Free Will

Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. ~Mark Twain

One of the timeless questions of religion and philosophy is whether man has free will. Indeed, the topic has been cause for great divides in the church, with Calvinism/predestination on one hand and Arminianism/free will on the other. Both will pull out this and that biblical verse to support their case. But what about God? This topic is not debated as often. While the debate over man’s free will, which now spills over even into science, has been going on for centuries, nobody much poses the question about the righteous dude in the sky. I believe the first inclination would be, at least for those who fancy such lofty sky lords, yes. God must have free will. He’s God, after all.

But wait. God can do only good. In most Christian circles there is no chance of him performing an evil act. Ever. Even though by default he was the one who allowed evil to exist in the first place. So how can he have free will? As all-powerful as he might be, by the virtue of this definition of being incapable of an evil act (much as Christians say of man that he is incapable of any good on his own), God can not have free will. Just as it is said man is born to sin and in bondage to it, incapable of doing right since the Fall, so in like respect God must be a slave to “good.” What’s the problem with that, you might ask? Nothing, I guess. I reckon you could say that is a good thing, if true. But it’s not free will. It will be argued then that God has free will, but just lacks the desire to do evil. But it’s also hard to see how one can call God good in this sense. People are called ‘good’ when they do right when they could have done otherwise. Let me illustrate for further clarification: we don’t consider animals that kill and eat other animals to be either good or evil, that’s just their nature and what they do to survive. But that’s not the case when it comes to people killing people. If God is no different from those animals, that it’s just his nature, then likewise there is no reason to call him either good or evil.

But more to the point, if God can have free will and not be evil, he should be able to create us the same way–with free will but incapable of performing an evil act. After all, isn’t that what heaven is supposed to be like? At that point, your seat is secure, right? Because you’re not going from bondage to sin to bondage to God, right? So why all the drama and tortured souls to get there? If God can do only good, and is all-powerful, how can there be the possibility of evil, even in a passive sense? It thus seems to follow that the existence of evil, of an eternal place of torture and torment called hell, must be good, or such things wouldn’t exist under such a luminous being.

One of the common arguments against these questions and angle of reasoning is, “God doesn’t want robots. He wants people to freely choose Him.” As humans we can relate very well to this sentiment. We want our friends and loved ones, our children and spouses, to love us for who we are. But this reasoning simply cannot work with the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that Christians espouse. An all-powerful, all-knowing God, by virtue of being what He is, can create nothing but robots. There is no mystery, no lack of knowledge, in which a person’s choice of God would be giving him warm fuzzies. Christians will tell us that God loves us more than anything, that he is “long suffering…not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). That humanity is the crown of his creation. Despite this, we are to understand that God has known from all eternity that his favored creation would fall and that the majority of it (and, for an all-powerful God, I believe we can safely say that this, no matter your view on free will versus predestination, serves as a resounding fail) would be thrown into an eternal torment he created. But gosh, He loves us. At no point did this all-powerful, all-seeing God go, “maybe I should approach this differently, because gee, I’d like to save more than a handful of these cute guys.” No, it is quite clear that this God does not love everybody. This can only be the brutal God of Calvinism, the one who says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Romans 9:15). At least the New Testament Paul seemed to get it. Calvinists are okay with this, because it’s not like they are getting pitched into hell. They are the special elect. Sucks for you, though. Of course, a God that finds fault with a creation that He created to be damned is, of itself, problematic and Arminians interpret the verse a different way by jumping through a different hoop. It is complications such as this that have led some believers to what is called open theism, which posits a God that, in some sense, puts his power in his hip pocket or otherwise turns it off and that the future is not so predetermined. Ergo, it is open. Hardline fundamentalists regard this as heresy.

