Hey Steve,
This is your ex-Chess Chum now living down in ----. Hope all is well up there in ----.
Unfortunately, I don't have much time, so I'll try to get to my question:
I've recently been giving more consideration to my concerns about the Bible. Call it a critical review of the faith. In doing so, I've also been reviewing other religions, and thoughts from those professing atheism or agnosticism, or folks who I just consider wise (you being one, of course).
The question I have for you is "How do you reconcile the beginning of the world as we know it?" I read a good bit of your site back when I was up in ----, and today I reviewed a couple email threads you have on the site, including the one from the lady who "recognizes the difference between God and the God of the Bible". In my consideration of Atheism, and in truly giving it a chance, the one issue that I can't reconcile with "What makes sense" is the idea that this world just came from nowhere. It's a bit much for me to believe that the order that there is in the world "just happened". How do you reconcile this? As a comment, I also have problems with evolution, but that's for another time.
Another question, secondary in my mind, but worth asking: How can someone who does not believe in God push for any kind of morals? (By the way, I don't know if you are an atheist, but I figure you've fielded such questions...) To me, if there is no God, then we all do what we want to do, and there are no absolutes. That means, I do what I want, and I suffer the consequences or reap the benefits. And when I die, that's it. Now of course, there are plenty of reasons for me to chose to live a life that many would describe a "moral" (basically, a life of love), but for me to push any of my "morality" onto anyone else would seem a bit hypocritical (to me) since I already know that there's no higher power waiting to judge, no higher power who has set the "rules", and the earthly consequences to a person's actions will run their course anyway. (It would take me pages to better describe my point, but hopefully you see it).
Holler when you can man.
Much Love,
C.
Hi C.,
I'm finally finding an hour or so to get back to you.
To refresh our brains, you said:
The question I have for you is "How do you reconcile the beginning of the world as we know it?" I read a good bit of your site back when I was up in ----, and today I reviewed a couple email threads you have on the site, including the one from the lady who "recognizes the difference between God and the God of the Bible". In my consideration of Atheism, and in truly giving it a chance, the one issue that I can't reconcile with "What makes sense" is the idea that this world just came from nowhere. It's a bit much for me to believe that the order that there is in the world "just happened". How do you reconcile this? As a comment, I also have problems with evolution, but that's for another time.
Great question! My simple answer (the one that has virtually become my motto) is:
No one knows more about the unknowable than anyone else.
That includes the "wise ones" (whomever you may think them to be)!
Then, of course, it comes down to what is knowable and what is unknowable. The hard-core stance would be to say that nothing is knowable (since this could all be an elaborate "dream" of some kind imagined by your own mind with no external existence.) But that's not a useful hypothesis if you hope to find any meaning (or joy) in life.
So, I take the stance that what is knowable is what we can perceive by our five senses, and what is highly probable is what we can deduce from physical evidence.
Where there is no possibility of physical evidence, I try to keep an "open mind," because no one knows about that realm. However, I think we're justified in rejecting anything that contradicts known facts.
So, there are various filters that I run claims through.
For instance, if someone tells me that the earth is flat, I reject the statement on the grounds of physical evidence immediately.
If someone tells me that the universe was created in six days about 6,000 years ago, I also reject the statement -- but not quite as fast, because it takes a little more sampling of the physical evidence to determine this (it's not quite as obvious as the earth not being flat.)
You probably know about the "Doppler effect" which gives light waves a blue or red shift if they are moving towards or away from us. This red shift is observable in clusters of galaxies all about us. It is physical proof that the universe is expanding, and has been for billions of years. I know you realize that I can't begin to back up all the science behind this in an email -- I can refer you to books on the subject if you like, but I think what you really want from me is just to know how an atheist accounts for the universe. Suffice it to say that the speed of light is a known constant value, and that we have detected light from stars billions of light years away. If they were created 6,000 years ago, they would've had to have been created with light waves already emanating from them for billions of light years from their surface in order to have reached the earth already. This is possible, but if this were actually the case, it would seem as if God were trying to trick us into believing that the stars were in existence billions of years ago. This would be a case of expecting us to deny the physical evidence in favor of ancient myths which were told before humankind had built up the scientific evidence we have today. I don't blame our primitive ancestors for coming up with an anthropomorphic simple tale to explain the origins of our world: it was the best they could do with what they had at their disposal. But today we have the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years: to deny all of that in favor of a literal acceptance of those primitive myths would be a willful step back into ignorance.
Since the universe has been expanding for billions of years, billions of years ago it all must've been much closer together. In fact, there is evidence (in background radiation in space) that it was all once tightly compacted and it exploded outwards in what is commonly known as the "Big Bang". At first there were only the simplest of elements: hydrogen, and then helium, etc. After a while stars formed... after some millions of years some stars starting dying out. We know from observations today that depending on their size stars experience different kinds of deaths. Some collapse into black holes, some explode. The evidence points to the elements on earth having been manufactured in the exploding of a star.
I can give you more details in the future (I'm planning to start an intensive study of history: starting at the very beginning, very soon!) But I suspect that I may still not be getting to the core of your question.
When I was a "believer" I thought that evolution missed the whole point. The whole point to me was: okay even if you believe in evolution, who created the "stuff" that evolved in the first place? It seemed like evolution was not starting at square one (which was firmly occupied, in my mind, by "God.") I think this is closer to what you're asking: how could all this order have just happened, and how could it have come from nothing?
Good questions. I think the human mind can only partially answer this. That's because we have finite brains which are attempting to contemplate the infinite. Our brains evolved to handle simple survival, not wrestle with questions about infinity! (I think this is why anthropomorphic myths seem more appealing and comforting to us than the cold hard facts of science.)
But what we can partially answer: how order comes out of chaos. My online "God" book explains this better than I can off the top of my head, but I'll try to give you the bottom line: As long as you have matter you are going to have some kinds of processes going on. Given their nature, atoms will interact in a certain variety of known ways (given the four basic forces: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, and electro-magnetic). Something is going to happen. A lot of meaningless, useless interactions will happen, but given billions of years of time, eventually something will happen which we (somewhat arbitrarily given our human bias) would characterize as "orderly".
Yes, the chances of life having evolved exactly as we see it today are extremely small. But the chances that something would've evolved are very good.
The example I gave in my book was similar to this: think about your own life: the many coincidences, accidents, chance meetings, victories and defeats which have made up your life and which have formed the person you are today. If we were to look at those incidents we could honestly say that the chances against all of those things happening just the way they did (in order to make the C. we see today, complete with all of those memories) are astronomical! But, does that cast doubt on the fact that they did in fact happen? No. We knew, when looking at baby C., that things would happen that would mold his personality and eventually form his memories. We didn't know exactly what those events and circumstances would be, but we knew that something would happen.
