact, much of the arguments against evolution came from other scientists using the science of the day to argue against Darwin’s findings.  However, even with all of this, by the time of Darwin’s death, Cambridge University, a church run university, told its students to assume ‘the truth … that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation from others widely different.”. Not to mention Darwin being honored by being interred in Westminster Abbey  near to John Herschel (another religious scientist) and Isaac Newton.  Religion did not seem to hinder evolution’s ascendancy in science here.

Let me also point out that there was a strong element of empiricism in the Church, even early in the Medieval period.  Scholasticism for example, believed in using empiricism, reason, and logic in their secular studies  and use such to support Catholic doctrine.   It is one reason why so much of modern science grew out of the work of priests.

Fact 3:  Modern social structures are not the result of immaculate conception.  They have a history.

This meme seems to believe that without the church and religion secular thought and science would have taken root instead and we would be much more advanced.  However, just as in evolution where a new structure cannot just arrive in one step (say the eye), but instead must start with what is and be modified over time, so too with social structures.

It is noteworthy that every ancient civilization arose with organized religion being integral to its structure.  Many scientists have argued that organized religion was essential in the creation of social structures larger than tribes of family groups.  That organized religion was necessary to give the larger groups consisting of many different family groups a new identity beyond that of family that would help resolve conflicts without causing the collapse of that society, among other benefits.

Given this necessity, there was no chance of a secular origin for science and our modern day society.  Just as the eye of an eagle is not going to appear within a generation to a creature with nothing more than a patch of light sensitive skin, so too this idea of science having a virgin birth is wrong.

 

To close this blog let me say that, long as it is, it is much too short to provide a complete response to this meme.  Nowadays I am trying to keep my blogs around 1000 words (unsuccessfully so in this case).  That is one reason I added the two links to my blogs mentioned earlier – Religion vs Science Part 1 and 2 as well as a link to The Case Against Copernicus.  I also wrote another blog of relevance here, Some Thoughts on Religion.

If you are really interested in getting my full arguments I would suggest reading them in addition to this blog.  I am also including a link to two short articles, Science Owes Much to Both Christianity and the Middle Ages by  James Hannam, PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge and a short article from the  PBS series Faith and Reason.

Or, take the short cut and instead of reading ask questions and challenge what I have written and discuss with an open mind.  And for those who agree, would love to hear that too, especially since I have a feeling mine is a minority position among my fellow atheists and that I will be hearing a great deal from them.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

What is a Religion: A Most Undefinitive Definition

What does the word father mean?  According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (slightly paraphrased), a father is:

• A man who has begotten a child.
• God, the first person of the Trinity
• Forefather, such as the founding fathers of the United States.
• One related to another in a way suggesting that of father to child.
• An old man – used as a respectful form of address
• A pre-Scholastic, a Christian writer accepted by the church as an authoritative witness to its teaching and practice – called also church father
• One that originates or institutes, such as the father of modern science.
• Source, such as the sun, the father of warmth and light.
• Prototype, such as the father of all libraries in the country,.
• A priest of the regular clergy.
• One of the leading men (as of a city) – usually used in plurals such as a council of the city fathers.

Wow, so many meanings embedded within one word.

Now, those wedded to the idea a person can read the words of a tract, book, articles, manuscript, religious work or political document and understand exactly what it means, will, upon seeing where I am heading with this, point out that while the word father does have many different meanings, which meaning being used is usually made obvious by the context of the word.  In other words, the words around the word help define that word.  And to an extent they are right.

However, words are not only understood as an abstract intellectual concept. In fact, most of the time they are not. People insert meaning  and values to those words.

For example, what a father is will be something quite different  for a woman who was raped and abused by her father since she was a young child versus what it will mean for a young man who had a loving father who played games and helped with homework.  Which means that how a person understands a word within a given sentence embedded within a paragraph that is part of a page which is just one page in an article or a book and all of whose words influence the meaning and understanding of that particular word is going to also depend on that individual’s own feelings and emotions in reaction to that  particular word.  And let us not forget, that each and every one of those words influencing the understanding of the word in question is also being interpreted and understood by that person’s past too.