And what makes something Good? Another option is that an act of God is good by virtue of God being God, regardless of what the act may be–because God declares it to be so, and so by virtue it can be nothing less. Whether it is snuffing a race of people because he is angry with them or hardening pharaoh’s heart to demonstrate his power, it is all good, because God is the doer. That’s more problematic than it sounds, for either God creates good by virtue of what he decrees, or good exists extraneous from God. If something is good only because God says it is–ergo he creates good–then murder, rape, theft, it can all be good. God only need give the nod. And in Old Testament times, he did. If, however, good exists extraneous from God, if certain things hold true regardless and by which God himself is restricted, then it must be said something higher than God exists. And if God can only do good because that is so much a part of his nature he can do nothing else, then good is more powerful than God. If the former is true, all God has to do is declare everything good. Problem solved, we all go to heaven. That doesn’t seem to be the case, though. God is bound, he can’t just say what is good and what is not anymore. There is a code that governs and which God must follow, even if we don’t fully understand that code. In defense one might say God IS the code. Which would also be to say, of course, God has no free will. He’s a program, a robot. And, again, a robot can be considered neither good nor evil, but only follow its programming. In this sense, God is no different from the robots he doesn’t want.

So it’s not a question of if God doesn’t, for instance, lie to us just because he’s such a great guy, but if God even has the capacity to lie. Consequently, if there is no capacity, there is no chance for temptation or desire. And how could a being with no capacity of choice possibly relate to the humans who face temptation and by whose choices they are judged? The concept of choice, of temptation, would be an alien concept. Some argue that is why God became man, to better relate to the human experience. But, generally speaking and definitely in fundamentalist circles, that’s not the reason given. That whole death and resurrection was also part of the program.

Which leads one to wonder exactly what heaven will be for those who make the cut. Heaven is most oft portrayed as a place of no suffering, no tears, no pain, and, of course, no evil. There is simply the adoration and bliss of being with and serving God (though I’m not sure what that service would entail). The Bible seems to make it clear there will be gradation or levels attained based on service/performance during your earthly existence, with the saints certainly being right at the top on Cloud Nine. But maybe you only make Cloud Five. Still, it’s heaven, and you’re perfectly happy right where you’re at, because there is no regret or envy, and certainly no sniveling. Given that you’re going to be perfectly happy no matter what cloud you land on, as the actor asks, “Exactly what is my motivation here?” Just get your foot in the door. To be honest, given one looses all desire to do anything but praise God, it sounds like a brainwashing program to me. And, to paraphrase a point made by Matt Dillahunty, I know such a heaven cannot exist, because it would make my beloved family who do believe sad to know I was not there. There is no way my grandmother is happy in heaven if she sees that I’m going to hell. If she is, or the memory of me has been wiped or altered or whatever it is God does against her will (because I can’t imagine someone wanting to forget their loved ones), then quit simply she is no longer my grandmother.

Such are the conundrums when your god is  elevated from a pleabian god amongst many to Master of the Universe.

 

 

Religious Atheism?

Atheism is a religion. ~Lisa Kennedy Montgomery

And with that quip above on the HBO Real Time with Bill Maher show Lisa Kennedy Montgomery unleashed a floodgate of irate replies from unbelievers across the fruited plain that atheism sure as hell is not a religion. Kennedy didn’t have much chance to defend her statement on Bill’s show, but she did get that chance within the pages of Reason magazine. So is Kennedy right? Is atheism a religion?

Kennedy writes in Reason “the problem doesn’t seem to be so much in pinning the term religion on atheism, but defining religion in the first place. No one really wants to do this…No one I spoke to…really wanted to take this cloud and pin it down in the examination tray.”  But that’s not true. I do. Certainly people have their own definitions of words and what “religion” (or atheism) means to them and, if you’re not careful, you can end up talking right past each other. For instance, Catholics and Protestants both talk about God’s grace, but grace operates differently under their respective doctrines. In Catholicism, God’s grace is dispensed by a priest with the Church; in Protestantism, God’s grace is granted freely to all who ask. After reading Kennedy’s article, I would say there is a good chance Kennedy and Bill were talking past each other. Not knowing what is bouncing around inside another’s head when it comes to matters like this can lead to much confusion, especially when one starts putting their own personal twist to what words mean.

