They Will Not Control Us

You are not the prisoners of context. You are not the prisoners of your own bodies. You don't have to be.

You can transcend this interaction. You can transcend stimulus-response. You can transcend your impulses and urges.

Set yourselves free. You have the key to your attitude. How will you confront the world? How will you defend yourself from the onslaught of circumstance?

You have the power to change. You have the power to stop. You have the power to start over. Will you allow yourselves the opportunity to become something greater than yourself?

Christians say that Jesus died for your sins. What exactly did Jesus change? Did he change the environment? Did he change the laws of genetics? Did he stop complexity arising from simplicity?

How did you and I get here? We evolved. To such great hands does the creator of the Universe entrust its creation! Our current state is the direct result of doing whatever we could to survive.

Fighting, fear and fate. These are the masters of billions of years of natural selection. We have been engineered to survive. You have been engineered to become amoral beings. To be or not to be.

That is the sole moral law of our universe. Every act you consider good is only designed to ensure a fair chance of survival. Every wrong you do is wrong because it hurts another survivor. What's the difference?

Everyone wants to survive. What's fair to me is what I could get in my position if I were you. It's easy to deny someone else. It's preferable to look out for number one. Let me repeat: to be or not to be is the moral law.

However, you are not the hostage of fortune. This is the good news. You can be better by cooperating. You can transcend your fortune. You can defy fate. You can master probability. Do you want to transcend your own mere survival?

We can create a better legacy. You do not have to be controlled by your environment. You do not have to be consumed by your urges and impulses. You each have the ability to question everything you do. Inquiry is the ultimate path to transcendence.

______________________

This post found inspiration in Muse's song "Uprising" and in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

Ex-Christians and William Lane Craig

Earlier today, Demian Farnworth, author of the blog Fallen and Flawed, sent me a link to this podcast from Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.

Tonight, I will be live-blogging my reactions to Dr. Craig's commentary, having never heard this podcast before. Let's see how this goes.

Question: It seems like more and more Christian apologists are leaving the faith and actively promoting atheism on the Internet. What do you think? Further, is it really possible to leave the faith for intellectual rather than emotional reasons?

Dr. Craig: You could say that the increasing number of people leaving the faith who have studied apologetics is simply a function of the increasing number of people who are studying apologetics.

Other Host: I think we have to look at in on a case-by-case basis. Could someone leave the faith for any intellectual reasons, or is it emotional?

Dr. Craig: I think it's for moral reasons, frankly...I say that not on the basis of case studies or investigations, but on the basis of what Scripture says.

Me: Whoa, I was with you up until then. You haven't done any case studies, you haven't done any investigations - you don't have any stories or rumors. Just Scripture...not very convincing.

Dr. Craig: Scripture says that if you inculcate godliness into your character, you will not fail [emphasis mine].

Me: 'The Scripture says'. I've read entirely too many deconversion accounts where people have specifically related that losing their faith was the last thing they ever wanted to do, that they wanted to serve their God but just could no longer believe. 'The Scripture says' isn't doing it for me, because unlike Dr. Craig, I actually have read up on "case studies".

Dr. Craig: This is why Christian apologists must make sure that we're keeping our lives clean and pure and holy before God.

Me: Fine. But you honestly think every other person who ever deconverted didn't try that? That's the great thing about defending Christianity: it's so difficult that no one can reasonably be expected to live it, so easy that you can get a child to do it.

Dr. Craig: I think, ultimately, that no one either fails to come to faith or falls away from faith due to intellectual difficulties alone. Ultimately, it's a spiritual matter about the orientation of that person's heart, and whether that person truly wants God and is open to God, or whether that person is closing God out of his heart and mind.

The Other Host and Dr. Craig: Some other stuff about Paul.

Dr. Craig: Some of these Christian apologists who have fallen away will often be very open about the moral difficulties which have led to their falling away: immorality, pornography, adultery"

Other Host: It's pretty easy to get burned out...so the last thing we want to do is to start taking a hardened stance towards people.

Me: That sounds like fairly good advice to me for any profession.

