 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Note from the editor:
Our usual practice is to get the feedback edited and posted on the 15th of the following month. But I am a volunteer, and not only that, but also a Ph.D. student, a teacher, a husband, and a librarian (and not necessarily in that order). Consequently, the start of the school year has much delayed me in editing and posting August's feedback. I apologize for the delay, but here it is! Enjoy.
Why do the Internet Infidels focus so much on Christianity?
We can only work with what we have (our expertise, the essays that are contributed to Internet Infidels, etc.). We have, however, started developing responses to Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism. If you would be interested in contributing an essay about one of these religions, please see our Call for Papers.
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:59:39 EDT
Dear [Mr. Carrier],
While I am certain you consider yourself some sort of intellectual giant, I wanted you to know that I have never read more inane, poorly thought out comments than what I have seen from you. As a Christian and a thinker, I visit this site once in a while to see what ideas are being shared by atheists and those who disagree. As I was browsing through the feedback section I came across some comments from a gentleman who asked a very legitimate question: "why does an 'atheists' web-site only seem to question Christianity and not try and refute other religions as well?" [in the July feedback] Your comments were immature, hostile and dim-witted - not to mention highly prejudiced. Coming from someone who is supposed to be "educated" I found them amateurish from an intellectual perspective.
To say that you "go after" Christians because they are "bugging" you is ridiculous. Your site is 100% anti Christian and if you were being honest you would just come out and say it. You are not concerned with proving there is no God because it would only make sense that you would address all who believe in a higher power. You attack Christians because you know we hold a truth you can't accept. You attack Christianity because of it's awesome power, because it is the TRUTH. You are scared and it shows.
The reason Jews do not "bug" you is because they are elitists. If you do not come from one of the 12 tribes then you are not a Jew and they could care less about you and what you believe. They would not listen to you if their lives depended on it nor do they care if you burn in hell. That doesn't mean they do not believe in God our Creator. Christians, on the other hand, have news that is meant for the whole world and we have been given a commission by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to let others hear about it. If you have a problem with that, then it sounds like a personal one, not one you should develop a web site for. Again, if you are here to be anti-Christian and not atheists, then fess up, be honest and let your browsers know what your real intentions are. The fact that you try and disguise that makes this site deceitful. You can say whatever you want about Christians but at least we are up-front about our motivations.
You also made some pretty bold statements about Muslims which I find hard to swallow. Not all Muslims are militant types and the fact that you would use these stereotypes in your response shows your true ignorance to the real world. You must be so boxed in to your "intellectual" circuit, you never get a chance to get out there and actually MEET people of different religions. It really makes me laugh because you human secularists are supposed to be about acceptance of ALL individuals but yet you are the first ones to ridicule those who don't agree with everything you have to say.
You are hypocrites in the worst way and you ought to do some serious soul searching before you make your asinine comments public again.
'Til the whole world hears,
Michele Jordan Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:10:14
The editor responds:
Here is the last word on this played and overabused complaint against us.
When I do a search of our site, I find 274 hits that discuss Buddhism, 434 hits which discuss Muslims, and 1956 that discuss Christians. Of sites that mention God but not any of these other words, there are 650. Of those that mention neither God nor any of these other terms, there are 189. That comes to 56% Christian, 44% other religions or no specific religion of any kind. This is far away from your claimed 100%, and although this is not a scientific survey, it at least proves that a great many of our pages don't even use the word "Christian" in any sense.
The result of oppression and poverty in Islamic nations is that we have very few Islamic readers, and even fewer ex-Islamic contributors. This has nothing to do with Christians being right. It has to do with Christianity being the dominant fashion in this neck of the woods, which is the dominant culture with access to the Internet. Not that all Christians or all Christianity is hostile to us. I have good relations with many freethinking Christians who neither pose a threat to me or this country, nor possess any urge or need to argue with or convert me. I respect them all dearly for that, and we actually fight side by side against the fundamentalists on many issues--although I must say that the vast majority of Christians who claim they are not represented by the fundamentalists do not stand up against them, and thus are essentially their accomplices. By remaining silent, they are doing far more harm than they know.
Finally, contrary to the assumption that I have never gotten out and met people of other faiths, I have indeed met and worked with or befriended Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Deists, and Taoists. In fact, I was a Taoist before I converted to Secular Humanism. I know few fundamentalists who can claim such a wide multi-faith acquaintance.
It is futile to use this argument anyway. We often hear one Christian group calling all the others "not true Christians" and quite frankly that is your own petty dispute. We are not in the business of deciding who is a "true" Christian. We are getting attacked and our liberties and tax dollars threatened in the name of Christianity from all sides. I could care less about some dogmatic doctrinal question of which of these groups are "true" Christians. They are all proselytizing, they are all writing attacks on us and our beliefs, they are all gaining converts and cash, they are all appealing to religious arguments for their varied claims. We address them all.
Apologize for something I didn't do? Scr*w you! Women apologize. F*ggots apologize. Republicans should apologize. I am none of that motley crew. I'm a f***ing man. And it is an honor to be imperfect. For the only time one notices imperfection is when one compares with the ideal. And I'm sorry, you heretic -- but comparing with the ideal is where I'm at.
What's your excuse?
Kevin Hurley <kevhurls@aol.com>
norwood, ma 02062 - Monday, August 30, 1999 at 20:35:33 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
My excuse is that I'm not you. Thank Athena!
Rob Berry weighs in:
After reading this tirade, I can't help but think that perhaps it is your parents who owe the world an apology.
I would like to add a few remarks to J. E. Hill's article on the recent trend (meager as it is) of some churches to apologize for the enormities they committed when they held political power.
I have long contended that Christianity has continually failed to come to terms with the violence of its past. Christian apologists like Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, when expounding on the need to fulfill the religious impulse, seem blithely unaware of the sins, and even crimes, that the Church encouraged and fomented as a matter of course.
Since the Catholic church has the longest history (outside of the Greek Orthodox) and wielded the greatest amount of power, it has the most to apologize for. In the First Crusade, a group of English, French, German, and various other Europeans -- deliberately incited by Pope Urban II -- organized themselves in what must be one of the most destructive groups in history. Their atrocities were conducted on such a scale that was not equaled until fairly recent times. The conquest of Jerusalem alone resulted in the whole scale slaughter of 31,000 Moslems and 9,000 Jews; and, according to eyewitnesses, the conquerors waded in ankle-deep blood of their victims. And all this, it must be remembered, without a formal declaration of war or military provocation of any kind.
The First Crusade is only one of many acts of savagery perpetrated by the Church. Its history is littered with millions of victims: heretics, schismatics, Albigensians, Marranos, Jews, witches, you name it. There is at present a faint stir of recognition among Church leaders that the continual actions of murder and rapine were, possibly, not the most proprietous method of propagating the doctrine of the Prince of Peace. There is even talk to the effect that an apology to some of the victims is long overdue. But I think it can be said with some confidence that it will, if it ever materializes at all, be slight and meager and ungracious. When thugs like Cyril of Alexandria and Juan of Capistrano are still members of the calendar, the moral sense of the Church must remain permanently impaired.
Protestants often take pride in severing themselves from these horrors. They forget that their own churches were just as intolerant and just as destructive as long as they held power. Life in Geneva under Calvin's rule bore an uncanny resemblance to life in Beijing under Chairman Mao; it was possible to be executed for blasphemy until well into the 18th century in England and in the 19th century in Scotland; and poor old women were much more likely to be accused and burned as witches in Protestant countries than in Catholic ones. (In fact, the Inquisition, of all institutions, said that witchcraft was a delusion.)
Of course this is not the whole story. Christians have had their due share of honorable and decent men and women in all ages. The point, however, is that their religious institutions have had a dismal record of cruelty and incompetence whenever they held political power and that it is of the utmost importance that they never do so again. As for the victims of the churches' frenzies, we can conclude that 1) a very heartfelt and extensive apology is due, and 2) it will be long time, if ever, before it will be forthcoming.
Josh Silverman <betula@erols.com>
Fairfax, VA USA - Monday, August 30, 1999 at 19:52:37 (MDT)
This forgiveness walk is a farce and a common Christian leader tactic. Asking forgiveness on one episode in history makes it appear that they are addressing all of Christianity's murderous history. If they were really sincere then they would give the miles long list of all of its wrong-doing. Then we wouldn't have to talk about Christianity again.
Jeanette Hendricks <TAYLRD@IBM.NET>
Phoenix, AZ USA - Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 21:53:03 (MDT)
Christians are responsible for the Holocaust? Is this what happens in the name of religion? Refresh my memory. Why was Dietrich Bonhoeffer hung in 1945? Nice emotive article.
Rob <blueside@hotmail.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 09:11:05 (MDT)
I loved Hill's Christian Apologies article. I agree that it is religious belief that motivates past atrocities, and claiming that past offenders were not "true" Christians just evades the issue. Past offenders truly believed they were doing the right thing and were regarded as saints in their time.
Sadly, diehard Christians are not going to listen; they believe much like one person I know who said that she "just knows when someone really is a Christian." Like most other Christians, she uses bible verses that speak of god's love and justice to cover up the obvious atrocities of the bible--as if a scripture saying god is loving and just somehow justifies all these atrocities. These people are so blinded by their convictions that they could never believe that the bible is wrong no matter how much we try to reason or show documentation.
They cannot imagine a life without their god and their bible, so they cannot possibly imagine anyone else being without such--unless they are depraved in some way. This is compounded further in the believer who converted in their adult life and attributes their conversion to all that's positive and good in their lives.
Since I have renounced my faith and embraced a rational ethic, my life has been happier and more fulfilled that ever before. I only wish that Christians could open their minds to other viewpoints. But their a priori insistence on the inerrant truth of the bible and their god will cause them to dismiss out of hand evidence to the contrary.
Mark Wenneborg <norteno@famvid.com
>
Springfield, IL USA - Tuesday, August 10, 1999 at 20:37:22 (MDT)
I feel that a bad excuse is as bad as no excuse. The devil made me do it as an excuse is out dated. I feel that the Christian communities should apologize as a whole and humanity should be compensated for the troubles caused by the church. The story was good.
Bryan Estes <apocodaddy@yahoo.com
>
USA - Monday, August 09, 1999 at 11:54:25 (MDT)
The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to have second thoughts on Jesus Resurrection. Could this be the beginning of the end of Christianity?