We don't now look at C. and exclaim: it's impossible that all of those particular details should've come about to produce this person exactly as we see him today: he must've been created exactly like this from the very start (he came out of the womb as a football-playing computer-programming loving husband and father...)
So too, we don't look at a chimpanzee and assume that it must've been created just that way from the start (because the chances are too great against all of the circumstances which had to transpire in order for the chimp to be as we see him today.)
If you shoot an arrow up into the air you can't predict exactly where it will land (theoretically maybe you could if you exactly knew all of the factors involved -- but we're speaking practically here for the sake of argument.) But it is still a pretty good bet that it will land somewhere! You could say that the chances against it landing in the particular spot where it did in fact land were huge. Yet the chance that it would land somewhere was 100%.
So, what I think is this: people get freaked out by the thought of all the "chance" involved with the earth and its life having formed the way it did without a conscious intelligence guiding it. But, they are falling into the type of thinking I've tried to illustrate above.
It is as if they're thinking that nature itself had a mind (humans are given to anthropomorphism) and tried to bring about humans as its ultimate goal (like trying to predict at birth all of C.'s life experiences and then trying to bring them about, or trying to predict exactly where the arrow will land). Then they think that nature had to wait for just the right chances to occur to bring about its goal. That's what seems incredible: if nature was trying to produce a certain goal. But it wasn't. There is no mind to nature: just a handful of physical laws. There was no "trying" involved. Natural processes just occurred naturally. Something was bound to come of it (not necessarily us.)
But whatever was to become of it would be molded and formed in the living conditions existing on the earth. So, it would naturally be in great harmony with its surroundings (really being part of those surroundings, and only thinking it was separate from nature due to its vanity.) So it would be in tune with the diurnal and nocturnal cycles of the planet. It would need to breathe exactly the type of atmosphere found on the planet. It could only survive in the temperature range produced by the distance the planet was from the star it orbited, etc...
All of these processes have been observed in one way or another by now. In the laboratories scientists have watched simple amino acids ("the building blocks of life") form out of the simplest elements when an electric charge was applied (reproducing the conditions of the early earth with its atmosphere and lighting strikes.) Evolution has likewise been proven through experimentation as well as observation. There are no reputable scientists today who deny the Big Bang or evolution (despite the misleading statements made by some fundamentalist ministers). The only scientific "disputes" in this regard are about the details of HOW it happened, not IF it happened.
But, still you ask: where did the matter come from that exploded in the big bang? Well, remember when I said we could only answer partially? This is the part we can't really answer. It is one of those "infinite" questions in the unknowable realm beyond our finite brains. Some people (like me when I was young) are tempted to say "God made it." Of course people are free to believe that statement, and who can prove otherwise? I myself no longer accept that statement, and I'll tell you why...
At some point we reach the limits of our brains to comprehend the infinite. Because we are temporal, and everything we deal with on a daily basis (including ourselves) has a beginning and an end, we just can't adequately fathom an infinity of time or space. So, we go back to the instant of the Big Bang, and naturally we want to know: what happened before that? It's a question we can't answer. One thought is that nothing happened before then because the Big Bang was when time started (inside the compressed matter prior to the big bang it was like a black hole in which time stops.) Another thought is that time and space are both infinite: they never started and will never end (perhaps the universe expands and contracts cyclically): but we can't fathom an infinity of space or time anymore than we can fathom that time or space could be finite (you can't picture an end to space without your brain picturing more space on the other side of the "end".)
So, why do I accept such thoughts which I can't fathom, but reject the thought of a creator (which I also can't fathom)? Good question. The reason is pretty simple: the concept of God just adds more of the "unknowable" and "unfathomable" into the equation, and I see no need or justification for that.
In science and philosophy there is the "law of parsimony" (aka Occam's razor). This states that you shouldn't multiply entities needlessly. What that means is that you should accept the simplest explanation which fits the facts and not add extraneous or more complicated causes.
So, for instance, if our ancestors saw a boulder roll down a mountain and crush a village, they might conclude that their god was angry and pushed the boulder onto the village to punish it. Today, however, we understand the law of gravity and we know that it is a sufficient (and simple) explanation for the tragedy. There is no need to postulate invisible angry spirit beings in order to account for it.
So too with the existence of the universe. Science has provided explanations which fit the facts and which are supported by the physical evidence. There is no need to postulate an invisible spirit ("God") to account for it.
To put it another way: if it's hard to imagine matter springing into existence out of nothing or having always existed in some form, it seems even harder to imagine a conscious intelligent super-being having either come into existence out of nothing or having always existed.
Or, look at it this way: if you think matter is so complex that it must've had an intelligent creator, then what about the creator himself? Certainly he would be at least as complex as the matter he created. Following your rule (namely that complex things require an intelligent creator) there must've been an intelligent creator of the creator (and a creator of that creator, ad infinitum.) Of course you could say that God is the exception to your rule. But I think it's very poor reasoning [bordering on a contradiction] to have the central figure of your rule be the only exception to your rule. The structure of the argument is: I'm going to prove the existence of X by means of rule Y to which X is the sole exception.
Remember that the worn-out phrase, "the exception proves the rule" does not mean what most people seem to think it means. It does not mean that an exception proves that a rule is true: it could never possibly do that! It means that an exception "tests" the rule (another meaning of "proving" something), and if the exception is significant enough then the exception proves that the rule is false.
In primitive times people did "rain dances" to get the gods to make it rain, or performed human sacrifices to appease a volcano god, etc. With the advance of science (which is really just the art of paying attention to reality) we found out the real causes of rain and volcanic eruptions. We stopped attributing natural causes to gods. And so it seems that when we said, "God did it" what we were really saying was "we don't know what caused it". As ignorance steadily vanishes, so does the role of God.
We now know something about how life formed on this planet, and about how the planet itself formed. It would be taking a step backwards into ignorance to now say "God did it." It would be like saying "we don't know," but we do know (to the degree of certainty I spoke about at the start of this letter.)
Finally, keep in mind that although mutations are random, natural selection is anything but random. And it is natural selection which accounted for the bulk of evolution.
