 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Greetings to all. Beginning this month the Feedback pages have a new editor. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Richard Carrier. I am currently a Ph.D. student and instructor of ancient history at Columbia University, NY. Information about me and my online work is available at my website. Our format will continue with what you see here: feedback is grouped by article or topic, with the relevant link provided at the top of each section. As in the past, responses are printed in bold to make them easier to find and browse. It has been one of our busiest months, with tons of feedback generated by the essays of Kim Walker and Bill Edelen, and those darn Congressional fiascoes. Please note that our guidelines and procedures for submitting feedback have not changed. Enjoy.
I enjoy your site immensely. I especially enjoyed the "Where will you spend eternity?" article. Secularists need to pay more attention to the emotive techniques of theists; we should also not be afraid to use our own in either retaliation or in conversions. The only question I have for you concerns the prominent placement of a referral to "The Phantom Menace" book on your home page. It's placement almost looks like an endorsement, or perhaps that the book and/or film is somehow related to secularism/skepticism. Perhaps this is the case (as I have not seen the film, nor do I plan to do so), but I doubt this, as the other films seemed to be filled to the brim with a generic, non-denominational irrationality ("Use the Force, Luke!"). Is this simply a referral ad? If so, it seems that it should be in standard banner-ad format.
Greg Spooner gspooner@csulb.edu
Seal Beach, CA USA - Friday, June 25, 1999 at 14:08:10 (MDT)
I find your marketing of Star Wars merchandise in very bad taste. Terry Brooks is a minor, minor, writer and is recognized as such by most serious speculative fiction authors. And as a secular humanist I object to the cultish ambience which surrounds the corporate integration which Lucas promotes.
Michael Milomlo66@email.msn.com
Springfield, MA USA - Sunday, June 27, 1999 at 01:02:57 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
I wondered about this myself. Not being involved in that end of the show I did a double-take, but just ignored it, being too busy with my own job. Once I inquired with my colleagues I found that this was a well-intentioned idea done badly, and I have asked the board of directors to vote up an official policy at II that will prevent this sort of thing happening in the future. It was indeed a promo, aimed at generating much-needed revenue, the thought being that with our link-agreement with Amazon, we would get kickbacks from patron interest in what was predicted to be a hit product (since we know many freethinkers who are fans). It turned out to be a bomb, adding insult to error.
When I discussed this with the Board of Directors, many thought that we should stick to promoting items of direct educational interest to our patrons. Although I think we should indeed continue to do that, I must also emphasize that there is nothing wrong with selling items unrelated to freethought at our website, as long as we carefully distinguish such promotions as what they are, and not give the appearance of an intellectual endorsement. As it is, it looked like we were pushing the religion of "The Force," or as if the book had some secular interest, which we could have avoided if we had developed a clearer policy on promotions, which we will now do, thanks to the feedback above.
However, it isn't as simple as that. Jeffery Jay Lowder is one of those who argues that promoting the book had at least some relevance to our mission, and I agree with him: "One of the pervasive themes of nontheistic literature is the criticism that religious claims are not supported by empirical evidence. Star Wars, on the other hand, presents a fictional world in which mystical or supernatural claims can in fact be empirically verified. Within that imaginary world, a person who did not believe in 'the force' could still witness acts allegedly performed by, or with the assistance of, 'the force'." This is very true, and something I have often brought up in debates. As one critic said of the X-Files (which I assume needs no introduction), Scully's skepticism, later in the series, is ridiculous, not commendable. If I'd seen what she'd seen, as Lucian once said, "I'd believe it, too." This is a good launching point for analogies about what we really are justified in believing, and when. Lowder also adds, "the Phantom Menace, like all other episodes of the Star Wars saga, is presented as fiction, not fact. I would think that freethinkers should want to avoid the sort of narrowness and hostility depicted at, say, http://www.leaderu.com/focus/starwars.html." It seems that this innocent fiction is a target of religious attack, and that alone makes it worthy of our interest, even if we deplore the cultish attitude of fans or the quality of the work itself.
My concern, however, is not with what we sell, but how we sell it. If the promotion had contained this very kind of editorial, next to the photo and sale button, I think it would have been entirely suitable--as long as we didn't give the impression that the sale link was anything but just that: a sale link. It is notable that we have, in a sense, fallen victim to a growing problem in the media industry, which has been explored twice this year by the media watchdog Brill's Content, covering their own, similar mistake (in a previous issue) in June ("This Old House, This Glass House," pp. 48-9), and in a survey of advertising trends on the world wide web in August ("journalism.commerce," pp. 56-7). The latter emphasizes the need to make it clear "where the sales pitch begins" and this will be a guiding principle here from now on. Please continue to call our attention to anything else along these lines that is unclear.
There are at present no industry standards regarding web ads, but the Internet Content Coalition has drafted the following policy suggestion: "Any nonbanner advertisement, including portals, windows, buttons, and special advertising sections...must be clearly and conspicuously identified" with the word "advertisement" (or something along those lines), "links to editorial content should not be placed within an advertising element" (to my knowledge this has never been a problem for us), and "ad buttons must be visually distinct from the editorial ones." I have recommended that we adopt some policy similar to this, and the Board of Directors is considering the issue.
Those neighbors of yours are more confused about their religion than I usually see in the non-believers. Christianity is not at all about morality and ethics; it's only about allegiance to God. Don't let them confuse you about what Christianity is.
Douglas Noble
dogunokami76@hotmail.com
USA - Wednesday, June 30, 1999 at 23:47:55 (MDT)
You need to lighten up. Most people are believers, one way or another. Surprise! Surprise! If you find living with believers so difficult, move to an isolated island. People are going to teach their children what they believe. Most Americans believe in God. If some believers are not subtle or sophisticated in talking about their faith, SORRY! The world was not organized to revolve around your feelings. Get real!
John
Card ellery76@yahoo.com
Oviedo, FL USA - Wednesday, June 30, 1999 at 01:05:05 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
I guess this philosophy is akin to "if black people find living with racists so difficult, they should move back to Africa." There is an obvious flaw in this sort of reasoning. At any rate, the article wasn't about finding "living with believers so difficult" so your point is moot anyway. I suggest you read it again, with a finer eye toward getting the point.
I did not see it as obvious that the children were atheist, mearly non-Christian. I'll assume the children raised in the nice Christian home, who made the comment, associated good morals with what they were learning in Church. Thus the morals you teach your children, as I'll assume again caring, compassionate humanistic atheists, are similar to what one might find in a liberal religion. Even a Christian one.
Of course in one sense Religious Evangelism speaks of an intolerance of other religious beliefs--The "I have the Truth" syndrome. And some denominations of Christianity are more intolerant than others. It would be a shame if as the children grow up they lose their innocence, and willingness to be friends with each other.
Jonas S. Green jgreen00@tiac.net
Salem,
MA USA - Tuesday, June 29, 1999 at 19:59:25 (MDT)
First, I'd like to say that I truly enjoy your website. Being new to the internet (and computers), and having a fascination with religions, especially the nonsense called Christianity, your site is one of the first I've visited. I'ts comforting to know there are rational minds out there. I just read the "Review" of the Bible and really enjoyed the fresh approach. Having read it myself and other works related to it, I find it absolutely incredible that people still believe in it. The one passage that sums up the entire confusing mess is the one from Exodus (4:24-6),where God, after having "recruited" Moses and sent him on his way to Egypt, comes upon him in the night and tries to kill him. God is apparently driven off after Zipporah cuts off the foreskin of her son's penis and throws it at His feet. The book then continues as if nothing bizarre had taken place. While there are passages equally ridiculous throughout the entire Bible, this one pretty much says it all.
Anyway, keep up the great work!
Michael YuhasYuhas01@yahoo.com
Orlando, Fl USA - Wednesday, June 23, 1999 at 18:50:52 (MDT)
A popular lie of the fundamentalists is that separation of Church and State was forced upon the American people by atheists, and that only atheists want it. In fact, the Separation of Church and State is strongly supported by most Christians. Fundamentalists will then label those Christians who support this to be "False Christians." However, it is not the job of the Government to determine which, if any, religion is "correct."
There is good reason for atheists, Christians and non-Christians to support separation issues. Religion is a matter of individual conscience, and Government should not tell people what to think of God. Historically, State-sponsored religion has been used as a weapon against those who believe differently, in particular used by one denomination of the same religion against another.
Those who oppose the Separation of Church and state clearly do not wish to have religious views other than their own supported by the government. There would certainly be an uproar if a seven year-old came home and told their parents that they prayed to Allah in class today. If someone values their right to raise their children in their own faith, how can they possibly be in favor of granting the government the right to tell their children what to think about God?
The real reason, it seems, that people wish to bring government-sponsored religion into the classroom is not for their own children--they can certainly teach them all the religion they wish at home and in church--but to use the classroom as a revival hall to evangelize to a captive audience.
So-called student-led school prayer seems like a sleight of hand. Proponents claim that it wouldn't be government endorsement, as the students themselves would be leading and initiating it. However, who selects who gets the government soapbox? Unless teachers are going to turn every classroom into a pan-ecumenical seminary, the teachers would be selecting certain individuals to step up to the government soapbox, and use the tools of the State to further their agenda. This selection process is itself government choosing which religious viewpoints it will endorse.
The First Commandment itself has no place in Government. The right to worship any God, or no God, as we see fit, is one of our most precious freedoms. The Government has no place in telling us that we are violating a law by exercising our most basic freedoms.
The existing laws on religious expression in public schools are quite good and reasonable. I find that opponents of Separation are reluctant to discuss them, because of the very reasonableness of these laws. Instead, bad decisions by schools, which illegally restrict religious freedom in schools, are touted as being what the law really is. There needs to be better education of school personnel as to what these laws are. We don't need to "fix" the law, as it is not broken.
Robert Lent Antiwolf@USFAmily.net
Minneapolis, MN USA - Monday, June 28, 1999 at 12:05:44 (MDT)
In response to the official posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, I think members of non-Christian sects and groups should do some posting of their own. Moslems could put up sayings from the Koran, Humanists could display quotes from Corliss Lamont's "Philosophy of Humanism", Buddhists could put up their sayings, etc.
While we're at it, let's include Scientologists, Hare Krishnas, Moonies, Church of Jesus Christ, etc. You can just imagine how the advocates of the 10 Commandment postings would react--you can bet your bottom dollar they will refuse to give equal time!
Why don't these back-stabbing hypocrites on the Christian Right just come out and say that they believe that Freedom of Religion is a failure and that Christian belief should be compulsory?
Mike Birtchet bershay@teleport.com
Portland, OR USA - Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 19:00:32 (MDT)
Hmm, I have been to 5 weddings, in 5 different churches, in 2 different countries, in the last 2 years and not once have I seen the Ten Commandments posted there. If they are not good enough for their churches, what makes them good enough for our public schools?