I think faith is fear of the unknown, and although I do not call myself an atheist, if I had to choose between Christianity or atheism, I am the latter.
I agree that blaming evil deeds on Satan is weak and unrealistic. Who killed more, the devil or the God in the Old Testament? Judaic/Christian history is littered with corpses.
William Heaney <harbo@webtv.net>
Philadelphia, Pa USA - Sunday, August 08, 1999 at 00:10:38 (MDT)
I am writing in response to the feature article, "Christian Apologies Necessary and Needed" by J.E. Hill. The article addressed the present reconciliation movement within some Christian circles concerning the atrocities of the Crusades and the witch hunts. Due to many excuses brought about by the Christians doing the reconciliation, many have questioned their sincerity.
So, on behalf of my Christian brothers and sisters, I confess to you all that thousands, possibly millions, of Jews, Muslims, and other various groups (too numerous to count) were senselessly and brutally murdered by Christians in the name of God. I confess to you also that many of these atrocities are still taking place today by some Christians, contrary to the efforts of the Christians who are trying to combat this bigotry and inhumanity. On behalf of all of the Christians and the church, I ask for your forgiveness. I pray peace and prosperity to you and your families. May God Bless you
Dave
David Hanson <dh311@aol.com>
USA - Thursday, August 05, 1999 at 19:18:54 (MDT)
The Internet Infidels respond:
Dave, Thank you for your thoughtful message. It is refreshing to receive something from a Christian believer that actually shows some understanding of the historical legacy of the church. I pray you to be an advocate for peace and tolerance and to carry this message to your churches.
You have my permission to copy and post my article (and this exchange) in your house of worship.
Kind regards,
RE The Church asking forgiveness and seeking pardon for past atrocities and evils.
What is "The Church"? The hierarchy or the people of God? Just because some rapacious popes (whose spiritual and temporal authority I do not acknowledge) called for "crusades" against the Saracens, does this mean the vast majority of simple, ordinary believers in Christ had anything to do with that travesty of Christian charity and Biblical justice?
I agree that the second and third reasons listed in defense of "The Church" are absurd. "The devil made me do it" is extremely poor theology, and to simply dismiss Crusaders and Inquisitors as "non-Christians" will not do either. The most that can be said is that when professing Christians engaged in "Crusades," "Inquisitions," and "Witch-Hunts," they were not being true to their own professed principles.
Finally, I do not personally see any need for Christians on the verge of the third millennium after Christ to confess "collective guilt" for past wrongs except to acknowledge that these actions and attitudes were totally contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Law of Christ. The only "sword" that "The Church" is called upon by God to wield is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Ephesians 6:10-17), i.e., the force and power of Christ's Truth in the marketplace of ideas.
I am more concerned about our nation apologizing to the Japanese people for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to the German people for Dresden than for "The Church " to abase herself in self-atonement. Christ has already forgiven the people of God all of our sins, past, present, and future, original and actual, those of omission and those of commission, by His atoning death and resurrection from the dead.
George
T. Thompson <
acalvinian@earthlink.net>
USA - Thursday, August 05, 1999 at 16:25:49 (MDT)
The Internet Infidels respond:
Thank you, George, for taking the time to read and respond to the article. I am a little confused though. We as a nation should apologize for events over 50 years ago yet the church should cut bait because it was longer than that? Not that I necessarily agree with the military actions or necessity of the three events you mentioned, but were we not at war with these two countries? I can find nowhere that the church was at war with anything other than ideology.
Your reference to the 'sword of the spirit', 'force and power' and that Christ has granted a blanket pardon is frightening. It is exactly this type of thinking that justified these atrocities in the first place and allows the possibility of them happening again. For example, The New York State Senate is actually considering a blasphemy law that would punish people for being critical of religion.
And again, when you said, "...professing Christians engaged in 'Crusades,' 'Inquisitions', and 'Witch-Hunts', they were not being true to their own professed principles" you are simply saying they were not real true Christians and that being a real true Christian, you get to define who is and is not one.
Regards,
Forgiving is but one side of the coin, with sincere confession being the other side. If the instigators of the crusades weren't "true Christians" then who is? If the atrocities committed weren't the result of "divine" inspiration but rather some base political objective, what keeps the next holy cause from having an analogous ulterior motive. The World Church of the Creator and other Klan splinter groups couch their agendas in terms of crusades or racial holy war or the struggle of God's chosen people, yet have the base political motives of power through hate, violence, and death. The Inquisition is gone, but its bastard offspring are as persistent as cockroaches.
Observer <gnome63@hotmail.com>
Houghton, MI USA - Wednesday, August 04, 1999 at 05:54:04 (MDT)
While my guess is that you will not post these comments because they oppose your views in a non-fanatical way, I wanted to respond to your article on Christian Apology as it really illustrates that the author has no understanding of true Christianity and the difference between "religion" and a true Biblical, Christian RELATIONSHIP with God. It was also very clear that the author has no idea of what the Bible teaches and the type of life the Bible commands that we lead. This was one of the most ignorant articles I have ever read on this site.
First of all, to say "the church" owes anyone an apology for the actions of others is just ridiculous to me. There is no way the church should be held responsible for the atrocities committed by so called Christians who are not even here to represent themselves. This is ludicrous. Should all atheists be responsible for the actions of those who oppose the church and have committed consistent and atrocious acts against us now and in the past??? Should we be out there demanding apologies from you?? Come on guys, let's get a grip here.
Secondly, the points that are brought up for why one should not accept the
apology that some in the church are extending comes from an ignorance of God
and of His Word, the Bible. In this, I am not suprised. Those who do not follow
the
Bible usually do not UNDERSTAND the Bible. If they did, their thinking would be
different. The three "excuses" presented are not just excuses they are the
truth:
Although I know you will not, I really wish you would leave the judgment up to God for He knows better than anyone the heart of each individual, and you -- knowing NOTHING about what it means to be a true Christian --should not put yourselves in the position of determining who is really walking the walk and who is just talking the talk. Think about that, please.
In His service, Michele
Michele Mostrom <mjordan@norcomld.com
>
Boca Raton, FL USA - Monday, August 02, 1999 at 13:21:27 (MDT)
The Internet Infidels respond:
Michele,
Thank you for taking the time to read my article on Christian Apologies and responding. I have had several personal communications with people that have made the same points that you have. Most of these center on the 'real Christian' part and my lack of Biblical knowledge. I have been told a real Christian is one that practices tolerance, love, consideration, honesty, and helping your neighbor. As such, then you would have to classify me as a Christian not an atheist since I hold those tenets in high esteem and practice them in my daily behavior. Yet I am not a Christian but an atheist. Do you practice these things? Are you an atheist? How do you explain this?
You asked whether "all atheists be responsible for the actions of those who oppose the church and have committed consistent and atrocious acts against us now and in the past?" Opposing the church is one thing, violently protecting one's ideology another. Could you give me a short list of "consistent" atrocious (murderous) acts committed by atheists (not nationists that may also be atheist) against Christians?
You wrote that "the Bible does not teach violence, in fact it teaches the EXTREME opposite." If you would like to argue this point my email address is below. I just request that the responses get posted at your church. As far as my Biblical knowledge, my parents thought it was a waste of money for me to pursue (and receive) a masters in philosophy of religion. Thank you for confirming their suspicions. All in all, your comments have just confirmed what my article was all about. Now that we have posted your views, will you post ours in your church?
Regards,
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am very happy to learn that I am part of at least a sizable "fringe" group.
Merilyn Brunner <miladymib@aol.com>
Concord, CA USA - Sunday, August 22, 1999 at 05:56:37 (MDT)
I really enjoyed Keith Parsons article about the seven misconceptions surrounding atheism. It was extremely lucid and well-written. I loved it! Keep up the good work!
Darren McHugh
Seattle, WA
Darren McHugh <dmchugh@dbi.com>
Seattle, WA USA - Saturday, August 07, 1999 at 13:43:02 (MDT)
I think that religious arguments are definitely one of the biggest starters of violence and crime. It's kind of funny that both religious people and hippies are such a "laid back, and wanting peace" type of people but as soon as anything goes someway that is not to their liking they are the first ones to protest and start riots and cause all kinds of trouble. I am just agreeing to a well written article on the violence that is caused by religion. It is actually well worth showing some die hard Christians that Hitler was a Roman Catholic and the church never banned his book Mein Kampf, and see the reaction they give and see what they have to say about it. I mean you can't really say that Hitler was a good Christian. He broke a lot of the 10 commandments....the one that sticks out in my mind would be....let me think....murder?
David Grom <garbageman7@hotmail.com
>
Emporuim , PA USA - Friday, August 27, 1999 at 09:05:28 (MDT)
This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/william_edelen/religionviolence.html
To say that religion is the cause of violence is probably true considering all religion is man-made......and all of the traditions that go along with it. Christianity is not religion...it's a relationship with Christ. How can God send good people to hell? He doesn't. Men send themselves. Yes, God is love, but He is also Holy, Righteous and Judge. His love is unconditional, but His forgiveness is not. I'm thankful I sought Him because it is because of Him that I am here today. God bless you!
Have a wonderfully blessed day!
In Christ,
Jo Anne Jefferson <
joannep63@lawtonok.net>
USA - Tuesday, August 17, 1999 at 16:14:43 (MDT)
Rob Berry responds:
I can't count the number of times I've heard Christians (usually evangelicals) say "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship." I can't blame them, really. Nowadays, organized religion has gotten a bad reputation, thanks to violent anti-abortion protestors, religious racists, proponents of jihads and holy wars, radical religious militias, politicians who preach religious values they don't themselves practice, corrupt televangelists, religious pro-censorship crusaders, and the like. And since nearly everybody wants a personal relationship with somebody who will never leave them and never let them down, it's no wonder that Christians like to call Christianity "a relationship, not a religion." All the joys of an intimate friendship, without the radical hypocrisy--that's how they'd like to portray Christianity.
