I see so many discussions on theism boil down to personal opinion.
“I think this is a contradiction.”
“I think it is not.”
“There are no absolute morals.”
“There are absolute morals.”
We go back and forth making affirmations with supreme confidence; yet the conversation never seems to progress. Because each person is personally convinced of their own statements, and believe that the other should be equally convinced.
Can we agree on a few things, first?
We are all convinced differently
I know—that seems obvious. But perhaps it is good for all of us (especially me) to remember that. For some of us, what our friends believe is persuasive to us, for others it might be the credentials of a person making an opinion. For others it might be hard facts and figures.
Think about buying a car. To some people, if their friend recommended a Ford—heck, that’s good enough for them! Ford it is. Others will do long research, both on-line and in trade magazines, comparing and contrasting engine size, fuel economy, trunk space, etc. They will take six months to come up with what car they desire to purchase. Even others will simply go out test-driving in the morning and have bought the car they liked by mid-day.
For the researcher, a friend’s recommendation will be politely listened to, taken into consideration, and most likely ignored. The impetuous car-buyer does not care about the researcher’s findings on the wheel-base of other brands of cars.
Sometimes we (cough, cough “I”) forget that what is persuasive to me, and what I hold in high regard, may not be compelling to other people.
Honestly, personal testimonies of “Jesus changed my life” are not very compelling to me as to the reality of Jesus, even though others (such as the person relating them) find them to be highly convincing that Jesus must be real. I have heard these testimonies for decades. I have watched people who claimed to be changed, get active in the church, be “on fire for Jesus” and then slowly assimilate into the same, mundane, go-on-Sunday, back-to-reality Monday, nominal believers.
But just because they are not forceful to me—does not mean I can just discount them. I am in no position to disregard their existence since it does not “qualify” as good evidence to me.
We are all wrong
That may be a bit of a shock to you, so I hope you are sitting down. Comfortable? O.K., I’ll try it again, now that you are prepared—you are wrong.
There is something that you believe right now; something you are firmly convinced of that does not conform to reality. Oh, it may be as simple as the firm conviction that you are going out for dinner tonight, but unbeknownst to you; your significant other has plans which will wreck your evening.
Or it may be that you have a belief about theism that you will some day discover (perhaps in the afterlife) that you didn’t have quite right. Turns out there isn’t a hell! (Or worse—God is a Female!)
This should not come as too big of a surprise. Each of us, looking back on our lives, can find numerous, numerous things that we thought were true, but later discovered through experience or knowledge—most certainly were not. Both within our theistic belief, and in other aspects of our lives.
It is not too crazy to think that perhaps…just maybe…in the future we will discover we are wrong about something we believe right now.
Our opinions can blind us
I was raised in a home where we were required to make our beds everyday. To me—a person should make their bed everyday. In our home, children did chores. To me—children should do age appropriate chores.
As we look at our upbringing, with our locale, culture, education, experiences and socializations, we develop certain ideas about what is right and wrong. Often, when we marry, we are stunned to discover that our spouses were raised in an environment that was totally foreign to our own, and we are secretly amazed they managed to survive in such conditions.
We then have children and discover what was patently obvious and essential to us, is NOT so obvious and mandatory to our spouse. I am sure my readers never actually fought over such petty differences like my wife and I did—due to the maturity level of those who peruse my blog. I am not quite so mature.
In theism, we all have certain pre-conceived ideas. At one time, I was firmly convinced there was a god. To think otherwise…well…the person would have to be an unreasonable fool. I supposed a God in all I did. Now, I have a pre-conceived idea there is not. I never look for a God—there isn’t one.
It is not necessarily bad to have pre-conceptions—we all do—it is part of being human. I hope we all agree, though, that sometimes these presuppositions can blind us to reality.
People disagree
Again, it seems such a simple notion. Yet sometimes I view debates (perhaps “fights” is a better word!) in which two combatants are simply astounded that the other side actually disagrees with them. This is by no means limited to theism.
I have watched litigants, including lawyers, repeat the same thing over and over again, unable to grasp the fact that it did not knock the other off their feet the first time.
“Yes, I understand your position. You have made it quite clear. Please understand that my client has a different view of the events that happen—“
“But that letter was sent on Tuesday!”
“Yes I know. You have said that five times now. I actually heard you the first time. My client never received that lett—“
“My client says it was mailed on Tuesday!”
“Right. Again, I heard that the first (and now the sixth) time. Again, if you had something to show that my client received it—“
“It was mailed on Tuesday!”
There have been many times I have had to say to other lawyers, “Look. You weren’t there when you client mailed it. I wasn’t there. All we have is what our respective clients say. That is what makes horse races. That is why we have litigation. Let’s battle it out and see what the judge says.”
I want to remind all of us that there are people with theistic convictions, that are just as solidly in place as our own, that are just as firmly held, and just as dear to them, yet are diametrically opposed to our own. We disagree.
Now with we agree to those simple statements…
Why a methodology?
Because without it, arguments become a chaotic cacophony of opinions. We may as well boil it down to:
“Is not!”
“Is too!”
While that may be fun and even enlightening, at times we hope to progress further than that. A methodology provides us with a means by which we can arrive at a solution. A way in which we can remove some of those subjective opinions, and pre-conceptions, and be as objective as we humanly can. (Which is not always that objective.)
Imagine you and I were to argue over the best way to travel to Chicago. I may insist a plane is best. You may insist a car. Another may insist a boat or train or bus. Until we establish a methodology, though, we will get nowhere.
What if the methodology was “The shortest amount of time.” Then arguing about using a boat from New York City would lose. But what if it was “Carrying 10,000 tons of coal.” Then the plane would lose to the boat.
Yes, we may take the argument one step deeper as to what methodology to use. A person may argue that a plane ticket that cost $10,000, but delivers us to Chicago in one hour is too step a price for the time gained, compared to a car ride of five hours, but only $50 worth of gas.
Admittedly, I have only extremely rarely (as in never in my recall) argued over methodology. Most don’t want to discuss methodology. Most want to jump right in about the genealogy of Luke being that of Mary, without ever bothering to determine what method we will use to figure out genealogies.
The limits of methodology
Yes, I know that theism is a faith-based belief. That at some point, one believes, with a lack of evidence, and arguing over methodology of lack of evidence seems a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
HOWEVER…
Before we get to faith, there are some basic factual claims that provide a foundation for that faith. It is those factual claims—claims that “this is what actually happened” in which we can bring our methodology to bear.
For example, many Christians claim that the Ten Plagues, Exodus and Joshua’s Genocide actually happened. However, there is no archeological proof for these events happening as recorded in the Tanakh.
At which point I am often informed “Absence of Evidence is not evidence of Absence.” Fair enough—we have established a methodology. If a religion makes a claim, even though there is no archeological proof—it still could actually happen.
I then point out that the Mormons have claimed an advanced society existed in Mesoamerica, but equally there is no archeological proof for these events. Is the Christian willing to use the same methodology used to bolster their claim, to agree that the Mormon claim is equally possible?
See, before we get to faith—both Literalist Christians and Mormons make factual claims of what happened, and even provide a methodology by which we are to determine those events actually happened.
Or another example I recently encountered where I was informed that miracles happen, and we know this by testimonial evidence. Fair enough—our methodology is in place: “Testimonial evidence is enough to support a Miracle.” Will Protestants stay consistent with their own methodology and admit that Mary appeared in a Grilled Cheese Sandwich? Will Christians stay consistent and admit testimonies of Hindu Miracles mean these events must be miracles? Will Christians admit that God made Mohammed’s face appear in a tomato due to the testimony it happened?
All the time we see validation of certain events, and then a later change in methods when another, competing theistic belief says the same thing about their god.
Before we get worried about faith—let’s work on the basics. What happened. What conforms to reality. Let’s put in place a method to determine that.
Which methodology to use?
One thing to keep a keen eye out for is a methodology that is designed to achieve the results it desires.
What if we are to debate who is the most talented actress? And I propose a methodology that it is the actress who has received the most Oscars. Seems a reasonable enough method. However, it turns out that I always thought that Katherine Hepburn was the greatest actress. A quick review of the Oscars…and…bingo! Turns out it was Katherine Hepburn.
Why is the most Oscars won a “correct” methodology? Why not the most nominated? (Meryl Streep) Or in the most films? Or highest paid? Or longest career?
One of the things to be careful about is to not create a methodology that pops out the answer we desire, as well as question why a particular methodology is the one to use.