Kurt Eibell kurt@ioa.com
Arden,
NC USA - Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 12:45:13 (MDT)
I'm not sure what Edelen's objections are regarding the posting of the 10 Commandments in schools. He seems to be arguing that given the original intent of the commandments (based on some questionable understanding of Hebraic Law), the commandments themselves are not applicable for today. Would this mean then that we should murder, not honor our parents, covet our neighbor's possessions, etc.? Even if the scope of the intent of the commandments is not what Edelen says it is (a claim which, itself, is suspect) what does that have to do with the relevancy of posting them as moral ideals for today?
I would agree that if one is an atheist, taking these commandments as dictates from God is meaningless. However it seems that even Mr. Edelen can agree with the general moral value behind the commandments regardless of their source. If not, I'd be interested to know with what he'd replace them (and I don't see the commandments, the bill of rights, and the constitution as mutually exclusive but rather complementary).
If his question is "Why the 10 commandments and not some other moral code?" I'd respond by asking, "What other moral code should we post?" His suggestion that we post the Constitution or the Bill of Rights can't be taken seriously. Both are great documents but would not serve the purpose here. (What 3rd grader will absorb, let alone read, the entire constitution and be able to apply it as a moral guide?). Further, these documents primarily are political. What I mean by that is they are a practical implementation of a moral code and not a moral code themselves. In other words, they presuppose the moral foundation of something like the 10 commandments. Without that foundation, the Constitution wouldn't work.
Bottom line is that Mr. Edelen's "polemic" seems more like biased religion-bashing. If he has some genuine, reasonable problems with posting the 10 commandments in schools (I'm willing to admit there may be some), he should state them in a reasonable way. Calling the ethics of the 10 commandments outdated and the people who promote posting them "mentally deranged" is quite insufficient.
Paul Pardi p_pardi@hotmail.com
WA USA
- Wednesday, June 23, 1999 at 18:54:26 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
As Edelen's brief essay says, "The giver of the commandment, Moses, continued to order genocide, murder, a scorched earth policy and 'ethnic cleansing' on all of his enemies. And all with this primitive tribal God's blessing." That is, in fact, true, and thus his point: the commandment against murder obviously did not apply to non-Hebrews. It is disturbing that these commandments, snatched from a book full of horrible crimes sanctioned by God--including, as Edelen notes, the death penalty for violating the commandment against honoring one's father (Leviticus 20:9)--would be posted on walls for the education of our children. I would also add that the first four commandments are not moral at all--they are purely religious dogmas. So what other moral code should we post? Congress already knows the answer, but doesn't care--they would rather have religion than sense--for the Fletcher amendment provided for "character education programs that incorporate elements of good character including honesty, citizenship, courage, justice, respect, personal responsibility, and trustworthiness," without any reference to I am the Lord Thy God or Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Images. Indeed! No graven images? What is your 3rd grader supposed to do at arts and crafts time?
To whom it may concern:
I must say that, although I enjoyed your article, the point behind [the act] is crap. Posting the Ten Commandments is not going to make the world morally better. If the Ten Commandments had been posted at Columbine, they still would have carried out their plan. Looking at a piece of paper with 3000 year old Hebrew laws on them is not going to do anything. Nothing against the author, just the f****n bible thumping Congressmen that want to press their religion on other free-thinking people. Thank you
Sincerely,
Michael Engelken engelken@bscn.com
Walnut Ridge, AR USA - Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at 17:09:05 (MDT)
I am a Christian who is just as outraged--judging by his article--as William Edelen is by the decision Congress made regarding the posting of the 10 Commandments in public schools. I agree that the term idiotic does not go far enough to describe the decision made by these Congresspeople. After reading the comments of Reps. Aderholt and Barr, I find that even Edelen's description could be expanded to include "delusional." The 10 Commandments, as well as any other overtly (or even covertly, for that matter) religious laws, rules, sanctions (really anything) have no place whatsoever in the public sector. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights provide the only acceptable government-sanctioned rules, laws, and regulations for the public at large. To use anything more or less to regulate the lives of Americans is a despicable corruption of the cornerstone of our country. We need to protect the religious freedoms of all Americans: Edelen's (I'm assuming) and others' right to not subscribe or practice, and mine to subscribe fully and practice freely.
I would, however, be remiss if I fail to mention that in the Christian faith, which also accepts the 10 Commandments as Law, Jesus redefines and expands the Hebrew concept of "neighbor" (Luke 10:29-37), thereby extending the application of the 10 Commandments beyond Isrealite-Isrealite relations. While Edelen's evaluation of the Hebrew understanding of the 10 Commandments is accurate, albeit as skewed by his own beliefs as mine is, he fails to include or mention the Christan perspective--the perspective held, I'm guessing and ashamed to say, by most of the proponents of this insane decision.
Michelle Kubilus Fishn914@aol.com
USA - Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at 14:01:51 (MDT)
The article on the 10 commandments is right on target. The antics of the Christian elements of society are becoming more insane not less. I can only guess what will happen if Jesus does not show up in the next one or two years. Surely, these people will blame those who are under control of Satan. And anyone who does not agree with them is under the control of Satan. Maybe a new tactic is needed here. Let's post ALL the laws, every one of them straight from the bible, including all the ones Christians choose to ignore. As any student of the bible knows, there are lots of them. Maybe that would expose these hypocrites for what they are. The more I think about it, the better I like that idea. Expose them all, right from the good book itself. Let's expose all the murders, killing of the unborn, ignored commands of Jesus, ignored advice on marriage from the inspired Paul, ALL of it. Maybe then some of the more logical Christians will see the problem for what it really is. Before you know it, there would be Christian infighting among the hundreds of denominations, each trying to insert their own interpretation into the schools and public buildings. Maybe it is time for freethinkers to help them out in their holy quest to deliver God's truth to all. Let's not fight the apple-pie image of the 10 commandments, let's post ALL the laws and expose ALL the hypocrisy. Now that would be taxpayers dollars at work! Very few Christians ever read the bible, let's help them out!
Brad Becker brad@arkmola.net
USA - Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at 08:56:46 (MDT)
When it comes time to place blame for the sorry state of Congress, all we need to do is look in the mirror. Politicans like Barr are constantly running for office. They will do whatever it takes to prostitute themselves to their districts in their lust for votes. Also, a resolution, such as posting the 10 Commandments, is an easy, headline grabbing way to garner attention without addressing any true cause of youth violence and better yet, it cost nothing in taxes. It plays well to the irrational fundamentalists who hold the Republican Party hostage and who turn out to vote. So until more rational thinking folks get involved in electing these people, we get what those who show up to vote put in office. Garbage in, garbage out.
So why do these voters buy into such idiotic actions? Most of these people are scared. Frightened by a society and culture they do not understand. They long for a time that never existed. Most are white, Protestant and conservative. They want women submissive and obedient, people of color to go back to being servants and objects of derision, homosexuals to simply just die and atheists to all burn in an eternal hell. Since they can't achieve these goals, they lash out and blame everyone and everything for their problems except themselves. In the free market of ideas, theism is bankrupt. The only way to push their view now is by force. They see the government as the tool to push their beliefs upon all of society, totally missing the point of democracy and freedom. And so it goes...
Robert Carver
Carver67@worldnet.att.net
Johnson City, TN USA - Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at 00:48:34 (MDT)
The comments in the feature article "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" are all quite valid and worth while. However, two more important issues were not really addressed:
First, there is the utter improbability that this will make any real difference. The "Trenchcoat Mafia" had been greatly tormented and were full of anger, and also had been into some very bad influences (e.g., Hitler). They were apparently very angry young men, as the result of torment which was primarily at the hands of people who were probably/apparently familiar with these commandments. I can't imagine that a sign on some wall saying "Don't Kill" (something that is generally accepted and legally enforced anyway) would really have made the least difference--nor would it in any hypothetical future situation.
Further, I don't think a sign on some wall (no mater how prominent) would have stopped the cruelty that drove them to that part. The idea that this could be significant is an absurdity. There are many things going on in society which I believe contribute to things like this, and which I can't really go into in detail here--though I would list depersonalization, taught selfishness, and glorified violence would be notable examples. There is no basis to link this to religion or prayer being absent from schools. This is just an attempt by the religious right and other fanatics (in both parties) to push back the separation of church and state and bring religious indoctrination into the schools--preying on people's fears--this vulture-like capitalization on this tragedy by religious fanatics is simply disgusting!
Related to both that point and to the original article is the legal issue. This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. It is a start toward more indoctrination--a pattern that is bound to grow as people become more indoctrinated and thus more eager to enforce religion. Already Christians have unfair advantages. Are we to return, bit-by-bit, to the inquisition or the "death to unbelievers" laws of the colonies!? This is more than a ridiculous and idiotic gesture of placing ancient tribal taboos on school walls--it is a very dangerous precedent that bodes ominous for the future--especially the future of "infidels"!
Jared Blackburn ElfChildAC@aol.com
Knoxville, TN USA - Monday, June 21, 1999 at 20:56:15 (MDT)
The Ten Commandment should be displayed in government building and school. We
need to put God back were he belongs in public life and in are hearts. That is
what is wrong with our country we have taken God out of public life. This
country is 1 in teen pregnancy 1 teen violence and 1 in willful murder like
abortion, because science has already proven that life begins at conception.
Abortion is murder.
PEACE
Brian Gravley bgravley@citcom.net
Brevard, NC USA - Monday, June 21, 1999 at 20:09:20 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
Our country is a far better place now than it was in 1950. When God was in school, we had segregation, lynchings, and widespread poverty. It is typical for Christians to remember the "good old days" as just what life was like for affluent white people, and not for the real majority of U.S. citizens. There is nothing "wrong" with our country that Godism will solve. Science has proven that the number one best guarantor of health, happiness, and prosperity is a good education in an affluent home, not prayer, nor prohibitions against the manufacture of Teddy Bears (yes, that's what the 2nd commandment entails). And gosh, isn't it odd, but the best guarantee of moral behavior is health, happiness, and prosperity. Go figure.
You should also know that your "country" (United States) is not number one in teen pregnancy. Argentina alone has us beat by exponential proportions, thanks to the Catholic prohibition on birth control. Number one in teen violance? Australia now reports double our rate of teen violence (and yet they have both prayer and religious instruction in their schools) [this is incorrect--see July feedback to be published on August 15], and our rise in teen crime has advanced in lock-step with the rise in our teen population among the poorer classes. It is poverty that turns them to crime. Not atheism. As for the "abortion is murder" jingle, well that pretty much exposes what the religious agenda behind this posting of the Ten Commandments is, now doesn't it? To force upon us your belief in invisible souls, as an excuse to control our bodies and minds.
Edelen's piece on the ten commandments and congressmen was right on. I read Edelen regularly in the Pueblo (Colorado) Chieftain. His column didn't appear this past Saturday as it usually does. This was obviously the missing column...perhaps a bit much for the editor to offer to his local readership. Pity. It would do them good. Edelen's stuff should appear in more than just the two or three papers in the U.S. that it currently does. But, my, how he does inspire letters to the editor!!