Only it's not true. Is Christianity a religion? Well, it sure looks like one. Christianity has a set of core beliefs that must be accepted on faith, just like most religions. Christianity has a set of holy scriptures, just like most religions. Christianity attempts to address ultimate questions like "where do we come from?" and "what happens after we die?" and "does my life have meaning?", just like most religions. Christianity has a set of rituals and ceremonies that its believers must participate in, just like most religions. Christianity attempts to propagate itself, just like most religions. And Christianity divides up people into two groups--"us" and "them"-- just like most religions. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might well be an ostrich, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
And just how admirable is this theory of "hell" that you defend? Do you have a child, a spouse, or a close friend who means the world to you? Ask yourself this question. Would you ever douse this loved one in kerosene and set them on fire merely because they insulted you? Of course not. Even if they never apologized for the insult, you still wouldn't set them on fire. For one thing, your love for them would prevent you from ever inflicting such cruel pain on them. For another, your sense of justice would recognize that your proposed punishment is far harsher than the crime deserves. Ask another question. Suppose you saw a parent setting fire to his child because the child had been belligerent or insubordinate. Would you praise this parent as having done a good job? Or would you call the police and report him? If you were on the jury that tried this parent, and the parent admitted to burning his child yet plead not guilty on the grounds that the child deserved it, would you vote to acquit or to convict? Unless you are a monster, you would vote to convict. (And if you would vote to acquit, then I hope you never get a job as a babysitter!)
The above thought experiments confirm what should have been obvious all along--that if you love someone, you don't set them on fire merely because they insulted you. So why do you make an exception for God? Why is it that if a child insults his parent, the parent is not entitled to set the child on fire, yet if a man blasphemes God, the same moral standard suddenly doesn't apply? And why do the same Christians who rail against "moral relativism" invoke it themselves in order to save face for their god? And that leaves us with the question, "How can a god be morally perfect, and yet commit acts which are moral atrocities?" The answer is, he can't, and any religion which claims otherwise is contradictory and cannot possibly be true.
I was reading the article "The Sin of Silence" by William Edelen. The author made (numerous) assertions for which I would love to see the factual basis. For example the assertion that the New Testament was written by people who did not know Jesus. Could you please direct me to sources which can confirm/support these claims.
Thanks
Vorg Africaans <vorg@hotmail.com>
Johannesburg, GA South Africa - Sunday, August 15, 1999 at 12:56:41 (MDT)
The editor responds:
It would perhaps be more acurate to say that almost all of the New Testament was not written by those who knew Jesus. It is generally believed that one of the two epistles of Peter is genuine, and if so, that would be the one thing written by anyone who actually knew Jesus. None of the other epistles, including those of Paul, declare any personal acquaintance with Jesus. Paul "met" Jesus in a vision, but he never says anything that would indicate that he knew him beforehand, so perhaps this is a semantic issue.
As for the gospels, all of them are anonymous in the earliest manuscripts, and none of them declare that they were written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. They were only about a century later given names, so we have no way to determine that they were written by any actual apostles. The only two that give us any idea of who wrote them are Luke (by the same author as Acts) and John. Luke claims in the introduction that he is not an eye-witness but is simply relating stories passed down. John claims in his conclusion to have his story from a personal acquaintance of Jesus, but even early Christians acknowledged that John was the last gospel to be written, and it is generally doubted that he is sincere about his source--at any rate, he never names him. So it is correct to say, even from the evidence of the New Testament itself, that the great majority of it does not appear to have been written by anyone who knew Jesus in person.
Hello Mr. Edelen,
I am taking a break from my home study course, Biblical Ethics, to write you in response to your article titled "The Sin of Silence" which is now published at the infidel's site. Being a Christian--of the theologically conservative flavor--gives me a different perspective on the situation you've expressed in the article concerning truth and religion, if those terms belong together.
First I want to address your list of "known facts" which inadvertently gets swept under the carpet by otherwise decent and honest religious people. Perhaps when you were in school in the 50's and 60's these theories were considered "fact," and perhaps they are still very common. You are right in pointing out that major universities do in fact teach such perspectives. But something else needs to be addressed. Such perspectives are generally rooted in certain philosophical and religious presuppositions which may go unquestioned.
The Joseph Campbell, comparative religion school of thought, so popular in the mid-century, is a descendent of 19th century German philosophy. Theology, as taught in major academic institutions, is in debt to this era in the same way other "human" sciences are. However, there are other presuppositions and paradigms available through which the data can be assessed. What is "fact" for Joseph Campbell and John Shelby Spong is determined by the world-view instituted before the investigation itself. In sum, your adherence to the certain list of "facts" is basically an adherence to a presupposition used in examining historical data. To say, in effect, that Christian ministers know these "facts" but lie about them or hide from them is to misrepresent them and their views. There are plenty of scholars who study the issues, who have come to different conclusions than your own, and they sleep at night with a clear conscience. I am but one.
Secondly, your vocabulary of "fact" smacks of Enlightenment philosophy, which is practically dead in all fields of academia. About the only time you hear of "facts" and "objectivity" is in discussions within the philosophy of religion. For religion, for or against, the Enlightenment is high-noon. I don't know why that is the case, but I wish it were not. All of the bantering that gets done on the infidel's site about "facts" is firmly placed in the middle of the 1920's, as if no one has thought about these issues in the last 70 years. Even advanced mathematicians understand that their field of study is not free from presupposed axioms. Why do people think theology is practiced without its own presuppositions? Are you aware of presuppositions and their implications in your own system of thought?
Third, I want to address the little slap you received. In the context you provided, the lady who slapped you seems to have behaved unethically. However, let me put it in a different light. If you are hired to perform a certain service, say ...telling stories to people who want to hear them, and refuse to follow through because you do not like the stories, there is a decision for you to make. Perhaps it is the case that you have behaved unethically by not performing the duties asked of you, even if that duty is repeating "mythology." If you are taking money for services which you refuse to perform, you are acting unethically ... and a little slap is pretty soft retribution for what can be called "theft."
Tell me what you think.
Take Care,
Rob Blueside <blueside@hotmail.com
>
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, August 18, 1999 at 14:43:26 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Without explaining what "presuppositions" Mr. Edelen is working under in choosing what is a fact or not, of what use is your critique? It is not very helpful to say "you are wrong" without explaining why. I suspect that you and he share exactly the same presuppositions, which have been essentially the same among all right-thinking people since Aristotle, and well before, and are no more unique to the Enlightenment or the 1920's than to any other era. But since you do not explain yourself, I cannot really say what presuppositions you are talking about.
As for the ethics of Mr. Edelen's choice of speech, a contract to speak on any subject is just that: a contract to speak on any subject. Had the agreement specified the content of his speech, then it would be a violation of contract to do otherwise. But it seems to me that had Edelen asked his employers beforehand whether they wanted him to tell the truth or a lie, certainly they would say the former. Thus it is most likely that his behavior conformed to their expectations rather than violated them. All things being equal, there is nothing unethical about telling the truth. That it was unethical because they wanted to be lied to is not a very flattering argument for Christians, now is it?
Regarding the Aug 14th feature by William Edelen:
I used to play a (popular) game when I was a kid where I would say a word over and over again until the sound of it became so foreign that it seemed to no longer have any relation to the description associated with it. By doing this I didn't strip the word of it's meaning nor did it no longer have a right to be the word for that description. Once I stopped playing the game and disregard the word for a while -- it seems to work perfectly with the description once I found myself haphazardly using it again -- unless of course I started to play the game over again using the same word. This could be one approach (whether it be intentional or subconsious) being taken by some priests.
My feeling is that maybe some priest have just accepted that what they teach is sufficient and to temporarily challenge their teachings is costly and infective in the long run. Maybe they know that, even if they chose to offer the known yet "hidden" information, that eventually some strange unexplainable thing that makes Christians deny anything that challenges their belief will seep back into play and return Christians to a state of comfortable acceptance as they were in before the new information was revealed.
Maybe some priests are just choosing to eliminate the chaos that this information will cause, knowing that whatever distortion is created with this, like the word game, eventually it will reroute itself back to where it started, through the greatest spin doctor the church has: faith. Maybe they are thinking why invest in a costly exercise that may result in years of rebuilding their church when they already know that what they are doing and preaching now will result in the same amount of followers and believers as they will have once the chaos settles?
Just a thought:-)
Hartwick <email@email.com>
Zippytown, ZA USA - Monday, August 16, 1999 at 16:24:47 (MDT)
The Sin of Silence...that clergy don't believe a word of it has long been a suspicion of mine. But, I contend that most people who attend church, especially Episcopalians, don't believe it anyway. So...what is left to preach and keep the establishment going? "The kingdom of God is within you" that's what, ala Carl Jung, more or less. Strip away all the accretions of the ages and if you can get to any truth of Jesus' sayings he wasn't a bad guy and he did not invent Christianity. The clergy did and now they're stuck with it. I am not an atheist, rather agnostic, but I believe in prayer, whoever you pray to, and healing of the body, mind and spirit by non-ego means, whatever they are. There's more to this life than mind and ego, but as to what it is, I don't have a clue. Has the writer of the article read Unamumo...? The priest who was a saint and didn't believe a word of it but faithfully propagated the sustaining lies in the form of rituals and sacraments to encourage his peasant Catholics... nobody suspected but his faithful follower, who did believe. Oh well; the pope has now renounced hell to the consternation of millions, mostly fundamentalist Protestants.
Dorothy Haas <
dhaas54966@aol.com>
bham, al USA - Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 17:57:46 (MDT)
Concerning William Edelen's article blurb on the Sin of Silence...I guess his main thought or question is why don't preachers all over Christendom just come out and say what they know to be true, that they are living a big stinking lie? Well, what about about all the chemistry teachers coming out and saying that they know the this whole element chart thing is just a big myth. Well, the answer is pretty simple, most pastors don't agree with Mr. Edelen that this whole Bible as truth thing is a big charade. Most pastors in the mainline Christian church believe it is the word of God, that is why they don't confess their sin of silence.
Brian Prentiss <
brianandkatie@prodigy.net>
Birmingham, AL USA - Sunday, August 15, 1999 at 22:33:41 (MDT)
I absolutely agree with the author of "The Sin of omission." I was once a minister. I was educated in two seminaries. After receiving a research degree in New Testament studies, I began the process of losing my faith, if you will. I did take two churches, while striving to fit what I had learned into something that resembled the Christian faith. Of course, this put me at the extreme liberal side of the spectrum. As time went on, I began to realize that all of my thoughts could be expressed outside the context of the Christian religion.
After three years, I left the ministry. I now hold a shipping job at a research center. I admit that it was difficult to take a secular job, especially one that gave me no social status, after being such an integral part of so many people's lives. No one is interested in the opinion of a shipper, even though I am the same person I was when I was ordained. I believe that this is one reason so many people stay in the ministry after they have lost faith in the traditional teachings of Christianity. It is excruciating to become a nobody after being seen as the mouth-piece of God. But, truth is more important than prestige. I have since become an atheist, so that bridge has been burned for me.