Your second question was:
Another question, secondary in my mind, but worth asking: How can someone who does not believe in God push for any kind of morals? (By the way, I don't know if you are an atheist, but I figure you've fielded such questions...) To me, if there is no God, then we all do what we want to do, and there are no absolutes. That means, I do what I want, and I suffer the consequences or reap the benefits. And when I die, that's it. Now of course, there are plenty of reasons for me to chose to live a life that many would describe a "moral" (basically, a life of love), but for me to push any of my "morality" onto anyone else would seem a bit hypocritical (to me) since I already know that there's no higher power waiting to judge, no higher power who has set the "rules", and the earthly consequences to a person's actions will run their course anyway. (It would take me pages to better describe my point, but hopefully you see it).
I think I know what you mean. This is something I hear from a lot of people when they find out I'm an atheist. "So, why be good?" they ask. Here's how I see it...
First of all, "being good" BECAUSE of being watched (with the implication of some sort of reward or punishment) is not acting in an altruistic manner. It is simply a transaction. The person entering into this transaction is essentially saying, "I will act in the prescribed manner in order to reap the benefits and/or escape the punishment." It is similar to drivers who speed and who don't come to a full stop behind the crosswalk and the stop-sign as long as there are no police around. (sorry; I'm revealing some of my pet peeves here) Are they really law-abiding citizens? I say no. The person who respects the law obeys it whether or not he is observed by those who can enforce it.
Now, with the religious motivation for good behavior, it is as if the police are always watching whether you can see them or not (the police in religion are omnipresent and quite invisible!) So there is never really a chance to test and see if a person would be good without supervision. So, we don't know if they are good because of the supervision, or because they are good at heart.
Some people seem to need the police watching them at all times (e.g. most drivers!) They will not obey the law on their own. These people are not law-abiding citizens. The law-abiding citizen obeys the law for reasons other than the potential reward or punishment meted out by the authorities. He obeys the law because he knows the laws have been mutually agreed upon by the society in which he lives for the good of the whole, etc.
So too, the altruistic person will be good whether or not he believes an authority figure is watching.
It follows that we do not need God in order to be good. And, in fact, adding God into the equation cannot help to make one truly good (though it could cause one to do good actions for self-interested motives.) It's just like stationing a patrol car on the highway: as people quickly apply their brakes it doesn't mean they've suddenly become law-abiding citizens (albeit they are suddenly obeying the law.)
But why be good?
The question requires a self-interested answer, and so is rather paradoxical. It is as if we are making the demand: "Give me a self-interested reason why I shouldn't be selfish!"
Strangely enough, I think I've found a good reason which doesn't violate the spirit of the idea!
In a word, the reason is: empathy.
A highly empathetic person actually feels another's pain and joy. Making you feel bad makes me feel bad, and making you feel happy makes me feel happy. So, I will avoid actions that cause you pain (physical or emotional) and I will do actions that cause you happiness. I call this "being good."
"Ethics through empathy" is self-enforcing. Empathetic individuals "do good" because, for them, it is the ultimate high. When they hear "it is better to give than to receive," they don't shrug their shoulders and say, "Yeah, right;" they have first-hand experience of the truthfulness of that statement.
Why feel empathy? Because we are all one. Remember the Big Bang? We are all star stuff; we are all out of that one compact mass of matter (and maybe someday will all merge back together as part of the cycle.) The universe is really one thing playing at being separate individuals. This is as metaphysical as I get, and I recommend you read The Book on the Secret of Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts; he explains this idea better than I can.
Since matter is never destroyed, but only transformed, when we die it is just one of those "play selves" of the universe expiring. The universe will try out other consciousnesses, which will likewise believe that they are separate isolated entities, when in reality we are all just the one universe looking at itself from several billion different vantage points and eyes.
So then, we should feel a powerful connection with other living things (and not only within our own race or species.) This is what naturally leads to a feeling of empathy and to the ethical precepts which follow.
But how do we then "push for morals (for others)?" In only a limited way. They say "you can't legislate morality," and I think that's true. All you can do is teach people (largely by example) that giving feels great while hurting others makes you feel lousy. The actions have to stem from the individual's own motivation: otherwise it's not real.
I believe that the next steps in evolution for humans won't be physical, but rather intellectual and emotional. We will evolve into ever more empathetic beings, and will put away our weapons of war and will learn to treat the environment and the non-human animals with care.
Now you know why I characterize myself as a "skeptical idealist." :-)
How has your wife handled your change in beliefs. Was she a Jehovah's witness? What is she now? Was this change difficult for her and yourself? Give me as many details as you can.
I haven't had a change in beliefs since I've known her. I was an atheist when we first met 21 years ago. She was never a Jehovah's Witness. She was a Methodist and is now a "born againer". If there has been any change in beliefs, it is in that she has become more serious about hers (I was always serious about mine.)
She didn't seem to care much about religion when we got married, but now she attends a weekly Bible study and has recently started attending church on Sundays.
We have had our share of religious arguments over the years. She refuses to entertain any possible thought that might "lead her astray". My online book "Can the Bible be God's Word?" (aka The Cure for Fundamentalism) was originally written for her -- she refused to read it. It took me two years to write, so instead of letting it go to waste I published it on my website, but it upsets me to think that she wouldn't read it.
We have agreed not to discuss religion. It is an exercise in tolerance for us both.
Do you have any hope for an afterlife? If not, how do you encourage yourself when life get's you down, since there's no apparent eternal equalizer when this is all over? If when you die, all that is left is what you did and your legacy (which you won't get to enjoy), then is the trouble of life worth it (I think you know where I'm going with this one)?
No, I don't believe in an afterlife per se. I believe that the universe goes on "trying out" different things, and different temporary consciousnesses arise and eventually die. In a way I guess "I" go on after death insofar as "I" (like everyone) am the universe. But my individual memories and self-concept (what religions call a "soul") will not.
I guess I encourage myself by putting things in perspective. I am a temporary consciousness of the universe: just a speck on a planet which is just a speck in a solar system which is just a speck in a galaxy which is just a speck in the universe. How critical is it if my feelings get hurt, or if I have a hard day at the office, or a fight with my wife? Yes, these things make me feel bad, but when I put it into perspective I have to laugh.
Another way I encourage myself is by realizing that my life is pretty good, all things considered. I think about people in third world or war-torn countries, children starving, or families living hand-to-mouth. This is just another way of putting things into perspective.
Finally, I encourage myself by volunteering. In accordance with my thoughts about empathy, I find that I just can't wallow in self-pity for long when I start to do something to help someone else.
I don't see how believing in an "eternal equalizer" after death would encourage me. If someone hurts my feelings, would I feel better knowing that he or she will "get theirs" in the afterlife? That would hardly cheer me up; I don't want anyone to suffer (now or eternally!)