Lee A. Bricker brick@net-link.net
Mattawan, MI USA - Monday, June 21, 1999 at 19:01:00 (MDT)
Congressmen have always been typified in various circles as being both intellectually inept and lacking conviction. Prior to the June 17th vote for the posting of the ten commandments in public schools, I thought this characterization of Congressmen was an exaggeration. I guess I was proved wrong. The decision to put this set of primitive rules back into our public schools is not only an act that disregards a long held, and socially productive practice, of maintaining a separation between church and state, it also is an evasive and reactionary maneuver by politically savy, mentally lazy, and spineless individuals, who are not truly willing to engage problems with the fortitude and candor that such dilemmas require.
For any Congressmen to posit that the re-inclusion of some tribal moral guidelines are a solution to today's so-called "moral regress" is absurd. The posting of any piece of writing, whether religious or secular, does nothing to deter such heinous acts, such as what occurred in Littleton, Colorado. The only thing that this act does is take purely secular institutions and impose religious ideology onto them. Didn't many of our forefathers leave their countries for the specific purpose to be free of religious tyranny?
The truth is that moral values can be divorced from religious ideologies. Programs such as D.A.R.E have proven that children can be conditioned to be productive citizens without the use of the "Good Book" (though I find little that is actually good with it). I would like to ask these Congressmen, why is it that other countries, who keep their public schools free of religious pedagogy, have relatively low levels of violence in their schools. Could it be that these countries cultivate families, have a tougher penal code, and ban all forms of firearms? The answer is yes.
Of course we should not expect our Congressmen to follow systems of government that work. Of course not! Heaven forbid that they would actually have to spend money on programs and severe their cozy relationship with their lunatic constituents and bribers (i.e. the NRA and Christian Coalition). No this is too far fetched of an idea for it to work in America! However, to gratify the desires of individuals that want to turn this place into a theocracy, and solidify relationships with gun-toting lobbyists, seems like the logical thing to do. Well, if that is logical, then I am proud to say that I am the most irrational person in the world.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Louis llouis@bayou.uh.edu
Houston
, TX USA - Monday, June 21, 1999 at 16:19:22 (MDT)
The truth of the matter is that this country DOES have a problem. I know so many young people who are getting into real trouble because they don't have any sense of right and wrong left. If life is just a collection of experiences then what does it matter how we choose them? We leave our children to find their own moral compass in a Bermuda Triangle. Though the historical references to the Hebrew application of the ten commandments might be an accurate one, I think it is important that we realize that this 'barbaric' Hebrew culture at least found it necessary to define some sort of morality--even if the intention was only to save it's own people. Should we then divert to anarchy? Surely that would be a step back into the 'stone age' in and of itself!
Evan
Maki *agnostic* evan@maki.com
New Haven, Mo USA - Monday, June 21, 1999 at 12:51:57 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
We are not living in an anarchy, yet the ten commandments have not been on school walls for at least forty years. Ergo your implication that not posting the ten commandments (or any equivalent) will "divert" us to anarchy is demonstrably false. QED. The ten commandments are not a talisman against anarchy. Education, liberty, and prosperity are. The real fact is that posting the ten commandments on walls is neither a necessary nor a useful step towards imbuing our children with moral convictions. Give a man a reason to care about his own dignity as well as the dignity of others, and he will behave morally without hearing a single rule spoken. Moral conviction is a lifestyle choice, and in that choice lies either misery or happiness. All we need do is demonstrate to our youth the "real trouble" you rightly identify as the consequence of moral apathy, and the genuine peace and sense of value that kindness and integrity bestow on one who has them, and their moral compass will be restored. In fact, this is the only way to bring someone to a solid moral life. A 3000 year old shortlist of Hebrew taboos is not going to demonstrate the consequences of villainy and virtue, nor will it teach our children what it is to be truly virtuous, as opposed to slavishly obedient.
Dear Mr. William Edelen,
As you can see, I'm a South American infidel and I just read your article about the Congress and the Ten Commandments. I would like to give you a view of a person outside of your country, expecting that this would add some new perspective to your thoughts. Well, as I said, I'm also an infidel. I'm 20 years-old and nowadays I'm [in] the college of data processing here in Brazil. But my passion always was History. I have a deep feeling for the humans' conquests and history. I developed some theses in this area, some of them specifically about the question of the persistence of the religion in these days.
I'm very concerned about that, Mr Edelen. We already live in the future, and this future is not what I was expecting. Your Congress proves that. If the most powerful nation, the most scientific and rich of all nations, could do something like approve the Ten Commandments to be displayed in your schools, the whole World must be wrong. As a Latin American, I know that I can do very little about this. I hope that you, like other people more scientific and illuminated, could stop this kind of congress mess with the ideas of millennia ago. Never stop [exploring] those things.
Best Regards,
Marcelo Carreiro mcarreir@domain.com.br
Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brazil - Monday, June 21, 1999 at 07:47:37 (MDT)
Would it not be wonderful if congress instead passed a law making schools hang the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Humanist Manifestos I and II so that every student could see them? Almost seems like an unreachable ideal. If this were to happen the schools would not be favoring one religion over another and the other religions wouldn't be offended or felt left out. Seems so reasonable, doesn't?
Ben Douglass bendouglass@cheerful.com
Portland, OR USA - Sunday, June 20, 1999 at 18:38:12 (MDT)
Thank you for posting this web page [and especially for archiving related stories]. I am not atheist but I no longer want to associate myself with the Christians after this intolerant act. We need to fight this! Please tell me how I can help. Either we put up all religious and non religious rules or we put none.
Casado, Cristina cf22@ucc.nau.edu
Flagstaff, Az USA - Sunday, June 20, 1999 at 10:06:08 (MDT)
I am dedicated to separation of Church and State. I would like to have more information about getting "involved." Is it okay to ask for instruction here? Thank you.
Merilyn Brunner miladymib@aol.com
Concord, CA USA - Wednesday, June 23, 1999 at 16:59:43 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
It certainly is okay! Both of you should check out our list of Separation of Church and State: Related Sites. Go back one step from there and you will find numerous articles, essays, books, and other projects and information.
In response to the decision to allow the Ten Commandments in public schools: The idea of grouping numerous isolated events as a bigger social issue is a staple of the Religious Right and their propensity to exploit any situation, whether it be religion-related or otherwise. It especially seems ludicrous to pass this measure as anything even remotely connected to the Columbine shootings. The only thing I ever heard about which referred to religion at all was the perpetrators' Nazi beliefs and hatred for those who opposed their way of thinking, which not only would not have been prevented by these measures but would have encouraged more students to share these same ideals. The fact that both the shooters shied from conformity further enforces the idea that by enveloping classrooms with this type of atmosphere would only create more of a threat. For all of the people out there who are wondering who in their right mind would elect Bob Barr, I went to school with his sons and, sad to say, the people in this area are just as ignorant as you would think them to be.
Sid
Singh patriotick@hotmail.com
Marietta , GA USA - Saturday, June 19, 1999 at 19:08:23 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
Although I agree with your overall point, you should know that the shooters did imply that atheism was behind their crime: one of them asked a victim if she believed in God, and when she said she did, the killer said there was no God, and then shot her. It is this that has ruffled the feathers of the religious right. But I think it is erroneous to presume that evils committed in the name of Christianity must always impugn that creed, and so I think the same with regard to atheism, which is not in fact a creed, but a blanket term for an infinite variety of them. Stalin, after all, was a villain, perhaps even worse than Hitler, and yet a staunch atheist.
So atheism is a guarantee neither of moral nor of immoral conduct. But the same is in fact true of Christianity, or any other world view. For any belief system can be tweeked to justify any evil. It is this tweeking that we should all be opposed to, not always the belief system per se. And you point out the very qualifying feature of this case: the two were, it seems, Nazi idolizers. They could just as easily have been Christian Nazi idolizers as atheist ones, and would no doubt have done the same thing, merely using a different justification. But as one reporter remarked, after hearing about a particular psychopathic conversation between the two killers during their rampage, about how fun it would be to kill someone with a knife, these kids were simply insane. Their beliefs matter little when we consider that plain fact.
Albert Isham aisham@ne.infi.net
Elizabethtown, KY USA - Friday, June 18, 1999 at 15:22:26 (MDT)
The very idea that someone actually believes that posting the ten commandments in a classroom is A) okay in a society that believes in separation of church and state and B) will have any measurable affect at all, is truly depressing. I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone. These are the same people who thought coining a phrase like "just say no" would affect drugs, so why not post God's top ten list from the home office in Egypt.
For quite a long time I have understood something very fundamental. While there are many opinions I don't agree with, I have to respect their equal place in this society, or the opinions that I hold will be at risk from people who don't agree with me. The posting of the ten commandments is an affront to those people who don't happen to believe that morality came from the old man in the sky. Excellent article, and I for one will be sending along my disappointment to my government.
Jim
Brice jammybrice@yahoo.com
USA - Friday, June 18, 1999 at 03:54:20 (MDT)
Given the recent action of the House to allow the posting of the ten commandments in public school classrooms marks a turn for the better amidst the collapsing moral foundation in this nation. What is the problem with posting a list of self-evident (correct me if I am wrong??) truths, as Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence. Thou shall not steal, can a person disagree with this injunction in an open pluralist culture? Thou shall not murder, do I as a individual person have the liberty to dissent with this view? Can my skepticism include the validity of the injunction to not murder? Even if I should happen to disagree with my government? These ten commandments form the bedrock upon with our whole moral edifice is built, remove the foundation and the structure built on them collapses (one only [need] look at the newspaper, or newscasts, to witness the implosion). Posting the ten commandments will not be a cure-all but at least our legislators recognize the need for a moral structure outside of subjective preference.
David Sonic Sonic4358@hotmail.com
Peoria, AZ USA - Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 21:13:10 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
The first four commandments are not the "bedrock" of human morality--they are not even moral commands at all. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images is not a self-evident truth. It is a self-evident tribal taboo, as outdated and irrelevant as magic or astrology. Indeed, since you brought up Jefferson, the text of the Second Commandment in Deuteronomy 5:9 actually promotes what is directly illegal according to our own Constitution. "No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood," i.e. sons are not to be punished for the crimes of their fathers--this is Article 3, Section 3, paragraph b, and this certainly cannot have as its "bedrock" the law of God, who "punishes the children for the sin of their fathers to the third and fourth generation."
Nice going America. That's one more step backwards on the trail of evolution.
Jason Neal shaolung@geocities.com
Alexandria, La USA - Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 20:35:22 (MDT)
I think it is about time that Georgia Congressman Robert Barr should be expelled from congress. It is plainly obvious that he does not uphold the constitution, by trying to prevent Wiccans from following their practice at military institutions and force the 10 commandment into schools. He blatantly disregards and over-exaggerates any information that is against his Christian agenda. For example, Barr says we are wasting lots of taxpayers' money to pay for these Wiccan practices, while one source that I read is that the average American taxpayer pays $45 a year to pay for priests, rabbis, and chaplains at the military bases, whereas it cost next to nothing for Wiccans to hold their practice. Also, they say that secular values and the lack of god in the schools are the cause of school violence, despite the fact that some of the major massacres happened in strongly Christian neighborhoods. So unless the Dilbert principle holds true (the stupidest people hold the higher positions) it seems that Robert Barr is unfit to serve in congress.