Put that way, it is really rather amazing that we communicate as well as we do.

And all of this Is happening before we start applying that rather abstract understanding of a word in a passage in a paragraph, etc to real world questions and problems.  Thou shalt not kill seems simple enough commandment when seen on a page, but what does it mean when faced with a 220 pound six foot man with blood in his eye as well as on his clothes wielding a machete?   What about a person running away from you with your money and jewels when you have a gun in your hand?  What about if you accidently kill someone by stumbling over your untied shoelace, bumping into that person and causing her to take a header down an up escalator?  Is that still a sin?  Or even a crime?

To avoid spending too much time and way too many thousands of words, let me just condense it to this: how we understand words, especially words that are accompanied by a great many words, and even more so when those crowds of words have to be applied to the world, are only partly objective. They also have a large subjective element to it, a subjectivity that is dependent upon a person’s:

• Parents
• Personal history
• Education
• Culture
• Society
• Political economic status
• Own readings
• Friends
• Acquaintances, both of the friendly and not so friendly sort.
• Movies
• Music (one person I know was greatly affected by John Denver’s songs, another by Pink Floyd’s)
• And anything else

So, to cut to the chase since I am now  trying to keep these blogs at 1000 words or less, what does this mean in regards to a definition of religion?  Which is, after all, the title of this blog.

A religion can be and usually is defined by its sacred works and doctrine. However, this never quite seems to nail it down. Take a look and you will find a great deal of variety within even a small seemingly well defined group of believers.  Even the most uniform of them will disagree on some issues. And some will prove to be more amenable to different understandings than others.   Which is strong evidence against the idea that there is some plain and literal reading to be had, and for my own view is that, while there are objective limits, they bracket a wide range of subjective understandings and interpretations.

For myself, I have read many works taken to be sacred by different religions – the Tanakh, Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching.  In every  one of the works I have read I found things I considered good and things I considered bad. Some of these were very very good, and some were very very bad.  How these often conflicting passages are understood and applied to the world is very dependent upon how a person choses to understand them.

Given this, I think the most practical and relevant definition of a religion is that a religion is what its followers make of it – both as a group and as individuals within that group.

 

I believe that the most practical definition of religion is a religion is what its followers make of it. What they make of it is, of course, influenced by the history of that group, their society, other aspects of their cultures, geography, political and economic realities, and so forth.  To get even more basic, religion usually differs even between members of the same group, so that more properly a religion can be said to be what a follower makes of it.

For example, Rais Bhuiyan, the lone survivor of an attack by a man intent on getting revenge for 9/11, suing to prevent the killer’s execution because he believed the Qur’an required him to forgive.

Harman Singh, a Sikhs required by his religion to not take his turban off, taking it off and using it to help a young boy hurt in an accident.

And the list goes ever on and covers every variety of religion, and non-religion – Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Wiccan….

For me, I believe that often the most important definition of a religion is what does that person or group make of their religion. It is why, although very important, a particular religions sacred scriptures and doctrine are, to my mind, of secondary importance.

 

 

 

Well dang. 1,174 words.

Read Full Post »

Questions About the Hereafter and What the Answers Say About God, Angels, and Human Nature

Before getting to the questions, let me first off make this clear.  These questions are directed at the vision of the afterlife held by those Christians who believe in a “literal” interpretation and understanding of the Bible, in a very real heaven and a very real hell, and in angels, Lucifer, and fallen angels.

Second off, while written mainly in response to the above mentioned  Christians’ views about the afterlife, they also have, surprisingly, a great deal of relevance for almost any idea and conception of a life after death.

Now, having gotten the offs out of the way, on to the setting up questions.