We have all seen the claims for the uniqueness of the Bible. You know “written over 1500 years, by 100 authors from different walks of life…” The one that always makes me chuckle is the inclusion of “…on 3 continents…” Why does “3 continents” make the Bible unique? The Book of Mormon can claim 4—is it MORE unique? The Tanakh only 2—it must not be inspired. That is a method designed for an outcome!
Why I am attached to my Methodology
Trick question. I am not. It happens to be a method I am most familiar with, but if you have a better one, by all means—propose it! I would be happy to abandon my own for a better method. The only problem is—I don’t see too many people proposing any method. Let alone one that would provide more accurate results.
(Part of the reason that I respect John W. Loftus is that he, at least, proposes a methodology with his “Outsider Test” that is designed to solve the same concerns my own does. I don’t use his, only because I am more familiar with my own. I think his is just as effective. In two sentences, “Treat your own claims as you would treat another. In other words, treat your claims as if you were an ‘Outsider’ and not prone to believing it.”)
If you propose a method, I would ask that you take into consideration the items I listed above. Does it remove any pre-conceived notions? Does it deal with competing claims? Does it convince a variety of people? But the key is this: does employing your method leave open the possibility that you are wrong?
Can you devise a method that you are willing, by its application, to say, “Nope. That is not what I believe. I am willing to accept that, by virtue of my own method, I am wrong”? You may find that not so easy.
I have had a number of people tell me my method is wrong. Inadequate. Even “full of fallacies.” O.K.—then give me an alternative. Give me a method that takes into account humanity’s ability to deceive itself. Give me a method that together we can employ, and can together say, “Yep. I was wrong. I am willing to abide by that method, even though it goes against what I believe.”
My method says that one’s claims should be so strong, they could convince a person who has no stake in the outcome. A neutral party. I am unclear why so many Christians that I propose that method to, fail to believe they can meet such a challenge.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Why I talk to Christians; Not God
I have perpetuated a misunderstanding that is entirely my fault. Hopefully this blog entry will clear up any confusion.
It was pointed out elsewhere that many of my blogs have to do with Christians. And problems within the Christian community. Because of this focus it was felt (again I can see why) that the reason I deconverted was due to my disappointment with Christians, not so much with Christ.
To briefly reiterate my reasons for deconverting: within my profession we are often placed in situations where we are trying to determine the basic question “what happened?” among a variety of competing positions, statements, proofs and arguments. In order to do so, we developed a methodology whereby a neutral person (or persons) decides which arguments, based upon the facts presented, are more compelling.
We become proficient at determining which arguments will fly, and which will not to people who have no stake in the outcome. I became involved in discussions with non-believers, who provided arguments and facts I had not heard before, except by those who didn’t actually believe them. This opened my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities.
Over and over, as I applied the methodology I use in every other aspect of my life to the questions surrounding Christianity and theism, it was obvious that a neutral party would never find in favor of Christianity. Eventually I reached a point where it was becoming harder and harder to have faith in something I was convinced was not true; despite my desire to maintain my belief.
I could not force my mind to grasp something that at every turn, it questioned why I could believe that, when I knew no jury ever would. That if I was faced with defending Christianity on a legal front, I would be desperately attempting to settle my case, as no jury would find in my favor.
I deconverted from Christianity to atheism. I have written my story elsewhere. To continue to do so would be as boring as watching paint dry.
I debated on a few forums, and even wrote some blogs about arguments for/against God or an aspect of Christianity. Much of me feels this ground is well-trod. Are there new arguments? Yes. But they seem so few and far between, and we seem caught in this perpetual rut of debating the same things over and over. I actually sigh, now, every time I see, “All of the disciples were willing to die for their belief in a physically resurrected Jesus.” How many times can one blog on that?
And it does me no good to blog about what God should or should not be doing. There is no God. Many of us chuckle when we read “you are angry at god.” We have to believe it exists before we can be angry about ‘im, silly! It is similar to saying “You are angry at your College Chemistry Professor.” A resounding point…if I had chemistry in college. Since I did not—the entity “my Chemistry professor” does not exist. Therefore, it is quite hard to get very worked up about him or her.
And how many blogs can I write about what textbook my Chemistry professor should or should not have used? Since there is no such person—that can get a little dry.
But Christians!
Oh, I am quite certain and convinced that Christians exist. And while I may not have much say in what a non-existent God would do; I can hope that perhaps, just by writing a few words, I can have Christians pause and reflect for a moment as to how they appear to skeptics. Maybe even give a new thought or reflection to other theists, or agnostics or atheists or whomever.
I still think that blogs which provide arguments both for and against theism are important. I may still blog a few arguments myself. I most definitely think that blogs that argue for and against Christianity are important. I will absolutely blog regarding Biblical topics in the future.
What has currently drawn my attention, and hence my blogging topics, though, is less the actual arguments themselves, and more the people. How the arguments are presented. What believers perceive skeptics need to hear, what skeptics perceive believers are like.
How I see Christianity handling the upcoming crop of deconverts. (Not well.)
See, I am not writing blogs to have some Christian read, smack themselves on the head, and proclaim “In one reading I have gone from devout Christian to some other belief.” I think that deconversion is a personal journey. I am unaware of any person that was “argued” into deconverting. We search on our own; it is not discovered on a billboard.
I am writing blogs to hopefully make people think. Pause. Learn a bit. I envision most deconverts read my posts, nod their heads, and say, “Yep. Already knew that.” Perhaps a new insight on occasion. When I write to and about Christians, I hope they re-evaluate their presentation to the world.
To be honest, if more Christians actually practiced “Love your neighbor” my blogs could be shorter!
So if you think, because of my emphasis on how Christians act, that this had any part of my deconversion—I apologize. I do not mean to give that impression.
I emphasize on how Christians act because…well…that is how they act! Very very much like the humans that they are.
It was pointed out elsewhere that many of my blogs have to do with Christians. And problems within the Christian community. Because of this focus it was felt (again I can see why) that the reason I deconverted was due to my disappointment with Christians, not so much with Christ.
To briefly reiterate my reasons for deconverting: within my profession we are often placed in situations where we are trying to determine the basic question “what happened?” among a variety of competing positions, statements, proofs and arguments. In order to do so, we developed a methodology whereby a neutral person (or persons) decides which arguments, based upon the facts presented, are more compelling.
We become proficient at determining which arguments will fly, and which will not to people who have no stake in the outcome. I became involved in discussions with non-believers, who provided arguments and facts I had not heard before, except by those who didn’t actually believe them. This opened my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities.
Over and over, as I applied the methodology I use in every other aspect of my life to the questions surrounding Christianity and theism, it was obvious that a neutral party would never find in favor of Christianity. Eventually I reached a point where it was becoming harder and harder to have faith in something I was convinced was not true; despite my desire to maintain my belief.
I could not force my mind to grasp something that at every turn, it questioned why I could believe that, when I knew no jury ever would. That if I was faced with defending Christianity on a legal front, I would be desperately attempting to settle my case, as no jury would find in my favor.
I deconverted from Christianity to atheism. I have written my story elsewhere. To continue to do so would be as boring as watching paint dry.
I debated on a few forums, and even wrote some blogs about arguments for/against God or an aspect of Christianity. Much of me feels this ground is well-trod. Are there new arguments? Yes. But they seem so few and far between, and we seem caught in this perpetual rut of debating the same things over and over. I actually sigh, now, every time I see, “All of the disciples were willing to die for their belief in a physically resurrected Jesus.” How many times can one blog on that?
And it does me no good to blog about what God should or should not be doing. There is no God. Many of us chuckle when we read “you are angry at god.” We have to believe it exists before we can be angry about ‘im, silly! It is similar to saying “You are angry at your College Chemistry Professor.” A resounding point…if I had chemistry in college. Since I did not—the entity “my Chemistry professor” does not exist. Therefore, it is quite hard to get very worked up about him or her.
And how many blogs can I write about what textbook my Chemistry professor should or should not have used? Since there is no such person—that can get a little dry.
But Christians!
Oh, I am quite certain and convinced that Christians exist. And while I may not have much say in what a non-existent God would do; I can hope that perhaps, just by writing a few words, I can have Christians pause and reflect for a moment as to how they appear to skeptics. Maybe even give a new thought or reflection to other theists, or agnostics or atheists or whomever.
I still think that blogs which provide arguments both for and against theism are important. I may still blog a few arguments myself. I most definitely think that blogs that argue for and against Christianity are important. I will absolutely blog regarding Biblical topics in the future.