For me, life is worth it not because of some hoped-for afterlife, but because of what I can do now with my life. Since I believe that this life is all this particular consciousness called "Steve McRoberts" will ever experience, I try to make the most of the limited time this consciousness has. No matter how bad it may get, I persevere because I know that once the ride is over for this particular consciousness -- that's it.
The finality of that doesn't bother me much. My memories aren't so extraordinary that I feel they should be preserved for eternity. In fact, many of my memories are depressing: I'd rather forget about them. Nor do I think that I'm such an extraordinary specimen of humanity that I should be kept around forever. I am just one of billions of consciousnesses that were tried -- one that lived for a while as best it could, and tried in a limited way to increase its understanding of reality -- and then died and was discarded and forgotten. Life goes on (but my particular consciousness will not.)
But I can imagine situations in which life would not be worth living. In fact, I am a suicide survivor. At one point in my life I did come to the conclusion that life was not worth the effort. Looking back I realize that I had options available that I hadn't considered, and so it was a mistake. But I can think of situations where it would not be a mistake, so I don't think it's morally wrong for someone to take their own life in truly hopeless situations.
If there is no God, and you do the "rational compassionate" approach, how do you handle when doing good to one person means doing harm to someone else? In other words, "You can't please everybody". As a follow up, how do you handle guilt, when you decide to violate your own code? Also, how do you handle the atheist who decides that they don't care what happens to other people, because they can block out any guilt, and the pleasure of having their own way is worth it? In other words, more simply, how do you address the atheist who makes up their own rules when the rules aren't in line with "rational compassionate living"? Can any atheist be "wrong"?
This is where the rational part of my philosophy of life comes in. I can't lay it all out ahead of time in some rulebook; it depends on the circumstances. One must figure it out at the time (based on the principles of one's philosophy of life.) In my case this would involve using reason to determine the most compassionate thing to do.
To answer your question I would need to know the exact circumstances of the situation. My rule of thumb would be to weigh the consequences of the various acts involved. How good is the good, and how harmful is the harm? Also: is it truly a zero-sum game, or can I do good to both (or a little good to both)?
For instance, say Debi wants me to buy her an expensive dress for her birthday. But, in order to do this I would have to cancel this month's contribution to UNICEF. If I do good to my wife, I do harm to the children who would be helped by my contribution. If I do good to the children, I do harm to my wife in thwarting her desire for the dress. To resolve this I would weigh the good on both sides and the harm on both sides. I would try to do the action that resulted in the most good and the least amount of harm. (Possibly I could buy a less expensive dress, or I could borrow the money, etc. and do some good to both parties.)
How would I handle the guilt if I acted out of concert with that decision? Usually, in order to assuage my guilt I find that I make some sort of attempt at restitution. Maybe I'd send a double contribution the following month.
Yes, any atheist (just like any other human being) can be wrong. How do I handle the immoral atheist you describe? Well, I don't handle him! All I do is tell people what I think makes sense as a philosophy of life, and I try to live by that. If others have a different philosophy, that's up to them: they will benefit from it or suffer the consequences of it according to how well it works with reality.
Of course if a person does something so blatantly immoral that it is also illegal, then he will have to face the consequences of the justice system that society has set up to protect itself. I certainly support that.
Hedonistic people will derive some minor pleasures out of life, no doubt. But they will miss out on the greatest pleasures of life (such as true friends -- who wants a selfish person as a close friend?) So, I see it as a philosophy of life that doesn't work too well. A wealthy person can certainly buy all the "friends" he wants, but they will just be sycophants who will probably really loathe him (and he will probably know that at some level and will have to live with that.)
I really don't think that an atheist is any more inclined to pursue a selfish hedonistic lifestyle than anyone else. You might be surprised at some of the things I've heard Christians admit to. For instance, there was one who admitted to me that he was just in the religion to get his reward of "everlasting life." Just like he goes to work to collect a paycheck [his example]. There was no love for others, no empathy towards outsiders, no discernable desire to live a moral life. It was all based on reward. To my way of thinking that's not ethical: it is in fact the ultimate selfishness.
Recommended reading
Take care,
Steve
I don't agree with this statement,
in as much as "wrong" is defined as some offense against an absolute right.
In an atheist's own mind, the only thing that is "wrong" is what that person defines as wrong...
Also, by definition, no atheist can call another person "wrong" on any point...
I think you have drawn an artificial line between atheists and Christians. People aren't born with a belief in Christianity and the Bible as God's Word. At some point they make a decision to buy into the idea that the Bible constitutes "absolute right," just as I have bought into the idea that empathy is a guide to what is right. In both cases a personal decision is made. The difference lies in the aftermath: in an actual situation a Christian will consult the Bible for guidance, whereas I will consult reason and empathy. (Though, even that difference isn't so absolute, as I will point out in a moment.)
The important point here is that both groups have made a very personal decision as to what will be their guide. Both are then entitled to judge themselves or others as "wrong" in relation to their personally chosen guide.
Finally, we must remember that the Bible was written by men. Who is to say that these men knew the mind of God accurately enough to serve as our moral guide today? If it doesn't give evidence of being a godly book (as I would strongly argue), then all a Christian has done is taken the sort of personal decision-making you accuse atheists of, and passed the responsibility on to some ancient anonymous writers.
Even in the case of the Bible believer, though, I think that personal decisions are still made in relation to the situation at hand (rather than relying on an absolute rulebook.) The link I referred you to gave some good examples of these (where one commandment conflicts with another, and a person would have to personally weigh the consequences of each to arrive at a moral decision.) For instance, the absolute rulebook might state "thou shalt not steal": but would it really be wrong to steal a neighbor's gun if you knew he was about to murder his wife with it? So, you end up doing the same weighing of consequences that I do as an atheist.
So, it seems to me, that everyone (from atheists to Christians) is obliged to (and actually does) determine morality for themselves.
Another good point that link made is that morality really arises out of our relationships with each other. It springs naturally and necessarily from society, and there is no reason to drag gods into the picture.
Buddhists tend to be very moral people. Yet, in the purest form of Buddhism there are no gods. Not that I'm recommending Buddhism, but just to show that morality can exist quite well without gods. (I believe the same holds true for followers of Confucius as well: they are very focused on doing the "right" thing, but it's all based on what's best for society as a whole.)
I think that Christians sometimes forget that they didn't invent ethics.
I really don't think that an atheist is any more inclined to pursue a selfish hedonistic lifestyle than anyone else...