My Meriam-Webster app defines atheism as 1) archaic: ungodliness, wickedness; 2a) a disbelief in the existence of deity; 2b) the doctrine that there is no deity.

You can see the prejudice in the archaic form from a day when being an atheist wasn’t simply a matter of not believing in god(s), but that meant you weren’t a very good person, either. For many people still, “atheist” remains more than just somebody who doesn’t believe. They’re instruments of evil. And so atheism is a term itself in flux, as it transitions to the later definition from the former.

Religion: 1) the belief in a god or in a group of gods; 2) an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods; 3) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

On 1 and 2 atheism definitively gets a pass. There is no belief in gods or ceremonies and ritual designed around such. But on 3, which I believe is close to the point Kennedy was driving at, atheism could be a match. I am reminded of a time when a group of friends was working out a good time for us to regularly gather to play games when one of them quipped, “Martin can’t play games on Sunday, he’s very religious. Religious about his football.” And atheists seem to forget that the word religion can be used in this fashion. You can be religious about your diet, religious about your studies, whatever. It’s just saying that x is a significant part of your life dance. And I will contend that Bill Maher’s heathen leanings are a significant part of what he is all about, so far that he went and made a movie about it, Religulous. You might say Bill, and many other notable atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, pursue their irreligiosity with religious fervor. That’s accurate, and there is nothing wrong with that. Dispelling belief in superstition is their mission.

Here’s the problem. When an atheist hears “atheism is a religion” they don’t hear “atheism must be very important to you.” What they do hear is, “Your position is no better or different from mine and takes just as much faith.” And, very often, maybe almost always, that is exactly what is meant. What atheists don’t like is the suggestion they are just like faithful believers–that their stance is one of faith. One of the kickbacks Kennedy received was “if atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.” Kennedy goes on to reply “I contend that if your system is about God–or about the non-existence of God–God is still at the center of the argument’s ‘aboutness.’ In the spirit of that ‘off is a TV channel’ comment…God is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he’s dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there’s a TV.” Later she tacks on “Atheism…is about God and proving such a overpostulated supernatural being does not exist.” It’s a decent metaphor, but it falls way off the mark. Proving that such a being does not exist is not what atheism is about. Theists can’t even begin to agree on an unambiguous, coherent concept of god for it to be disproved.

It doesn’t take faith to not believe in God. At least no more faith than it takes not to believe in unicorns, faeries, magic, and other mythological creatures.  These tenets are all held with equal candor. The only time a TV comes into play is when a group decides its time to “take America back for God” or want to legislate how the rest of us live. This is why religion gets more flak, why, as Kennedy writes, “[atheists use] the same fervor the religious use when making their claims against secular society,” and why disbelief in goblins, ogres, and Zeus is not considered being “religious.” So if God is the TV, or otherwise topic of debate, and talking about the TV makes us religious due to its cultural pervasiveness, fine.  But in no way is being religious about a subject matter in this manner equivocal to that of the religious faith variety.

The enemy is not religion, the enemy is faith. Believing something without proof is a fuck you to all the other people on earth. ~Penn Jillette to Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, quoted in her article.

God versus Your Opinion

According to Christians and other True Believers, life does not have meaning unless that meaning is given from a Higher Power, and consequently that Higher Power has Laws. Without that Higher Power and a handy printed revelation it is, if not impossible, very difficult for us to determine right from wrong. And that’s mostly because we’re so messed up and broken. The Book and the revelations found therein are an absolute standard. It’s all just opinion if you don’t believe in a god, and in no way should belief in a temporal book be considered opinion. After all, the True Believer is just passing along what was written. It’s not like they wrote it. They just accept it and, in instances, feel obligated to enforce it upon the rest of us to save the country or whatever.