What has currently drawn my attention, and hence my blogging topics, though, is less the actual arguments themselves, and more the people. How the arguments are presented. What believers perceive skeptics need to hear, what skeptics perceive believers are like.
How I see Christianity handling the upcoming crop of deconverts. (Not well.)
See, I am not writing blogs to have some Christian read, smack themselves on the head, and proclaim “In one reading I have gone from devout Christian to some other belief.” I think that deconversion is a personal journey. I am unaware of any person that was “argued” into deconverting. We search on our own; it is not discovered on a billboard.
I am writing blogs to hopefully make people think. Pause. Learn a bit. I envision most deconverts read my posts, nod their heads, and say, “Yep. Already knew that.” Perhaps a new insight on occasion. When I write to and about Christians, I hope they re-evaluate their presentation to the world.
To be honest, if more Christians actually practiced “Love your neighbor” my blogs could be shorter!
So if you think, because of my emphasis on how Christians act, that this had any part of my deconversion—I apologize. I do not mean to give that impression.
I emphasize on how Christians act because…well…that is how they act! Very very much like the humans that they are.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
What is Important?
I went on vacation. Again. (If anything I have learned in life is that we only have a few moments with our children and with beautiful weather in Michigan. Use ‘em or Lose ‘em. Literally.)
It is one of the times that I purposely plan to read for relaxation. The problem was that I did not have a book to read, so I did what so many others have done and wandered in a Borders bookstore looking for something interesting to read. I happened on “Sea of Thunder” by Evan Thomas. It is the tale of the Naval Battle of Leyte Gulf of October 1944 in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War.
To be frank, even as a college History Major, I had never heard of this battle. Few have. (Have you?) In point of fact, my word processor, while being able to recognize the word “Constantinople” and “Stalingrad” does not recognize “Leyte.” Yet this was a decisive battle within the WWII.
Curious how important it was at that time. How important to the Japanese. Important to the Americans. It filled the papers. Yet here we are in 2007 and even after having studying the very time frame this battle occurred and the very war within which it happened—I did not know of it. I have had numerous college courses for this time—and nothing.
The book follows the lives of four of the commanders of this battle—how they came to be there and why they made the decisions they made. (Needless to say; I highly recommend this book. It draws you in and causes you to be interested in what happens next. Even those not interested in such historic books would find this one good reading. My father happened to pick it up while on vacation with us and could hardly put it down.)
What was emotional wrenching is to see the useless loss of life. Both Japanese and American in a battle that (now) is long forgotten. How men bravely fought and lost fellow mates, limbs and their lives in order to protect their way of life. That a decision recklessly made could effect so many, or a decision made in the heat of a fight could turn an entire course of a battle, and even a war.
After having read this book (and becoming emotionally attached to the characters, their thoughts and the results of their actions) I happened to catch a music video in which a girl was wearing a shirt with the sign of the Battle Flag of the Japanese. (The flag with the sun and the shooting rays.) I thought of what those men would have imagined, having fought, sweated, starved, worked, feared, cried, bleed and yes—died against that flag. Now some person in some random show happens to wear it with little thought to the significance.
And, coming back from vacation, I caught up on my familiar blogs. I came across one that talked of the meaning of life.
How little we of the Internet community know of the meaning of life. Oh—we use it as a philosophical tool to argue some point on theism. How this one fails to satisfy regarding the “meaning of life” or that one fails to logically follow on the “meaning of life.” There are men and women who have suffered horribly and died, simply to preserve life as we know it.
A life that consists of the complete idiocy of making “talking points” of what the meaning of life actually must be in a discussion with some person from Aruba. Can you imagine being a person on a ship, with some repetitive task, such as transporting ammunition, or working a winch, with the sole thought of surviving the next salvo of torpedoes or bombs all designed with the intention of causing you the most harm possible? Either to directly kill you, or harm your ship enough to cause it to sink and hopefully drown you?
And your fate is in the hands of commanders, sometimes 1000’s of miles away, making choices as to where your ship goes, and with whom you will be engaged in said exchange of ammunition? It makes our discussion of “What Is The Meaning of Life” and “Why Atheists Don’t Have a Meaning of Life” pretty pointless, in my opinion.
I know I am supposed to be arguing against theism. I am supposed to be making clever points about how there is no God, or if I am to be more specific, no Christian God.
But today I am morosely reflecting on all those young men and women who have given their ultimate sacrifice to allow me to make such points. And the points seem pretty pointless in that light…
It is one of the times that I purposely plan to read for relaxation. The problem was that I did not have a book to read, so I did what so many others have done and wandered in a Borders bookstore looking for something interesting to read. I happened on “Sea of Thunder” by Evan Thomas. It is the tale of the Naval Battle of Leyte Gulf of October 1944 in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War.
To be frank, even as a college History Major, I had never heard of this battle. Few have. (Have you?) In point of fact, my word processor, while being able to recognize the word “Constantinople” and “Stalingrad” does not recognize “Leyte.” Yet this was a decisive battle within the WWII.
Curious how important it was at that time. How important to the Japanese. Important to the Americans. It filled the papers. Yet here we are in 2007 and even after having studying the very time frame this battle occurred and the very war within which it happened—I did not know of it. I have had numerous college courses for this time—and nothing.
The book follows the lives of four of the commanders of this battle—how they came to be there and why they made the decisions they made. (Needless to say; I highly recommend this book. It draws you in and causes you to be interested in what happens next. Even those not interested in such historic books would find this one good reading. My father happened to pick it up while on vacation with us and could hardly put it down.)
What was emotional wrenching is to see the useless loss of life. Both Japanese and American in a battle that (now) is long forgotten. How men bravely fought and lost fellow mates, limbs and their lives in order to protect their way of life. That a decision recklessly made could effect so many, or a decision made in the heat of a fight could turn an entire course of a battle, and even a war.
After having read this book (and becoming emotionally attached to the characters, their thoughts and the results of their actions) I happened to catch a music video in which a girl was wearing a shirt with the sign of the Battle Flag of the Japanese. (The flag with the sun and the shooting rays.) I thought of what those men would have imagined, having fought, sweated, starved, worked, feared, cried, bleed and yes—died against that flag. Now some person in some random show happens to wear it with little thought to the significance.
And, coming back from vacation, I caught up on my familiar blogs. I came across one that talked of the meaning of life.
How little we of the Internet community know of the meaning of life. Oh—we use it as a philosophical tool to argue some point on theism. How this one fails to satisfy regarding the “meaning of life” or that one fails to logically follow on the “meaning of life.” There are men and women who have suffered horribly and died, simply to preserve life as we know it.
A life that consists of the complete idiocy of making “talking points” of what the meaning of life actually must be in a discussion with some person from Aruba. Can you imagine being a person on a ship, with some repetitive task, such as transporting ammunition, or working a winch, with the sole thought of surviving the next salvo of torpedoes or bombs all designed with the intention of causing you the most harm possible? Either to directly kill you, or harm your ship enough to cause it to sink and hopefully drown you?
And your fate is in the hands of commanders, sometimes 1000’s of miles away, making choices as to where your ship goes, and with whom you will be engaged in said exchange of ammunition? It makes our discussion of “What Is The Meaning of Life” and “Why Atheists Don’t Have a Meaning of Life” pretty pointless, in my opinion.
I know I am supposed to be arguing against theism. I am supposed to be making clever points about how there is no God, or if I am to be more specific, no Christian God.
But today I am morosely reflecting on all those young men and women who have given their ultimate sacrifice to allow me to make such points. And the points seem pretty pointless in that light…
Friday, August 03, 2007
Why I only Argue with Fundamentalist Christians
There is a group in existence. They are called “Fundamentalist Christians.” Often abbreviated to “Fundy” or “Fundie.” If an alien landed today and Googled these words they would find two things:
1) It is generally considered derogatory to be a “fundy”;
2) It is almost impossible to define what it means to be one.
As I discuss with various Christians, I am very often informed, “Oh, you are not talking about me. I do not believe that way. You are only talking to fundamentalists.” Rare, indeed, is the person that owns up to being the fundamentalist to whom I am apparently referring.
I get the mental image of a group of people, that are all very certain there are fundamentalists amongst us, yet are equally certain that it is not them—but some person to the right of them. (Fundamentalism is ALWAYS to the right.)
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 1: Oh, no. I believe in Old Earth Creationism. Try the person to the right.
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 2: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, I believe multiple Translations are acceptable. Try the person to the right.