God created Adam and Eve.  God created Angels. He created both to be his eternal companions.  Yet both failed him in that.  Some angels rebelled against God. Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

Given that so far God has a 100% failure rate in creating beings to share eternity with him, then why should the afterlife be any different?  What is the difference this time from the last two times?

Is free will the issue?  Then is God going to take away humanity’s free will?  If so, then why not do so at the beginning and avoid all the pain and suffering of humanity while on earth/. And the pain and suffering that most of humanity will be in for eternity after they die? If free will was important enough to justify that much pain, then wouldn’t taking it away mean that we become something other than human, something less?

If free will is not the answer then perhaps  it is because we are going to be purified by our life here on earth  and our dross will burn away with our deaths?   In which case, what are our impurities?  What is our dross? Often our strengths in some areas also creates weaknesses in other areas, our weaknesses in one area are a strength in another – different sides of the same coin so to speak.  What then?  Burn the coin?

In addition, we are the sum of our weaknesses and strengths.  Change them and you change who we are.  To an extent you could mess with that, but at some point in doing so that person who is experiencing heaven is not the same person who experienced life in the here and now.

Also, humans form groups.  More accurately, we are individuals who form groups.  Being individuals we form stronger groups with those who are most like us in some way.   And being individuals we are going to have disagreements with other individuals  Which means the groups are going to have disagreements.  What is to keep them from becoming violent and creating conflict and pain as they so often do now?

Perhaps  we are purified so that these differences will never get out of hand?  I am not sure how that would work.  Put a banana in a bowl of water and nothing much happens. However, take the potassium out of the banana and purify it and then drop it in the water and you get this:

Perhaps we should  be adding more dross?  Perhaps it is the dross that defines us?

Or perhaps no borders and limitless land and is the secret?  Along with limitless food and drink, and a body that does not get hurt or know pain?  All of which would reduce or eliminate the most common sources of conflict. But not all.  After all, both Adam and Eve had that, as did the Angels. And it did not work then. So, why now?

It seems that God made both angels and humanity with the same design flaw.  In fact, I think that this “flaw” would also make heaven, a paradise in a forever life after death, impossible for humanity, whether it is a God driven one or a secular one.   Humans are too diverse a group for that.

 

Somehow, I think the only way an eternity of bliss would work is if the species inhabiting it were not human.  Between our needs as individuals and our needs as part of a group, I am very much afraid that humans are not meant for an eternity of bliss and happiness.

Read Full Post »

To Those Christians Persecuted by Starbuck’s Christmas Coffee Cup

To those Christians who are persecuted by Starbuck’s Christmas Coffee Cup, Pastor Saeed Abedini sends his support and prayers as you battle this egregious defamation of the Christian faith. Or he would were he not in prison in Iran for being a Christian.

To those Christians who are persecuted by Starbuck’s Christmas Coffee Cup, Michael Kayyal and Maher Mahfouz, priests of the Armenian and Greek Orthodox Church respectively, send their support and prayers as you battle this egregious defamation of the Christian faith. Or they would had they not been kidnapped by ISIS and executed.

To those Christians who are persecuted by Starbuck’s Christmas Coffee Cup, the Christian Churches of North Korea and China send their support and prayers as you battle this egregious defamation of the Christian faith. Or they would were they not in jail or concentration camps.

To those Christians who are think that they are persecuted here in the United States, is your need to feel persecuted so strong that you have to generate fantasies? Is your faith so weak and in need of justification that you search and dig to generate stories of dark oppression so you can congratulate yourself on how strong your faith is and on how steadfastly you defend your faith?

Such fantasies that are so out of touch with reality damage the image of the Christian and Christian church that you say you love.

It damages the image of the United States, a country in which freedom of religion is cherished and which has given you so much freedom that you apparently wish there were less of it.

It damages the plight of those Christians and Christian churches that really are persecuted around the world. Your narcissistic need, by generating a false persecution, takes the focus and attention off of their real suffering and tribulations

It damages you and your reputation. Why should anyone take you seriously now? Aside from Donald Trump that is.