Given my libertarian leanings I take something of a live and let live approach to how most people want to live their lives. That is, the idea that so long as one doesn’t use force to hurt or defraud others, or otherwise interfere with the equal right of others to live as they see fit, do as you will. This can still lead to some interesting conundrums to complex issues like, say, whether people should be forced to vaccinate their children, where a very personal decision may have detrimental effects on others. But it seems like a good starting point, and it also seems to square up well with the United States Constitution as it was conceived. But it’s not the starting point of any holy book of which I am aware. In fact, it seems downright anathema to most of them going by rules as written (even if those rules are not in fact played out that way in life due to outside social pressures).

Not having a god to fall back on for justification brings up the inevitable, “Then why is it wrong to hurt or defraud others?”  Our brains like to put things in definitive, nicely categorized and labeled bins with desktop shortcuts to absolute answers, and holy revelation is great at helping set those boundaries. As children, we were told a jolly elf was keeping track if we were naughty or nice, and that helped us be especially good for a few days out of the year–mostly in December. As adults it seems many are engaging in a similar trick, which is about as effective as the first at helping us be especially good. The promised punishment is usually worse, though.

I don’t find it necessary to believe in a higher power to justify the position that it is wrong to hurt or defraud others, or my desire to live in a free and open society of equals. Once one gets right down to it, free and open society isn’t what most interpretations of God are all about. We could delve into the philosophy of how God isn’t necessary to validate moral behavior, but it’s not strictly necessary here as the premise of the absolutist is flawed in regard to god(s).

The idea of liberty free from the interference of others isn’t good enough for believers who, despite many of their wranglings to the contrary,  don’t really believe in living in a liberty minded open society. God doesn’t operate under the principles of liberal democracy, but is a monarch ruling from on high. And any attempt to suggest society might be able to find its way without an inspired book millennia old is dismissed as “it’s just your OPINION that hurting and defrauding others is wrong? So what? Why should I be concerned over your opinion?”

Why indeed? Me believing that something is wrong because I don’t think that’s best for the advancement of society and people’s lives, and reasoning with others to achieve mutual ends isn’t good enough because I’m not God and can’t unilaterally enforce my self-approved will across the universe.  But, then again, I don’t see God coming down and doing much enforcing either. It all seems to be done by people. Most of whom can’t seem to agree on what He said, especially when it comes to the finer minutia. And somehow the statement, “Because God said so” is considered in no way an opinion by the faithful. It’s objective fact. And not just any god, but their particular Brand X of god, because each religion believes they have the inside scoop on what the divine really wants. Even though, by their own often admission, God’s ways are mysterious and can’t be understood by the human mind. That’s often in response to some horrific tragedy or when prayers aren’t answered.

This is coming from people who make statements to me like “One guy thinks it’s wrong to rape little girls and another thinks it’s acceptable. For you, that is simply a difference of opinion” presents a severe moral dilemma. It isn’t. And see how the word ‘simply’ is slipped in there? Remove that and it is quite easy to see upon reading again that yes, this is a difference of opinion. What else can it be? The word ‘simply’ is injected to suggest that some differences of opinion are not capable of being rightfully discerned without a Supreme Standard. But who gets to determine what that is?  In my opinion, and under the society I want to live, rape is wrong. I don’t need heavenly verification. In other countries, women are oppressed and forced to live lives of servitude. People are slain for leaving their faith. I believe all that is wrong as well, and again I don’t need heavenly verification. But those countries proclaim to have their own heavenly verification, don’t they? In none of these instances is the Supreme Judge stepping forward to enforce his Law. It’s all carried out by people. Certainly our differences lead to many disagreements, but do we really require God to come together and reason out that, for a number of reasons, rape is a bad thing? But people still like to pull the Santa Claus argument, which appears to lend weight to opinions.

So God may see these things as wrong, but it seems he’s going to let it happen anyway. The belief is just that Evil Doers are gonna get theirs later when thrown into a fiery pit or some other punishment to balance the scales. This enables one to feel a little better about the fact Bad Things are allowed to happen. Although under most Christian doctrine, even if you were a rigtheous dude by most people’s standards but didn’t believe, you’ll get to join them in eternal torment, too. Yay.