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 3: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, I believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol. Try the person to the right.
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 4: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, and I believe the Bible condemns alcohol, I believe dancing is acceptable. Try the person to the right.
It is an elusive beast—this fundamentalist. We apparently universally agree it exists, and exists in large quantities, yet we seem to equally be convinced it is not us. Which is amusing, considering that skeptics are often accused of only taking on the “fundamentalist” brand of Christianity. If it was such a demarked division, why so slippery to find one? How is it that we are better at finding them than Christians?
I have heard the statement that the Protestant Movement got rid of one pope and created 1000’s instead. The idea that rather than having one uniform Church, Protestants have created 1000’s of separate churches, with separate leaders, and separate opinions of various theological positions.
With the growing sense of individualism over the past Century, and self-identifying, rather than group-identifying, I am seeing Billions of Popes! It has come to the point of rather than relying upon the Catholic Pope, or the Baptist preacher, each person is making their own determination as to what the Bible says.
Over and over, in on-line discussions I have seen:
“Well, I interpret that verse to mean…”
“I do not consider that inspired…”
“I think what Paul was trying to say…”
“Jesus should actually be viewed as…”
“The Americans have it wrong because…”
“The Europeans have it wrong because…”
“I use the Jewish perspective to say…”
“I use the New Testament Church perspective to say…”
And the Bible has become this sort-of general, nebulous beginning, from which we can twist and interpret, and translate and bend to say just about anything under the sun. It has all become a matter of personal taste and opinion, wrapped around individual desire.
While that may be fun and entertaining, the result is that there is no uniformity whatsoever. There is no black and white. It all becomes gray. So no matter what I say, it can be disregarded as simply being the wrong shade of gray to fit that person’s shade of gray. “Clearly he must be talking to some other person, because I interpret those verses differently.”
I agree that there are so many questions when it comes to the Bible. Was Paul talking about Jesus in a spiritual resurrection or a physical resurrection? Are the Gospels historical or legendary? Are the events of the Tanakh historical or legendary? Is Psalms 22 a prophecy? Is Revelation a prophecy or drug-induced blabber?
And because of these questions, and the multiple (maybe infinite?) way in which they can be answered, we end up with so many varieties, if I was to write a positional paper on any given subject, I would need to write millions of different responses in order to adequately cover yours.
I do understand that when I write “Christians say…” that it is impossible to follow that with any combination of words which would universally apply. Which means, at best, I can only cover the ground of a large group. (Probably not even a majority.) If a person would like to respond with, “I don’t believe that way, I believe this way” I am happy to engage in a conversation along their terms.
But I hope that people can understand that we don’t mean to only argue against “fundamentalism.” We are trying to discuss with YOU as to your position. We just have a difficult time figuring out who is a fundamentalist and who is not. If your position is not of fundamentalist stripe, then have a little charity and realize that those who you may accuse of fundamentalism say the same about themselves.
Never fear—I am sure I am not discussing your particular brand of Christianity. We can write it off that I must only be referring to the other person. You know—the fundamentalist. *wink*
1) It is generally considered derogatory to be a “fundy”;
2) It is almost impossible to define what it means to be one.
As I discuss with various Christians, I am very often informed, “Oh, you are not talking about me. I do not believe that way. You are only talking to fundamentalists.” Rare, indeed, is the person that owns up to being the fundamentalist to whom I am apparently referring.
I get the mental image of a group of people, that are all very certain there are fundamentalists amongst us, yet are equally certain that it is not them—but some person to the right of them. (Fundamentalism is ALWAYS to the right.)
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 1: Oh, no. I believe in Old Earth Creationism. Try the person to the right.
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 2: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, I believe multiple Translations are acceptable. Try the person to the right.
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 3: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, I believe the Bible allows drinking alcohol. Try the person to the right.
Me: Are you a fundamentalist?
Person 4: Oh, no. While I believe in Young Earth Creationism, and I believe the King James Version is the only acceptable, and I believe the Bible condemns alcohol, I believe dancing is acceptable. Try the person to the right.
It is an elusive beast—this fundamentalist. We apparently universally agree it exists, and exists in large quantities, yet we seem to equally be convinced it is not us. Which is amusing, considering that skeptics are often accused of only taking on the “fundamentalist” brand of Christianity. If it was such a demarked division, why so slippery to find one? How is it that we are better at finding them than Christians?
I have heard the statement that the Protestant Movement got rid of one pope and created 1000’s instead. The idea that rather than having one uniform Church, Protestants have created 1000’s of separate churches, with separate leaders, and separate opinions of various theological positions.
With the growing sense of individualism over the past Century, and self-identifying, rather than group-identifying, I am seeing Billions of Popes! It has come to the point of rather than relying upon the Catholic Pope, or the Baptist preacher, each person is making their own determination as to what the Bible says.
Over and over, in on-line discussions I have seen:
“Well, I interpret that verse to mean…”
“I do not consider that inspired…”
“I think what Paul was trying to say…”
“Jesus should actually be viewed as…”
“The Americans have it wrong because…”
“The Europeans have it wrong because…”
“I use the Jewish perspective to say…”
“I use the New Testament Church perspective to say…”
And the Bible has become this sort-of general, nebulous beginning, from which we can twist and interpret, and translate and bend to say just about anything under the sun. It has all become a matter of personal taste and opinion, wrapped around individual desire.
While that may be fun and entertaining, the result is that there is no uniformity whatsoever. There is no black and white. It all becomes gray. So no matter what I say, it can be disregarded as simply being the wrong shade of gray to fit that person’s shade of gray. “Clearly he must be talking to some other person, because I interpret those verses differently.”
I agree that there are so many questions when it comes to the Bible. Was Paul talking about Jesus in a spiritual resurrection or a physical resurrection? Are the Gospels historical or legendary? Are the events of the Tanakh historical or legendary? Is Psalms 22 a prophecy? Is Revelation a prophecy or drug-induced blabber?
And because of these questions, and the multiple (maybe infinite?) way in which they can be answered, we end up with so many varieties, if I was to write a positional paper on any given subject, I would need to write millions of different responses in order to adequately cover yours.
I do understand that when I write “Christians say…” that it is impossible to follow that with any combination of words which would universally apply. Which means, at best, I can only cover the ground of a large group. (Probably not even a majority.) If a person would like to respond with, “I don’t believe that way, I believe this way” I am happy to engage in a conversation along their terms.
But I hope that people can understand that we don’t mean to only argue against “fundamentalism.” We are trying to discuss with YOU as to your position. We just have a difficult time figuring out who is a fundamentalist and who is not. If your position is not of fundamentalist stripe, then have a little charity and realize that those who you may accuse of fundamentalism say the same about themselves.
Never fear—I am sure I am not discussing your particular brand of Christianity. We can write it off that I must only be referring to the other person. You know—the fundamentalist. *wink*
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Embarrassment
At the time of my deconversion, I was active, both in leadership roles, and as a participant in a local church. Since I could no longer maintain the beliefs required for membership, I resigned my positions. It was clear the questions I now faced, and the study that I had done far surpassed anything that a teacher or leader was prepared to respond, I retreated to not participating.
This dramatic change in my personality was noticeable. I heard whispers of rumors as to why, but did not pursue it any further. Due to my frustration at being unable to join in what was once such an important part of my life, I asked my wife if we could change churches. She agreed, and we began attending a church at a greater distance, where friends attended.
At this new church, with a fresh start, I was candid with the leadership as to who I am, and that I would like to participate in some way, shape or form. After quite a few discussions, that gradually became more and more uncomfortable for the leaders as they tried to politely explain I did not fit in and I was not welcome to participate, it sunk in my thick skull that church is not a place for a deconvert. Oh, it is fine for us to attend and sit in the pew. But to be an active part of the church?—that is too difficult and contrary to the design of the intention of a local congregation.
To my wife’s relief, as well as my own—I stopped attending. It was too stressful on both of us. “All’s well that ends well”—right? A new wrinkle appeared; our friends are moving, and they will no longer be attending that church. As near as I can tell, she has not developed any other friendships or connections in that church. I feel as if I set my wife on an island and then abandoned her!
The solution is simple, of course--go back to the local church. But I suspect why she wouldn’t--Embarrassment.
It would be embarrassing to have a husband who became an atheist. To explain it. To have the sideways looks, and questions, and “prayer requests” and knowing glances. I was far too immersed into Christianity to be ignorant of how effective a local congregation can be in embarrassing a person who does not belong. “Birds of a feather MUST flock together and make sure no other Birds are allowed in the flock”…or something like that.