Another one I have to disagree with...christians and other religious groups have little choice in the matter. Atheists make there own rules, and can change the rules whenever they feel.
The Christian has the same choice as the atheist: to follow their personally-decided-upon moral guidelines or not. The Christian decided at some point to accept Christianity and its rules. But even then they didn't really lose their free-will (they didn't stop being human). In the end, each and every decision is still a personal one for Christians and atheists alike. Let me give you some examples.
I know a Catholic couple who take their Catholicism very seriously. Now, Catholicism is very much an "authoritarian" religion. It is very "top-down." They believe that the Pope is God's mouthpiece on earth, and is infallible when pontificating on matters of religion. Yet, in direct violation of the very strict rules of their religion (and the direct commandment of their Pope), they practice birth control. This couple still consider themselves Catholics. But they are deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong without reference to the authority they claim to recognize. Evidently they trust the authority of their own hearts above all others.
Have you ever seen the movie The Sound of Music? It is based on a true story. I don't know if this particular incident from the movie is true or not, but it doesn't matter as it illustrates my point. When the Von Trapp family was hiding from the Nazis in a convent, the Nazis asked one of the nuns whether they were hiding there. They said they would believe her because they knew she had a reputation for never having told a lie. But she lied and told them that they weren't hiding there. Everyone who sees that movie (atheist and Christian alike) knows that what she did was right. So, it would appear that Christianity is not so absolute in its rule that lying is wrong.
My final example involves what happens when society becomes more moral than the Bible.
Do Christians cling to the Bible with its absolutes, or do they accept society's rules:
and on what basis do they make that decision?
On any Sunday morning in the middle of the 19th century, one could find Christian preachers throughout the south addressing their congregations with sermons justifying slavery. They had a strong case.
Their Bibles told them that starting way back in Genesis (9:25-27) an entire group of people were condemned to be slaves simply by virtue of their being descendants of Canaan (who himself had done nothing wrong other than be the son of Ham who had happened to see his drunken father naked.)
According to the Bible, when God laid down his "perfect" law, he did not outlaw slavery: he regulated it. He said that slaves could be beaten to death (as long as they took at least a day or two to die -- Ex. 21:20-21). He said that a slave's children were his master's property (if he got married while a slave) and that the children must stay with his master if the slave should ever win his freedom and leave (Ex. 21:4-6).
In the supposedly more enlightened "New Testament" we read the commandment "Slaves, be obedient to your masters." (1 Peter 2:19,19 see also 1 Tim. 6:1) We also have the example of Paul returning a run-away slave to his master (the letter he wrote to the slave's "master" is preserved for us in the Bible as "Philemon" and so is considered sacred!)
Benjamin Palmer was one of those southern preachers. A "founding father" of the Southern Presbyterian church in New Orleans. Here are some of his words from that period:
"The descendants of Ham, in whom the sensual and corporeal appetites predominate, are driven like an infected race beyond the deserts of Sahara, where under a glowing sky nature harmonizes with their brutal and savage disposition...Let us say, with all the distinctness and emphasis with which words of destiny are ever uttered, that we will conserve this institution of domestic servitude, not only from the pressure of necessity and from the instinct of interest -- not only from a feeling of trusteeship over the race thus providentially committed to us -- not even at last from a general conviction of the righteousness of the course -- but also from a special sense of duty to mankind... Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude... The abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic... the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law."
It was indeed the humanists (joined by some liberal-minded Northern preachers) who challenged the morality of slavery. No doubt the Northern preachers concentrated on "do unto others", etc. But I honestly think the southern preachers had the stronger Biblical case; they knew about "do unto others" too, but they must've seen no contradiction between this and slavery since the Bible condoned it. To the southern plantation owners, the fight was not just to retain their livelihood, it was a defense of God's law as stated in their absolute rulebook the Bible.
Eventually our society advanced in its moral maturity and realized that slavery was wrong. But this was largely in spite of Christianity, which certainly does not condemn the practice and even condones it.
So, how do Christians resolve this contradiction between what they know is morally wrong and what the Bible holds is not morally wrong? I would say that here again we see people relying on their own sense of compassion over and above any top-down authority. Or, to give it the more negative sounding slant that you did: they are making up their own rules or changing the official rules to suit themselves -- just like atheists do, just like everyone does.
It's just that Christian fundamentalists then have an extra cleanup job to do: go back and somehow wrest the Scriptures into agreement with their newfound moral code. This, of course, can be done, but it has never struck me as particularly convincing or honest.
Of course there are some who continue to cling to the [more honest but less moral] literal meaning of the Bible. These are the people who really scare me: like president Bush who calls the Bible "a pretty good political handbook"! It's just a good thing that he can't read ;-)
Empathy lies deep in everyone's heart: put there by evolution to help ensure the survival of the species (rather than the individual). There are only a few things which can usurp the rightful place of empathy and cause people to act against the interests of humanity as a whole. I think history has shown that religion is on the top of that list, followed by its close second: patriotism.
Recommended reading: Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery by Stephen R. Haynes (Oxford University Press, 2002).
What is the best way, in your mind, for a rational compassionate atheist to handle their own dying days, when they know their christian wife will agonize over the perceived "hell" that the atheist is going to?
Well, first of all the atheist could do everything in his power to convince his wife that "hell" is a medieval invention of priests who were trying to scare their superstitious and poorly educated congregations into tithing and buying indulgences. He could demonstrate that the Jews had no such notion of a place of torment after death (the concept is not referred to or implied anywhere in the Old Testament). That there is no evidence for such a place, and that there is no reason to assume that such a place exists anymore than Neverland exists.
Failing that, I suppose a "death-bed conversion" would be the most loving thing to stage if one could pull it off. Of course, the atheist would ask his wife not to make the "conversion" public so as to undo all the work he tried to do in his life to help advance the cause of morality in the world.
I want to say that I tremendously appreciate the depth of your answers, and for taking the time. I know I haven't divulged too much with regards to my ultimate stance on things, but as you would understand, that's not wise for me to do for now, since I'm in more of a contemplative mode.
That's fine. I don't mind. I enjoy an intelligent conversation. I am curious to see where it will all lead you.
Hey Steve,
I'll try to keep it up with the writing, but (and I guess you are expecting this) it will take a bit longer to get through the topics.
I think you have drawn an artificial line between atheists and Christians.