Dave Fagan running_amuck@hotmail.com
Gunnison, Co USA - Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 20:29:31 (MDT)
I'm curious if you're all aware of the fight going on in my city re: the 10 commandments issue? If so what do you think? A recent letter to the editor says true Christians should support removal of a city commissioner for voting to remove 10 commandments. Need feedback myself :)
Stephanie Knobel mdnight@kansas.net
Manhattan, KS USA - Tuesday, June 22, 1999 at 22:54:42 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
Yes, I found an article on it by John Dvorak in The Houston Chronicle (November 22, 1998, Sunday 2 Star Edition, Sect. A, Pg. 30). It is a pretty humorous story, and goes to show how the government could save a lot of money by just complying with the law--yet Christians set out to ruin politicians if they comply with the law, so officials are frightened into total inaction. As Dvorak sums it up, "The 5-foot-tall granite monument, with the inscription that starts out 'I am the Lord thy God,' has stood outside the door of City Hall for most of the past 40 years, and for most of that time it was all but ignored. 'I didn't even know it was there,' Mayor Steve Hall said....[then] to keep the Commandments out of harm's way during the construction [in 1997], workers hauled the monument away and stored it temporarily....[when the work was done] contractors reinstalled the Commandments, but in a somewhat more prominent place, where everyone walking into the building would see them."
If only they had simply sold or given it away while it was still in storage! Why reinstall an illegal monument? Because of Christians who want to build a theocracy one vote at a time: as one Christian's letter to the city council said, "I will be able to vote next year, and I will vote against anyone who votes in favor of removing the display...and I will advise all of my friends, who are also Christians, to do likewise." And another: "We want to take a stand on the side of Christianity and a nation that was built on biblical principles. We hope you'll vote to leave the tablets where they stand." Solution? The council voted to move it 5 yards away from its present position. Gee. I guess if you move it to the left it becomes legal? So after all this, what do I think of all these Ten Commandments fiascoes? For me, the first four are the problem, not so much the others. If it were only the "Middle Six Commandments," since there are not ten, but several dozen commendments--the "ten" number is an arbitrary choice by Christians who want to pretend their religion isn't Jewish--then maybe it would be okay. The fact is that the government posting of an order to believe in one and only one god (#1), and to not make or bow to idols (#2, or in other words, a government order for Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans, and we must add, Catholics, not to practice their religion), and a government order restricting free speech (#3, the blasphemy commandment), and suggesting a particular religious practice (#4, the sabbath), is not only illegal in the U.S., but entirely immoral in any free society.
The government must be neutral in these matters--it cannot be telling us what religion to practice. But it certainly can tell us not to steal and such. Hence if it were the "Middle Six Commandments," or an even more complete and enlightened list of virtues, that would be fine with me. Of course, the Middle Six might still be questioned by some who would be offended by the fact that the language of a particular religion was chosen over others, a choice that our government should not be in the business of making, and this is already a debate between Catholics and Protestants and Jews, who each use a different wording. But everyone ignores those first four. Look at what Pastor Keith Wiens says to Dvorak: "[the ten commandments] are basic guidelines that can speak to and can help anyone, those who have faith in God and those who do not." Hello! McFly! "I am the Lord Thy God" can "speak" to those who do not have faith in God? It can "help" us? If that isn't religious proselytism, what is? And what business does the government have selling God to us? None, that's what.
I am a Christian since birth. I have been raised and taught Christian values since before I remember, and I have found pretty much everyone of them to be the right, just, and basically humane thing to do. I must say that at least 80% of the other Christians I have come in contact with are so full of distorted, "Lets go out and show these people who's right, so they'll be knocking down our doors for eternal salvation by the thousands!" outlooks, that ultra-right-wing sects pop up, for instance the Religious Right, and make all people who dare to say "I'm a Christian" feel like crawling under a rock for the stupid thing a load of zealots do. I think now I know how most Muslims must feel about all the stupid "Bombings for God" crap that goes on by other Muslims.
I personally have friends who are Wiccans. I appreciate the view of the world they have, and I think I'm a better religious person for that. Hence all this crap about boycotting the Army for daring to be a Force for the Future and throwing the doors open wide to people of all religious affiliations is very offensive to me. I'm surprised they have not called for the abolition of electricity, so that "God's Guiding Light" can be seen by all, even in the dark of night. These people are taking a fundamentally sound principle and distorting it until so holy a "jihad" must be called to "Protect and Enhance the Christian Way."
A solution to the Religious Right problem: I suggest that in Kindergarten until 6th Grade in all public schools, children must be required to undergo a basic "Reading Comprehension Course" that teaches children from an early age that when it says in the Bible "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven" it does not mean "Hey, this book's really neat! Why don't we go oppress other people so they have no choice but to ride the camel."
In conclusion, to all the sane Christians left in the world, please advocate intelligence. Even though the wealthy minority must make us all look like retards, it would be wise however in my opinion to set aside our differences with people of other religious affiliations and ban together to defeat our technically gifted, but mentally incapacitated brethren, before they destroy this great country with Liberty and Justice for ALL.
William Hamblin WilPryde@aol.com
USA - Saturday, June 19, 1999 at 05:41:28 (MDT)
[So] the United States Army has now been "boycotted" by the likes of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition and other organizations sharing his "Christian" perspective. This is because the Army has chosen to officially recognize a revival of the pre-Christian nature religion known as Wicca. Some members of the Army have chosen Wicca as their religious preference.
What is amazing about the hysterical reaction of certain "Christians" to the Army recognition of Wicca as a religious practice, with rights equivalent to those of other religions, is that Pat Robertson and his allies want the federal government to decide what religion is "good" and worthy of recognition, and what religion is "bad" and unworthy. This desire of the Christian Coalition to invoke the power of the state in matters of religion is simply another reminder that these particular "Christians" are afraid to compete in the marketplace of ideas and want the power of government to silence their opponents. This is religious fascism--pure and simple.
The late Robert G. Ingersoll's wisdom should be recalled with profit as we ponder the efforts of religious fascists to use government to proscribe the religious beliefs of their fellow citizens:
Chistians have their cherished myths and fables. Wiccans have theirs Fortunately, in America, we are free to cultivate the myth of our choice and to look with critical disdain upon the fables of others. We do not have the right to invoke government to sustain our fables nor to use it to suppress the mythologies we do not like.
Robert
E. Nordlander nord@powernetonline.com
Menasha, WI USA - Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 19:38:40 (MDT)
Good article. It is surprising to me they would even consider this a practical political stance. It doesn't seem to have any chance of changing the military's policy on religious tolerance and it seems to me that it can only weaken their influence in Congress and the Courts. It demonstrates that they feel confident that they can capitalize on popular prejudice within their ranks against other religions. Maybe their leadership fears they will eventually lose members if they don't agitate and segregate? Anyway, it makes me feel much less inclined to think that school vouchers are a good idea, they are clearly too irresponsible with our liberties to trust them with a subsidy to maintain a monopoly on children's indoctrination.
Matt G
Tuesday, June 15, 1999 at 20:45:55 (MDT)
I think the "Religious Right" hasn't been very carefully considering their 'religious freedom' activities. For a number of years now I've been wondering when other religious groups would finally realize "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and use the very same initiatives supported by the "Religious Right" to promote and advance their own religions. Only in this kind of free-for-all has the real agenda of the "Religious Right" become perfectly clear to anyone who thinks at all. They want everyone to be "free" to worship only the religions they see as "fit," namely their particular brand of Christianity. My only hope is that by making themselves even more ludicrous the "Religious Right" will get themselves laughed off the scene entirely.
Scott E. Bowen hastur@execpc.com
Milwaukee, WI USA - Tuesday, June 15, 1999 at 12:42:39 (MDT)
Hi there,
I'm so glad Bob Barr made his ridiculous comments about Wiccans in the military. This is another chance for Americans to see the true agenda of the religious right, "freedom of religion yes but only for fundamentalist Christians." The more intolerant comments the Fundies and their leaders make the more it advances the cause of freethought.
Tom Brookman tntbrookman@jellico.com
USA - Saturday, June 12, 1999 at 13:36:52 (MDT)
I do not understand why people from different religious upbringings/backgrounds cannot get along without going at each other. In this house, there are various people who all work together [and] live together at the same place ([there is a] high cost of living here). None of us have the same type of background other than military, friendship, etc... There is currently in this house a Christian, a Wiccan, and a Satanist, and their girlfriends, and many pets living together in peace and harmony. We all have learned a lot about each other's religions, and much respect of each other by living together. We have no religiously-based disagreements [or] problems with each other. We all watch out for each other and help out one another. None of us will ever change each other's religious views, nor would we wish to. [I'm] not sure if it matters, but if anything we are an example that we can all get along. I hope. If we start to infringe upon any less-accepted view, be it religious or not, we are giving away the rights many of us have fought for, and many have died for. If a few people will look back, that is how this country was founded, [it] was people running from oppression, and to start something new where everybody, "regardless of race, RELIGION, creed, or color" was equal.
Ted Rin TRinAOhell@aol.com
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Wednesday, June 16, 1999 at 19:21:58 (MDT)
Just thought I would let you know, Svend Robinson was demoted to the back benches for delivering the petition. Alexa McDunna reaffirmed party support for god in the preamble and said the petition [to remove it] was a disgrace to Canadians.
Keep up the good work.
Gord Leslie
Alive
and pissed in the Theocracy of Canada.
sn1619@sunshine.net
Gibsons, BC Canada - Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 17:15:36 (MDT)
I noticed that Wilson has the right to have the Drange-Wilson debate published on a web page, and that the I.I. would link to that page. Wilson has chosen, so far, not to publish his debate--perhaps even Wilson recognizes that he has the less convincing argument.
Clinton Morell hessef@yahoo.com
Marshfield, WI USA - Thursday, June 03, 1999 at 06:46:20 (MDT)
The Editor Responds:
I must say that this is an unfair criticism. Since the debate is already published, there is little reason to duplicate the effort. As for why Mr. Wilson has not created a link to the debate from his own website, Wilson wishes to thank Mr. Morrell "for discovering that my organizational skills are not at the same level as my skill in debating."
Mr. Kim Walker was very gracious, and had a lot to say in response to the bountiful feedback that his feature article generated this month--it was by far the biggest hit, and drew in tons of mail. To keep the units of thought connected, I have incorporated Kim's replies directly after each message that he had the time to answer-and he had a lot of time! Those who tried to contact Kim may have noticed an error in the e-mail address given at our site. Be assured that all feedback was forwarded successfully, and the error has since been corrected.
