A Response to "Christianity is truth-ful" and criticism of Christians who 'make up their own religion'

About a week ago, I had a discussion with a woman at the Pages and Places book festival prologue party. I told her that I was a local writer and blogger after she asked what I do and talked I began to speak about my article regarding the contraceptive healthcare mandate and why the arguments against it are very problematic. She asked me if I was an atheist, I replied in the affirmative, and she was quite disgruntled. She said "Jesus still loves you and doesn't want you to go to Hell." I told her that I find no good reason to believe in her god or Hell and raised several objections to her statement: If I'm going to be punished for non-belief (especially when God gives me no good reason to believe he exists and he could), Christianity is quite an immoral system, it's not just to punish people from other religions, and if God doesn't want me to go to Hell, why would he send me there?

The woman replied and said that people from other religions can be saved as long as they 'believe in something.' This type of response of common from people known as religious pluralists or otherwise those who seem to 'invent their own religions.' Besides this sentiment of hers being very unbiblical, she provided no justification for her belief. I asked her why she believed this and there was no reply regarding justification. We soon entered into a discussion regarding the problem of evil (in light of the recent flooding that devastated the area that prominent religious persons namely Fr. Jack Ryan and Bishop Bambera had much to say about) and the women's defense for God allowing evil was that we need natural disasters to know what good is and to be charitable to others. I asked her, before objecting, if God created these natural disasters because we can have this good and charity without them (and would have more opportunities to do so) and she said that God isn't responsible for natural disasters!

While some theologians, priests, and laypersons may back away from belief in a literal Hell and a punishment for sins (although this seems to be quite contrary to the New Testament), it makes little sense for a Christian to claim that God is not responsible for natural disasters because one of the most common beliefs amongst Christians, I would wager, is that God created the universe. If God created the universe, it seems only logical to assume that he is responsible for the natural laws that guarantee the occurrence of natural disasters.

I try not to assume much about the beliefs of theists I happen to be having discussions with, but it seems reasonable for me to assume some basic ideas that a person might hold. When theists divert away from the standard teachings of their religion, I am quite lost because the person seems to have little justification for their claims from both their holy book/religious tradition (provided that this actually provided justification) and from 'standard reason.' If one calls him/herself a Christian, it seems to make little sense to use this label if one does not believe the standard 'set' of Jesus was raised from the dead by God, Jesus died for the sins of humankind, God created the universe, and God is omni-max (all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful).

--

Theologian John Haught, at his 2011 lecture at King's College, asserted that 'God likes drama' and that there is so much calamity in the universe and on earth because it's part of a beautiful narrative by God. Without calamity, he reasoned, life wouldn't be interesting...and there wouldn't be freedom, a future, or life. Haught says that without 'accidents in the universe,' there would be no novelty, evolution, progress, or meaning in life. All of this, of course, flies in the face of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god who can presumably have the universe in any way he wants...which would allow a story, progress, freedom, etc.

As an atheist, I suppose I don't get to define what makes one a Christian or who can rightly use the label (and, again, I don't want to drift into no true Scotsman territory). There certainly is a wide diversity amongst individual believers, some people may interpret some passages differently, and the Bible can be the 'big book of multiple choice' as hosts and co-hosts of The Atheist Experience often say. Look at one verse and Jesus tells people to pray in private and look at others that support open prayer... Look at one verse and prayer is said to work if one has the faith of a mustard seed and then hear the commonly voiced 'God helps those who help themselves' (and one wonders how helping oneself can be distinguished from God intervening).

Theologians and individual believers, when they engage in apologetics, often seem to make God smaller and smaller when they gradually move away from the standard claims that Christians make. In my two years as an atheist at a Catholic college, I have heard believers say that Hell doesn't exist, but rather 'Hell' is separation from God. I have heard that Jesus didn't literally raise from the dead, but rather the story is 'truthful' in that the lessons learned are the real value in the story. I have heard that prayer is just trust in God and that God doesn't actually intervene in human affairs.

The list goes on and on... God seems to boil down to that little gap that we have left to put him in when it is most likely the case that that gap will fade and allow a new one to open up... God used to be the explanation for disease, droughts, lightning, earthquakes, and so much more. Now, though, we can explain these things without evoking a deity. Believers now look to the brain and the universe in order to slide God in somewhere while often not understanding that they are committing a version of the fallacious appeal to ignorance: just because we can't explain something does not give us any justification to assert 'God did it.' Yesterday's god-explanations are today's science.