It wasn’t that long ago that being divorced was a reason for exclusion. I grew up in a conservative Baptist environment. The thought of a Divorcee holding a position as a deacon or deaconess or trustee or Sunday School teacher or nursery worker or…well! The thought was unthinkable. When one got a divorce, the proper thing to do was either resign yourself to never being charge of even the flannel graph board in the Second Grade Sunday School class OR (and the far more preferable choice) move elsewhere. Go elsewhere. Be a church attendee elsewhere.
Of course, since those days divorces have become more and more and more common, and such an exclusionary policy, even in practice if not in precept, is far rarer.
What changed? It is still a divorce. We still use the same Bible. God didn’t reveal “Matthew Version 2.0” that updated Jesus’ position on divorce. Society has changed, and with that change, Christianity has changed as well.
Thirty years ago, if my wife returned to this particular local church, with a certificate of divorce from me, that would have been equally embarrassing. An anathema. A person that should “go away.” Now, it would be pitied, but not a reason for rejection. Many in the church are now divorced—to reject another member for that would be unheard of.
But the idea of a husband who deconverted? That is NOT acceptable. There must be something wrong with him! Maybe there is something wrong with her? Maybe they have some deep, dark, secret sin, and THAT is why there is a deconversion in the works. How humorous! If my wife divorced me for being a non-Christian—that would be acceptable. But to remain married to a deconvert? Well—those birds just don’t flock together, if you know what I mean!
As a young child, my parents took me to Bill Gaither’s Basic Youth Seminar. (If you have ever attended, this is proof enough of my conservative background.) At one of the first meetings, Mr. Gaither asked the group to stand and sing a song. To my young mind’s astonishment, somebody had let in some crazy Pentecostals! I had never seen anyone raise their arms when they sing! We were transfixed. We even hoped to have more singing, just to see those arms go up! We could not have been more fascinated if they had put on gorilla suits and started jumping around.
Believe me, had any of those Charismatic appeared in OUR church, and dared raise their hands during “Amazing Grace” a few well-placed glances, the very, VERY stiff arms firmly pointed down where they are supposed to be during songs, and the obligatory “cough, cough” would set them straight. They would understand that Birds which raise their wings when chirping most certainly do NOT flock here!
And over time, as more people integrate with others, the raising of hands has become less and less dramatic. With the advent of “Community Churches” rather than denominational demarcations, people of various worship styles find themselves in the same pew, and think less of it.
Hymn books are out; words on a PowerPoint are in. Pianos and organs are out; bands with drums and guitars are in. Suits, ties and dresses: out. Khakis, Slacks and Polo’s: in.
Have you contemplated the changes of what was “acceptable” in 1977, as compared to what is “acceptable” in 2007? What changed? Did the Bible change? Did God change? Or have people’s perceptions in society change? Was it JUST as acceptable to welcome a Divorcee in 1977 as it is now? Was it wrong to not do so?
All that being said, a deconvert is still out. We are apostates. Speakers of heresy. We are non-Christians not interested in becoming Christians and often better informed than most Christians sitting in the pews. I understand it. I get it. In fact, many places on the ‘net you can find arguments as to all the rudeness and discourtesy that can be justifiably leveled against us heathens, by virtue of our deconversion. That we should be clearly and specifically informed how our feathers are NOT welcome in the flock. No way. No shape. No form.
That being said—why must my wife get caught in the fray? Why should it be embarrassing to her for having a deconvert husband? She is truly an innocent victim in all this.
Yet she is. It would be.
I can’t help wonder, with the changes we have seen in the past 30 years—what will be acceptable in 2037 that is not now? Will deconverted spouses become as common as divorced?
It will be fascinating to see how Christianity will deal with the shift in society caused by increasing numbers of deconverts. The question that will amuse me during this change is this: “Is your god changing; or are you?”
This dramatic change in my personality was noticeable. I heard whispers of rumors as to why, but did not pursue it any further. Due to my frustration at being unable to join in what was once such an important part of my life, I asked my wife if we could change churches. She agreed, and we began attending a church at a greater distance, where friends attended.
At this new church, with a fresh start, I was candid with the leadership as to who I am, and that I would like to participate in some way, shape or form. After quite a few discussions, that gradually became more and more uncomfortable for the leaders as they tried to politely explain I did not fit in and I was not welcome to participate, it sunk in my thick skull that church is not a place for a deconvert. Oh, it is fine for us to attend and sit in the pew. But to be an active part of the church?—that is too difficult and contrary to the design of the intention of a local congregation.
To my wife’s relief, as well as my own—I stopped attending. It was too stressful on both of us. “All’s well that ends well”—right? A new wrinkle appeared; our friends are moving, and they will no longer be attending that church. As near as I can tell, she has not developed any other friendships or connections in that church. I feel as if I set my wife on an island and then abandoned her!
The solution is simple, of course--go back to the local church. But I suspect why she wouldn’t--Embarrassment.
It would be embarrassing to have a husband who became an atheist. To explain it. To have the sideways looks, and questions, and “prayer requests” and knowing glances. I was far too immersed into Christianity to be ignorant of how effective a local congregation can be in embarrassing a person who does not belong. “Birds of a feather MUST flock together and make sure no other Birds are allowed in the flock”…or something like that.
It wasn’t that long ago that being divorced was a reason for exclusion. I grew up in a conservative Baptist environment. The thought of a Divorcee holding a position as a deacon or deaconess or trustee or Sunday School teacher or nursery worker or…well! The thought was unthinkable. When one got a divorce, the proper thing to do was either resign yourself to never being charge of even the flannel graph board in the Second Grade Sunday School class OR (and the far more preferable choice) move elsewhere. Go elsewhere. Be a church attendee elsewhere.
Of course, since those days divorces have become more and more and more common, and such an exclusionary policy, even in practice if not in precept, is far rarer.
What changed? It is still a divorce. We still use the same Bible. God didn’t reveal “Matthew Version 2.0” that updated Jesus’ position on divorce. Society has changed, and with that change, Christianity has changed as well.
Thirty years ago, if my wife returned to this particular local church, with a certificate of divorce from me, that would have been equally embarrassing. An anathema. A person that should “go away.” Now, it would be pitied, but not a reason for rejection. Many in the church are now divorced—to reject another member for that would be unheard of.
But the idea of a husband who deconverted? That is NOT acceptable. There must be something wrong with him! Maybe there is something wrong with her? Maybe they have some deep, dark, secret sin, and THAT is why there is a deconversion in the works. How humorous! If my wife divorced me for being a non-Christian—that would be acceptable. But to remain married to a deconvert? Well—those birds just don’t flock together, if you know what I mean!
As a young child, my parents took me to Bill Gaither’s Basic Youth Seminar. (If you have ever attended, this is proof enough of my conservative background.) At one of the first meetings, Mr. Gaither asked the group to stand and sing a song. To my young mind’s astonishment, somebody had let in some crazy Pentecostals! I had never seen anyone raise their arms when they sing! We were transfixed. We even hoped to have more singing, just to see those arms go up! We could not have been more fascinated if they had put on gorilla suits and started jumping around.
Believe me, had any of those Charismatic appeared in OUR church, and dared raise their hands during “Amazing Grace” a few well-placed glances, the very, VERY stiff arms firmly pointed down where they are supposed to be during songs, and the obligatory “cough, cough” would set them straight. They would understand that Birds which raise their wings when chirping most certainly do NOT flock here!
And over time, as more people integrate with others, the raising of hands has become less and less dramatic. With the advent of “Community Churches” rather than denominational demarcations, people of various worship styles find themselves in the same pew, and think less of it.
Hymn books are out; words on a PowerPoint are in. Pianos and organs are out; bands with drums and guitars are in. Suits, ties and dresses: out. Khakis, Slacks and Polo’s: in.
Have you contemplated the changes of what was “acceptable” in 1977, as compared to what is “acceptable” in 2007? What changed? Did the Bible change? Did God change? Or have people’s perceptions in society change? Was it JUST as acceptable to welcome a Divorcee in 1977 as it is now? Was it wrong to not do so?
All that being said, a deconvert is still out. We are apostates. Speakers of heresy. We are non-Christians not interested in becoming Christians and often better informed than most Christians sitting in the pews. I understand it. I get it. In fact, many places on the ‘net you can find arguments as to all the rudeness and discourtesy that can be justifiably leveled against us heathens, by virtue of our deconversion. That we should be clearly and specifically informed how our feathers are NOT welcome in the flock. No way. No shape. No form.