Dr. Craig: Another danger is becoming too cerebral...Alvin Plantinga, his book talks about how because of sin we love ourselves instead of God...the Holy Spirit helps repair that and help us respond emotionally to God and love Him. And if we ignore that side of our personality, then we can become dry and burned out.

Other Host: Sometimes people need just a human touch.

Me: Again, that sounds like good advice.

Dr. Craig: I think when you look at the some of the narratives of those who have left the faith, you will find a bitterness and a disappointment with those in the Christian Church because people did not come along side of them and help them when they were going through their time of struggle.

Me: And that's pretty much the end of the discussion on that subject.

Dr. Craig is clearly sincere about his beliefs. When presented with the potential problem of people who shared the same beliefs as Dr. Craig and no longer believe what he believes - it's only natural that Dr. Craig should find a way to reconcile his opinion that he has correct beliefs with evidence that contradicts his beliefs. By dismissing those accounts, which very obviously contradict his beliefs if he grants that some of the people who've deconverted may have done so for intellectual reasons, he's reaffirmed his beliefs from doubt. Once one begins the path of 'there may be intellectual reasons against my belief', one's priority is going to be critical thinking, and one is going to end up questioning one's beliefs.

Of course, there are plenty of religious people who are good critical thinkers. But the beliefs of Dr. Craig clearly have the most important place in his life, subordinating all other interests and motivations. Intellectual reasons for deconversion? No way. It can't be. Get out of here. There must be some other reason for this incident - they must have sinned or something, or maybe they were never Christians in the first place? It's easy to rationalize, and in the end, that's what I think this process is.

When sincere religious believers such as Dr. Craig become aware that other people around them no longer share their beliefs, there's some tension that has to be resolved. If the belief is correct, then logically people wouldn't leave the faith for intellectual reasons. If people may have left for intellectual reasons, then the faith may not be all it's cracked up to be, and that's clearly an unacceptable option for Dr. Craig and for many others who present similar arguments about the true nature of ex-Christians.

Robespierre: A Lesson in Divine Justice

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country."

- Maximilien Robespierre

What if I said the following?

"God's righteousness is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of His righteousness which includes all honesty and virtue, applied perfectly according to His will."

What is the difference between these two statements?

The first statement is widely acknowledged as the creed of a madman. We recognize that abject terror, even in the service of admirable goals, is not at all admirable, but grounds for condemnation and repudiation.

Yet the second statement is widely espoused as a tenet of Christian dogma. What humanity would do, we consider abuse - but when a god does it, it is permissible.

Was Robespierre right to order thousands killed for the interests of the state? Can your God be called good if the result of said God's "righteousness" is the torment of billions?

Robespierre killed for the glory of the state and for himself, and he is labeled a narcissist and a cruel, sick man. Christians claims that their God kills and condemns for His own glory, yet they worship Him.

Divine command morality leads to this state of affairs: history's most notorious villains and the god of the Bible are indistinguishable.

Unconditional Love: An Atheist's Sermon

I believe that the best kind of love is unconditional love.

It is the best foundation for any type of serious relationship, and the most enduring type of love we know. Whether it is a married couple, a parent and child, a friend and a friend, or even a Saviour dying for his people, unconditional love is far and away better than any other type.

Even though I am not a Christian, I admire the story of Jesus, specifically the "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" part. I agree that dying for someone else is a very strong form of love and I would say that dying for someone based on unconditional love is the strongest love of all.

It is most directly this principle, in my opinion, which has allowed the Christian religion to fluorish for the last few thousand years. The reason which fundamentalist Christianity and Islam will ultimately decline is because they are not predicated upon unconditional love, but are based on conditional love instead. "God won't love you unless you do everything exactly the way we say it" may give these religions an evolutionary advantage. It may help them retain membership through coercion and other threats. This "fire and brimstone" theology, however, is doomed to fail, because it is counter-intuitive to the best human definitions of love.

One of my goals is not to debunk religion, but to debunk fundamentalism in religion. Much of the renewed vigor of atheists in recent years is directly attributable to a rise in global fundamentalism. However, I do not wish for my atheism to turn into fundamentalism. I admit that I appreciate the beauty and morality which can be found in many religions of our world. However, I will not hesitate to point out when certain elements of religion harm human beings instead of helping them.