The word ‘opinion’ is oft treated as if being “just opinion” robs it of any authority. But that’s an axiomatically unfair approach. Practical opinion (ideas, views, your doctor’s diagnosis) can be put to the test. Effects on society can be measured.  Tag-teaming your God in as supporting your opinion does not make it any more authoritative than any other, or make it any less an opinion. Remember  it was once the opinion of the church that the Inquisition and Crusades were okay, and that converting people at the point of a sword was okay, and burning people at the stake was okay. Church people are full of opinions. Where they err is in projecting those opinions outside of themselves and believing it comes from God instead of people.

Is the only thing holding believers in check their belief in a Law Giver? If they didn’t believe would they turn into Heathens Gone Wild, go about laying baseball bats up against people’s heads because, without God, that suddenly becomes optional? Is that how they acted before they became a believer? It’s a matter of the value you place on life–both yours and others. But it’s not good enough that it’s just society’s opinion that people shouldn’t go around loping heads off. No, for believers only God’s command stays their hand from the sound of it. But that’s a bit scary, too, because God has been known to say it’s okay to go slaughter people. Even your own people. And it’s not that God has become all savvy and grown past that because of a “new covenant.” Christians skewered each other left and right back in the day as well as the pagan opposition (polytheism is much more tolerant by nature than its monotheistic cousins). It wasn’t the Church that stamped out slavery, fascism, or led the way for women’s rights. It was always drug begrudgingly along. It had to change along with the culture it had so long permeated or perish. At least in the West. The Middle East is a whole other ugly story in many places. Loping off heads and stoning people there is still A-okay with God it seems. That is, in their opinion.

But here’s the deal, and why believers don’t want to admit that their views on right vs wrong is based on opinion. It’s not about murder or rape, these big issues modern communities generally all concede to be wrong whatever our moral reasoning. Those points aren’t in contention. No, it’s really about the smaller things. Because if you admit that your take on right and wrong is not based on an absolute Law Giver, but opinion, then you must also admit that it is only your opinion that God says gay marriage is wrong. It is only your opinion that a sexual business contract for profit between two people is wrong. It is only your opinion that children shouldn’t be able to read Harry Potter. Or for adults to buy beer on Sundays. The list goes on and on. And when it’s just your opinion interfering in the personal choices of other people who don’t harm anybody else, well, it just doesn’t seem to carry as much weight as opposed to it being delivered from On High.

And it would be nice here in America if our Christian friends and neighbors would be a bit more consistent in their application of scripture. For while there has been consistent outrage against gay marriage, think about how Christians treat divorce. Christians rail against moral relativism, but in practice they engage (or turn a blind eye to it) every day in regards to what the Good Book says.

First off, they shouldn’t get married at all and devote themselves entirely to the Lord as Paul did (1 Cor. 7:8) for “those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this” (1 Cor. 7:28). Paul believes time is very short, and Jesus would be coming back any moment. But, if you’re going to screw around, you should get married to make it official like in God’s eye. And then you are stuck. Forever. Paul is quite clear about this. Read all of 1 Corinthians chapter 7. The only loophole out of marriage is marital infidelity (according to Jesus, not Paul). And if you do get divorced, you aren’t allowed to remarry. You can let that unbeliever walk out of your life, but nowhere does it say it’s okay to remarry afterwards. And if you’re a woman, well, the bible doesn’t give you any outs. Clearly, not many Christians have taken Paul’s words about divorce to heart, and fewer still not to marry at all. There is plenty more that is ignored, including letting women speak (much less preach!) in church. Also, women are not to braid their hair, adorn themselves with gold or pearls, or wear expensive clothing (1 Tim. 2:9). And what about going into debt? But hey, that was all back then, and things are different now. Today’s Christian culture by and large ignores these New Testament teachings.  But that homosexual marriage, well, we can’t tolerate that.