That being said—why must my wife get caught in the fray? Why should it be embarrassing to her for having a deconvert husband? She is truly an innocent victim in all this.
Yet she is. It would be.
I can’t help wonder, with the changes we have seen in the past 30 years—what will be acceptable in 2037 that is not now? Will deconverted spouses become as common as divorced?
It will be fascinating to see how Christianity will deal with the shift in society caused by increasing numbers of deconverts. The question that will amuse me during this change is this: “Is your god changing; or are you?”
Thursday, July 12, 2007
A God Moment
Sure, I had moments where I felt that God was so close I could almost breach the ethereal plane and touch Him as a Christian. Never expected one as an atheist…
I was on vacation last week. My favorite kind. One with no agenda. My grandparents owned a place on a lake in Northern Michigan. As a child, and growing into an adult, we had one set rule at the Cabin—you do not have to do something just because everyone else was doing it. If everyone wanted to go swimming and you wanted to take a nap—you could take a nap. No pressure.
If we were going golfing, and you wanted to stay and read a book—GREAT! That was your choice. This developed into a very relaxed atmosphere in which I can vacation without always having to go somewhere or do something or have some itinerary dictating my day.
Sunday morning I went for my typical run. It was hot, and I ended up running a little farther than intended. After showering, and making my coffee, I headed down to the early morning lake to sit for a moment before the rest of the family was up.
I was clean and shiny with endorphins still flowing from my run. The lake was so calm that the boats moored in the water were not in line with waves (there were none) but were sporadically pointing in random directions. The water was clear and so calm that I could hear a raucous breakfast happening somewhere on the lake. Just far enough way to not make out words, but close enough to hear the laughter in the voices.
Not a cloud in the sky. It was a new day, fresh with the promise of a gorgeous Northern Michigan vacation. Just me, the sun, the water, and my coffee. The smell of pine was in the air.
I took that first sip of coffee. I don’t know if you are a coffee drinker, but if you are, you know what the first taste is like. After that, your tongue becomes accustomed to the bitter, rich flavor, but that first sip—oh is it heaven!
And in that instant, in a rush, I had a God moment. As I looked at nature surrounding me, I thought, “Certainly there must be some creator. This is far too beautiful for me to be lucky enough to roll the cosmic dice and be in such a pure state of ecstasy.”
To any theists out there—you want a great argument for a god? Stand with me on that dock. No, don’t say anything—every syllable you make only detracts from the argument. The strength of it is the silence and absorbing it with every attuned sense.
And then…slowly…as they do…the God moment recessed back. It shrank. I didn’t will it away. I didn’t will it to stay. It just…diminshed. I couldn’t help thinking, “We skeptics sure give theists a rough time about their god. We throw the Problem of Suffering out. We bring up the Tankah, the genocides, the flood over and over and over. We question why their god does what they claim he does. Why they claim he loves us, but never talks to us.”
That was god’s big opportunity! After all the questions, after all the blaming, after all the accusations of immorality, one would think that this would have been his big chance to appear and say, “But see? See? I did pretty good here, don’t you think?” Yet again, though, God did not choose to make an appearance.
I get that the God Moment was simply a time in which I was extremely happy. That a combination of senses and timing gave my brain an adrenaline rush it liked. In the time of my greatest despair, when I was begging for God to show me anything—he never came. In the time of my greatest ecstasy, when a slight shift would have revealed his presence—he never came. He was never there in the first place.
As my cup was almost empty, and the last lingering traces of the God Moment were clinging to my mind, I heard my oldest shout, “Dad! What’s for breakfast?!” And I was brought back to corporeal senses. This was what life was really about—making breakfast. Survival. God Moments are nice—they are mind re-chargers. Yet in the end, we must go return to living. To interacting, eating, sleeping, working, playing and being human.
I made eggs and bacon with a smile on my face. Me. An atheist. Having a moment of spirituality. Who’d a thunk it?
I was on vacation last week. My favorite kind. One with no agenda. My grandparents owned a place on a lake in Northern Michigan. As a child, and growing into an adult, we had one set rule at the Cabin—you do not have to do something just because everyone else was doing it. If everyone wanted to go swimming and you wanted to take a nap—you could take a nap. No pressure.
If we were going golfing, and you wanted to stay and read a book—GREAT! That was your choice. This developed into a very relaxed atmosphere in which I can vacation without always having to go somewhere or do something or have some itinerary dictating my day.
Sunday morning I went for my typical run. It was hot, and I ended up running a little farther than intended. After showering, and making my coffee, I headed down to the early morning lake to sit for a moment before the rest of the family was up.
I was clean and shiny with endorphins still flowing from my run. The lake was so calm that the boats moored in the water were not in line with waves (there were none) but were sporadically pointing in random directions. The water was clear and so calm that I could hear a raucous breakfast happening somewhere on the lake. Just far enough way to not make out words, but close enough to hear the laughter in the voices.
Not a cloud in the sky. It was a new day, fresh with the promise of a gorgeous Northern Michigan vacation. Just me, the sun, the water, and my coffee. The smell of pine was in the air.
I took that first sip of coffee. I don’t know if you are a coffee drinker, but if you are, you know what the first taste is like. After that, your tongue becomes accustomed to the bitter, rich flavor, but that first sip—oh is it heaven!
And in that instant, in a rush, I had a God moment. As I looked at nature surrounding me, I thought, “Certainly there must be some creator. This is far too beautiful for me to be lucky enough to roll the cosmic dice and be in such a pure state of ecstasy.”
To any theists out there—you want a great argument for a god? Stand with me on that dock. No, don’t say anything—every syllable you make only detracts from the argument. The strength of it is the silence and absorbing it with every attuned sense.
And then…slowly…as they do…the God moment recessed back. It shrank. I didn’t will it away. I didn’t will it to stay. It just…diminshed. I couldn’t help thinking, “We skeptics sure give theists a rough time about their god. We throw the Problem of Suffering out. We bring up the Tankah, the genocides, the flood over and over and over. We question why their god does what they claim he does. Why they claim he loves us, but never talks to us.”
That was god’s big opportunity! After all the questions, after all the blaming, after all the accusations of immorality, one would think that this would have been his big chance to appear and say, “But see? See? I did pretty good here, don’t you think?” Yet again, though, God did not choose to make an appearance.
I get that the God Moment was simply a time in which I was extremely happy. That a combination of senses and timing gave my brain an adrenaline rush it liked. In the time of my greatest despair, when I was begging for God to show me anything—he never came. In the time of my greatest ecstasy, when a slight shift would have revealed his presence—he never came. He was never there in the first place.
As my cup was almost empty, and the last lingering traces of the God Moment were clinging to my mind, I heard my oldest shout, “Dad! What’s for breakfast?!” And I was brought back to corporeal senses. This was what life was really about—making breakfast. Survival. God Moments are nice—they are mind re-chargers. Yet in the end, we must go return to living. To interacting, eating, sleeping, working, playing and being human.
I made eggs and bacon with a smile on my face. Me. An atheist. Having a moment of spirituality. Who’d a thunk it?
Friday, June 29, 2007
"The Bible is Not a Science Textbook"
I have run across this claim in a few settings recently. It is not very helpful to the Christian position, nor is it even remotely persuasive to the skeptic.
First of all, it sounds like back-pedaling. As if the person saying sees an error and is trying to justify the Bible’s inability to be accurate. (Curiously, this phrase is often followed by “but the Bible is scientifically accurate” which seems to make the first worry useless. If the Bible is scientifically accurate, who cares about it being a science textbook or not.)
It looks like this:
Skeptic: The Bible claims that rabbits chew cud.
Christian: The Bible is not a Science Textbook.
It sure looks as if the Christian is agreeing that the Bible is inaccurate as to what is scientifically correct, but is trying to explain it away.
However, this does not help the claim that the Bible is super-natural. If the defense for why the Bible is wrong, is that humans were writing with the best knowledge they had at the moment—what makes this different than any other human work? What makes that particularly divine?
The point is not whether Moses knew about cud-chewing rabbits, but the fact that God would have known. If God is involved, shouldn’t it have at the least the knowledge of what humans know now? Sure, God can know more than us, but wouldn’t he know at least as much as us?