When theologians and individual believers recognize that the challenges to main-line faith claims are too overwhelming and that Christianity reduces to a 'way of life' and 'truthful' because the stories teach lessons, why don't they just be honest and call themselves secular Christians, or just shed the label of Christian altogether? As I've noted before, there is a wide disconnect between theologians, priests, and laypersons. The theologians and priests are often claiming far less -- as far as metaphysical religious truth claims are concerned -- than the laity, but the laity are endorsing ideas like creationism, for example. Where are the laypersons getting these ideas from...and why aren't their ministers doing something about this?

It might be easy for priests and theologians to say "Well, persons x, y, and z can go out on their own and read what deep thinkers in the Christian tradition are saying, study on their own, etc," but these persons are obviously not doing this. Are the church services and Bible studies merely a 'pat on the back and let's all agree and don't actually learn anything' sessions? Are the CCD classes for children very similar to the ones i attended while I was in kindergarten (!) until high school? When I look back to my early religious education, I was taught about a literal hell, a literal Adam and Eve story, how I and my family members could go to Hell if we didn't confess our sins on a regular basis, and was very concerned about my great-grandmother's soul.

If Christianity really boils down to "living life according to the teachings of Jesus as individuals interpret them while cutting out all the bad stuff or redefining it away or making excuses for it and living life according to the metaphorical teachings of the Bible," there's really not much more to it than me reading Lord of the Rings and doing the same while not actually believing in a literal Gandalf and the label itself appears to be meaningless.

Further, this idea of Christianity being 'truth-ful' can be a 'move' known as equivocation - an informal logical fallacy that is committed when one uses a word in two different contexts and obfuscates meaning. Saying that Christianity is true (when we accept the standard understanding of true as meaning based in fact and in accordance with reality) and then saying it is truth-ful (meaning that the teachings one can derive have some semblance of moral truth to them) is to equivocate.

Sure, one can certainly gain benefits from a Christianity such as this (although I would argue that one can have the benefits without Christianity and be better off without the religious baggage), but it's quite empty of standard understanding and the common threads that believers share as far as metaphysical truth claims are concerned. This Christianity is certainly much 'nicer' than the standard fare, but it appears to be an incredibly dishonest position to take. Why don't those who believe in a 'truth-ful Christianity' shed themselves of the Christian label and just call themselves secular Christians?

Intolerance of Gays at King's College

I had quite an "encounter" at work tonight. For those of you who don't know, I work at a campus restaurant that stays open until 2AM on Friday and Saturday. Many drunk students come in after 10PM and order greasy food. People are usually not hostile. Students sometimes make messes or are very loud. No big deal.

Tonight, while I was away from the lobby area, a student told my lesbian co-worker that she was going to burn in Hell for being gay. I soon found out about this when she was obviously disgruntled after walking away saying things like, "Wow, that guy was an asshole." After confirming who uttered this phrase to her, I confronted the person and asked him why he was making intolerant statements to my co-worker. He first denied saying anything and then said, "I was just trying to reason with her." My manager told him that he had to leave and directed me to leave the lobby (she later said that she didn't want any problems). The student started saying, "Are you joking me? I'm getting kicked out because of a lesbian," followed up with "You wanna take this outside" to my lesbian co-worker" and left.

Unfortunately, I was not able to have a conversation with this person, intellectually demolish him, and make him aware of his ridiculous belief system and his hateful God, but it was nice that he got kicked out for his behavior. People like this need to be called out for their bad behavior and quickly identified in front of their peers and others in the area. Sadly, no person who was sitting with him said anything to him about his hateful comments, but I'm glad I was there to call him out after the fact. I also wasn't able to get his name, either, but he was from the King's College football team*. I wasn't quite sure if he was drunk, but this doesn't matter. Drunk or sober, people shouldn't make hateful comments toward gays and flaunt their hateful beliefs.

King's students, from my experience, usually aren't hateful to gays. Most people understand that people with different sexual orientations exist and tolerate or accept them, but there are still straggling theists who think that an all-loving God whom they worship will send people to be punished for eternity simply because they are attracted to people of the same sex or both sexes. Sorry, I'm not going to tolerate that nonsense and just be quiet.