I believe that there are other ways to help people besides religion, but I must admit that for many purposes religion is the most efficient means we have to decrease suffering, and as a moral utilitarian, I sincerely appreciate anything which decreases suffering in our world.

Fundamentalism is not unconditional love: it is not the unconditional love of Jesus. He spent time with prostitutes and theives and tax collectors (well-known frauds), and told them that there was a larger hope for them beyond the boundaries of their society's conception of religious dogma. Jesus brought into the world a sense that their was something innately more powerful than the religious law of his times, and in that sense he was correct: he gave license for many humans to unleash their unconditional love in the same way that he would give his love and forgiveness unconditionally.

Many people in our society say "the sacrifice of Jesus is necessary for salvation" or "the sacrifice of Jesus is necessary for forgiveness", and then attempt to exclude from that message of love and hope all who do not disagree with them on religion. However, from my readings of the Gospel, I remember that Jesus forgave sins before he died -- before he sacrificed himself on a cross, he still forgave sins. Because he forgave the sins of humanity, he was branded a heretic by the religious establishment of his times. Jesus advanced the idea that one human could forgive another, outside of the boundaries of the religious establishment. Of course, theology accounts for this being possible because he was a god, but what Christian will also deny his human nature, for to deny that is to deny his sacrifice?

I believe that he was a good man; maybe not as good as Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. They're close. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, was also a great leader. He tried to bridge the divide between Hindu and Muslim believers in his homeland, by saying that his god was neither Hindu nor Muslim, but above both.

I do not believe in Jesus' divinity, but I do believe in his message of love and forgiveness, as I also believe in the Buddha's message of compassion, though I also do not believe that the Buddha had a divine experience. Fundamentalists tell us that we can only experience unconditional love and forgiveness if we adhere exactly to their beliefs. If we believe this message, then we are denying our own humanity, for the capacity exists within all of us to be as unconditionally loving and forgiving as Jesus or as compassionate as the Buddha.

Religion can help us become better people when it is not divisive, petty, power-hungry, fearful or jealous.

1 John 4:16,18-19 (NIV) reads, "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him...There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us."

This passage is one of the best statements in the entire Bible.

Jesus brought love into the world to supercede the law. Fulfilling the law was the only way to reach God: fulfilling the law was the only way to reach the divine. And if one could not fulfill the law, one could not reach God. Early Christians recognized that it was impossible to fulfill the law. They recognized that there is a value in humanity infinitely more important than a law which is based on divine command: perfect, unconditional love.

The law was based on fear -- the law was based on fear, not love. And "the one who fears is not made perfect in love". The essential positive message of Jesus is that people are free to love other humans in him because he loved humanity. The number one doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled the law, freeing us to love other people as he loved us.

Love is more important than any divine law: this is the most important principle of Christianity. And it is a principle which fundamentalist Christians conclusively ignore. They always complain "hate the sin, love the sinner" or "what you're doing is wrong because it's against God's law" or they read passages from Leviticus in an attempt to feel smug with their knowledge of the law.

But Jesus and the early Christians knew that true love comes unconditionally, not through any divine law! The major problem with divine law is that basically your god is saying "this is good because I said so!" The early Christians knew that this didn't make sense -- they probably knew that the god of the Old Testament who orders genocidal massacres of thousands "because he said so" didn't make sense.

A much better, more profound message is "love because God first loved us". It is a more human message, and what better way to illustrate the shift of focus in religion from the divine to the human level by sending a human (Jesus) to preach this new message!

Jesus and his early followers were radical theological revolutionaries. Basically, Jesus was a kinder, more compassionate version of Martin Luther or John Calvin. The early Christians' new principle -- the way to access love, the way to access the divine -- is through unconditional love, not through the law, not through fear, and not through punishment -- was an amazing and spectacularly successful message. However, that message is perverted by all those who say "believe in Jesus or go to hell!"

John 3:16 is most Christians' favorite Bible verse, but what about John 3:18, which states that all those who do not believe are already condemned? True love is not made perfect through fear or through fear of punishment, as 1 John 4:18 so clearly states.