Perhaps our modern age Christian brethren are merely practicing a bit of Old Testament moral relativism as Jesus described in Matthew 19:8, when he says, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives [not to mention also having a whole bunch of them] because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” So, maybe today’s believers are just hard-hearted, and that’s why it’s okay for so many of them to get divorced without denominational banishment. But there, right there, Jesus says one of God’s main dudes allowed for moral relativism. So, hey, spread the joy.

I don’t know very many Christians who take divorce this seriously. And to all my Christian friends who have been divorced this is not to make you feel bad. But when it comes to marriage and debt, Christians are as bad as anyone. Kind of a ho-hum, the bible said it but god will forgive me kind of saucy stance. We just kind of look the other way when our Christian friends get divorced and ignore it. We don’t kick them out of church or anything. Lawrd, no. Why, now, even interracial marriage is okay. But gay marriage? No way are we allowing that. That crosses God’s line that I’ve magically determined is more noteworthy than my fellow believer breaking God’s immutable laws (that God sometimes allows to be mutable).

So my questions for thoughtful reflection on this matter are thus:

  1. If morality comes from god(s) and not people, how would one objectively demonstrate this?
  2. If you are a believer and stopped believing in god, would you stop being nice (moral) to others? Why?
  3. If we can be nice (moral) to others without belief, is God a necessary component of morality? (If your response is God built into us an innate sense of right/wrong or similar, please see question #1.)

 

A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. ~Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 1930

 

For further excellent reading, check out Michael Shermer’s response essay (and other views) today at Cato Unbound here: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/10/13/michael-shermer/religion-politics-science

 

 

31 Questions

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) with apologist Matt Slick posted a list of 31 questions for atheists to answer. Many atheists rose to the occasion (or challenge?) and you can find their answers in blogs and YouTube videos around the net. These are wonderful in getting a fuller view of how different atheists think about the issues. However, I consider myself an igtheist or theological noncognivist. Which means, to paraphrase RationalWiki, whereas agnosticism declares “you can’t really know either way,” igtheism states “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing.” The igtheist position is “I have no clear concept of anything labeled ‘God’ nor any reason to suspect that anyone else does either.” But I’m not an apatheist. I find the argument not only interesting, but also socially relevant. While the concept of God may be ambiguous, there are a great many who believe they know exactly what God is and what God wants. On a personal level for people this may be fine, but this often translates into how one perceives and treats others, from chopping hands and heads off to racism to female genital mutilation to saying who can marry whom to what one is allowed to read. I find it hard to be apathetic about these things.

  1. How would you define atheism?

I’m good with Merriam Webster’s definition “a disbelief in deity” or, to rephrase, a lack of belief in god(s). To many atheists/skeptics/freethinkers atheism is a conclusion, not a proposition. Other people may put a different spin on it.

  1. Do you act according to what you believe in (there is no God) or what you don’t believe in (lack of belief in God)?

I act according to my conscience, motivation, and strongest inclination at any given moment (as we all do). After all, not all my inclinations are in agreement with each other. I respond to my environment and how it seems the world operates around me to achieve desired results. My skepticism about the existence of an ill-defined Supreme Being may influence some actions, but no more than the same skepticism regarding other superstitions/mythological beings (ghosts, leprechauns, psychics, and so forth).

  1. Do you think it consistent for someone who “lacks belief” in God to work against God’s existence by attempting to show that God doesn’t exist?

I don’t do this. Nor do most of the skeptical people with which I am familiar, though the confidence  may go higher when presented a case of particular revelatory theism. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim. Also, is it consistent for a believer to attempt to show that other gods don’t exist? There sure are a lot of Christian apologetics aimed at Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and so forth. It is not inconsistent to argue against what you think is wrong. What a baffling question.

  1. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

Theological noncognitivism says nothing about the state of reality, only the state of the discussion regarding god(s). Even within denominations believers don’t agree on what God is or wants. But on a theistic (God giving revelation to particular people/groups) scale I’d say 99.99999%. I have no reason to believe that any of these people who can’t present a coherent definition of God are right.

  1. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

Isn’t what is correct also what properly represents reality? Unless Mr. Slick means something else by the term “correct,” I understand what’s correct is what also “properly represents reality.”