Near the beginning of the semester, a Knights of Columbus member* was mad at me because I wanted their group removed from campus for grossly violating the school's policy of non-discrimination (Student clubs and organizations must adhere to all college policies and regulations. The organization must not discriminate on membership based on race, religion, gender, physical disability, or sexual orientation (emphasis mine)). He claimed that the Q&A Club [Gay Straight Allianceish club] at King's is only for "fags who like hairy buttholes" while I was in a cafeteria. Sadly, many others who were sitting at the table with him were not phased by this and simply sat there.

The Knights of Columbus at King's College, as I previously discussed in a blog post, only allow "practicing male Catholics 18 years of age or older who are in union with the commandments of God and the Holy See" to join their club. Shame on them and shame on King's. If any student wanted to make a Muslim-only club, a Hindu-only club, or anything else that is similar, it would never be allowed. I tried to make a club for atheists (in which theists were welcome) and King's declared it to be "against the mission statement of the college."

People who are intolerant of gays and make hateful comments need to be called out. We shouldn't just stand by while people make comments like these and let the intolerance slide. Raise awareness. Educate people. Gay or straight, everyone should be against intolerance of gays.

I'll close with great lyrics from a favorite song of mine, Cry for the Moon by Epica. Religion doesn't give you a cover to stand behind to excuse hateful comments.

Follow your common sense
You cannot hide yourself
behind a fairytale forever and ever
Only by revealing the whole truth can we disclose
The soul of this bulwark forever and ever
Forever and ever

* As previously mentioned in this post and some others like, "Painting All Catholics With the Same Brush," all Catholics and members of specific groups don't all think alike. Members in a group have all sorts of different beliefs. All Knights of Columbus members at King's College certainly don't endorse this line of thinking. His statement does not count as official doctrine(?) of his group.

All King's football players obviously don't think that all gays should burn in Hell and that they can be "reasoned with."

Thinking that one person's statement or action is representative of the beliefs or desires of an entire group is extremely fallacious thinking.

This may differ, though, when leaders of organizations release official statements or make stances. Leaders can make the organization look very bad, but this still doesn't mean that all members think the same way or endorse this behavior. If the organization, though, stands for some principles like "gay marriage is harmful to society and should be opposed" or "black people are inferior people" members are endorsing this message by being a member of the group. You can't just join the Knights for the free donuts, free coffee, and the krafts and kookie baking at konventions (see what I did there?).

Think For Yourself Already: Discussion With Muslims

I've been attending many religious discussions on campus including "Perspectives on Scripture" and the "Interfaith Awareness Series." I attend these discussions because I want to learn and ask questions. Unfortunately, I can't stay long at the Perspectives on Scripture discussions because I have work an hour after the meetings start, but I've been able to stay for the full duration of the "Interfaith Awareness Series."

King's College allowed a student to host these series of meetings along with a campus minister. Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, and others come to King's College to discuss their traditions. Great. I'm all for it...but for some reason, King's is stonewalling my debate challenge that was accepted in early October! Allow and facilitate discussion with Muslims and Hindus, but god forbid (pun intended) facilitating something an atheist wants to do. In my third year, I also wanted to form a club for secular students, but this was denied because King's felt that it's against the mission statement although the Knights of Columbus and their sister group grossly violate the rules of the college because they only allow Catholics to join.

This week's Interfaith meeting was two-fold. The first part was discussion with two female Muslim students at King's and the second part was a trip to a local mosque to discuss topics with a group of practicing Muslims.

I asked the students why they believed in the metaphysical claims of Islam and got the usual "I was born into the tradition and it works for me" with no argument or reason for belief. I asked a student if she knew who Ayaan Hirsi Ali was. She said no. I asked the student what she thought about female genital mutilation in Islam and almost immediately got "this has nothing to do with the discussion" from the student organizer of the event. I retorted that it does because many claim that FGM is warranted because of Islamic teachings and got no response. A simple answer that was expected was, "I'm not in favor of it." Even if it had nothing to do with the discussion, the answer should have been given quite promptly. The group also heard about how people in Islam choose to wear burkas because this is how they view modesty. After some other discussion about how the extremists are twisting the religion [no true Scotsman, of course] and aren't correctly representing Islam and some bullying the students encountered in high school, we left and headed to the mosque.