Jeff Kindle <kindlefamily@yahoo.com
>
USA - Sunday, August 15, 1999 at 15:53:42 (MDT)
It is not a despicable "sin of silence" for clergy not to tell their congregations of the liberal knowledge they received in seminary, because people can only be led as far as they are willing to go. Far better for ministers to subtly lead their congregations in moderate directions. The lady who slapped the writer probably switched herself and her money to a hard-line church. Better to keep it in the service of moderation. Please remember that Abraham Lincoln couldn't openly speak of his belief in racial equality to his Illinois constituency. By saying he believed in white supremacy, and also in the nonextension of slavery, he got himself into a position where he ultimately did more good for Abolition than a blunt equalitarian would have. Similarly, the well educated clergy should speak softly and gradually lead their congregations to more moderate positions.
Andrew Lutes <KHHL59@aol.com>
Mansfield, OH USA - Sunday, August 15, 1999 at 13:32:05 (MDT)
"Where was God?" by Wm. Edelen certainly has many valid observations. We live just 3 miles from the site that had the highest wind speed ever recorded--318 mph--during the recent tornado. I was shocked to hear one young lady interviewed on TV comment, "This just shows that there is nothing that man can build that God can't destroy." She said this reverently as if it gave her comfort. The destruction and damage of 10,000 homes, 43 deaths of humans, and death of much livestock besides, gave me little comfort. I am not an at[heist, but if I thought such a destroying monster was making some 'Look what I can do' point by such devastation, I'd certainly head that way. Again, good article.
Roberta M. Kirberger <
quigums@earthlink.net>
Blanchard, OK USA - Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 14:58:35 (MDT)
The editor responds:
I am always glad to hear the voice of sanity among believers. It encourages me to know that people can have their religion and yet still agree with other humanists of all faiths when it comes to practical reality. This is the picture, for me, of the ideal society. Thankyou for helping us create that world!
World-wide, more persecution is occuring against Christians than any other group. India is rife with it; Indonesia is infamous and the Muslim world has a systematic attack plan. Communist China as well as Russia still keep Christians under surveillance and persecution.
So, although your piece was well done, I suggest that you become more aware of the reality of anti-religious fervor in the US and the world. If Christians, with their influence, are not safe, I fear that others will be less confident.
Gary Sweeten
Gary Sweeten <
gsweeten@lifewaycenters.com>
Cincinnati, Ohio USA - Thursday, August 12, 1999 at 06:24:59 (MDT)
Rob Berry responds:
I am familiar with some of the atrocities committed against Christians in other countries, and I of course deplore them just as I would atrocities committed against atheists, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, or any other group of human beings. Persecuting somebody for their beliefs (religious or otherwise) is evil, and this is true regardless of which beliefs are being persecuted.
But my essay was written to those who claim that Christians in America are being persecuted. This is simply not true. The U.S. government is not systematically rounding up Christians and enslaving or executing them, nor are they confiscating Bibles or censoring Christian websites on the Internet. The sort of atrocities going on in India or China or Russia or the Muslim world simply aren't happening in America. So why do some Christians in America complain about being persecuted? Because they have a unique definition of "persecution" that only applies to themselves.
When Christians complain about "persecution" in America, they aren't talking about pogroms or concentration camps. They're complaining because they aren't being given the special treatment they think they deserve. In their eyes, they are being persecuted because they have to get up fifteen minutes earlier in the morning to pray with their own kids, instead of being allowed to fob off their parental duties on the schools. In their eyes, they are being persecuted because their boss won't fire a gay co-worker simply for being gay, because the Armed Forces won't kick out the Wiccans, because they have to pay for their own manger scenes, because people are not being jailed for criticizing Christianity, because some people have Darwin Fishes on their cars.
What makes this all the more vile is the fact that they are being disrespectful to those Christians who really have suffered persecution. As you correctly pointed out, there really are Christians who are being jailed, tortured, and killed for their beliefs. For American Christians to say, "Yeah, I've been a victim of persecution, too, 'cause my boss won't let me witness to my co-workers," is to trivialize the very real suffering that Christians in other countries face. Instead of whining about prayer in schools or Wiccans in the army, they should be thankful for the amount of freedom they enjoy. More importantly, they should stop trying to overthrow the constitutional protections that provide them with this freedom.
To quote:
"As for Jesseph's third objection, that Craig seems to assume there was a time before the Big Bang, Craig responded with his simultaneous causation defense. Craig asserted that cause and effect can be simultaneous, like a bowling ball depressing a cushion, and Jesseph never responded to this objection."
This is unfortunate, for I don't think that Craig's simultaneous causation defense gets him where he wants to go. In the first place, it's not clear that causes are ever actually simultaneous with their effects. To be sure, a bowling ball depressing a cushion *appears* simultaneous, but I see no reason to think that it actually is. But secondly, even if there really is simultaneous causation, that would only solve half of the problem. Simultaneous causation would explain how the BEGINNING OF TIME could be caused even though there is no moment of time prior to it. But simultaneous causation does NOT explain how an effect in time could be caused by a timeless object. Indeed, it seems to me that Craig's simultaneous causation defense is equivalent to the following:
(1) "God's timelessly willing the universe to exist was simultaneous with the beginning of the universe's existence."
But that in turn seems to be equivalent to the following:
(2) At the beginning of the universe, there both was and was not time.
This is because, on big bang cosmology, time itself came into existence with the Big Bang. Thus, (1) implies that at a certain point in time (the beginning of time)," there was no time! And that is logically contradictory. The upshot is that even if we allow the possibility of simultaneous causation, there does not seem to be any way for a TIMELESS BEING TO CAUSE ANYTHING."
Might I suggest a whole new spin on the simultaneous creation argument. That is, the universe is both creator and creation. This very weak form of pantheism cuts the Gordian knot. This is not logically contradictory -- there are many self-referential properties. It does not postulate anything outside of experience or outside of time. It is difficult for the theist to side-step with irrelevancies.
Antony Van der Mude <vandermude@acm.org
>
Summit, NJ USA - Friday, August 06, 1999 at 11:56:10 (MDT)
The Internet Infidels respond:
I think the idea of self-causation is very, very counterintuitive, if not outright incoherent. I think theists would find the concept of self-causation easy to rebut.
I really appreciate your posting of the Drange-Wilson Debate. I also appreciated certain comments that the presuppositional apologetic for Christian Theism was "intriguing." I read with interest Mr. Lowder's review and critique of Ravi Zacharias's book "Can Man Live Without God?" I would like to remind Mr. Lowder that Rev. Zacharias was writing for a popular Christian audience and not for a critical secular audience. At the same time, Mr. Lowder's criticisms seem to be valid. What Atheists and Humanists really need to hear is a carefully reasoned Biblical and logical apologetic for Classical Christianity from a presuppositional perspective by a Christian philosopher/theologian who has really "done his homework." Such a person was the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark (1903-1985). I wonder if Mr. Lowder has read Dr. Clark's classics "A Christian View of Men and Things" and "Religion, Reason, and Revelation," along with "What Do Presbyterians Believe?" for a positive exposition of classical, orthodox, catholic, biblical Christianity (i.e., the Reformed Faith). I also wonder if Mr. Lowder has seen or heard the debates between the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995) and Atheists Gordon Stein and Edward Tabash? Also, is Mr. Lowder aware of the books of Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony? These are "classics" of Christian "presuppositionalism."
Finally, I would like to thank this forum and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for allowing me to share my observations and questions in this medium.
George
T. Thompson <
acalvinian@earthlink.net>
USA - Thursday, August 05, 1999 at 16:00:06 (MDT)
The Internet Infidels respond:
Thanks for your note and your interest in the Secular Web. Concerning my review of Zacharias's book, you do not need to remind me that the book was intended for a popular audience. As I explicitly point out in my review, Zacharias tries to have it both ways. He completely ignores the arguments for atheism in his book. This might be perfectly understandable in a popular book, but in the same book he paraphrases the work of Christian philosophers and presents sophisticated arguments for the existence of God.
As for presuppositionalism, you seem to be disappointed that Zacharias (and consequently me in my review of Zacharias's book) ignored the presuppositional approach. You write, "What Atheists and Humanists really need to hear is ... [the] presuppositional perspective." It probably won't come as any surprise to you that I deny this. For while I am familiar with the work of some presuppositionalists (especially Bahnsen), I note with interest that virtually no texts on the philosophy of religion include any discussion of the presuppositional approach.
At any rate, my article was a review of Zacharias's book. Since Zacharias did not discuss the presuppositional approach in his book, there was no need for me to discuss it my review of that book. If your complaint is that the presuppositional approach is not getting enough attention in general, then your complaint is with fellow Christians like Zacharias, not an infidel like me. For example, I have been unable to locate any articles on the transcendental argument in Faith and Philosophy, the Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers. In contrast, the Secular Web has several resources dedicated to discussing the transcendental argument. At this point in time, I think our coverage of presuppositionalism is more than adequate.
Sincerely,
Hello Jeffery,
I read your review twice this weekend, and found it informative and enjoyable reading. It is interesting how Strobel avoided dealing directly with the arguments of skeptics concerning the bible and its accounts of Jesus; these fundies are usually this way, they are indoctrinated behind a series of convictions implanted in them by their religious leaders, which prevents them from looking at any data concerning Jesus impartially.
In particular, I liked your closing sentence: "For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story." This is a powerful and strong closing. Thanks for letting me know about your review, it was worth the time to read.
Peace.
22 Aug 99 18:43:00 EDT
Re: "The Jury is In" Chapter 1 'The Uniqueness of the Bible' by Jeff Lowder.
Mr. Lowder's book caught my eye while web surfing and I read Chapter 1.
It is quite surprising that Mr. Lowder completely missed the premise of Josh McDowell's Chapter on the uniqueness of the Bible. Mr. Lowder concedes that the Bible is unique but that "this doesn't prove anything."
The obvious point of Mr. McDowell was that because the Bible is so completely unique among literature of antiquity, it should (at least) be considered for reading by any honest person seeking truth.
Mr. Lowder's first chapter is so thoughtless that I am not motivated to read
further at this time. Perhaps, when time permits, I can revisit and offer
further commentary. Thanks for the forum!