Addendum:  I know that I am an atheist and to some this might seem a strange way to blog about this issue.  However, I  strongly support religious freedom for all, believing in its necessity for a peaceful and just society, and so am against any government or society that does not allow this freedom.  Contrasting what those Christians face with the fantasy of these American Christians seemed an effective way to show the ridiculous nature of the American’s supposed persecution.  Now, I wish that all of those groups who are doing such an admirable job of reporting and working to keep in our minds those Christians who are being persecuted would extend their reach to cover all religions and religious beliefs that are persecuted whoever and wherever they may be.  Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, all.  Including that of the atheist.

Read Full Post »

Inerrant Scripture Changing

So many people believe that religion cannot change – most especially the sacred scripture of their religion. To use Christianity as an example, the words of the Bible do not change and therefor our understanding of it is timeless – all that needs to be done is to read its words plain and simply. That is what I see repeatedly from both conservative literalists Christians and from many atheists. I find it amazing that such a wrong idea can be so strongly promoted by those at the opposite ends of belief. I imagine that this is probably the only area of agreement that literalists Christians and many atheists have. And it is ironic that it is so very wrong.

I wrote a paper for one of my graduate classes a couple of years ago that illustrate very nicely some of the reasons why it is wrong. It doesn’t hit at all the reasons, but gives an idea about how religious believers understanding of their sacred scripture can and does change over time. Although this paper focuses exclusively upon slavery and the Bible in the pre-civil war United States, the idea behind it applies to any and all scriptures – such as the Qur’an for example – and even such documents as the United States Constitution.

The Bible Wars: It’s Use For and Against Slavery

Slavery still exists today, not only in other countries but even here in the United States. However, today slavery is almost universally condemned instead of almost universally accepted as it once was. Governments have made slavery illegal. Religion and Christianity almost universally condemn it now. Not so very long ago this was not true.

In colonial America and in pre-Civil War United States slavery was a flourishing institution, one that was supported by many arguments ranging from the economic to the supposed nature of blacks. One argument of special importance and interest was the one based upon the Bible. Both the proslavery people and the abolitionists claimed Biblical support for their beliefs and positions. In this paper I plan to look at how the Bible was used to both justify and argue against slavery.

1. Pro-slavery arguments

The pro-slavery side had the initial advantage in using the Bible to support their views. The reason for this is that no special interpretation or treatment of the Bible was needed to justify the institution of slavery. Nowhere within the Bible does anyone condemn slavery, not even Jesus. It was an accepted institution, one that seemingly was considered both normal and moral. Because of this, the proslavery groups could rely on a literal reading of the Bible and upon Christian history to make their case.

Most Christians throughout history did not see the practice of slavery as conflicting with the Bible. Many church leaders from the first days of Christianity had slaves. Church policy since its earliest days supported the institution of slavery and the rights of slaveholders. Several early Christian writings include codes of household management; how husbands, wives, children, slaves, and slaveholders should behave. In these codes, slaves “were told to subordinate their wills to the wills of their master” (Glancy 55). Christian teachings often seemed to reinforce “the power of the slaveholder, even as they affirmed the dignity of the slave in God’s eyes.” (Glancy 53).

In fact, although there are some hints that some early Christians might have questioned slavery, real and unambiguous writings against slavery as being un-Christian did not come until medieval times when people such as Gregory of Nissa, Saint Patrick, and Saint Eligus started to write and speak out against slavery. However, other church leaders, such as Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, Calvin, and Martin Luther wrote that slavery was not un-Christianity. Although slavery eventually disappeared in Christian Europe it was still not widely condemned or considered un-Christian by most.

Due to this weight of history, and to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the development of a Christian defense of slavery in the United States did not come about until the early 19th century. In the years before this in America there had been no need for one. It was not until the rise of a larger abolitionist movement and a radical form of antislavery during the 1830’s that proslavery literature began to become significant.