Upon arriving, we were nicely greeted, all sat down, and a call for prayer was announced. We all proceeded to the prayer room, took our shoes off, and watched people pray for about ten minutes. We then received refreshments and were asked to "ask any, any, any questions" about Islam. Unfortunately, three Islamic apologists took up about 95% of the discussion that mainly consisted of preaching, but was informative.

The Muslims leading the discussion announced that they were creationists [God literally created Adam and Eve: dust from nothing, Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib] who believe that God made everything, God made humans "special" and that they believe this "as Muslims." It seems very odd that they used this "we believe this as Muslims" line throughout the discussion because it reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Why not say, "We believe this" without the "as Muslims line." Of course they provided no evidence for this claim after I told them, "Many religious scholars and academics reject what you say, think the garden story is a parable, and accept evolution. What do you have to say about this?" A Muslim woman on the other side of the room committed intellectual suicide and said "If evolution is true, then why don't we see humans coming from monkeys today?" I was so shocked...but maybe I shouldn't have been after three others announced that they literally believed in the Adam and Eve story. Thankfully, I was able to rebut for all of ten seconds...

After much discussion about the Koran being the word of God that was "never changed and is still the same as it was when it was revealed by God," the Muslims leading the discussion talked about "the day of judgment." They explained that God chooses who goes to the hellfire and who goes to paradise. I asked them, "Do you think that non-believers and apostates deserve to go to Hell" with very careful word choice (notice I said do you think they deserve). I heard about ten minutes of mental gymnastics and silly stories and an overall avoidance of the question. One of the talkative Muslims said something to the accord of, "If someone asked told me that I was going to the hellfire, I tell them 'Where are you going'!" Another said, "It's up to God to judge, not me. He makes the rules! You have to account for your sins in front of God."

I told them that they didn't answer the question and repeated, "Well, what do you think? Do non-believers deserve to go to Hell" and got some nonsense about how our power has limitations and we can't say who is and who isn't going to Hell or judge people. I repeated that they didn't answer and some woman said something to the accord of, "Well, if you owned a business and one of your workers didn't show for a whole week, wouldn't you fire them? You make the rules!" I replied, "Well, punishment ought to be justified. I think I would be justified in firing this worker who failed to show for work, but I wouldn't be justified in putting him in my basement and torturing him. God poses infinite punishment for finite crimes...and I don't even think anyone should go to Hell if it existed. I don't believe in any Hell and can't." An all-loving God is impossible to reconcile with the concept of Hell.

Some others asked questions such as "Tell us about the pilgrimige to Hajj," "Explain what your prayers mean," and "What do you think about Jesus." I wasn't interested in these questions, but certainly listened to the responses. I was very unsatisfied that my question went unanswered. I'd discuss more about the discussion, but I don't want to write a book here... The discussion came to a close and I invited the group to attend an NEPA Freethought meetup.

Some King's students were very upset with me and started to strawman me by saying, "You say you want harmony, but you make people very uncomfortable when you ask questions! You come off as very arrogant and make people feel threatened! Respect peoples' beliefs!" I told the student that I promote harmony, but asking fair questions is fair game and should happen. Discussion is a path to reaching understanding and simple questions should be asked especially when people invite discussion. Another student said that they would be "sinning" if they answered my question because God only has the power to judge people. I told them that thinking shouldn't be restricted and that all sorts of questions should be asked. Belief in a god shouldn't bar you from asking important questions. Someone else asked "Why was the question so important?" I said that the question was important because if the answer is yes, then this God and the person are immoral for thinking this and you should probably give up your religion if God sends non-believers to Hell just because they are non-believers.

People don't understand what the word tolerance and unfortunately think that tolerance is not challenging wild claims and just agreeing to disagree. This terrible attitude is probably what causes so many problems in society to being with. We need to discuss critical issues and come to understanding. We need to prioritize learning and have intellectual honesty in searching for the truth. All too often, students I meet never give reasons for their beliefs and just seem to believe just because it makes them feel good. Students were also promoting truth relativism and the wishhy washy "truth is what you believe it to be." I fiercely objected and brought up arguments in my "Truth About Truth" post.