I've just read Kim Walker's comments in "Where Will You Be Spending Eternity?" about recognizing the emotional component in Christian arguments and responding to that. I'm quite forward in my atheism, and I find that using the emotional arguments against Christians works wonders. Since a significant proportion of the respondents to this site like to use Pascal's Wager against us, I'll use that as an example.
I get downright gleeful when someone tells me he's just making a rational bet that there is an eternal life. The conversation usually goes something like this:
Christian: What do you mean?
Me: Basically it says your belief isn't very sincere, that you only believe because you expect this huge reward. I can't think of a worse reason to believe in something.
This usually ends that exchange.
Dennis McDermott dmcderm@boulder.net
Boulder, CO USA - Tuesday, June 29, 1999 at 23:04:31 (MDT)
This is in response to Kim Walker's enjoyable article, "Where are you going to spend eternity?" While I agree with the general tenor and conclusions reached, I have a couple of points to make (one quibbling, one not so):
1) The illustrative depiction of Maslow's hierarchy is somewhat misleading (although the commentary follows the correct sequencing). As the name implies, there are "higher" and "lower" needs. The illustration (numbered list) depicts the "highest" need (self-actualization) at the bottom. This seems somewhat counter-intuitive (Like I said, "one quibbling...").
2) The premise of her initial argument ("Eternity is a long time") may be flawed. It seems to assume that the eternity of "heavenly bliss" (or the "flames of perdition") occurs within our currently understood construct of time. However, the most logical postulation is that "God," "heaven," and "hell" exist (if they do) outside of time (Psalm 90, v.4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."). Thus the question of boredom or insanity seems moot (no time, no ennui!).
Given this, it does seem to follow that our current personality, as part of our consciousness born within the construct of time, would have to undergo radical alteration in order to allow us to retain continuity of consciousness when the entire framework within which said consciousness was developed has been ripped away. It begs the question, "Would such a transformation substantially alter consciousness or personality?" If so, could it be truly said that consciousness or personality as we know it would continue? Would this not, by itself, call into doubt any belief that an eternal soul shares personality or consciousness with the body it quickens?
Thanks for many hours of thought-provoking & enlightening reading!
Bill Snedden wyvern6@ibm.net
Greensboro, NC USA - Monday, June 28, 1999 at 15:18:13 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
I displayed Maslow's hierarchy of needs as it appears in all my social psychology textbooks. Think of it as a checklist, where each new item is dependent on the preceding ones. For example, people need to fulfill their physiological needs before they will consider their safety needs, and both their physiological and safety needs before they will consider their belonging needs (according to the theory anyway). Physiological and safety needs are called "lower" needs because they are basic for human survival, whereas self-actualization is a "higher" need because it is more esoteric. The sort of things the five categories cover are: (1) Physiological needs: hunger, thirst, protection from the elements. (2) Safety needs: security, order. (3) Belonging needs: love and affection, identification. (4) Esteem needs: prestige, success, self-respect. (5) Self-actualisation: the desire for self-fulfilment.
Your second point has been bought up by several respondents, so perhaps I should have another go at explaining myself. I suspect that the majority of Christians have a fairly unsophisticated view of eternal life. I suspect most hold to the notion that, when they die, they pick up a spirit body with a few extra doodads, which is essentially similar to the physical body they left behind on earth. Much of the popular folklore of the afterlife assumes a rather anthropomorphic view. And the Biblical notion of hell includes very physical tortures that would be meaningless without a bodily resurrection.
The Bible also says: "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it..." (Revelation 20:13) So we may well ask of those Christians who like to postulate unusual versions of the afterlife, why don't you believe in the bodily (or, at least, anthropomorphic) resurrection that the Bible teaches? Now if time is sped up, which is not unreasonable for an allegedly omnipotent God, then it might take longer for people to get bored, but the essential dilemma I described does not change. The problem just gets moved to a higher level. We are talking about eternity, after all, and eternity is limitless. I get the sense here--as with other questionable facts and figures in the Bible--that Biblical writers chose the word because it sounded suitably impressive. They did not really understand the concept of eternity, or think through its implications.
If you throw time out of the system altogether, then we face a whole new set of problems. As Einstein discovered, there is no absolute measure of time. It is more a function of causality and sequence. We human beings understand time by measuring the orderly sequence of events (like the motion of the hands on a clock), and by making relative statements like: A caused B, therefore A occurred before B. An afterlife without causality would resemble Arthur Dent's frustrating experiences in the later installments of Douglas Adams' Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy. I could not even begin to imagine an afterlife without sequence. It would certainly be incompatible with the usual anthropomorphic notions. And I don't think such an afterlife would be popular with the majority of Christians.
Dear Kim,
I just finished reading your reflections on "the tract from a nondescript woman." Your comments resurfaced a phenomenon that has puzzled me for some time. Lamenting the thick-headed-ness of religious people, you commented: "...every rational argument falls flat in a discussion with religious people..."
It is rare that I read any piece of skeptical literature that does not make claims along these lines. Again and again I am assured that what distinguishes skeptics and religious people is that skeptical people think and reason, whereas believers do not, at least when it comes to their faith. As much is presumed in the denotation, "freethinkers." I found it ironic that your characterization of the situation followed immediately after Jeffrey Jay Lowder's summation of the Geivett/Draper debate on the existence of God. From his synopsis, it seemed clear that the pairing matched two very educated, thoughtful, and intelligent men. Yet Geivett is a committed believer who believes his faith to be reasonable and justified. I witnessed a similar non sequitur following a debate between Geivett and Michael Shermer. At the very least Geivett had matched Shermer point for point through three hours of debate. Nonetheless, Shermer concluded, inexplicably, with an impassioned exhortation to the mostly Christian audience to "think for themselves." It seemed painfully obvious to me that Geivett had demonstrated that thinking for one's self was not incompatible with religious faith.
Of course, I suspect that the nondescript Australian lacked any such philosophical training. Few religious, irreligious, or non-religious people have taken the time to consider the relevant philosophical issues. Indeed, for decades many Christian intellectuals have been lamenting the Christian laity's widespread disdain for academia and its acceptance of the proposed divorce between faith and reason. But there are exceptions, and not just a few of them. Thinking Christians of all sorts populate university chairs, write laudable philosophy and literature, accomplish scientific achievements, etc. Do you really mean to say that Alvin Plantinga's problem is that he is emotional and irrational? Is Richard Swinburne just ignoring the issues? Is Fritz Schaefer's head in the ground? These are three of myriad Christian thinkers who are trying to consider and scrutinize Christian faith rationally. Ignorant, unreflective Christians there are, but in my view, the sizeable population of Christian intellectuals belies the possibility that what defines believers and skeptics is irrationality and rationality.
As a young, Christian graduate student I am frustrated and totally perplexed by your characterization of the discussion. As far as I can tell from my own inner life, I too am being honest and critical about my faith. Is there any reason I should believe there is more thinking going on among my skeptical friends? Honestly, can you please explain to me why (apart from the fact that at the end of the argument we disagree) skeptics are convinced that Christians do not think?
Hasta,
Nathan Jacobson (Biola University)
nbjacobson@email.com
Brea, CA USA - Monday, June 28, 1999 at 03:17:20 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
We come from different worlds, you and me. Of course, we live in different countries, and we are on the opposite sides of an argument, but that is not what I mean. You are an idealistic student, surrounded by intellectuals. And you obviously like to participate in that intellectual world. So when I describe religious belief as irrational and emotional, you take this as an affront.
I, on the other hand, finished my formal education a decade ago. Since then I have been involved in the world outside of academia. As you correctly point out, few people in this world that I inhabit consider the philosophical issues surrounding religion and atheism. Few people have the time or the inclination. The thoughtless theist, who interacts with religion on a purely emotional level, is the kind of person I had in mind when I wrote "Where Are You Going to Spend Eternity?" This ought to be obvious from my opening remarks, where I describe the context in which my article is set.
If I am too cynical about the level of debate for your taste, then I apologize. But in the long term you will come to learn, as I have, that thoughtful intellectuals are scarce outside of academic institutions. Many people are irrational, and they are ruled by their emotions. And we all have emotions (otherwise we would all be psychopaths). The point of my article is that we cannot get through to some people through logical argument alone, and we must consider the emotive content of the debate as well as the rational content. I know that this approach has worked because many theists have been moved to write lengthy e-mails in response. I must have rattled quite a few cages out there.
From your e-mail, it seems that you are not just angry with me, but with quite a few atheists who have implied that theists don't think. I can't speak for other people, but I can suggest one possible explanation for this position. When we put our cards on the table and publicly declare our atheism, theists ask us questions and present some arguments about why we should accept Christ and return to the church. Fair enough. We answer the questions and refute the arguments as best we can. But later on, the theists come back to us, and they ask us the same questions and present the same arguments. Okay, so maybe we did not state our position as clearly as we might have done, so we take the time to formulate better responses and arguments for our atheism.
But, lo and behold, the theists stick to their guns. They come back again and again making the same arguments and asking the same questions. They do not seem to remember that they already presented these same arguments, and that we were able to refute them. Are they thick, or what? So we sit down and construct the mother of all philosophical tracts, showing point for point why we think that religion is wrong. We compile hundreds of pages of Biblical inconsistencies, we expose at length the less than glorious history of the church, we construct dozens of arguments to show why things cannot be as Christians say they are, and we keep at it until religion is thoroughly discredited in our minds.
And how do the theists respond? They ignore us completely, then ask us the same old questions and make the same old arguments again, and again, and again. And what should we make of this? How could we not conclude that most theists, including many of the apologists, are stuck on an unbreakable treadmill of dogma, going around and around forever?
Personally, I find the prospect of death with no afterlife very disheartening.
Aaron C. USA - Saturday, June 26, 1999 at 15:00:07 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
Fine. But keep in mind that if you spend your entire life buying your ticket into heaven, you are missing out on so much that this world has to offer. Sometimes it takes a near death experience for people to face up to the fact of their own mortality, and to realize that it is our time here on earth that is precious. If you turn your back and seek solace in illusory promises of an afterlife, you are turning down the opportunity to really live.
I would just like to comment on the article, "Where are you going to spend your eternity." I thought the answer to the question was very good and well explained. I speak from experience because I was put in a Christian School for five years, and it is very true, if you don't go by what they say they will kick the sh*t out of you! I started going to church and then quit, and after that the Pastor nor Youth Pastor wouldn't even talk to me because I didn't believe what they said. And they just treated me like a piece of sh*t. All they were looking for was more gifts for themselves in the "afterlife"--they did not care about me personally! I just wanted to say the article was great and very informative.
Jennifer Hoch Sweeti2420@aol.com
Tampa,
Fl USA - Friday, June 25, 1999 at 23:41:03 (MDT)
"Where are you going to spend Eternity" was an excellent and articulate work. The article put into succinct terms the foundation of reason behind rejecting religious evangelism. I think it also did a wonderful job of going more in-depth into certain aspects of the whole debate. One request, though: put features like this on their own page, instead of with other stuff at the top. It makes it easier to find and reference if it's one single coherent page.