The fact that the proslavery side had a plain reading of the Bible on their side can be readily seen in one of the first conflicts with the abolitionists. Initially the abolitionists had argued that the word translated as “slave” in the Bible actually meant “servant” and thus there was no slavery in the Bible. The proslavery side quickly pointed out that this was not only not how it had been historically translated but that the best and newest methods of biblical scholarship showed that the word in question meant slave and not servant. What is ironic is that those who used and understood the Bible literally to argue for slavery were able to use the new biblical criticism of the Bible, a methodology that would show the problems inherent in a literal understanding of the Bible, to support their position.

Those arguing that slavery was Biblical used a variety of arguments based on quotes from the Bible. They used the story of the Centurion’s Servant (Luke 7:1 – 10; Matt 8:5 – 13) to show that Jesus had not only met slaves but also had commended the slave’s owner, a Roman soldier, as a faithful man such as he had not seen even in Israel.

Taking the argument even further, they argued, on the basis of the example of the Roman soldier above and Jesus’ praise of him, as well as other verses, that not only was slavery not immoral, but that the proper Christian stance towards the world was hierarchical and patriarchical. “Importantly, Jesus praised the centurion’s use of commands to order military and domestic subordinates….The plain sense of this language means that military hierarchy and other forms of patriarchy ought to order human relations, especially between master and slave.” (Harrill, 183).

When the abolitionists used the Golden Rule to argue against slavery, the proslavery groups responded by referring to the above verses, saying that Jesus was not teaching egalitarianism, but rather patriarchical love. Such love does not make men social equals, but instead means that “the master should treat his slave as if the master, imagining himself a slave and aware of his own good, would like to be treated.” (Harrill, 185).

Using a plain reading of the Bible with the understanding that passages were to be understood in light of patriarchalism, and with a selective use of the new biblical criticisms, the proslavery groups defended the institution of slavery as being Biblical and Christian.

2. Abolitionist Arguments.

As I mentioned above, the proslavery groups had the easier argument to make in regards to the Bible and slavery. This was something the abolitionists recognized from the beginning. Because of this, instead of a literalist approach they used an interpretive approach.

Of course the proslavery groups interpreted passages too, as seen by their interpretation of the meaning of the Golden Rule. And the proslavery groups were influenced in their interpretations by outside sources such as their economic and political views and their prejudices. However, the difference was that while the proslavery groups found their key to interpreting biblical texts within the Bible (patriarchy), the abolitionists found their key from outside the Bible.

First and foremost of these outside keys was the outrage that slavery inflicted on their sense of morality. Regardless of the source of this feeling, morally they knew that slavery was wrong and that therefore any interpretation of the Bible that defended slavery was flawed. They had only to be perceptive and knowledgeable enough to discover the flaw. Or, failing that, some counseled rejecting the Bible altogether as a moral guide to slavery. “Garrison concluded that slavery, like just war and woman’s suffrage, ‘was not a bible question’, since nothing in regards to controversial matters had ever been settled by the Bible.” (Harrill, 176). While most did not go as far as Garrison, some did. All though were motivated by the same sense of moral outrage.

A large reason why this attempt to use outside sources to aide in interpreting the Bible was possible was due to the Enlightenment. It was an age of questioning everything, including Christianity and the Bible. It was an age of discoveries that made old understandings of the Bible questionable. The age of the earth, the orbiting earth and central sun, evolution, and other discoveries of science showed that the Bible could not be understood literally in regards to matters of how the physical universe worked.

The new higher criticism coming out of Germany was becoming increasingly influential among American scholars. It demonstrated that Moses did not write the Torah, that the Bible had multiple authors and did not always agree with known history and, most importantly, that the Bible might not always be the best guide in understanding itself.

At the same time a new religious movement had developed and was expanding, that of evangelism with an emphasis on a personal experience of God and not necessarily to adherence to old doctrine. Quakers were the earliest evangelical group to start to criticize and work for abolition. However they were joined by other such new evangelical religions as Methodists and Baptists.