While I agree with your conclusion that both atheists and the religious have free will and make their own choices, the line I draw between the two groups is not artificial. Your response proves my point. You are able, time after time, to refer to what the Bible says and then compare Christians' actions to it, to determine if they are TRUE christians, or fundamentalists as you might state it, or if they are just making up their own rules. My point is, there is no such book to refer to for ahteists, or those who don't claim any religious (or other) affiliation.
The validity of what's in the Bible is a separate issue. Consistency or inconsistency, low moral standards, etc. are all worth pointing out, but the more they are pointed out proves my point that there is nothing to point out for the atheist. Now while an atheist may not be able to escape the empathy that is deep in their heart through evolution, they do not have to answer to anyone if they do attempt to escape it.
One of the main criticisms that atheists make of religion is founded on how those claiming a religion don't actually live according to their religion's doctrine. My point is that there is no standing code by which to compare atheists to. If I'm an atheist, I can do whatever I want, and I don't owe allegiance to anyone or anything. One can argue that the Catholic couple you described were being disobedient... why... because they know what the Catholic church's rules are as far as birth control. One can not refer to any such rules for atheists.
No doubt the Northern preachers concentrated on "do unto others", etc. But I honestly think the southern preachers had the stronger Biblical case
It wouldn't be fair assessment of the bible on this subject if you ignore the scripture that tells slave owners how to respectfully deal with their slaves, if you ignore the fact that in the letter you site (Philemon) Paul encourages the owner to treat the slave like a brother and no longer as a slave, and if you ignore that the slaves are encouraged to obtain their freedom if possible. The teachings in the new testament with regards to slavery do not encourage enslaving FREE people, it more so addresses those who are already in the situation of being a slave owner or being a slave. In the same way, Paul does not encourage believers to marry unbelievers, but he does address the situation when a person who is married becomes a believer.
I would say, you weaken the power of the points you make when you ignore the "other side of the story", because it doesn't appear even handed and objective in your evaluation of the bible's contents, in my "humble" opinon...
:)
For the record though, I agree with much of what you have said in this response and others, as well as what's on your website.
There are only a few things which can usurp the rightful place of empathy and cause people to act against the interests of humanity as a whole. I think history has shown that religion is on the top of that list, followed by its close second: patriotism.
Again, I don't think you're being honest here. This statement sounds like you've already had it in for religion and patriotism. According to your own reasoning, the system (religion, patriotism) does not determine what decisions a person makes. You said that people decide to do what they want to do, even if it goes against what the religion's doctrine says. So, if the religious doctrine was "bad", then a person would only do it if they themselves were wanting to be "bad". So, according to your reasoning, the religious doctrine is merely used as a mask or excuse for doing what they already wanted to do. So to turn and then say that religion would cause folks to usurp the rightful place of empathy doesn't make sense. Not to mention, that, at least as far as the new testament is concerned, there is far more that would support and further the cause of empathy than would discourage or help usurp it. If we're being objective, we have to admit this as well. Again, I'm not saying the bible is perfect, but it's not completely evil either.
I agree with your conclusion about atheists not having a rulebook to be judged by. "Atheism" is simply a lack of belief in God. It does not imply any ethical stance in and of itself.
But I see this as one of its positive features; it doesn't tie one down to "rules cast in stone."
The atheist can still be judged, not by a rulebook, but by his actions and how well they "work" (or fail) in society.
Where we still disagree is that I think the statement "I can do whatever I want" is true for everyone. This is because everyone makes a decision up-front about what system of ethics (if any) they will abide by. This is true for all human beings with free-will (whether atheist, Buddhist, Christian, or whatever.)
If you say that the actions of Catholics (for instance) can be compared to the ethical system espoused by their religion, then so can an atheist's be compared to the ethical system he or she has decided to abide by.
The only difference I see is that if you adopt a particular religion you usually are handed a particular set of ethical standards to abide by. Whereas declaring yourself an atheist does not give you a ready-made set of ethics in and of itself (though I would argue that it frees you from the idea of "rules cast in stone" so that you can pursue ethics through reason and empathy without having to somehow justify it in terms of that document.)
Now, it is POSSIBLE to be an atheist and never take the step of adopting any ethical stance whatsoever (as you describe). I personally don't think this happens very often, or is really any more likely to happen then say a "born againer" concluding that once he is "saved" all his sins are forgiven and he can do as he pleases (or the idea common amongst some Catholics that they can do as they please all week as long as they go to confession and receive communion on Sunday so that all will be forgiven.) Such people exist as both atheists and theists, but I don't think they're the norm.
I agree that there is a line between theists and atheists, I just thought that you were drawing it in the wrong place. We are probably more in agreement here than we initially thought. -- And, in the end, I don't require that everyone agrees with me completely :-)
You're right that I'm being somewhat unclear in saying on the one hand that Christians get to decide just like atheists do, but on the other hand that they're tied to a rulebook. Let me try to clarify what my thinking is on this point. I'll use myself as an example. When I was a believer I believed that what was morally right and wrong was all defined in the Bible as interpreted by my religion. In "deciding" what to do in any moral dilemma, I consulted this source. Please note my use of the word "deciding" here. I had made a previous decision to use this source as my moral guide. I also made a decision every time a moral dilemma arose to abide by this previous decision and consult that source. Finally, I made another decision to actually do what the source told me was the right thing to do in that instance.
So, although we say Christians have no choice, they really do have choices every step of the way. And it's not just the choice of "well, I'm going to go against what my religion says and willingly give up Christianity in the process." In the examples I've already given, people decided to act against their rulebooks, yet never questioned that they were still Christians. (They kept the first two choices, but decided to go against the grain on the third choice.)
Now, looking at a moral dilemma from an atheist's perspective, I find I do something similar. I consult my previously decided upon ethical rule: empathy guided by reason. Then I decide what course of action that seems to point to. Then I decide whether or not to follow it.
Again, there are choices all along the way.
So, I don't see the line as being drawn between: "Atheists have a choice" on one side and "Christians have no choice" on the other. I think it's subtler than that, and harder to express in words (so maybe examples will have to do).
One difference I see is that in my present state (free from religion) my ethics are never at variance with my "previously decided upon ethical rule" (because they are one in the same.) So, I never experience the sort of dilemma of a Catholic who practices birth-control.