Greg Baumgartel gregb@frii.com
Boulder, CO USA - Friday, June 25, 1999 at 01:23:24 (MDT)
The Editor responds:
We always welcome suggestions--there are often things we don't think of. In this case, however, we have a reason for doing it as we do. Since the newsletter is hyperlinked at the top of the page, putting the essay at the bottom is hardly a referencing inconvenience: just point your URL-finder to the address, with the hyperlink included (as I have done at the title entry to this section). For example, you can go to the newsletter, hit the hyperlink, then bookmark the URL and the hyperlink will be included. It is actually inconvenient and uneccessary to break up the newsletters, and if we were to spin off the feature, we may as well spin off everything. But then we would have a website, not a newsletter--which is, by the way, mailed, whole, to many subscribers, or downloaded or printed in its entirety by many avid readers, so breaking it up would make things harder for all concerned, not easier.
I enjoyed your article about spending eternity...My answer is ~ I am spending eternity NOW, what about you? It's kind of a Buddhist cop-out, except let me say to those of us in the Zen camp, there is a bit more. Ask "What do you believe in?" I respond "nothing, but nothing on a level I doubt you will ever understand." If I hear the "burn in hell thing" I have to say "been there, done that, doing that again, NOW." So my comment is that we are in the process of spending eternity now. Deny that and you better seek therapy, you're in denial.
Cheers--see you all on the next go-around.
Carl Frommcarlfromm@yahoo.com
USA - Friday, June 25, 1999 at 23:16:55 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
I'm in de-nial? Then this must be Egypt! Hassan, fetch me my fez--oh, and a towel. Good man :-) Actually Carl, I agree with you. We are spending that portion of eternity allotted us right now. But what you call reincarnation I would call recycling. Some of the atoms in your body probably belonged to Gautama once. Some of the molecules of air you are breathing were probably first drawn into the lungs of an Egyptian Pharaoh. Unfortunately, there is no credible evidence for a "soul" that passes intact from one body to the next (or to anywhere else). As physiologists know, human consciousness and personality--those traits most often associated with the soul--are a function of the brain. People who suffer from brain damage often lose some of their personality and consciousness. Now, where did I put that bottle of sherbet?
But you are what you preach against. Aren't you a bigot in the same right that the christian Fool is one too? To so actively denounce religion and pass blame on them is to join their ranks of mindless and senseless finger-pointing. The difference? You rationalize your ideas with "logic" and "powerful human reason" while the Christian groups rationalize their ideas with "unconditional faith." When did you ever stop to realize that you ARE the monster whom you so violently fight against? Perhaps at some point you will realize that you only fight yourself, and behind the mask and cloak of reason and human intellictualism you both represent the powerful idiocy and bigotry of the human race. Kudos.
"he who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster"
...espically if the monster was, all along, yourself.
Ryan Oneto lchslchs@yahoo.com
Sacramento, CA USA - Saturday, June 19, 1999 at 13:53:43 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
After seeing several condemnatory e-mails like this, I went back and reread "Where Are You Going to Spend Eternity?" After all, I'm prepared to admit I'm not perfect. On reflection, if I was writing my article over again I would be a little less brash. Perhaps I would not use words like "depraved" and "disgusting." Some of these expressive flourishes seem to have caused more than a little offense. But overall I remain happy with it, and it doesn't deserve to be called "mindless and senseless finger pointing." I think, Ryan, that you are over-reacting a bit. As an atheist, I am very much in control of my own destiny. I am not the victim of extreme fundamentalism because I do not allow fundamentalists to control my thoughts or my self-image. So I don't need to blame religion for any of the circumstances of my life. I wouldn't say I was violently opposed to theism--not half as much as some theists are violently opposed to me. Nor do I have to characterize the debate in such simplistic terms. I don't see this as a war between atheist bigots and Christian bigots. There are people on either side who are prepared to be reasonable. But when I read messages like yours I sometimes wonder. Rather than despising the human race, why don't you consider joining it?
I found your June 1999 feature article, "Where are you going to spend Eternity?" very interesting. The analogy of doing boring or repetitive tasks for eternity brought to mind several thoughts. First is the thought that such a task would be hell indeed. Second, suppose that at the core of human existence there lies some eternal observing element. That is, suppose that we are all immortal beings that have taken on bodies and have evolved intelligence. Either there is an ever-expanding supply of new things to keep our attention and thus we will never be bored, or maybe the supply isn't quite so consistent. If we run out of new things to do, what would we do to keep from going crazy? An immortal being can't necessarily just put itself out of existence. So it would have to forget. I mean, you can't get tired of chiselling names for the 1,000,000th time if you don't remember any of the previous times. It would seem like a new thing to you.
Some religions (mostly eastern I think) have incorporated this idea. The River Lethe comes to mind [this is a Western idea, from Greek myth, exhibited but not invented by Plato, where the souls of the dead in Hades drank of the river and forgot, and in some versions, such as that adopted but not invented by the Latin poet Virgil, the souls were then reincarnated--editor]. Of course I'm not saying this is the way things are, only that it seems to follow logically, at least in my mind. Along the lines of living forever, we seem to have something that animals don't, namely our ability to reason abstractly, and with this has come all the memes we host. One of these memes is the "work ethic" or the feeling that action is preferable to inaction. This has survival characteristics, as long ago those who didn't work either starved or were parasitic on society, and I suspect parasites were less tolerated then as there was less to go around. But one symptom of the work ethic meme is boredom, or the desire to do something when there is nothing to do. If we were dogs or cats we would probably follow our hard-wired neural programming and sleep to conserve energy. An immortal cat would probably never get bored.
Now as to the point of "saving" I have always thought of an interesting analogy to saving a file on a computer. Of course this is not what the people have in mind when they ask you. But maybe our intelligence and memory could be transferred to different mediums. Of course this is assuming that's even a desirable thing, and that it would be possible to filter out bad memories, etc. I'm sure this idea isn't new, but one man's "God" could be another man's "sufficiently advanced technology" I suppose. The etymology of the word I believe was interesting too, but I will have to think about that some more before I try to make any halfway-intelligible comments. As for what I have commented on, maybe I've thought some new thoughts, or maybe you've heard it all before. In either case, at least maybe you can count me as one more thinking, mostly rational person out there. ;)
Thanks for your time.
Michael Schmidt michael@science.edu
USA - Tuesday, June 15, 1999 at 16:11:48 (MDT)
Great article! Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Yes, religion is emotional, not reasonable. We atheists need to find ways to address the emotional side. This article contributes to this need. Thanks again.
Kent Lewis kentlewis@hotmail.com
Logan,
UT USA - Sunday, June 13, 1999 at 15:41:16 (MDT)
Having read the article on where will I spend my eternity, I felt challenged to respond. I'm certainly not a scholar, nor will my response be as eloquently fashioned as your article. I'm one of those irrational people who believes in God and I take it quite seriously. I'm sure you'll be able to pick apart everything that I say and make me appear to be foolish. I'm not sure if you even desire a proper explanation of "faith in God", but I will offer this perspective.
What motivates religious people to preach or want to convert others? If you consider the Bible to be a book of inspired writings, thoughts, commands, etc. from the mind of the creator, every reader has a moral obligation to share that knowledge with others. One passage indicates that "every knee will bow before him, and every tongue will confess him as Lord." There will come a day when we must account for our actions before Him. If I truly believe this, I must share this information with every one I know. I have no desire to see other people punished either in this life or in "eternity," but just as lawbreakers in this life are held accountable for their actions, so will all mankind be held accountable before God.
Even if you don't care about it, that still doesn't mean it won't happen. You may consider this irrational because it is based on belief in God, but it is not as irrational as believing in the spontaneous existence of life from nothing, which by the way, science has proven that the spontaneous generation theory is impossible. Please consider that an all-powerful being by definition must have always existed and will always exist, otherwise, he would not be all-powerful would he? Although you didn't use the word "contingent", you did describe all life as being contingent. I say, it is irrational for me to believe that the existence of life, which is contingent on some other being for its existence, to have appeared spontaneously, and by the evolutionary process became what we now have before us. Talk about sales and marketing, that seems like a very large leap of irrational belief. I wonder what the odds are that such a thing could happen? If you like such odds, maybe I could start a casino so that you and your friends could come give me all your money. Better yet, let's eliminate the process, and you can just send it directly to me (no checks, please).
In conclusion, the only other remark I would make involves the question of morality. Without God, there is no need for moral actions. What's the point? If we live and die, and then it's over, then who cares what kind of legacy was left behind? Who cares if future generations have no decent environment to live in? Who cares if we write great literature, or music, or make great discoveries? How can you explain that only human beings make moral decisions, when other species do not? After all, didn't we all come from the same organic material? It seems rational to me that some all-knowing, all-powerful being designed us that way.
By the way, evil exists in this world as a natural alternative to good. There can be no freedom of choice without the existence of evil. If we could only choose to do good all the time, we wouldn't be making choices now would we? That is essentially the answer to the question asked by your article. You have a choice to make where you will spend your eternity. Even though you have already made your choice, you can still change your mind. The best part is that God wants you to make the right choice, and He has tried to make it as simple as possible for you to do so. Nobody makes the choice for you; however, He does make the rules that you have to follow--just like our government makes laws and punishments that we must follow. I hope that whoever reads this will not look back on their life regretting that they did not listen to some sound advice.
Daniel Osburn wosburn@mindspring.com
duluth, ga USA - Sunday, June 13, 1999 at 15:29:51 (MDT)
Thank you for that wonderful hypothetical response to the tract-purveyor. Having been reared a fundamentalist (which may be the worst way to be reared outside of a home filled with physical abuse), I think I can supply you with something in the way of an idea of the motivation for the tract-purveyor. Fundamentalists feel duty-bound to proselytize. It is the best way they have to prove to themselves that they are "saved." Having bought the whole fear package with its Cosmic Monster God, they consider this the very best way they know both to stay on His good side and to prove that they are in no eternal danger themselves. My poor, dear father, on his own deathbed, was still desperately trying to get the salvation message across to the unfortunate captive audience in the next bed of his hospital ward.
Nancy Marshall Womanlight@aol.com
Indianapolis, IN USA - Sunday, June 13, 1999 at 15:19:43 (MDT)
I was once a theist turned agnostic, turned atheist. I too believe that probably the fear of death has something to do with the need to feel that there is an after-life. I am an atheist, but have one critical remark about this article. How's that for doing away with cognitive dissonance. The phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is at work all of the time even though you may not realize it. You are an atheist like I am an atheist, so in some ways I can relate to you when it comes to matters of atheism.
But in your article it seems as though you have an axe to grind when you start to bad mouth marketing. It seems as though you have an anti-marketing axe to grind, although maybe you don't. This is probably a clear and an analogous way to bring your rhetoric to understanding for others. But I have to warn you by doing so you lose your audience of atheists and theists who happen to be in the profession of marketing. I too think that hard-sell marketing is annoying but you create cognitive dissonance for those who like it because it is their job and how they make a living.