It took some trial and error for abolitionists to find their way to their final arguments. One of their first attempts was to deny that Jesus had ever met any slaves, saying that the word translated as slave could also and more probably did mean servant. However, as noted above, that argument did not hold up to the new scholarship.

From there, they looked for another key by which to understand the Bible and its verses about slavery, one that would hold up to the new biblical criticism and would also align with their moral understanding of the Bible. Part of the key consisted of viewing the Bible as a work in progress instead of a static work with a finished understanding.

Taking their cues from their times, a time when progress was not only much talked about but actually being seen in the industrial and scientific revolutions, they argued that the Bible had “seeds” planted within it that would blossom and bear fruit as societies grew in knowledge and moral sensibilities. They argued that Jesus knew any condemnation of slavery would not take root in the culture and society of his age. Instead he planted a seed that would grow and blossom in the fullness of time. History, and our understanding of the Bible, were not static but were instead dynamic, growing, and progressive.
With this understanding of the Bible and how to read it the abolitionists then argued that the Golden Rule, as related in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31, was the seed that Jesus planted and that now was the time for its blossoming. “True Christianity, through ‘fair application’ of the Golden Rule and related immutable principles such as charity and love of neighbor, is a Christianity against slavery.” (Harrill, 171)

The below quote of Dr. Thornton’s, taken from a report about slavery given to the Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina highlights this difference between the abolitionists and the proslavery groups.

“Opposition to Slavery has never been the offspring of the Bible. It has sprung from visionary theories of human nature and society. It has sprung from the misguided reason of man. It comes as natural, not as revealed truth; and when it is seen that the Word of God stands in the way of it, the lovely oracles will be stripped of their authority, and reduced to the level of mere human utterances.” (National Era).

Where the abolitionists would disagree with Dr. Thornton, is that this scheme amounted to “mere human utterances”. Instead they would say that, along with the Bible, God also created the natural world and the mind of man with its ability to reason.

Further, God had implanted within humanity a sense of morality. They would argue that theirs was taking the whole of what God had given them, whereas the literalist views of Dr. Thornton and the proslavery groups had rejected part of God’s revelations and gifts.

One final fact to note is that just because a white person was an abolitionist does not mean that they were not prejudiced. An argument that was used in conjunction with the early claim that Jesus had never met a slave was that if Jesus Christ had met slaves and condoned the institution, then it would have been the slavery of his time, a slavery involving whites. “This reductio ad absurdum disproof…. reveals the racism present in some abolitionist arguments: surely Jesus Christ agreed with the American beliefs that white people should not be enslaved.” (Harrill, 169).

While this was not an argument that was used as much after the abolitionists lost the argument on whether Jesus had met slaves, it does show that a white view of abolitionism might, and did, differ from that of an African American of the times.

3. Free Blacks and Slaves

“Dark and Dismal was the day
When slavery began
All humble thoughts were put away
Then slaves were made by man.”

The above words are part of a poem by Jupiter Hammon, the first black poet in America and a slave since birth. The 25 stanza poem was titled: “An Essay on Slavery with Submission to Divine Providence Knowing that God Rules Over All Things” and, unlike his other poems and essays, it was never published; most likely due to its controversial nature.

In the beginning, blacks resisted Christianity. They feared that their master’s religion was meant as a means of control and oppression. At the time, the Christianity being preached was. As taught to the slaves, Christianity was strongly Calvinistic and taught that everyone had been put in their place by God, and that given this instead of questioning their God ordained station they should do their best within that station. Most African Americans were not attracted to this message.

Some blacks though did accept the religion of their masters; for example, Jupiter Hammon. Born a slave in Lloyd Harbor, NY in 1711, property of the Lloyd family of Queens, NY, he was fortunate enough to have owners who insisted that he attend school and learn to read and write. He was born and became Christian before the Great Awakening and the arrival of the evangelical Christianities that did not preach a religion of acquiescence to oppression, and so had a foot in both worlds.