Consider the Christian in the south during the Civil War. His own sense of ethics might've pulled him a very different way than his religion was pulling him. Had he been an atheist, he might've become an abolitionist. Being a Christian (who also happened to trust his pastor's interpretation of the Bible) he would be likely to suppress such feelings, and fight for the preservation of slavery. Although he would still have to make those decisions mentioned above, people tend to fall into habits and continue doing things the way they've done them in the past (e.g. trust their religious authority). Then, instead of paying attention to what he felt about the matter (empathy) he would tend to rationalize from the Bible along the lines:
"Surely Jesus would've condemned slavery explicitly if it were wrong! Surely Paul wouldn't send a slave back to his master if slavery were wrong! The Bible says slaves should be obedient, and that masters should be kind, so it not only condones the existence of masters and slaves, but holds that there's nothing wrong with owning slaves as long as you're kind to the obedient ones... Besides, the descendants of Canaan are SUPPOSED to be slaves forever, and who else are they but the Africans -- as my pastor told me. So, whether I feel bad for the slaves or not, it is my Christian duty to uphold slavery."
This is how religion can turn good-hearted people into monsters.
Patriotism can be the same way: "my country right or wrong," or "I was just following orders." Again, it is putting top-down authority in place of empathy. Did the U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam really want to set children on fire? If left to their own sense of right and wrong (based on empathy) would they have done such a thing? I sincerely doubt it.
When I say that religion and patriotism have usurped the place of empathy and caused untold suffering to humankind, this is what I'm referring to. We learn from history that these two things are what have been used to stir otherwise peaceful, good-hearted people into committing the most heinous atrocities imaginable.
This is why my hope is that people will be motivated to ethical conduct by empathy tempered by reason rather than by top-down authority.
I would say, you weaken the power of the points you make when you ignore the "other side of the story", because it doesn't appear even handed and objective in your evaluation of the bible's contents, in my "humble" opinon...
Point taken. Thank you. I plead guilty, but with a reason. I feel that people in our culture are inundated with the pro-Bible point of view, so I don't need to waste time and space on my website to express that point of view all over again. It's sort of like: "Okay, you've heard the pro-Bible side all your life, now come to my website and hear the other side..." So I haven't felt a lot of compunction to present the pro-Bible side. Anyway, that's the reason, but in retrospect I agree with you: it's better to take the time and space and be more balanced. I think I developed a bad habit when I was a believer of trying to smother every counter-argument and present a mountain of arguments for my side, without ever bothering to admit, "Oh, you've got a point" here and there. I'll try to be better.
at least as far as the new testament is concerned, there is far more that would support and further the cause of empathy than would discourage or help usurp it. If we're being objective, we have to admit this as well. Again, I'm not saying the bible is perfect, but it's not completely evil either.
I agree that it's not perfect and that it's not completely evil.
I'm not so sure that objectively the New Testament encourages empathy more than it discourages it. I'd say that's an open question. I would agree that there are some verses in the New Testament that do encourage empathy.
Hey Steve,
Sorry for the delay. I've been a bit busy, plus I only had one comment on your last note:
Consider the Christian in the south during the Civil War. His own sense of ethics might've pulled him a very different way than his religion was pulling him. Had he been an atheist, he might've become an abolitionist.
C'moooooooon Steve! Based on your own beliefs with regards to rational compassionate living, self preservation takes precedence (if I recall, you said killing an animal or bug that was attacking you was OK if necessary). That's the whole "survival of the fittest" philosophy which is pervasive in the evolutionist theories (which I agree with for the most part, by the way). Based on that, a southern atheist would have, in my opinion, been no more likely, and probably LESS likely to be an abolitionist, because that would have meant being ostricized and possibly killed as a "n_ _ _ _ r lover". The true Christian (who would have actually read the bible for themselves - I don't believe true Christians leave it up to their pastors to interperet the bible for them - and seen more than a narrow view based on a few select scriptures) would have at least had the fear of the "second death" to contend with if they came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. An atheist would have only had to assauge the guilt of not acting, which is probably a less lofty task then facing death for some slaves' sake.
I think, despite empathy, which would have bubbled up in the southern christian and the southern atheist, fear of being ostricized and of death (the first death, or only death in the atheist's case), as well as love (or appreciation) of money and power are the real reasons why people didn't stand up for what was "right", or let's say, for what was the empathetic thing to do.
When I say that religion and patriotism have usurped the place of empathy and caused untold suffering to humankind, this is what I'm referring to. We learn from history that these two things are what have been used to stir otherwise peaceful, good-hearted people into committing the most heinous atrocities imaginable.
Well, while it may be true that religion and patriotism have been used to do harm... the operative word is USED! The question is, who or what is USING them. In my opinion, the true evil starts there. Religion and Patriotism have also been USED to do some of the greatest good in all of mankind. Again, the operative word is USED. Even if you don't believe in God or religion, there is no doubt that some of the greatest philanthropists were inspired by their concept of God, or were aligned with some type of religion which they practiced.
So, one could argue that it was their empathy that caused them to gravitate to the positive things espoused in religion, and to USE religion to do "good" and provoke others to do "good". Equally so, one could argue that it was another's lack of yielding to their empathetic impulses, or indeed squashing them, which caused them to USE religion to do what was "bad", and to, in your words, "stir otherwise peaceful, good-hearted people into committing the most heinous atrocities imaginable".
OK, I said one comment and that was two, but I gotta stop there for now. Holler back when you can.
Much love,
C.
Hi C.,
Based on your own beliefs with regards to rational compassionate living, self preservation takes precedence (if I recall, you said killing an animal or bug that was attacking you was OK if necessary). That's the whole "survival of the fittest" philosophy which is pervasive in the evolutionist theories (which I agree with for the most part, by the way). Based on that, a southern atheist would have, in my opinion, been no more likely, and probably LESS likely to be an abolitionist
Big disagreement here, I'm sorry to say. But maybe we're "talking past" each other a little bit.
First of all, I don't regard "survival of the fittest" as a philosophy, and certainly not as a system of ethics (except maybe for Nazis). It is a just a fact of nature. Just like we say, "nature is red in tooth and claw" -- not that we advocate that as the way we should live our lives!
Yes, self preservation takes precedence over most other considerations, but having a large plantation replete with slaves to wait on you hand and foot is not survival: it is luxury. It might be interesting for you to look at the latest addition to my website, "Arguments Against Animals" where I compare "inherent rights" to "luxury rights". (In a nutshell: luxury rights should always yield to inherent rights.)
Again: it's important to remember that there is NO philosophy of life associated with atheism. Atheism is just the statement "I don't believe God exists." We can't predict what any individual atheist is likely to do based on just this lack of belief. He may be a Buddhist, who believes in Karma and is trying to avoid being reincarnated as a snail or something, or he may be a philosopher deeply engrossed in the study of ethics, or he may be a criminal who doesn't give a damn about anyone. He might not even agree that killing bugs is okay if he's a Buddhist who believes that the bug could be his grandfather.