Or the order of light being created before the sun. Or flowering plants before the sun. Or birds before animals. Or how many animals would have to fit in that Ark? I am not holding the Bible to using the same scientific language we do today. Just because the Bible does not break out animals into mammals and reptiles, for example, does not make it inaccurate. It can classify animals as it chooses. But not make them do things they do not do, or appear when they do not appear.
What other types of textbooks is the Bible not?
As I have discussed, it is not historically accurate when it comes to Exodus. Can we also say, “The Bible is not a history book”? It has its numbers jumbled in various places, can we also say “The Bible is not a mathematics book?” It has some questionable ethical schemes—“The Bible is not a moral guide”?
What is left? Is it various humans providing their individual insights as to God’s relationship with humans? What is unique about that? What is divine there? Wouldn’t we expect in a human work to see variations and errors, based upon each human’s limited knowledge? Isn’t that what we see?
Or do we do even better as humans? A science textbook has no pretensions to be an English textbook. Yet it is written grammatically correct. If we saw misspellings in a science book, so we shrug it off with “Well…it’s not an English textbook.” Nope. We call them “errors.” An English textbook will use mathematics in the numbering of pages and chapters. If it skipped from Chapter 4 to Chapter 12, would we ignore it under the premise it is not a math book?
If God wanted to write an allegory of the creation of the universe—is it so difficult to do so by having the sun come before the light? Why is God getting the excuse for what appears to be human error?
No, the Bible is not a science book. But by being less knowledgeable in science than we are, it sure appears to be non-divine. Otherwise we seem to know more than God did 2600 years ago.
Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically wrong? Then how does that support divinity? Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically correct? Then why make excuses as to how it is not a science book?
First of all, it sounds like back-pedaling. As if the person saying sees an error and is trying to justify the Bible’s inability to be accurate. (Curiously, this phrase is often followed by “but the Bible is scientifically accurate” which seems to make the first worry useless. If the Bible is scientifically accurate, who cares about it being a science textbook or not.)
It looks like this:
Skeptic: The Bible claims that rabbits chew cud.
Christian: The Bible is not a Science Textbook.
It sure looks as if the Christian is agreeing that the Bible is inaccurate as to what is scientifically correct, but is trying to explain it away.
However, this does not help the claim that the Bible is super-natural. If the defense for why the Bible is wrong, is that humans were writing with the best knowledge they had at the moment—what makes this different than any other human work? What makes that particularly divine?
The point is not whether Moses knew about cud-chewing rabbits, but the fact that God would have known. If God is involved, shouldn’t it have at the least the knowledge of what humans know now? Sure, God can know more than us, but wouldn’t he know at least as much as us?
Or the order of light being created before the sun. Or flowering plants before the sun. Or birds before animals. Or how many animals would have to fit in that Ark? I am not holding the Bible to using the same scientific language we do today. Just because the Bible does not break out animals into mammals and reptiles, for example, does not make it inaccurate. It can classify animals as it chooses. But not make them do things they do not do, or appear when they do not appear.
What other types of textbooks is the Bible not?
As I have discussed, it is not historically accurate when it comes to Exodus. Can we also say, “The Bible is not a history book”? It has its numbers jumbled in various places, can we also say “The Bible is not a mathematics book?” It has some questionable ethical schemes—“The Bible is not a moral guide”?
What is left? Is it various humans providing their individual insights as to God’s relationship with humans? What is unique about that? What is divine there? Wouldn’t we expect in a human work to see variations and errors, based upon each human’s limited knowledge? Isn’t that what we see?
Or do we do even better as humans? A science textbook has no pretensions to be an English textbook. Yet it is written grammatically correct. If we saw misspellings in a science book, so we shrug it off with “Well…it’s not an English textbook.” Nope. We call them “errors.” An English textbook will use mathematics in the numbering of pages and chapters. If it skipped from Chapter 4 to Chapter 12, would we ignore it under the premise it is not a math book?
If God wanted to write an allegory of the creation of the universe—is it so difficult to do so by having the sun come before the light? Why is God getting the excuse for what appears to be human error?
No, the Bible is not a science book. But by being less knowledgeable in science than we are, it sure appears to be non-divine. Otherwise we seem to know more than God did 2600 years ago.
Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically wrong? Then how does that support divinity? Do Christians think the Bible is scientifically correct? Then why make excuses as to how it is not a science book?
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Internet Ethics Part Two
Well, I warned ya I was hung up on ethics on the internet. I obviously still am.
Another dissimilarity between real life and the internet is that in real life, much of our relating with others is by oral communication, whereas the predominance of internet relations is by writing.
This has created a curious hyper-technical definition within our ethics that is not present in real life. See, in oral communication, we very quickly forget what was said. Without a record, there is no possible way to verify what someone claimed only a few minutes ago. But the ‘net is forever…
If I claim, “I never said that Christians don’t read their Bibles” all it takes is a googlewhack of a few of my regular haunts and out pops a quote from me in 2003 in which I said (uh-oh!) “Christians have ceased reading their Bibles.” Now the accusations of lying come out!
Can you imagine if we were held to everything we said? And if we ever stated something differently, the accusation of “lie” is charged, convicted and punished with almost instantaneous fervor?
Worse, this technical accusation has become nit-picky. I find it a matter of supreme irony as to how horrible our spelling has become, thanks to the computer and spell-checker. (And yes, I am one of those who types out “rythm” and then lets the spell-checker figure out the right spelling for me. Oh, stop it! You do it, too!) Yet, conversely, we often see another person criticized for mis-spelling a word, as a sign of their stupidity, and reason to disregard their entire comment.
We have brought it upon ourselves, yet are holding others to an even higher standard!
And now that we have the ability to recall and record every single letter, word, paragraph and punctuation, people have learned to us it to their advantage. The internet has created a “technical ethic” where we are able to come so, so close to some imaginary line, but as long as we don’t “technically” cross it—we consider ourselves saints of purity.
Who hasn’t seen this take place?
Bob: I think that Gore would make a good Attorney General.
Jane: Only the most stupid would consider Al Gore fit for a government position.
Bob: Hey—you called me stupid!
Jane: No, I didn’t call you stupid, only those who hold to Al Gore working in the government. If you desire to think that…well…that is your choice.
We have become masters at NOT calling a person something, yet making it crystal clear we most certainly are.
“Perhaps you have failed to study even the basic mathematics required of a child selling lemonade in a stand at the side of the road.”
See how that “perhaps” absolves the person of any crime? Oh, sure, we all get that the one person is calling the other a cretin—but if accused, they could avoid all accusations by saying “Technically I didn’t say that. I was just asking.”
Riiiiggghhhhttt. And we all appreciated your concern. (Envision much sarcasm here.)
We know what sockpuppets are. It is when a person sets up two accounts on the same forum, and then uses one to bolster the other. All of a sudden “Petee” is agreeing with and telling the world how wise “Speaking Ministry of Blake” is. (Two actual sockpuppet names for the same person.)
Apparently, as the internet ethic developed, having a sockpuppet is a no-no. We all decry that as violating some unseen rule.
O.K. So what if I join a forum. And I don’t like what I see. I decide to gang up on one poster. I recruit my friends. I feed them what to say. Any Private Messages, or e-mails I receive from the moderators or other posters I forward on to my friends to “keep them informed.” I ask them to post against this person every chance they can.
I guess “technically” I have not violated the sockpuppet rule. “Technically” my friends can post what they like, and I am free to forward messages to whomever I choose. But have I violated the spirit of the sockpuppet rule?
I can’t think of a correlation to the sockpuppet law in real life. We don’t have it. Yet it is certainly alive and well in internet-world. And in a new world, with a new ethics—what I see is emphasis on hyper-technicality. The conscious choice to create a line, and then see how close one can get. As long as one does not very specifically cross over—then one has conformed to the ethic.
Are we retreating to form over substance?
Another dissimilarity between real life and the internet is that in real life, much of our relating with others is by oral communication, whereas the predominance of internet relations is by writing.
This has created a curious hyper-technical definition within our ethics that is not present in real life. See, in oral communication, we very quickly forget what was said. Without a record, there is no possible way to verify what someone claimed only a few minutes ago. But the ‘net is forever…
If I claim, “I never said that Christians don’t read their Bibles” all it takes is a googlewhack of a few of my regular haunts and out pops a quote from me in 2003 in which I said (uh-oh!) “Christians have ceased reading their Bibles.” Now the accusations of lying come out!
Can you imagine if we were held to everything we said? And if we ever stated something differently, the accusation of “lie” is charged, convicted and punished with almost instantaneous fervor?