  1. How would you define what truth is?

If we’re talking about mathematical or scientific truth, it’s what can be reliably proven by experience–or, otherwise, what is correct and  properly presents reality. It’s repeatable (past observations are useful in predicting future results) and falsifiable by what we call the scientific method. One might consider other forms of “truth” that are more subjective–artistic truth, emotional truth, philosophical truth. So I guess it depends on what “truth” we’re talking about.

  1. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?

Because there is no unambiguous definition of what constitutes God. God is a mental construct and seems best defined as people pretending to know something they can’t possibly know. Therefore it is impossible to determine any position on God’s existence.

  1. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?

I suppose I would be inclined towards a physicalist out of the two choices listed, although I am leaning towards a version of neutral monism as an area of current study. What is meant by “physical” is not fully understood and being expanded. Can “thought” be separated from the physical? It seems to at least be dependent on the physical, if not the same thing.

  1. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?

As I answered in the first question, to me atheism is a conclusion, and only a conclusion to a single question. That’s not a worldview. However, viewed this way it would be compatible with any number of worldviews from capitalism to communism, from conservatism to progressivism. There are plenty of atheist fiscal conservatives who don’t find a home in the theocratic leanings of the Republican party, which might explain why the majority of Libertarians (according to an informal poll by the Libertarian party) are atheists. This is not to say that atheism isn’t a world view for others claiming the label, but you’d have to get that clarification from them.

  1. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

This question is painting with a very broad stroke. Not all Christians are created equal here. Are we talking about Westboro Baptist Church, or the person living out their belief in personal privacy? Because I have no problem with the people who want to apply their beliefs to their private lives and find enrichment in magical x. It’s when they start trying to bring everyone else under the heel of their belief that I have problems, such as when creationism is attempted to be passed off as science in schools, or segments of the population are denied privileges (such as the LGBT community for gay marriage) based on unfalsifiable ancient manuscripts. Indeed, Christians in America today seem very enthusiastic about “taking America back for God” and putting everyone under what they believe those rules to be. The only person a True Believer can really put under their conception of God’s thumb is themselves. Stick to that and we’re golden.

  1. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

Reason and better arguments, although at this point I don’t deny that existence per se. Many Christians think that something “bad” must have happened for us atheists who turned away, and that may be true in some cases. But not for me. I enjoyed my faith and theology and the fellowship of believers. There were a couple of factors that propelled me to maintain that faith for longer than I might have. At the end of the day, it wasn’t any atheist that swayed me away, but Christianity itself. Just look at all the denominations, the varying interpretations, but how everyone believes they have the “right” version. That’s a bit of a simplification of my reasons, but it’s a start. That everybody was pretending to know things they  really didn’t, and I was too, and that there is nothing reliable about faith to reach correct conclusions. Now I’ve reached a point that, given that there is no unambiguous concept of what constitutes “god,” I don’t deny that existence; I don’t understand what is even meant by it, and I don’t think believers making the argument really do either.

  1. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

Generally speaking I think religious/superstitious belief has done more harm than good throughout history. But, given that I see religion as a human construct, that’s not to say it couldn’t be replaced by some other damaging construct. I believe we are fully capable of wrecking the ship of humanity without the iceberg of religion. However, I believe it is always better to believe in things that can be shown correct and accord with reality than not. If one has a belief that lacks evidence yet will not change or, worse, is contradictory to evidence, that is an unreasonable position. I think we’re better off without unreasonable positions. Also, for the good that religion does do, I find it easier to replace those motivations with justifiable secular humanist reasons than for finding justifiable reasons for, saying, bombing a building absent the idea of god. Of course this would not eliminate the problem. I’m only saying that, bereft of God, it’s easier to find other reasons to “feed the hungry” than it is to “kill the infidel.” Because, bereft of God, there are no infidels.

  1. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

I don’t see much difference here from the last question. Even were Christianity to be removed, that leaves a host of other religious rigmarole.