This is why I do not believe in the god of Isaiah 8:13 (NIV):

"The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread"

or the god of Jeremiah 5:22 (NIV):

"'Should you not fear me?' declares the Lord. 'Should you not tremble in my presence?'"

or the god of Hebrews 10:31 (NIV):

"It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

I do not believe in that god, such a god that is to be dreaded or feared. For love, unconditional love, is not made perfect through fear, or especially through fear of punishment, as the section from 1 John 4 so clearly demonstrates.

I believe in unconditional love and compassion, shared by such religious innovators as Jesus, Buddha, and Guru Nanak. What is love?

I look at 1 Corinthians 4:4-13 (NIV):

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love."

This is the love in which I believe. The Biblical god often boasts -- is easily angered -- keeps record of wrongs -- is not patient. Yet once we know of true unconditional love, this "poor reflection as in a mirror" shall pass away.

Everything shall pass away eventually: "where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away". One of my goals is to put these "childish ways" of religious dogmatism behind.

Jesus said "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" to those who crucified him. Yet the Old Testament god could not forgive Adam and Eve, who didn't even know the difference between god and evil? Who in the history of the entire universe would the words "forgive them, for they know not what they do?" apply to better than to Adam and Eve? That is indeed a "poor reflection in a mirror" of love.

Love is the greatest of all things. And whenever a manifestation of love is found, it deserves to be celebrated and embraced by all, regardless of its origin. Conversely, whenever something that stands in the way of love is found, it should be criticized and admonished, regardless of its origin.

There are many things in Christianity which celebrate love, and there are many things in Christianity which go firmly against the grain of love. Though Christianity as we know it may pass away, true love will never fail, as long as there are humans to spread unconditional love.

This is why I celebrate Jesus, but not Yahweh, and forgiveness and love, but not fire and brimstone.

What Is Love? Examining Biblical Claims (Part One)

This post is the first in a series of posts where I'll be critically examining Biblical claims.

The Text:

1 John 4:16-18 (NIV) -- "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

vs.

Isaiah 8:13 (NIV) -- "The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread"

Jeremiah 5:22 (NIV) -- "'Should you not fear me?' declares the Lord. 'Should you not tremble in my presence?'"

Hebrews 10:31 (NIV) -- "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Conflicting Claims:

The Biblical god is love. The Bible itself declares that "there is no fear in love"; yet the god of the Bible declares himself as "the one you are to fear" and "the one you are to dread".

Furthermore, the Bible declares that "the one who fears is not made perfect in love". However, Bible readers are exhorted numerous times to "fear" their god. While an argument may be made that "fear" referenced in some verses has a different definition than the "fear" referenced in other verses, I am confident that the explicit inclusion of terms such as "dread" and "tremble" should illuminate for us what kind of fear to which the text is referring, if the translation I have in front of me is has an accurate translation (it's NIV). So, the Biblical audience is repeatedly urged to fear their god, but those who fear are not made perfect in love, which their god is claimed to be. Is the Biblical god a god of fear or a god of love? According to the texts, the Biblical god is alternately both a god of love and a god of fear. However, the verses are clear here that fear is not a sound basis for love. Fear is not what love is. But the Biblical god is presented as a being to be feared, whom one should dread and also tremble in its presence.

But Aren't You Rejecting Love?

I believe that there is a greater love outside the contents of this book than there is within its contents. Yes, fear does nothing to grow or enhance love for one another. However, the Biblical god relies upon coercion and fear. Why not love for love's own sake?

Much of the Old Testament (and the rest of the Bible) was written by people who had a different understanding of the world than we do today. At that time, violence and bloodshed was a critical part of survival. Fear meant protection. Fear meant safety. Fear meant respect. The world was a much different place for those who wrote the Bible than it is today. One can imagine why people living in such fearful times would associate "fear" with "power". There's no real harm in acknowledging that our world has changed in the last few thousand years, and that our moral standards have also changed in the process. I agree that love, with a solid foundation in human empathy, is a powerful and worthy quality. I also agree that extreme levels of fear are counterproductive in preparing the groundwork of love.