You do what I believe to be an excellent but maybe not superior job of appealing to a vast audience. You must always think of your audience when you're writing because without the audience...well you know the rest. If your audience has cognitive dissonance with who you are and what your writing says then they just might choose the option of not finishing the article. In a way you are similar to those who try to sell something in that if people slam the door in your face or on your article then your writing is just a point you're trying to bring across that no one wants to listen to. I'm not the best of writers, so I hope I was able to bring my point across.
23-year-old atheist
Daniel Scollan danib0y@aol.com
Tampa,
FL USA - Saturday, June 12, 1999 at 23:17:33 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
I have worked in retail, and I have studied marketing. For me, the hard-sell marketing analogy was the obvious choice. I did not, however, mean to imply that the whole industry was corrupt and inefficient--only those people in it who continue to use the outdated methods of hard-sell. I said as much in my article.
Actually, I do have an axe to grind--just a little one. I get #$*@! sick of these #$*@! people who try to sell me mobile phones, cable television, insurance, religion, and new-age health care. If I needed any of that stuff I would go out and buy it. The other day some guy tried to tell me I was an idiot because I didn't want to switch phone companies. I told him I didn't have to switch phone companies just because he wanted me to. I watched him go up and down the street for the rest of the afternoon, and I didn't see him make a sale.
Hard-sell is inefficient, and relies on canvassing large numbers of people to find those few who are vulnerable to the spiel. Furthermore, it annoys more people than it attracts. So you have to wonder why people keep using it. Perhaps they are trying to sell something people would not normally want to buy--like religion. This is the only context in which hard-sell is better than building up a good customer base.
It is remarkable how closely some secular organizations that use hard-sell marketing resemble religious cults. The charismatic leaders use the same persuasion techniques as cult leaders. They motivate their people in a similar way. And like cult-leaders, they seem to be the ones making all the money. This is not just my own opinion; much of the cult literature on the internet contains information about "commercial cults." These are the kinds of organizations I had in mind when I started talking about hard-sell tactics, so don't be too offended if you are a sales representative selling a genuine product without trickery.
You are very eloquent in presenting your argument, and I believe that when the religious extend their "hooks" it appears as 'hard selling' and can be very offensive.
However (you knew this was coming...), you speak as someone who is speaking out of an emotion called bitterness. We are emotional beings and many of our daily decisions are made from a COMBINATION of emotion & RATIONAL THOUGHT.
Is it so easy to dismiss the organization of things, from the food chain to composition of DNA, to accident (I refer to the Big Bang THEORY, the THEORY of evolution, etc.)? None of those things have solid proof that they are true. What incredible BELIEFS! So I suppose that whether you believe in God, or in Darwin's THEORY, you could possibly be basing those decisions on unsubstantiated evidence. (have you looked into archeological records? many of the events in the Bible have been backed up by this SCIENCE)
Personally, I have seen some incredible (if you want to call them coincidences) 'coincidences' occur because the teachings of God were put into practice. To me, that is proof enough of His existence. I have seen & heard of way too many non-believers (and so-called believers) who have attempted to live life based on THEORIES, and have not succeeded. May I question the fact that there are marriage counselors who have been divorced many times (once is enough to tell me that SCIENCE alone doesn't work), engineers (for instance) who pour their lives into their work to support their families only to have their spouses cheat on them & their children grow up to hate them and/or other people, who themselves stumble from relationship to relationship because they tend to focus on doing 'good things' to make themselves happy? To me, it appears that your BELIEF isolates you. How does it feel to be a mutated monkey?
I think if you really look beyond all those comfortable angry thoughts you're allowing yourself to wallow in, you might just find that the 'hard sellers' aren't so different from yourself. Read your own article. I know that there are many so-called believers out there who are really off base, and that could be what makes you so bitter, and has made me angry as well. Unfortunately, there are always offshoots to any science, artistic, and religious teachings (among others), which is unavoidable & can give each of these a bad name. I'm sorry you've been affected so negatively that you can't see beyond your emotions. I do want to thank you for the constructive criticism. I usually try to let my life speak, so that the proof is visible. Words, usually, are only words. The heart is what speaks volumes.
L. Waterman l_h2oman@yahoo.com
USA - Monday, June 14, 1999 at 10:29:38 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
When you are presenting arguments against something, it is all too easy to come across as belligerent and angry. This is why I used humor in my article. But I guess you didn't find it very funny. Oh well.
But I think you read too much into it when you accuse me of being bitter. I have no reason to be bitter about religion. There was no incident in my life that turned me against religion. In fact, I was never in the theist's camp to begin with (I'm an atheist like my father). And for some reason I can't fathom, none of the theists I know care to debate me on the subject. On top of all of this, I live in a country where religion isn't particularly prominent, and I can go for days at a time without having religion thrown in my face. So, far from wallowing in "comfortable angry thoughts," I much prefer to read and think about science, psychology, art, and all the other tools with which we human beings can advance our society. But if I occasionally feel compelled to go back to first principles and write about my atheism, then I will.
Why do you use the word accident to describe scientifically determined phenomena? In my experience, the only people who refer to "accidents" are theists trying to belittle scientific theories that don't match with the Bible. The word accident implies that something went wrong, or contrary to plan. And this is a concept rather out of place in the natural sciences. There is no plan. Things don't happen by accident, they happen in accordance with physical laws. The big bang was governed by the laws of physics. Evolution is governed by the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as it is affected by environmental factors. And it is precisely because natural phenomena are governed by physical laws that scientists can test a hypothesis and prove it. Contrary to what you say, there is solid evidence supporting these theories.
For evolution, there are five categories of evidence: (1) the fossil record, (2) comparative anatomy, (3) comparative embryology, (4) comparative biochemistry, (5) genetics. The last of these--genetics--pre-dated the theory of evolution but was unknown to Darwin and his contemporaries, and yet it supports evolution in all its particulars. Similarly, evolution has not remained a current theory through simple belief. Over the last century, credible evidence has supported evolution and added to our understanding of the process. But no credible evidence has been uncovered which disproves the theory. How much more solid evidence do you want? In contrast, "scientific" proof for the Bible is limited to a handful of unremarkable archaeological finds. And you would expect Jews writing 2 to 3 thousand years ago to know about things that existed in their own country at the time.
Actually, I'm not a mutated monkey. I'm a mutated hominid. And I would rather be a mutated hominid than a construct of dirt and God's halitosis. You point out that human beings are both rational and emotional. Actually, I agree with you here. But I am not quite sure what you mean when you say I've been so negatively affected I can't see beyond my emotions. Who, me? I'm sorry, but you've got the wrong guy. I chose to base my article primarily on emotional issues because the rational angle is well catered to. I figure that if I am going to contribute to the debate, then the least I can do is contribute something original.
You also point out that some professional people have unsuccessful personal lives. I agree with you here too, but I don't see how this is relevant. It is not that people try to live by theories, rather that they can't help but get emotionally involved in the traumas of their lives. People who study psychology often have the curious sensation of knowing why they feel the way they do, but being unable to change it. So divorced marriage counselors are not necessarily proof against marriage guidance. They only show that it is sometimes difficult to take one's own advice. On the other hand, I know that religion is not proof against disaster. I have seen devout people get into terrible trouble because they supposed that church acquaintances were entirely trustworthy. And I often think that many such incidents could be avoided if people approached things with a healthy dose of rational scepticism--such as an atheist might.
. . . And what does Sydney have to do with the point of the article?
. . . And why is Sydney mentioned?
Regards,
James A. Carpenter
jim_carpenter@email.mobil.com
Dallas, TX USA - Wednesday, June 02, 1999 at 08:36:29 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
Hmmm. It looks likes I'm going to have to give up my anonymity here--much as I like the idea of posting articles like "Where Are You Going to Spend Eternity?" from out of nowhere, without anyone knowing who the heck I am. My name is Kim Walker. I am a white male. I am 29 years old going on 1000. I live in Sydney, Australia (where the Olympics is going to be). This is why Sydney got mentioned in the article. I actually was at a train station in Sydney when the nondescript woman handed me the religious pamphlet that inspired the article. If you really want the trivial details: it was at the northern entrance of Hurstville station, at the bottom of the escalators, where the old Chinese busker usually sits. There are two unusual things about me: (1) I glow in the dark, and (2) I get so many letters addressed to Ms. K. Walker that my sister opens more of my mail than I do :-)
Kim Walker makes the assertion, "Eternity is a long time." I am a theist and a scientist/engineer and respond from this perspective. We are able to perceive our existence in four dimensions - distance (x, y, z) and time. Time is but one of these dimensions. Eternity has nothing to do with "time" or distance. Eternity exists outside space-time.
Considering that the Bible was penned long in our past by some 40 men over a period of thousands of years, it must be astounding to the non-theist that the Bible contains nothing in the original texts that we would today consider a scientific or technical error. Rather, the Bible anticipates "discoveries" that the scientific/technical community has come to accept only in relatively recent times.
A few examples: the expanding universe, the water cycle, and the spherical shape of the earth. The value of Pi is even presented in early writings to a precision of four decimal places. The only rational explanation for this situation that I have encountered is that intelligence from outside space-time guided the Bible's writers.
Kim Walker suggests that prophecies in the Bible are unreliable. We learn from the Bible that God inhabits eternity. It is from this perspective God is able to see the end from the beginning in the dimension of time, rather like an observer in a blimp outside the plane of a parade can simultaneously see the parade's end and its beginning in the dimensions of distance.
The Bible is validated as originating outside of "time" by various mathematical statements about occurrences to take place at points in time significantly later than the statements were first written. Examples are the exact calendar dates when Jesus presented himself publicly as the Messiah, when Israel became a political nation again and when the nation Israel came into possession of the city of Jerusalem. The last two of these events in fact occurred during my lifetime.
Karl Anderson karl@netport.com
Lancaster, CA USA - Thursday, June 10, 1999 at 15:58:08 (MDT)
The editor
responds:
Mr. Anderson, please provide us with the verses where "the expanding universe" is specifically mentioned (instead of "interpreted" after the fact), where anything is said about "the water cycle" that wasn't already common knowledge to all educated peoples of antiquity, or where "the spherical shape of the earth" is declared. I am especially curious to read the verse where "The value of Pi is even presented...to a precision of four decimal places." Where is that exactly? Epicurus anticipated atomic theory and the periodic table of elements and the particle theory of light as well as the principles of sonics. I guess "the only rational explanation for this situation...is that intelligence from outside space-time guided" the Greek philosophers, too. That hardly seems a rational explanation. Humans are simply clever, and the universe just happens to make sense. Get over it. By the way, you should read "Fitting the Bible to the Data" and the section on "factual errors" in The Argument From the Bible before declaring such a position as you do.
I really enjoyed this article. Thank you to the author for taking the time to research and write it. I have a few thoughts and questions.