Dave Gibbons <vtach@pcez.com>
Portland, OR USA - Wednesday, August 25, 1999 at 23:22:48 (MD&T)
The editor responds:
You say that "the obvious point" is that since the Bible is so completely unique among literature of antiquity, it should be considered for reading by any honest person seeking truth. Have you, then, read the Tao Te Ching? Or the Lun Hen? Mr. Lowder's point was that thousands of books are in some sense unique. What does that have to do with their being true? Uniqueness has absolutely no connection with truth. Indeed, we should expect the opposite: since truth is common to all mankind, any book that speaks the truth certainly should not be unique at all. It should be, like truth itself, commonplace.
Mr. Lowder,
I am a Christian and have recently been in an online discussion with agnostics and atheists regarding Christian truth. I have been using Mr. McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict as a reference. This site was referred to me by one of those people. To be honest, I have not yet read your rebuttal to his scholarship fully (rather glimpsed at it), but I have spent some time in the feedback section. Where I do recognize that many Christians have responded in a Christlike manner, many have not. I wanted to let you know that you have displayed great patience, rationality and kindness to those who skew you for your work. Thank you for your careful responses.
Why am I a Christian? I believe in Christ because I experience Him in my life. He has had a dramatic impact on every area in my life. Without Him, I know I would be lost. Where I do believe that there is enough evidence to discount the notion that our faith is blind, I also believe facts should be filtered from bias. But was not McDowell himself trying to disprove Christianity prior to becoming a believer?
I think you made a comment about being proselytized to...I can understand your dislike for this, but please understand that many Christians do so because they (such as myself) care about those they believe are unsaved. We hold to the belief that Jesus is the only way to God. If we trust Him as our Lord, Savior and befriend Him, we will spend eternity in His presence. Beyond death, those without Him will spend eternity without Him. Some Christians don't know how to share their faith; some feel they have to as a duty, but we should because we care...because Jesus cares.
I remember reading that you said you're putting McDowell's scholarship to the= test, not Christianity. If this is your sole intent, this too is awesome of you. I look forward to digging into your research and posting a response.
in love and gratitude,
Brian Infuse <
IntegrityInfuse@Hotmail.com>
Irvine, CA USA - Monday, August 23, 1999 at 20:31:24 (MDT)
The editor responds:
Thank you, Brian, for your thoughtful letter. Jeff and I, and many of us here among the Internet Infidels, are well aware of what you say and we do understand. There are still many unbelievers and non-Christians of other faiths who don't quite know what you are saying, and it is for their benefit that I keep publishing such remarks as yours. In return, you should know that atheistic philosophies have had a dramatic impact on every area in our lives, too. Whereas you may feel lost without Christ, we do not. Indeed, we feel liberated from the dogmas of the churches, and from a dependence on what is, to us, an antiquated, often shocking and immoral, and ultimately not very sophisticated Bible. Whereas one can liberate themselves from these things through total reliance on a personal relationship with Jesus (which we believe to be only perceived and not real, however helpful it is), we do not think this is a necessary or the best means of finding freedom and happiness. The merits and dangers of a spiritual source of truth, as opposed to a purely analytical and scientific one, I discuss in my own essay "Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each other?"
So
far the only book of McDowell's I have read is More then Just a Carpenter
,
but I
can already find several problems with his theories. Under his chapter "Are
Biblical Records Reliable?" he writes:
After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. (p. 57)The objective is this chapter is to validate the historical value of specifically the New Testament, but he seems to figure that the entire Bible is entirely factual.
Listen
to what Joseph Campbell wrote in his book "Myths to Live By" in the essay
f"Impact of Science on Myth" page 6:
"the great paleolithic caves of Europe are from Circa 30,000 B.b; the beginnings of agriculture, 10,000 B.C. or so, and the first substantial towns about 7,000 B.C. yet Cain, the eldest son of Adam, the first man, is declared in Genesis 4:2 and 4:17 to have been a 'tiller of the ground' and the builder of a city known as Enoch in the land of Nod, east of Eden. The Biblical 'theory' has once again proved false, and 'they have found the bones!'Campbell also goes on in the next paragraph to point out that there is nothing in Egyptian history as has been recorded that resembles anything like the famous plagues of Moses.
So much for historical validity.
Jason Shoup <shoupart@hotmail.com
>
Lafayette, IN USA - Sunday, August 01, 1999 at 22:38:48 (MDT)
"Atheism in the positive sense is the view that the theistic God, an all good, all knowing, all powerful being who created the Universe, does not exist."
Actually, this is a statement in the negative sense. A positive sense would only come from this statement if, by contrasting the experiential differences in reasoning from the positions of theism versus atheism, you could make positive statements like "All events have naturalistic, nonmiraculous causes", "Morality can be derived from first principles without divine inspiration", "All purpose is generated through individual lives and struggles - there is no overarching purpose to the world", "Outside of the universe's space and time, there is no there there".
All of these statements are given positively, with the theistic negative appended. They stand on their own as positive statements if the theistic contrast is removed. I would've been happier with the debate if the challenge were answered with a truly positive response.
Antony Van der Mude <vandermude@acm.org
>
Summit, NJ USA - Friday, August 06, 1999 at 11:45:53 (MDT)
About Michael Martin's article "Craig's Holy Spirit Epistemology"
To correct a confusion, the "self-authenticating" witness of the holy spirit is for Christians only, and is not identical to the universal knowledge that (generally) all humans possess. The latter is a universal knowledge afforded by the holy spirit (called "general revelation") according to which all humans (i) have a faint but immanent knowledge of God via the created order and (ii) possess an in-built sense of general moral truths. Hence, even though non-Christians do not benefit from the seemingly "self-authenticating" witness of this Other, they all know Him according to (i) and (ii).
Consequently, the holy spirit does not require that the African lady "transcend her conceptual and linguistic repertoires [to] describe her experience in Christian terms and concepts" for as long as she adequately responds to "general revelation" through her cultural filters, such faith will be sufficient for beatitude (Romans 2:7). The African has therefore experienced the salvific grace of the holy spirit without even knowing it. [By the way, this point also applies to those who existed before the rise of Christianity and were not within the covenant Israel.]
You said "Craig fails to makeý clear what an experience of the Holy Spirit is." One might argue that the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit (as with Plantinga's sensus divinitatis) is akin to a type of moral intuitionism. Suppose I believe that rape is wrong and that my comrades offer rationally convincing arguments to the contrary. I have no philosophical talent at rhetoric, so I'm stuck with a position that I cannot prove. Nevertheless I know it is wrong, and this despite the paradox that arises when my opponents retort, "well, we just know that rape is right." In this situation, I am still within my epistemic rights to believe as I do. Likewise, even if a non-Christian says: "I just know that Craig...is mistaken and that God has revealed some other book as the Word of God?," Craig will still be justified in believing according to the testimony that he has. Admittedly, I am aware that this has interesting implications for Religious Pluralism, but nevertheless, on the intuitional model, the believer need not provide explicit evidence that her experience of the divine is veridical.
Furthermore, you said, "in order to make his case he must assume that all beliefs are actions. However, Craig gives us no reason to suppose that all beliefs are actions" I'm not sure that Craig is a doxastic voluntarist. Pace this, a non-voluntarist could still make sense of Craig's statements. i.e. I may choose an action that prevents me from developing a belief, e.g. a naive mother may refuse to see evidence that her son committed a murder to preserve her belief in his innocence. In this case, she has not chosen any beliefs, but she has chosen not to form a belief by ignoring testimony. The same predicament ensues when a non-Christian suppresses the truth given through general revelation.
Blessings,
Thomas Rauchenstein <
rauchens@agape.twu.ca>
Prince Rupert, BC CANADA - Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 22:58:53 (MDT)
The editor responds:
If I can get into heaven merely by responding to revelation in being morally good, then who needs Christianity? To say that an African woman is justified when she goes through her "cultural filters" is to ignore the fact that a secular humanist does exactly the same thing--for atheism is as much a part of our culture as the African's native religion is in hers. And indeed, this is what my moral intuition tells me: to send me to hell, no matter how good I am, merely for disbelieving in some proposition or other, is morally wrong. It is, to step out of moral language for a moment, disgusting and reprehensible. Thus, I am fully in my epistemic rights, by your own arguments, in denying the existence of God and pursuing humanist morality, and hence God can have no moral basis for condemning me.
But I do not believe your arguments justify this. I do not really believe I am justified in my atheism simply because my moral intuition tells me there is no god and that I cannot justly be condemned for believing there is none. I am an atheist only as a result of sufficient proofs and evidence. Your example of rape being wrong assumes that "because I intuit it as so and for no other reason" is equivalent to a justification for belief, but it is not. It does not require the art of rhetoric to analyze the arguments of those who claim rape is good, and before you could say they were wrong, you would have to do a little more legwork than simply retorting "because I intuit it as so." This is laziness, not a justification of belief.
Your example of a non-voluntarist is not really a non-voluntarist, and so does not accomplish your aim of showing that Craig's views fit with non-voluntarism. For a mother who chooses to ignore evidence is a voluntarist, not a non-voluntarist--she does not actually ignore, but rejects evidence, and that is not the same thing. If there is a conscious decision on her part to "ignore this and ignore that" then this is not ignorance, but rejection--for if she knows the evidence is there (as she must in order to consciously choose to ignore it), then she cannot really ignore it, she can only reject it. She could only truly ignore evidence if she unconsciously chose to ignore it (which we classify as a mental illness--it is called a negative delusion, or in the case of immediate veridical sensation, a negative hallucination). That is the only way it could never enter her consciousness. But who can be blamed for an unconscious action? This is precisely the problem with the claim that unbelief is immoral: it would only be immoral if there was a conscious choice to ignore certain evidence, but that is rejection, not ignorance, as such a choice entails that we know the evidence is there for as long as we continue to consciously dismiss it.
I write in response to "Are There Really No Atheists?" by Michael Martin. I am an avid Christian, but enjoy a challenging opponent. Martin proved himself to be such. In this case, I did not maintain the NA perspective, and was inclined to agree with Mr. Martin at the outset. I appreciate Martin's logical and orderly presentation of arguments. I am also grateful for the maturity with which Mr. Martin handled the question at hand. Thank you and God bless you (I do understand the irony of that last statement, but. . . )
Jamin Letcher <Magnuson45@aol.com>
Burke,
VA USA - Wednesday, August 18, 1999 at 12:42:24 (MDT)
Dear Sir or Madam:
Regarding your article on missionary work in the last issue, I don't think you or your readers realize just how destructive a force Christian missionaries are to an indigenous culture. Many times, these cultures have flourished for thousands of years before Christianity was even invented.