If you can't give an answer to "Do you think that non-believers deserve to go to Hell" and insist that "you can't give an answer to the question," you should seriously rethink your religious beliefs and your moral priorities. Thinking and answering questions should not be restrained in any way. Think freely and have real discussion instead of throwing up smokescreens and doing mental gymnastics. Atheists aren't bad for asking questions and challenging beliefs.

The [Im]morality of Hell

Find this awesome flowchart here.

I've previously discussed whether God would punish people for all eternity just because they don't believe that God exists. If atheists go to Hell (and Hell exists), God is judging merely on the basis of belief.

A recent episode of The Atheist Experience countered the idea that atheists send themselves to Hell; God is responsible for sending people to Hell. Now that that's out of the way...

Theists typically think of Hell as a place of eternal damnation that people go to because they violated God's rules. In the case of the rules, God determines what is right and wrong and this right and wrong is supposed to be unchanging.

According to the Bible, a person goes to Hell for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, for instance. Many Christians may propose that murderers and rapists would go to Hell. If God is all-just, his sending of people to Hell must be just...but is this justice? It is permissible to create unchanging rules and punish people for eternity because they break the rules? The concept of Hell is immoral, thus reconciling Hell and an all-loving deity is impossible.

If you don't follow the rules of God, you're punished for eternity without appeal because of thoughts you have thought and actions you have taken. Theists usually justify this by saying, "God created you and the world, so he could make the rules," but this is nothing more than servility and a might makes right morality in a "Big Brother state". God declares what is right because he has the power. He can choose to punish people for eternity for whatever reason that he wants. We can't escape this punishment, we're always watched by God, God reads our minds, and he fully can control us at all times...especially at death.

What if we don't like God's rules and think that they are unfair? Too bad, we can't do anything about it. In a democracy, we can work to get rules changed, appeal decisions by courts, etc. If we're punished for a crime, the punishment must be fair and will not be cruel and unusual. In the case of God, the punishment is eternal and torturous. An all-loving God would never orchestrate Hell.

My central objections are

• 1) The rules God makes are nothing but a might makes right morality.*
• 2) The rules are unquestionable and unchangeable.
• 3) Some of the rules are absurd.
• 4) God is not "checked" by someone else to ensure fairness.
• 5) Hell is infinite punishment [torture] for finite crimes.
• 6) People are condemned for beliefs that aren't turned into actions.
• 7) People may be judged solely on the basis of belief.
• 8) Complete control over a human being is slavery.

Let's consider many possible counter-arguments from theists dealing with Hell and God's morality:

Hell is not eternal torture, but rather is "separation from God," a void of nothingness or anguish

It's not quite clear that this is the case, according to church teaching and the Bible. Catholic Encyclopedia certainly disagrees. This does nothing to address problems 1-4 and 6-8, but rather attacks problem 5. Although this may not be a case of torture, a person is being deprived of a reward and is still being punished.

God gives you free will! You choose to break the rules he put in place.

This counter-argument tries to shift the blame away from God and to the person. As discussed above, God sends people to hell; people don't send themselves to Hell. It's extremely problematic to say, "Here, have free will, do whatever you want" and then punish someone for eternity because they chose to break a rule.

Well, humans have free will to kill someone, for example, and must pay the consequences, so this is the same thing!

No, it's not. Justified rules and punishments (don't kill someone - if you do, you get, depending on the severity and intent, you can get many years in prison) are fair, but this eternal punishment is not fair.

God is just like a human father. He makes rules and if you break them, you get punished.

The analogy of God as a human father is very problematic. Human fathers [should] fairly punish their children when they break the "rules" and is usually "checked" by the mother or other guardian. Fathers don't send their children to a basement to starve them, chain them to a wall, torture them, etc...and if they did, no sane human being would consider this just. Fathers aren't also able to punish for eternity. Children also grow up and are able to make decisions for themselves and get away from their fathers if they want. If I don't like my father and move out his house, I can do that and make decisions for myself; I no longer need to listen to what he has to say and obey his rules if I'm not living with him. When people get older, they move out and longer have to listen to their fathers...and this is expected. In the case of God, there's no getting away and no "growing out."

A friend of mine recently developed what appears to be an attractive argument that a theist might create:

Imagine that you made a robot.