You wrote about the fact that we don't need religion. I wondered if that might be a more persuadable point if you could cite other cultures that have gotten along quite alright without religion and even prospered in some ways and produced great individuals. Places like China, Japan, Russia come to mind but I would like to learn if there are other, better examples.
You also talk about the marketing of religious ideas. I have always felt that atheism, or secular humanism, are quite sellable. Simply because the essence of the message appeals to what I regard as basic and innate to human beings, and that is human reason and compassion. And of course a religious belief or faith resists the use of reason. Regardless of this should we, atheists or other types of non-believers, attempt to get our message out. Should we support or promote our own type of proselytization? I have always thought not given what Nietzsche has said about confronting these people but should we attempt to at least reach the 7-10 percent of our population that consider themselves non-believers? If so how and would doing so reduce the negative perception of atheists.
My final point in this regard is this: recently while perusing the net I located a page that listed famous atheists. Among the many I was surprised to see Kathryn Hepburn state in an October 1990 interview with Ladies Home Journal that she was an atheist and that was that. Maybe the recognition of other famous atheist or non-theists would be a help to our cause-the cause of becoming a legitimate group in this country.
Sorry for that lack of brevity. Incidently if anyone form II is coming to Chicago feel free to e-mail me and maybe we can have a beer. By the way, I am a graduate of the University of Notre Dame. I like telling people this for the obvious shock value.
Sincerely,
Stephen Lake Slake7@yahoo.com
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, June 09, 1999 at 18:15:41 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
You raise some good points here Steven. Apart from those you mention, I don't know of any nations that have done away with religion on a large scale. This goes especially for Western countries, where the Christian churches tend to lay claim to the people, no matter how poorly attended the services are. It might be more profitable to look at smaller groups with atheistic tendencies. I have read several accounts of groups like this. But the best examples of how people can get along without religion are the secular institutions and pastimes that already exist in the west. Democracy dismantled the divine right of kings and placed authority in the hands of the people. Free trade challenged the financial might of the church. Humanist philosophers formulated their own systems of morality, independent of God. These institutions and others like them show that living without religion is not only possible, but more desirable and effective.
By all means, let us market atheism. But please, for the sake of all we hold dear, let us not stoop to using dogmatic slogans or cheap tactics. After all, we are selling a philosophy of life, not vacuum cleaners. I feel that for atheism to succeed, we need to be doing four things: (1) presenting arguments against theism, (2) lobbying government to do away with legal discrimination against atheists, (3) providing for the social needs of people, (4) creating art, literature, and music strongly identified with the humanist/atheist way of life. Of these, the first two are well represented on the Secular Web and elsewhere. An example of the third are the various Humanist organizations in my country, which provide celebrants for weddings and the like.
But in my wanderings on the net, I have seen little evidence of the fourth. There doesn't seem to be much art, music, or literature strongly identified with atheist issues. And what little there is doesn't seem to rate much of a mention. (Two books and a film come immediately to mind: Robert Heinlein's novelJob, Terry Pratchett's novel Small Gods, and Monty Python's Life of Brian) Now surely there must be a symphony of Wagnerian proportions in the story of humanity's emergence from fear and superstition into the light of reason? So perhaps we need to start identifying atheist/humanist themes suitable for artistic treatment? If our story can be told through a literary, musical, or artistic masterpiece, then that will sell atheism better than any clumsy proselytizing can, and it will kill the idea that atheism is a narrow-minded creed once and for all. So I am hereby issuing the challenge to all you budding writers, composers, and artists out there: embrace your atheist and humanist philosophies and bring them to life!
Kim Walker's 'Where Are You Going to Spend Eternity?' was a very good read, though I think she did not make one very important point: the fairness question.
Assuming the Biblical God exists and is as just and as fair as the Christians say he is, then he won't be putting anyone in a big fiery heck for all eternity. It is not fair to punish a being for longer than they lived to commit acts worthy of said punishment. If we live for 60 or 70 years, deny the easily questionable divinity of Jesus for 40 or 50 of those years, and go on to the BFH to be tormented forever, then either God is unfair or mainstream Christian beliefs are wrong. Probably the latter. Just my two cents worth from someone who seems to live at ground zero of Religion Central.
Brett Hegrbehegr@mail.uccs.edu
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Monday, June 07, 1999 at 13:17:50 (MDT)
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
Thank you Brett for reminding me about the fairness question. You make a good point, but I'm afraid it won't take us very far in an argument. You see, Jesus is love, and God is just. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offering you my opinion here. I'm just telling you the faith-definitions of the words Jesus and God. Faith-definitions are tricky, because they don't rely on the mundane meaning suggested by the words. Never mind what the word love means in the ordinary, every day sense--to a devout Christian, it means Jesus. A faith definition is held entirely on faith, and will not be reassessed by a devout person for any reason. So even if you can prove that God is unjust, to the Christian mind, you might as well be arguing that a table is a chair.
Now, here comes the tricky bit. Christians are well aware that the words "love" and "justice" are more than just definitions of Jesus and God. They know that there are objective, secular definitions of these words. They will, from time to time, even make use of these secular definitions. But they want to maintain their faith-definitions intact, so in their minds they carefully separate religious matters from non-religious matters. They split their minds in two. This can actually be quite dangerous, because one need only label something "holy", placing it in the religious division of an extremist's mind, and it becomes unassailable by logic and reason. So a just and loving God can sponsor a "holy" war, without this seeming incongruent to its participants. And this is why reason is better than faith.
I appreciate your article in that it is intelligence-based and serves to cause a religious nutcase like myself to think about new things. I am planning a youth church which will present the Good News of Jesus in a culturally relevant way, and quite frankly need to know what it is in the minds of atheists so that I also can present my case. So thank you for your research. I found it interesting and eye opening that you used Monty Python's sketch in your argument.
Well, I won't try to "save" you (besides the fact that you seem to be pretty closed to that, it is not I who can save, but God Almighty alone), but I will suggest that you read the Gospel of John (in whatever mediocre translation you can find--I recommend Eugene Peterson's The Message) with an open-minded and humble mindset.
C-ya.
Chad
Eddy ceddy@chrlife.bc.ca
Langley, BC Canada - Sunday, June 06, 1999 at 23:05:00 (MDT)
What a wonderfully astute look into the mindset of the proselytizing believer. I am the only freethinker in a large family of fundamentalist Christians. I have learned to question the assumptions of believers instead of just answering their questions. Of course, I believe my family is genuinely concerned about my "eternal destiny," but this is because of blood ties and not any "spiritual concern." But in a way, this makes it easier to challenge their assumptions because they genuinely care about me--unlike the street preacher.
Thanks to Kim Walker for a great and insightful article.
Mark Wenneborg lunadraco@earthlink.net
Springfield, IL USA - Sunday, June 06, 1999 at 17:23:14 (MDT)
Excellent article. Nuff said; got work to do myself :)
Claus Lisberg 36lisbe@but.auc.dk
Aalborg, Denmark - Saturday, June 05, 1999 at 21:16:04 (MDT)
For Kim Walker, author of "Where Do You Want To Spend Eternity?"
I was researching atheistic views for a college assignment, when I came across your article. I thought it was well written, with a sense of humor that I enjoyed. Your points made sense and it was interesting to see in print some notions I had.
I am studying elementary education and my assignment is to describe points of view from certain religions about school curriculum, such as: prayer in school, teaching evolution, sex ed., homosexual teachers, and clinics that dispense birth control, etc. I chose to explore this from the atheist side. (I am a 'recovering' Catholic)
I'm sure you are busy with many things, but if you have a thought of two that might help me I would appreciate it. I am thinking that most of these things would just fall strictly under the 'separation of church and state' edict and that atheists object to prayer of any kind in schools; evolution, as with any scientific theory, should be taught. And sex ed., including birth control should also be taught. A person's sexuality is not moral or immoral, so a teacher's sexual preference is not relevant. Am I accurate in describing these points of view?
Thank you to Kim or anyone else who might like to help me.
Jennifer Carnes
us2carnes@aol.com
Pembroke Pines, FL USA - Saturday, June 05, 1999 at 10:41:57 (MDT)
Note from the editor: Ms. Carnes asked II essentially the same question, and I have posted my response under Quaestiones et Responsa below. Mr. Walker also replied to Ms. Carnes directly, and his remarks were too long for publication here, but what he wrote was so interesting I edited it down to include the most original material here.
Mr. Kim Walker replies:
As you may know, atheists are a fairly eclectic bunch of people. We don't all belong to the same organizations, or hold the same views on an issue. But I think your points about prayer in schools, sex education, teaching evolution, and homosexual teachers would be supported by many. Since I live in a different country (Australia) with a different education system, I may be able to give you a different perspective on these issues.
And from the third grade on, there were religious classes. The children would be separated according to religious denomination, and taught about Jesus and the Bible by visiting volunteers from the local churches. This went on right up until the end of high school. Mostly this religious instruction was fairly naive, and fell short of indoctrinating most of us. I remember, at one point, we read the story of Jonah and the whale, and it was greeted by most of the kids in the class with open skepticism. ("No way! That never happened.") This kind of religious instruction acted more as an inoculation against Christianity than an indoctrination into it.
Sometimes, though, the religious people invited into our schools to address us were anything but naive. In high school, I particularly remember a group of Christian bikers who gave a talk. They were real, fire in the soul, kind of Christians. They were on a mission from the Lord. They were hard-selling for Jesus. One guy got up and told us how he was once a criminal and a drug addict, but everything changed when he let Jesus into his life. Another guy got up and gave us a rant about all the unchristian, worldly rubbish in the media, flicking through a magazine and showing us all the articles and advertisements to prove his point. They were seductive speakers, and at the end they urged us to come forward and put our names down to join their organization.
This was a blatant abuse of trust. I remember that some of the teachers in the room looked quite uncomfortable with it. Here was a group invited into schools to talk about religion, who used this as a platform to recruit teenagers in a most forceful and charismatic way. I'm sure it would have upset some parents, had they seen the heavy duty persuasion their children were subjected to. Things like this should not happen in schools, whether it comes from visiting proselytizers, or fundamentalist teachers leading prayers.
Teachers are expected to set aside their opinions and personal preferences in many areas, so why not simply add sexual preferences to the list? Apart from prejudice, there is no reason why we should consider gays and lesbians less able to teach than anyone else. Sexual preference is irrelevant. There is, however, a need to be cautious. Everyone who applies for a position working with children has to be checked for a history of pedophilia. Unfortunately, pedophiles tend to seek careers in areas that will bring them into contact with children, and these predators need to be excluded from the system. Part of the reason why gay and lesbian school teachers are feared, is because some people falsely assume gays and lesbians are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. This is a false assumption. Pedophiles are pedophiles. Gays and lesbians are just gays and lesbians.
The "argument against eternity" is one of my favorites. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer for the question of an eternal agenda. The mere act of "doing", regardless of whatever it is that one is doing, will itself become t