Historians agree that the Christian ideology is responsible for misery and suffering second only in scope to Communism. Why should this relatively new religion be the accurate one? What happens to the other 70% of the world who subscribe to differing ideologies? And why would they choose one in which the God is apparently vindictive and vengeful, and allows 2/3 of the people he oversees to go to bed hungry?
Adam and Eve and "free will" you may try to reason. But I can no more control what my parents did before I was born, than I can what some purported ancestors did thousands of years ago. And furthermore, I wouldn't have followed the same path my parents did in many instances either. So why should I be blamed for their actions? As for the free will theory, if God created us, why didn't he at least create us so that our free will would lead to more good instead of to more evil or suffering? If he's all-knowing, he should have seen this negative imbalance coming. If he's all powerful, he should have put a stop to it right in the beginning. If he's not those things on both counts, he's flawed and perhaps even sadistic, and I don't believe such an entity to be deserving of worship, let alone being left in charge to rule over millions of lives.
My goal here is not to shatter anyone's belief system. I try to do a little something everyday to ameliorate any kind of suffering I see, and religion definitely helps people cope and ease suffering in many instances. I used to be a devout Christian myself as a child. It is comforting to feel you have this forgiving father figure looking out after you, or to believe you will be reunited with loved ones after death. The unknown can also be frightening and the God concept fills that terrifying vacuum in our knowledge.
My goal in writing this is rather to drain the arrogance out of the Christian religion. Missionaries exploit the weak links of a culture, much to that culture's detriment. No ideology has a right to bully another into it's own regardless of how materially advantaged it is, especially one as flawed as Christianity.
Sincerely,
Heidi Thony
heidithony <heidithony@hotmail.com
>
Honolulu, HI USA - Thursday, August 05, 1999 at 19:34:47 (MDT)
Hi there -- got prompted by MindIt to see what is new though have not found it so far. As I am here, I observe a link to some anti-Scientology outfits. This is shooting the Atheist movements right into its own feet; Scientology is not a theist religion and is not a danger to free-thinkers. (Individual Scientologists might be theist, that is their business not mine). You (we in some cases) must aim precisely at the militant superstition and not on those who bring no harm. Anti-Scientology people had better be consulted on other issues than Scientology, then you can better gauge their caliber and mentality. Sincerely yours, Paul
Paul Tabaka <tabaka@webtv.net>
Glendale, CA USA - Monday, August 02, 1999 at 02:38:58 (MDT)
The Internet Infidels respond:
While the Church of Scientology claims to be conducive to open communications and clear thinking, the overwhelming evidence is that the opposite is the case. The Church of Scientology has made numerous attempts to stifle free discussion of Scientology on the Internet and elsewhere, with both litigation and harassment (see, for just a few examples, chapter 6 of Wendy M. Grossman's net.wars, chapter 5 of Jonathan Wallace and Mark Mangan's Sex, Laws, and Cyberspace, and "How the Church of Scientology Tried (and Failed) to Suppress Bare-Faced Messiah".
Scientology claims to be an "applied religious philosophy" compatible with all religions, but in fact at higher levels of Scientology you learn Scientology's cosmology which is incompatible not only with major religions but with our scientific knowledge. At OT III, you learn that we are infested with the bodies of murdered space aliens who were shipped to earth 75 million years ago in spacecraft that looked like DC-8s, dropped into volcanoes on islands that science tells us weren't there at the time, and blown up with hydrogen bombs (see some of the actual text in L. Ron Hubbard's own handwriting). In Hubbard's book History of Man, he claims that human beings share genetic memory with clams and that we are descended from the fraudulent Piltdown Man. The Scientology literature is littered with bogus claims like this, in conflict with what is known in science, mathematics, and history.
I find it interesting that you claim that Scientology is not a theistic religion, since many Scientologists appeal to Hubbard's writings about the eighth Dynamic in order to claim that it is, in fact, theistic, when faced with criticisms that it is incompatible with major religions. The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary defines the eighth dynamic as "the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. .. This can be called the infinity or God dynamic." There are also references to "God" in several places in a key Scientology document, the Scientology Creed.
For more information on Scientology, see links to both critical and pro-Scientology sources of information. The Church of Scientology's web sites, contrary to promoting freethought, contain no links whatsoever to critical material.
Peter Wilson states in 'The Atheist's Certainty' that one can not prove any nonexistence claim. This statement is false because there is the very common method of 'proof by contradiction' in mathematics and logic that is used to prove nonexistence. The idea is very simple; one can not assume that something is true as part of any proof but one can show that if p is true then q is true (p and q being any statements capable of being true or false). Then one shows that q can not possibly be true. Now, since one previously found that the only time p is true is when q is also true, p can never be true. For example, to prove the nonexistence of big green Martians in my bathtub I cannot just assume that they are not there. I must prove that if there exists big green Martians in my bathtub then I would be able to see them. The proof here is easy because if they are big and green I would absolutely see them. Well, I can not see them so they must not exist. There is a contradiction between my assumption of existence and reality so my assumption must be wrong. This method of proof is a very powerful way to prove assertions and many truths in mathematics would not have proven in any other way. In closing, this type of proof has been used to show the nonexistence of god before and I am satisfied that god can not exist.
Mark Manders <
r_mark_manders@yahoo.com>
Fayetteville , ga USA - Thursday, August 26, 1999 at 10:48:28 (MDT)
The editor responds:
You are correct if you assume Dr. Wilson was writing about inductive rather than deductive proofs. About the former I have a lot to say, and this inspired a new essay on "Proving a Negative." But Peter Wilson asserts that he was thinking of the latter, and in that respect I produce his own reply here:
Mark Manders points to the existence of mathematical/logical 'proofs by contradiction' as disproof of my claim that it is impossible to prove a nonexistence claim. While true in the realm of mathematics, where entities are extremely well defined and one can make absolute statements of truth, it doesn't apply to the physical world. In a 'proof by contradiction' (or any proof) one must be very explicit in stating the initial, solitary assumption and any constraints in the problem. In making the argument, each step of the proof must furthermore be indisputable. Only then, when the contradiction is encountered, can one state with certainty that the initial assumption was incorrect. If multiple assumptions are present, it becomes impossible to know which one is false, only that at least one of them is. Even then, the conclusion only applies within the given constraints. This is far from the situation in real-world existence claims.
In Mark's example of proving the "nonexistence" of a big, green Martian in his bathtub, he assumes that he would be able to see such a being if it existed. Then, when not seeing it, he concludes that such a being doesn't exist. This isn't a real-world existence claim in several regards. First, it is both spatially and temporally constrained. He didn't prove that big, green Martians don't exist, but rather that one isn't currently present in his bathtub. One could have been there earlier this morning.
Second, he makes multiple assumptions. The first assumption is the one he is trying to show false: "A big, green Martian exists in my bathtub right now." He then argues that "IF the Martian is in my bathtub, THEN I would be able to see it." This is supposedly obvious, but depends on other unstated assumptions. What if the Martian has an invisibility suit? Or, what if the Martian drugged/hypnotized Mark and convinced him that he didn't see the Martian. I imagine there are other possibilities. (Improbable, certainly, but mathematical proofs demand absolute certainty, not just high probability). Mark assumed the absence of these possibilities in his proof, so he cannot point to his first assumption as the incorrect one.
No argument for God's nonexistence can ever reach the level of a mathematical proof. There must always be an assumption that God is constrained by the logic of the argument. I find this untenable for a supposedly omnipotent being.
Mr. Venkataraman's essay drew a huge volume of flak from all sides. He was not able to respond to every criticism, and thus he composed a general reply, given at the end, which addresses as many of the objections as he could. Because he is responding to so many people, I have allowed him to write at much greater length than usual.
I will briefly weigh in on this subject now. I am a moral relativist and thus I don't think vegetarianism has any better moral standing than not, which Venkataraman all but concedes in his reply. The objection that a moral relativist "is unable to make objective value judgments about any moral statement whatsoever" is false, because the relativist makes judgments by appealing to the values of his object of criticism. When I say "what you are doing is wrong" I mean, literally, "if you thought about the consequences of your actions in light of all the genuine facts and your own values, you would not do it."
The other objection that "a moral framework that includes only humans is no more different than one that includes only heterosexual males or excludes blacks" also fails, because moral language only exists in the minds of sufficiently sentient beings, so the only proper sphere of moral discussion is from the point of view of this class of being--and that would not include only humans, but all beings sufficiently sentient to have moral feelings. Conversely, to exclude some class of sufficiently sentient beings is groundless, since to deny that other high-sentients have moral feelings would be a denial of an objective fact. From this I believe an analysis of the values that all sentients necessarily hold in common would result in certain common conclusions which cannot be escaped by denying any pre-moral features of reality. I do not believe vegetarianism can be linked to any commonly shared value, but that does not mean it cannot be linked to values in some people, just as "not eating at Carl's Junior because the owner is a bigot" can be linked to values in some but not all people and thus it becomes perfectly sensible for those people, but not for others.
The last objection, that "moral progress is impossible," clearly fails as well, since humans--by sharing the same biological, psychological, and social needs and core desires, born from their common nature and common social backgrounds, and by sharing the same universe with the same features and behavior--will inevitably share some core values and thus it will always make sense to talk about progress in respect to those universal values. The mistake, in other words, lies in supposing that subjectivism does not allow universally shared values. I believe, though it is not the time to argue it here, that a certain level of consciousness necessarily entails a certain core set of values which ends up defining the Golden Rule and the Golden Mean as the most rational behavior for all high-sentients. That is not the same thing as an objective morality or moral realism, since the ultimate basis for moral judgments remains subjective and relative, nor does that entail that vegetarianism is irrational for everyone, and I do not believe it is.
Skip to Venkataraman's response.
See another defense of vegetarianism by Peter Wilson (which also addresses many of the arguments used by Venkataraman's critics).
I have two comments about this article (Atheism and Vegetarianism)
2. Since vegetables generally fail to indicate pain when they are harvested it is morally superior to eat them.
Fundamentally a vegetarian must kill and consume living things to sustain themselves. Just because a carrot does not scream and thrash about when one hacks off its foliage does not make eating it morally superior to eating a chicken. It is just easier to catch.