The Christianity taught and accepted by Jupiter at his birth, and rejected by many blacks, was of a Calvinism that “did not believe that Christians, and even less so slaves, should do anything that distracted from a contemplation of a heavenly afterlife.” (Day, 2) This version of Calvinism, and not the one that “emphasized participation in the world with a view toward transforming it” (Day, 2) that many of the whites followed , was what the blacks were taught, when any were taught at all to become Christians. From the same poem:

“When God doth please for to permit
That slavery should be
It is our duty to submit
Till Christ shall set us free.”

But, while Christianity was taught as a means of oppression, it did not stay such. Instead it changed and became a means of resisting oppression; sometimes actively, sometimes more quietly. It did so by giving blacks “a sense of common identity and purpose that created the conditions for organization and collective action.” (Day, 3).

The African American was treated as and had the status of property, not person. Even Hammon’s owners, who by all accounts were good masters who treated him well, lists Hammon, along with their other slaves, as property in their ledgers, along with cattle and other goods. To resist this reduction to being nothing more than property, African Americans had to form a new identity as well as a new community. A large part of that new identity came with the arrival of the Great

Awakening. The Great Awakening created a number of new voices within religion, ones that were not part of the established religions with their political and economic ties, which allowed them to “reevaluate the old theologies and speak out against slavery as an organizational endeavor.” (Day, 15).

As a result of increasing literacy among the African Americans and the increasing numbers of itinerant ministers who were preaching a message of resistance to worldly oppression and not submission, blacks started to convert to Christianity in increasing numbers. They also started to assume leadership roles as preachers and ministers as well as organizing churches.

As they did so their understanding and ways of interpreting the Bible differed from that of not only their white masters and white society in general, but even from that of the white abolitionists. In fact, blacks often found themselves at loggerheads with their white abolitionist allies.

For example, the slave narrative became popular means by which the abolitionist movement pressed their cause. However, most of these narratives that had the approval of the white abolitionists were those that “focused on the ‘objective facts’ of slavery rather than on individuals’ ideas and interpretations.” (Day, 88).

This control of the narratives allowed the white abolitionists to control the content and priorities of the anti-slavery movement, resulting in an anti-slavery movement that was against slavery but not necessarily for equality. Even though sympathetic to the troubles of the blacks, most whites were not willing to give up power nor to examine with a critical eye their own views and thoughts about black.

Blacks agreed with and used the argument used by the white abolitionists of the Golden Rule being the key to understanding and interpreting the Bible. However, they also identified both themselves and their plight with biblical figures, most especially Moses and the Exodus narrative, although the figure of Christ as the “Suffering Servant” was also important. Blacks found much support and strength through such imagery and identification; and especially in the knowledge that both the Jews and Jesus were triumphant at the end of their sufferings.

And just like the earliest Christian groups, many blacks found the book of Revelation meaningful. It pointed to a time when slavery and prejudice would end, a time of the Apocalypse when “an abolitionist Warrior Jesus” (Harrill, 179) would come in wrath and retribution to end slavery and establish justice for the blacks.

Not only did the Bible provide support and comfort, but many blacks found within it the sense of group identity and organization necessary for an active resistance to slavery. Those times of unrest among the blacks that led into actual revolt against their masters were most often preceded by a rise in religious activity.

While the black community did have much in common with the white abolitionists, their goals and views were not identical. There were significant differences in how they understood and used the Bible. Given their differing social standings and needs this was inevitable.

4. Final Notes

These changes to Christian understanding of the Bible have now become ingrained and are considered the orthodox understanding today. Except for some small groups, even those Christians who claim to believe the Bible literally use this new interpretation of the Bible, this interpretation that takes into account ideas from outside the Bible to understand it, when they claim that the Bible is against slavery. This is a far cry from the literalists of the pre-Civil War era, and a change that has continued to create social changes up to today.

Read Full Post »