  1. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

No. People are indoctrinated into faith, it is not congenital. However, persistent belief in something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, can be considered delusional behavior.

  1. Must God be known through the scientific method?

I don’t know of any other reliable method to know things exterior to ourselves.

  1. If yes, how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

I don’t know what “immaterial” is or how it can be known (much less it have consciousness). Regardless, the God of the Levantine religions regularly is said to interact with the material world, so material evidence shouldn’t be an issue in these regards.

  1. Do we have any purpose as human beings?

Not any inherent purpose, but we can give ourselves purpose.

  1. If we do have a purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

People determine what their purpose is. Seriously, this is elementary stuff. But I understand how believers go astray here, because they believe that we must have an ultimate purpose (and have the hubris to say they know what that is). For them, otherwise, life must be meaningless. This is a non sequitur.

  1. Where does morality come from?

People. This is also self-evident.

  1. Are there moral absolutes?

Not that I’m absolutely certain about. I’m open to examples.

  1. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

Most any moral, even those that find broad acceptance across multiple cultures (i.e., murder is wrong), falls on some scale with varying shades of grey. Generally I accept the axiom that what is moral is what promotes happiness, well-being, health and/or minimizes unnecessary suffering/harm.

  1. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?

Are we talking evil with a capital “E” embodied in some nebulous force or entity? Then no. Otherwise evil is a moral construct created by people.

  1. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

My conscience.

  1. What would it take for you to believe in God?

For starters, a meaningful, understandable definition of what God is. Second, sufficient evidence for which the simplest falsifiable explanation is God. As an aside, if I am to accept the Christian god that is toted about as all-knowing and long-suffering so that none may perish, then that God knows what it would take for me to believe, and that hasn’t happened. Instead of behaving like my own parents, or so many other parents I know, who have done to the best of their abilities to guide their children out of love, this absent parent requires faith. And if you just can’t buy into that, well, it’s eternal torment for you. This doesn’t strike me as the best effort one might make to save the creation they supposedly love so much. It’s absurd. I can’t think of any other instance where faith of this sort would be considered a virtue. As Christopher Hitchens said, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  1. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

Evidence is sufficient if it’s empirically demonstrable and best explained by the hypothesis that God exists.

  1. Must this evidence be rationally based, archeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?

I don’t know what “rationally based” evidence is. Evidence is empirically based. But, ideally, yes, something along these lines. If it’s not verifiable, it’s not evidence.

  1. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?

Safer for who? At the end of the day, both groups are far too diverse to say that either  would be inherently safer–whatever is meant by that. The society I prefer is one that cherishes liberty, compassion, and evidential  empirical truths. If that society also happens to be one filled with people who believe in a mythical sky god but mind their own business, we’re copacetic.

  1. Do you believe in free will? (Free will being the ability to make choices without coercion.)

Is living under the threat of eternal damnation for making the wrong choice not coercion?? It does seem that most of us have some degree of free will, or at least the illusion, coerced or not. Others, such as the severely mentally ill, may have less so. So biology seems to play its role as well. It’s an interesting area of study, to be sure. But I don’t believe we can dismiss biology as playing a part in determining our behavior.

  1. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the  physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

As I see it? Maybe. The science is still out on the free will issue. Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe there is some mixture there depending on how we define our terms. However, granted that the brain is “limited and subject to neuro-chemical laws,” this violates the previous definition of free will given here as “the ability to make choices without coercion”–if brain chemistry influences us, that is a form of coercion, and then it can’t be said that true free will exists. But that’s only one definition of free will.

  1. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become “deity” and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?

WTH? I might take this as the basis for some fantasy novel. But, yes, I affirm evolution. I don’t know if the universe will expand forever. And I have no freakin’ clue what is meant by “exceeding mere physical limitations.” If you’re going to use such an expression, you better be able to give a coherent definition of what it means.This is just…bizarre.

  1. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren’t you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

See, the trick here is setting people up to most likely answer the previous question “yes.” So, no.