Dirk
Hill
<dirk@2xtreme.net>
San
Jose, CA USA - Tuesday, August 24, 1999 at 17:49:11 (MDT)
Since the beginnings of life it has been a predator-prey world. Life is not possible without eating. What is morally good for the predator is morally evil for the prey. It is a fact of life. Human beings have risen to the top of the food chain because they have been the most efficient predators.
As far as being vegetarian goes, plants are made up of the same basic cells of life as are animals. Just because plants cannot show pain, can we know that they do not suffer when eaten? So to be vegetarian is to choose food that cannot show whether it suffers pain or not.
We all must eat to live. To be moral in every sense, then we must starve ourselves to death in order not to harm another living creature. Is there anybody willing to do this? I doubt it. We cannot be absolutely moral in life. The best we can do is to try to cause as little harm and suffering as possible.
Nathan White <natwhite@mediaone.net
>
Naples, FL USA - Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 18:59:33 (MDT)
In response to "Atheism and Vegetarianism" by Anand Venkataraman...
I find it offensive that you consider your moral position of vegetarianism to be superior to that of the carnivore. Your position of intolerance and disdain for the meat-eater is no different than that of the fundamentalist's for the atheist or agnostic.
Furthermore, I think that the attempt to link atheism and vegetarianism is childish at best. There is no relationship between the two. By attempting to provide one, you suggest that atheism must somehow be justified on moral grounds. This is simply not true. Atheism requires no moral justification.
Todd A. Fiedler <tfiedler@yahoo.com
>
Independence, MO USA - Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 14:33:27 (MDT)
I read with eagerness the article on vegetarianism and atheism, but I find fault in several points. Firstly, while I do agree that morals are biologically inherited, I disagree with the application of Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to making a moral judgment about whether or not to eat an animal.
The lobster example used can't apply, only because we as humans do not afford the lobster the same moral status as a human being. We can't. Lobsters, as alive as they may be, are not humans, and should not be afforded the same luxuries as sentient animals. Now, whether lobsters are sentient or not is a question that no one can truly answer, but until that question is answered, putting lobsters on an even par with humans through the veil is just plain illogical. Do I have the right not to be boiled alive? Of course, because I am a human being with the ability to make logical conclusions and emotional gestures. Does a lobster? Well now, we're talking apples and oranges. If you apply the veil of ignorance in that sense, then it becomes infinitely regressive--ALL animals, regardless of species, must then become vegetarians, because then no animal has the right to eat another, period. Of course no one would say this, because animals have biological predispositions towards their diet. The food chain may be immoral in that sense, but it is not something that then we should do away with.
The same goes for us. Humans have been biologically prepared as meat-eaters, as evidenced by the history of meat-eating in our society. Thus it is rational to say I can eat meat because I am a human, and humans, like many other animals in our world, are biologically disposed to eat meat. I am rationally following my animal instincts. But then we run into the question of rationality versus morality--do I follow my biological instincts or do I follow my moral fiber?--here the example of the guy with the drill from K-Mart works...we must all make a choice regarding that conflict, depending on what outweighs in our minds. Whichever way we choose, we will have made a rational decision. Thus it is rational to be vegetarian and atheist, as it is rational to be non-vegetarian and atheist. The article assumes an "either-or" type argument; either one or the other must be rational. That isn't so.
As an atheist who eats meat, I found the article a subtle dress-up of an argument for vegetarianism, and not an objective analysis. There are other, more appropriate publications for those types of articles.
Sincerely,
Marcelo Teson <MTeson@hotmail.com>
Tempe,
AZ USA - Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 13:52:25 (MDT)
I enjoyed Anand Venkataraman's article on how atheism (actually rationalism) and vegetarianism can coexist. I disagree with his conclusion, however, that vegetarianism is the only moral and rational way to conduct ones eating habits. The fallacy in his argument stems from the fact that he assumes that all sentient creatures have the right to live and that it is up to the moral individual to uphold that right. This may hold true for whatever meta-ethic Anand conducts his life by, but is by no means true for all people, especially the humanist.
Without going into a detailed discussion of ethics, the Humanist considers moral anything that propagates his own life and happiness, and the life and happiness of others. Humanism is actually an expansion on the meta-ethic of selfishness. Anyone with the selfishness meta-ethic realizes that the only rational way to achieve happiness in a community of other people, is to incorporate other people's happiness into one's own meta-ethic, thereby incorporating one's own happiness into other people's meta-ethic.
An animal's rights play no part in the humanist ethical system. For Anand to say that it is immoral for any person to kill or eat an animal is assuming that everyone has a meta-ethical system that values life forms classified as "animals" first and foremost no matter what the species. I do not know what that meta-ethic would be called (animalism?) or what its purpose would be but I think I can safely say that it is a superfluous one, with no basis in human need.
Therefore, vegetarianism is only morally necessary if one abides by the aforementioned ethical system (or one similar). To the humanist, or anyone else without the animal clause in their meta-ethic, vegetarianism is a preference, not a necessity.
This still means that vegetarianism is by no means irrational. One could still be very justified in not eating meat. Perhaps because of compassion for animals, a dislike of the taste, or for health reasons. There is no moral necessity, though, for vegetarianism.
Nick) Sanders <nsanders@softcom.net
>
Modesto, CA USA - Monday, August 09, 1999 at 04:40:57 (MDT)
I have only one major issue with Anand Venkataraman's article "Atheism and Vegetarianism". Despite the liberal use of the word "morality", morality was never defined as it pertains to animals. A universal moral code was suggested, but in all of the examples offered the subjects were human, not animal. I've heard morality described as being those social fundamentals which allow us to get along as a society. Primarily the "do unto others" ideology espoused by most major religions. My point is this, as a society obviously we do not wish to boil one another alive. But is that right necessarily passed along to members of the animal kingdom? Does boiling live lobster cause our social structure to fall apart? It's the rare animal that exhibits empathy for creatures not of it's own species, and while I find the quality admirable, I don't believe not having that quality is immoral. If Koko the gorilla had bitten her kitten's head off the first day would we call her immoral? I'm thinking not... I believe that Vegetarianism is a wonderful thing, but I don't believe Anand Venkataraman's article addressed the issue fully or reasonably. It seemed to start with the assumption that eating meat is immoral and work backwards to find reasons why. I believe it failed.
Sherman Sanders <sherm@jps.net>
Fort Collins, CO USA - Sunday, August 08, 1999 at 14:11:32 (MDT)
Dear Infidels,
Dr Venkataraman exemplifies the most annoying features of many vegetarians- a smug conviction about his moral superiority coupled with a tendency for logic-chopping. But enough of vitriol for now.
All ethics is at its core irrational. Rationality is merely a tool for making things work, while ethics is a set of values, developing within separate circuits of our brains. A belief that eating meat is bad is just as irrational as the belief that it is indeed good and proper to eat meat, simply because they are both aiming at establishing absolute moral standards
Does it mean I am an ethical relativist? Morality is relative, yes, but then on the other hand, almost all of us have intrinsic neural circuitry which over the course of our lives allows us to develop, in an intricate interaction with the environment, increasingly complex moral attitudes. Since this circuitry is similar in all sane humans, we tend to develop similar ethical attitudes.
Rationality is the set of procedures and information-processing paradigms which we use to achieve goals. Rationality is important in setting intermediate goals but it can never provide the ultimate justification for anything, even our own lives.
As I said, the ideological strain of vegetarianism is not rational because it is a moral choice per se. Vegetarianism of the health-conscious variety, to which I subscribe, is, on the other hand, rational because it is a means of achieving an ethical but ultimately irrational goal, namely my own long-term disease-free survival.
I am not in the least bothered by the irrationality of our existence. Since almost all people share a common, partially biologically mandated core of ethical beliefs, it is possible to live together in some sort of harmony, most of the time.
Pronouncing the moral superiority of any moral stance is risky. For me, the only acceptable way of forming such a judgment is a rational analysis of the agreement of the ethical belief with the common core of shared morality (this is, of course, still not finding of an objective and absolute moral axiom but only finding the most widely accepted and basic rules).
Can vegetarianism be¿ derived in rational way from common moral principles? As far as I can tell, no. Almost all of us believe it is wrong to destroy the existence of conscious beings, or more precisely, to act against an innocent will to survive (1st axiom). It is also wrong to inflict suffering (2nd axiom). There are many exceptions to these two rules but it's a different subject. Meat eating does not necessarily infringe either of these basic principles. Animals commonly consumed by humans, to the best of my knowledge, have no sense of "self" which is a rather high-level psychological function. They do not have a will to survive, merely a survival instinct, and no understanding of the concepts of life and death. They are not sentient by any stretch of imagination. Asking the question "What would I think about lobster-eating if a were a lobster?" is silly - if a were a lobster, I wouldn' t think, or else I would be a lobster with a human brain (then it would be wrong to kill me because of my will to survive). It is not wrong to terminate the existence of objects because they do not "want" to live - they simply are. As for the suffering - well, it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals. Animals, at least the ones above the level of slugs and lice, have the circuitry needed to feel pain (lobsters probably don't). However, if the raising and killing of farm animals conforms to some standards, there is no infringement of the second moral axiom. It is indeed humane to kill a cow quickly.
To recapitulate, ideological vegetarianism is not any more or less irrational than any other ethical system but in the framework of the basic core morality shared by almost all humans it is not superior to being carnivorous.
So, now I a can go to the cafeteria and have my salad, without feeling superior to the meat-eaters around me, except when I think about all the damage the grease is doing to their arteries.
Sincerely,
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Rafal Smigrodz" <
srafal@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Pittsburgh, PA USA - Saturday, August 07, 1999 at 17:22:28 (MDT)
During the human evolutionary history our ancestors ate meat. I find this fact to be more convincing than the arguments of the article. Some questions that need to be addressed by the vegetarians are: Why are our digestive systems adapted to eat meat? Why are our eyes aligned for in-depth vision, like predators? The central question should be; are we being honest by denying our evolutionary history? I do think vegetarians can be rational but vegetarianism is indeed a very week position. It suffers from the same weakness as the abortion opposers of where to draw the line. Note: I would want to see for one an article defending the eating of animals.