Would you punish the robot if he disobeyed you?

If yes, why can't God punish humans?

This line of argument tries to make punishment of whatever kind justifiable, but robots are much different than humans; robots are not humans, animals, or sentient beings that have feelings. Even if they were beings with rights and feelings, I still don't think that it would be fair to unfairly punish a being even if we created the being. If the robot were a slave, slavery would also be problematic. If the robot were non-sentient, I would find it permissible to destroy the robot if it murdered someone, for example. No problem there.

We shouldn't have to bow down to an eternal being and follow his every word just because he created the universe and us. If God exists and punishes people for all eternity just because they don't follow his rules, he's no better than a dictator and we're nothing more than slaves without free will in the afterlife.

Should anyone have to worry about any of this? The atheist, of course, doesn't believe in the existence of God or Hell and would say that there's no good reason to support the claims being made...so there's no problem there. ...and don't even try pulling Pascal's Wager.

Aside from my bulleted objections, IronChariots.Org has some more:

God was unable to create or develop other systems of punishment/reward that were less harmful to human life and the high value he himself attached to it.

God was bound to a higher standard of morality if he was unable to forgive sin without the blood sacrifice of animals or other divine beings.

God cannot be omnipotent and "wish that none would perish" while declaring that some will perish.

God is a liar if he wishes all to be saved yet devises an intricate sorting system that is the cause of those who will perish.

God cannot be Omnibenevolent if he creates people when as an Omniscient being he foreknows that they will end up in Hell.

*Objections to this argument and discussion of Eutyphro's Dilemma will be discussed in a future post, but even if the laws are just, infinite punishment is not justified.

Hell: There is no all-loving God / Should atheists go to Hell?

The question, "should an atheist go to Hell" was a main topic of discussion today. For now, let's assume, for sake of argument, that God and Hell exist. Here is a simple outline of the argument:

*

Hell is a place that God created that is designated for eternal torment. It is eternal and the worst case of punishment possible. Demons, devils, and fire ravage you and make you suffer.

Atheist Joe is a Nobel Prize winner who found the cure for AIDS, gave millions to charity, stopped world hunger, and was an excellent person. He doesn't believe in God.

Rapist Steve is a terrible person. He killed every Jew in the world and raped many little children. Rapist Steve also drowned 37 cute puppies, burned down 16 churches, blew up an orphanage, and enslaved his family. He believes in God.

In each case, should any of these individuals go to Hell?

*

My Christian debating opponent argued that Rapist Steve should go to Heaven because he believed in God and was able to repent for his sins. He also argued that, no matter what Atheist Joe did, he should go to Hell because he did not believe in God.

I find this conclusion to be very immoral, evil, and representative of a sad case of ethics.

Atheist Joe was a great person and did so much to help the world, but he's going to be sent to Hell simply because he didn't believe in God, regardless of his actions.

If this representation of God exists, there's no way I am following him. This God is evil and I will never want to follow or worship him.

A person would never worship or want to follow a leader like this in reality, so why bother to worship a deity like this?

The whole notion of "actions don't matter but beliefs do, no matter what" is absurd. Actions do matter. Atheist Joe probably had very good reasons for not believing in God, so why should he be put into eternal torture for being skeptical although he did wonderful things? Wouldn't a true loving God say, "Joe, I'm all-loving and all-knowing and I know you used the brain I gave you to decide that I don't exist. I know, though, that you were a good person so you should have eternal paradise."

What about Rapist Steve?

Should he go to Heaven for simply believing and gain eternal paradise instead of Atheist Joe?

Well, though I don't think anyone should go to hell if it were to exist, Rapist Steve certainly does not "deserve" a reward for believing.

My Christian opponent also said that he would send Joe to Hell because he didn't believe.

Do we want people with this sense of ethics making key decisions in society?

Do we want these people as politicians, police officers, or really anything else?

My opponent, believe it or not, is not a strawman.

---

Hell is nothing more than eternal punishment for finite crimes.

Why would an all-loving being ever allow this?

Why would we ever worship a being who allowed this?

An all-loving being would probably do something like create a rehabilitation clinic to "cure" people before they got into Heaven.

---

Actions are more important than beliefs.

Be a good person and demonstrate this.