So, let's be clear and separate my particular brand of ethics ("ethics through empathy") from atheism. Ethics through empathy wouldn't even necessarily have to be an atheistic philosophy of life (though my broader conception of "rational compassionate living" would be: since I think that the rational part would tend to exclude any theistic part.)
In our example of a White mid-nineteenth century southern citizen, I am talking about a "good-hearted" person to start with. I'm talking about someone whose nature is to care about other people, and who puts such considerations ahead of his own luxury. If that person were an atheist, then there would be nothing to interfere with his moral belief that slavery was wrong, and he would be more likely to act on it. (Of course in the "acting on it" there would be some very serious consequences to consider, as you point out, but I'm focusing on the relative freedom or stifling of the belief itself, before it could ever even be considered for action.)
If he were a Christian (of the sort typical back then, when literacy was even more scarce than today, and people didn't generally have a lot of leisure time to sit around and study the Bible -- unless of course they were slave owners with big plantations to begin with) he would have a potential obstacle to his moral belief: his pastor. If he believed that Christ really had a "church" (as described in the Bible -- which if he couldn't read, selected parts like this would be read for him by the pastor in his Sunday sermons) and that "church" had "shepherds" appointed to lead the "flock" (himself included) then he would be inclined to conclude that this institution of God's knew right and wrong better than himself, and would therefore be inclined to stifle his moral beliefs rather than act on them.
He would be inclined to conclude that his idea of right and wrong was incorrect since it conflicted with what his religion taught. This is (again) a detailed description of what I mean when I say religious authority can usurp the rightful place of empathy. I keep coming back to this because I think it's central to my "mission statement" of attempting to surgically remove religion and re-implant empathy in its place.
On the other hand, if we take a selfish person who was looking forward to owning slaves himself one day, then it wouldn't matter if he were an atheist or a theist. But he would find his desires sanctified by the church, which would be a powerful ally to have.
I grant that this is all hypothetical, so let's take a real-life example from a former JW:
When I was a Jehovah's Witness I believed that blood transfusions were a sin. If my sister (the person closest to me at that time, and also a JW) had needed a blood transfusion back then, I have little doubt that I would've let her die rather than allow the transfusion (that would've been her wish as well, but let's imagine that she was unconscious after a horrible car accident and it was up to me to allow or forbid the procedure.)
So, I would've let my sister die, even though the sense of empathy in me would've been crying out desperately to be heard! I know I would've suppressed it. Why? Because I had allowed a religious authority to enter into my chest, carve out my heart, and sit in its place.
And it all started out as an innocent belief in the Bible as the "Word of God," and a falling for the initially sweet words the Witnesses used to paint their picture of the "paradise on earth" they were promising for the future from the Bible. It had lured me in. Once in, it was easy for the organization to take over: "we're the only ones with this truth, God has given us the truth: you need to listen to us and do exactly what we say in order to please God… blah blah blah… And, by the way, the Bible does say 'Abstain from blood,' so if you have a blood transfusion we'll shun you and you'll suffer the second death."
I can't think of anything else that could have ever made me look a doctor in the eye and say, "You can save my sister's life -- a normal healthy life? No, let her die."
Yes, I agree that religion can be used for good as well as for evil. But I think it's too dangerous to play with: in the wrong hands it is a very lethal weapon. It is sort of like nuclear weapons. Some presidents have claimed to use them as "tools for peace" (as deterrents), but their potential for harm -- and their potential to fall into the wrong hands -- is too great for me to approve of their existence in the world.
You'll probably think I'm going overboard again with such a statement, but I'm thinking of people like Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the Muslim fanatics. All of them thought they were serving God and following their holy book. As far as patriotism goes, I'm thinking of people like the Kamikaze pilots of WWII, the Nazis, or the American soldiers in the "Gulf War" who buried people alive, etc. People, left to themselves, wouldn't do these things (except in the aberrant cases of a few psychopaths or criminals.) It is when people are led by religion or patriotism that they suppress their humanity and put their leaders' warped ideas of right and wrong in place of their own natural empathy.
I think we need to take a good hard look at all the harm that religion has done throughout history -- and I'm not talking about evil men misusing it, but rather about misguided people who believed their religion with their whole "heart mind and soul" and took that belief to its logical conclusions. Yes, we need to balance that with the good. But even so, I think the scale is very definitely tipped on the evil side.
Even so, atheism is not for everyone (at least not yet at this point in our social evolution.) I know that some people will never "get it" (not that they're stupid, but that they're determined to cling to what they have, and what -- admittedly -- more or less "works" for them.) It has never been my intention to try and pull the rug out from under such people.
So, one could argue that it was their empathy that caused them to gravitate to the positive things espoused in religion, and to USE religion to do "good" and provoke others to do "good". Equally so, one could argue that it was another's lack of yielding to their empathetic impulses, or indeed squashing them, which caused them to USE religion to do what was "bad", and to, in your words, "stir otherwise peaceful, good-hearted people into committing the most heinous atrocities imaginable".
Now, on this we agree wholeheartedly! That is the very theme of the foundation article of my website "Rational Compassionate Living": good people look into the Bible and find their own goodness reflected back on them. They don't see the slaughter of babies or the raping of the virgins by God's "chosen people" and by the "heroes" of the Bible. They assume it's good, and read their goodness into it. I almost envy them.
But, in their guileless way, they are playing with fire. While they may tout the love verses of the Bible as "divinely inspired" someone else may come along and point out some of the darker verses, cashing in on the "divinely inspired" belief that was sown by the well-meaning first person.
It is probable, for instance, that Charles Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones cashed in on the beliefs that their followers already had regarding the Bible. Those beliefs were probably inculcated by good-hearted, well-meaning people who were blissfully oblivious to the darker side of the Bible. All these cult leaders had to do was show them the dark side; the belief in its divinely inspired truth had already been planted for them.
For another instance, I turn to the ex-JW again:
It bothers me to think that there is a small chance that someone I conducted a "Bible study" with, or handed a Watchtower magazine to (while in my Jehovah's Witness days) may have pursued that course, gotten baptized as a Jehovah's Witness, and then let their children die when they needed a blood transfusion. While that tragedy wouldn't be entirely my fault, it does show where spreading the belief that there is an authority that "knows the unknowable" (and demands to replace a personal sense of empathy) can lead.
--Steve
UPDATE:
I'm happy to report that a short time after this correspondence, C. told me that he had seen the light and had given up his belief in Christianity.
|