Sorge Diaz
<sdiaz04@fiu.edu>
Miami,
FL USA - Wednesday, August 04, 1999 at 08:18:08 (MDT)
Re the article on vegetarianism, atheism and morality.
Interesting set of arguments but may I say a little obsessive?
Some of us don't think this way at all. I have friends who are vegetarian and friends who aren't. At different times of my life I have been vegetarian or not. Questions of moral superiority have never, at least that I noticed, occurred. Folks is different, that's all.
Obviously in the life of the author this has been important. No problem with that. But just for the record, for some of us, it hasn't been.
Stephen Hart <
stephen@labyrinthos.com.au>
Sydney, NNS Australia - Wednesday, August 04, 1999 at 02:41:49 (MDT)
Dr. Anand Venkataraman,
I do not find your arguements compelling. I kill as much of my meat as I can, out of preference for wild game. I revel in being at the top of the food chain, as one of the supreme predators on the planet.
Feel free to eat what you want, I am not going to force anyone to eat anything, or denigrate others dietary choices.
Cordially,
Ralph
Ralph S. Hoefelmeyer
Ralph Hoefelmeyer <
ralph.hoefelmeyer@wcom.com>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Tuesday, August 03, 1999 at 17:24:25 (MDT)
I read with interest Dr. Anand Venkataraman's article on vegetarianism in the August II newsletter. While his point that vegetarians are not irrational was well-taken, it seems to me his strategy to pacify non-vegetarians has a serious flaw.
Dr. Venkataraman discusses the case of a vegetarian child who tells his non-vegetarian friend, to paraphrase, "I understand that you have a meat-eating urge that is very much stronger than mine. It's OK. If I had a much stronger meat-eating urge, perhaps I would be a vegetarian too." Yet Dr. Venkataraman also states, on several occasions, that vegetarianism is morally superior to non-vegetarianism, and indeed towards the end of his article compares non-vegetarianism to heinous crimes. That being the case, how can Dr. Venkataraman excuse non-vegetarians on the basis of personal preference? We certainly do not excuse murderers from murdering because they have a strong urge to kill, nor do we live peacefully with child molesters who have a very strong urge to molest children. It's true, of course, that such heinous crimes are generally illegal, but Dr. Venkataraman explicitly rejects legality as a basis for morality.
For the record, I'm a non-vegetarian who positively hates eating beans of any sort, and has never really considered the question of vegetarianism beyond "I hate beans, I need protein to survive, therefore I'm not a vegetarian."
Regards,
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey <
natalie@col.hp.com>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Tuesday, August 03, 1999 at 16:14:08 (MDT)
The article by Dr. Venkataraman on vegetarianism was interesting but missed on a few points. -He never actually proved that eating animals was immoral yet used that assumption for the rest of his argument. -He never addressed the fact that humans are carnivores. (Our closest relatives, chimpanzees, are carnivores too.) -If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of food?
Keith Cornwell <
keith.cornwell@mindspring.com>
Alpharetta, GA USA - Tuesday, August 03, 1999 at 15:08:47 (MDT)
All individuals, whether atheist or non-atheist, must determine for themselves the limits of their moral universe. There will exist at some point a personally-established limit between items considered trivial, and items considered to be non-trivial. All trivial actions are permissible based on the whim or taste of the individual. If the individual considers the killing of plants or animals for food a trivial issue, as I and many others do, then his choice either for or against vegetarianism will be a trivial, but not necessarily meaningless, one.
Reg Reid <kanajlo@yahoo.com>
Palestine, TX USA - Tuesday, August 03, 1999 at 12:10:10 (MDT)
I don't know if vegetarians are more moral than non-vegetarians, I just know that my vegetarian philosophy is thus:
If I can't kill it, I won't eat it. I could no more kill a cow or a pig than I could kill my sister. I can cut the head off of a broccoli plant with no problem, no remorse. Does that make me more moral than those who can kill something that can obviously feel pain and other emotions? No. I think that it just means that my morals are different from non-vegetarians.
Sarah Weisiger <weisiger@specent.com
>
Rogers, AR USA - Tuesday, August 03, 1999 at 08:57:38 (MDT)
I have a number of problems with Anand Venkataraman's arguments for vegetarianism. 1. No justification is given either for the claim that most animals are "sentient" or why that should be the basis for moral standing. I think a case could be made (along the lines of arguments used to argue that abortion is not the termination of the life of a conscious being) that consciousness requires a fair amount of brain development which is largely absent outside of the Order Mammalia, and perhaps largely absent within the Order. 2. If moral standing and rights are granted on the supposed basis, then it also (on grounds similar to those used in the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God) means that human beings have a moral responsibility to prevent animal rights from being violated by other animals to as great an extent as is reasonable, yet I don't think I've ever seen a moral vegetarian advocate such a position. 3. There may be other reasons which justify meat-eating even if animals have rights; these rights may be trumped by, for example, ecological reasons. Such reasons would also defeat the argument I suggest in point 2. 4. I thought the case for the moral permissibility of eating animals that died of natural causes (or roadkill, for that matter) was rock solid. The claim that it is easier to follow an exceptionless rule seems quite false to me.
Jim Lippard <lippard@discord.org>
Phoenix, AZ USA - Monday, August 02, 1999 at 18:09:01 (MDT)
In his August article on atheism and vegetarianism, Anand Venkataraman makes a serviceable case for the reasonableness of a vegetarian diet; however, his Ÿrepeated assertions of vegetarianism's allegedly clear moral superiority seem neither well-advised nor at all supported in his editorial. Questions of offense (is it really non-offensive, or constructive, to compare one's opponents' actions to those of Adolf Hitler?) aside, Venkataraman has an enormous amount of ethical epistemology work to do in order to show that vegetarianism's reasonableness (for which he supplies some rhetorical support) necessarily implies its moral *obligation* (for which he supplies none). Venkataraman's final sentence implies a rather stunning refutation of numerous ethical philosophies, a refutation which I didn't see him even attempt in his article. I'm not entirely surprised that Venkataraman perceives a hostile reaction from people he has decided are his moral inferiors.
- Nathan Hartshorn
Nathan Hartshorn <
njhartsh@unix.amherst.edu>
Minnetonka, MN USA - Monday, August 02, 1999 at 15:01:26 (MDT)
I am disappointed with Anand Venkataraman's article on vegetarianism, but I am not surprised. I suppose that I agree with King Darian that morals are relative to our respective cultures and therefore I do not agree with his belief that vegetarianism is more moral than non-vegetarianism. This does not surprise me again because Anand's culture is probably more pro-vegetarian than the American West. He might have grown up in a vegetarian home or had other earlier exposure, I don't know.
Now I have a few questions for Anand to think about. Do you like to eat raw vegetables? Fresh vegetables? Carrots? Potatoes? Lettuce? If so, I hope you know that fresh vegetables are different from wilted or cooked vegetables because they are STILL ALIVE! When you eat fresh vegetables you are eating LIVE PLANTS! When we eat tubers or leafy plants, we are consuming the plant, therefore killing it.
OK, how about fruit? I think it is strange that vegetarians will eat all kinds of fruit, which are homologous to eggs in animals, killing the immature plants therein, but refuse to eat chicken eggs that have only a few developing chicken cells inside.
The unfortunate fact of life is that unless you are a plant, killing is necessary for your nutrition. Why have this arbitrary dividing line between plants and animals?
Plants do not feel pain as animals do (no nervous system), but some tests have shown that plants do react to their being pulled out of the soil with electronic screams. I do not know the validity of these tests, or whether they even exist, but that is not the point. All humans kill to live.
I cannot stand vegetarians that think that they are more moral than non-vegetarians because they don't kill innocent animals. Eating fruit might be OK in their point of view if they always planted the seeds instead of throwing them out in the trash. But they are just as responsible for the deaths of those immature plants (seeds) in the fruit if they do not plant them afterward. And strangely enough, the only organic food humans can eat without directly killing is milk. Milk is protein produced by the cow (or other hooved mammals like goats, etc.), causing no pain to it (in fact, milk cows will become agitated unless they are milked frequently), and it does not adversely affect the cow if her calves are taken care of (the normal recipients of cow's milk).
The reason I say "directly killing" refers to microorganisms that live in milk and die when they reach our stomach acids. Our very existence is deadly to billions upon billions of microbes that are destroyed daily by our immune systems and stomach acids. As I said before, we kill to live.
Morals are what make it hard for us to perform certain actions when we are with other people. They are entirely relative, for our convenience, they stem from selfish reasons, and are nearly meaningless unless we contact other people. The existence of morals is necessary for our societies to function properly, which is very beneficial for all of us, but they are not absolutes.
The only pro-vegetarian argument that makes sense to me is that a REDUCED meat diet is probably more healthy for humans. I choose not to follow this advice, but that is my prerogative. If Anand wants to be vegetarian, that is no problem with me, unless he wants to call me less moral for not being one.
Robert Gilmer <rsgilmer@unity.ncsu
>
Raleigh, NC USA - Monday, August 02, 1999 at 14:25:33 (MDT)
If atheists do not eat animals because they are living beings, with intrinsic rights, then how do you answer the fact that plants are also living things?
Mark LaPointe <
lapointemw@hotmail.com>
Los Angeles, CA USA - Sunday, August 01, 1999 at 18:17:47 (MDT)
Anand Venkataraman's article leaves me in a somewhat defensive mood. While I agree that there are some moral absolutes (perhaps only due to my culture's influence, but it's hard for me to determine this), I take some exception to his professed superiority to meat eaters. He builds a case for the rights of all sentient creatures by first establishing that most folks would recognize that it is somehow wrong to appropriate office supplies; he then extends this morality to sentient creatures via his hypothetical contract device.
I wonder if Mr. Venkataraman would express similar moral outrage over a lion devouring a child at play under a bush as he would at a soldier callously bayoneting the same child. I suspect not. I suspect Mr. Venkataraman would shrug and accept child death by lion as just one of those unfortunate things that happen when we aren't careful enough. It is this difference, that to me, exemplifies the difference in morality between intrahuman interactions and interspecies interactions. We feel a moral hesitance to steal because we recognize that we would not wish to have our things stolen. We do not, however, consider it thievery when a raven snatches a gaudy bauble to decorate its nest. I feel Mr. Venkataraman has built his moral superiority upon an insupportable foundation. Morality is a human invention; morality is based upon mutual good. Nonhuman sentient creatures, as far as we can determine, cannot chose