Worse, this technical accusation has become nit-picky. I find it a matter of supreme irony as to how horrible our spelling has become, thanks to the computer and spell-checker. (And yes, I am one of those who types out “rythm” and then lets the spell-checker figure out the right spelling for me. Oh, stop it! You do it, too!) Yet, conversely, we often see another person criticized for mis-spelling a word, as a sign of their stupidity, and reason to disregard their entire comment.
We have brought it upon ourselves, yet are holding others to an even higher standard!
And now that we have the ability to recall and record every single letter, word, paragraph and punctuation, people have learned to us it to their advantage. The internet has created a “technical ethic” where we are able to come so, so close to some imaginary line, but as long as we don’t “technically” cross it—we consider ourselves saints of purity.
Who hasn’t seen this take place?
Bob: I think that Gore would make a good Attorney General.
Jane: Only the most stupid would consider Al Gore fit for a government position.
Bob: Hey—you called me stupid!
Jane: No, I didn’t call you stupid, only those who hold to Al Gore working in the government. If you desire to think that…well…that is your choice.
We have become masters at NOT calling a person something, yet making it crystal clear we most certainly are.
“Perhaps you have failed to study even the basic mathematics required of a child selling lemonade in a stand at the side of the road.”
See how that “perhaps” absolves the person of any crime? Oh, sure, we all get that the one person is calling the other a cretin—but if accused, they could avoid all accusations by saying “Technically I didn’t say that. I was just asking.”
Riiiiggghhhhttt. And we all appreciated your concern. (Envision much sarcasm here.)
We know what sockpuppets are. It is when a person sets up two accounts on the same forum, and then uses one to bolster the other. All of a sudden “Petee” is agreeing with and telling the world how wise “Speaking Ministry of Blake” is. (Two actual sockpuppet names for the same person.)
Apparently, as the internet ethic developed, having a sockpuppet is a no-no. We all decry that as violating some unseen rule.
O.K. So what if I join a forum. And I don’t like what I see. I decide to gang up on one poster. I recruit my friends. I feed them what to say. Any Private Messages, or e-mails I receive from the moderators or other posters I forward on to my friends to “keep them informed.” I ask them to post against this person every chance they can.
I guess “technically” I have not violated the sockpuppet rule. “Technically” my friends can post what they like, and I am free to forward messages to whomever I choose. But have I violated the spirit of the sockpuppet rule?
I can’t think of a correlation to the sockpuppet law in real life. We don’t have it. Yet it is certainly alive and well in internet-world. And in a new world, with a new ethics—what I see is emphasis on hyper-technicality. The conscious choice to create a line, and then see how close one can get. As long as one does not very specifically cross over—then one has conformed to the ethic.
Are we retreating to form over substance?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Internet Ethics
My daughter and I were watching “Harvey” last night. A movie made in the 1950’s. A scene in the first act was at a Tea in which Veta Simmons invites numerous ladies of high society to hear a lady sing.
My daughter turned to me and said (as only a 15-year-old can) “That would be SO boring!” I reminded her how, prior to Television, people were entertained differently. Speeches were events. Variety shows were the highlight of the year. How people could not just turn on a box and watch something 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Whether we like it or not, how we relate has changed. Prior to telephones, the only relating we could do is face to face, or by letter. The idea of relating to another person in another continent would be a commitment. Not an afterthought.
Life progressed with telephones, automobiles and airplanes. We sat on porches in the evening to talk to our neighbors. We were on bowling leagues. We were in 4-H.
Life progressed more and faster. Front porches gave way to back yard decks. Rather than attend a church because it was within walking distance, we attended a church we liked within driving distance. And if we became disenchanted with that church, we found another within driving distance.
We began to pick schools, not because of where we lived, but the quality of the academics or the programs offered. Our friends live 10 or 20 or 30 miles away. We no longer knew our next-door neighbors first names, let alone how their children were doing.
But even with that, we have a limited resource by which to develop our relationships. Our pool was church, school, work or locale. Each of us have been faced with a situation in which we have had to make a decision whether to continue a friendship within this set of people, either because of offending the other, or being offended, or some other moral reason.
Along came the internet. Our “pool” has now developed into a world-wide relationship base. If I want to find a white male, unmarried, who has converted from Mormonism to Islam, a google search and some effort, and the next thing you know, I am talking to not one, but five or six. What would be the chance I could find such an individual within the old social circle of church, school, etc.? Not very great.
And with this new gang of people talking, chatting, blogging, foruming and e-mailing, I wonder how our old ethics system will fair. It is not designed for this much interaction.
Take the adage: “Love your neighbor.” In my average day, there are only so many people I can encounter and utilize that principle. I can only offend so many! Maybe a few drivers on the way to work, I let cut in front of me. Or a tip and a smile to the harried coffee clerk. A help to some co-workers. An extra effort for some clients. Then back home (letting in a few more drivers) to help my wife and children.
Here, on the ‘net, I can encounter millions. Now, I seriously doubt that millions of people are reading my blog. Frankly, without a counter, it may only be a faithful dozen. BUT, the potential is there that any person of millions, could inadvertently wander in and be offended. What is my responsibility under “Love my neighbor”?
Can I start a blog called, “ChristianityCanSuckMyBigToe” and seriously be considered as “loving my neighbor”? Yet we have a site called “AtheismSucks.” Is that “Loving your neighbor”? Would Jesus be a contributor at “AtheismSucks”? (WWJB?) I wonder how a Christian can effectively write on-line, yet constantly maintain a “love your neighbor” attitude. Somebody, somewhere is certain to be offended. Can we just write that person off?
In real life, we have a limiting factor by time and locale. Here, on the ‘net, I can probably find a way to offend somebody at any time of the day. What do I do about that responsibility? Sadly, I see most simply shrug. “Hey, you can’t please everybody.” No, you can’t. So what ethic do you develop by which enough “somebodys” are bothered that you change?
Imagine I write a blog entry. And one Christian writes in “Hey, this was offensive to me.” My personal moral is to treat others as they would like to be treated. This person does not want to read what I have written. Do I delete it? Do I explain myself, in the hopes of convincing them otherwise?
Another Christian writes in that this was offensive. And another. Eventually 100 Christians write in, all claiming it was offensive. And not a single Christian said it was fine. I would think we all agree that I have violated my personal moral. I did not treat others as they would like to be treated. But what if 1 out of the 100 said it was O.K.? Or two? Or it was divided 50/50?
How many Christians does it take for me to violate my own ethic?
Of course, the most dramatic shift is the ability to be anonymous. In real life, I am immediately aware of when I have offended another driver. That middle finger she is waiving at me communicates effectively. When we offend or hurt another in life, it is very often face-to-face. We see the person. Or we will see them next Sunday.
That personal interaction tempers our speech and tone. We have all read internet battles. Have you ever read one as if the two (or more) participants were speaking face to face? If you saw that on the street, you would be certain that a physical fight was imminent! But when “DagoodS” is writing to “PapaBear 352”* I can call them an “ignorant buffoon who couldn’t outsmart a rock, and should do their personal effort to help increase the average I.Q. of their country by moving somewhere else. Like an unpopulated island.”
We think nothing of such statements on-line, yet in real life we would be aghast at the affront of someone saying such things. (Add the capital letters and we could REALLY see a fight!)
I don’t know PapaBear 352. I literally do not know what hemisphere of the world they live in, their sex, age, marital status, or anything. And that “not knowing” coupled with them not knowing mine, gives me license to write what I want, when I want and how I want?
Is what is transpiring on-line going to cross over to real life, or are we developing a completely different moral system here? I see us as an evil Superman, with a secret Identity.
Clark: Morning Lois! Boy, this is great coffee! Anything I can help you with?
Lois: No, Clark. Thanks.
Clark: Great! I’ll just check my e-mail.
*Logs in to ‘EvilSuper’*
*Reads e-mail from ‘JimPhoto’*
EvilSuper: What?! [typing] You senseless TWIT! It is PEOPLE like YOU that give newspapers a BAD NAME! How you EVER got a job is beyond me! You can’t even spell ‘hawsehole’ correctly! Its one word—moron! Come back when you have a third-grade education. DUMBASS.
*logs off*
Clark: Hey Lois, can you call Jimmie? He’s such a nice kid; I want to take him to lunch.
Lois: Not right now, he got an e-mail from some guy called ‘EvilSuper’ and is typing out a response…
Is the internet making us worse, the same, or just different by being able to communicate anonymously? Is it the real us, or a different side of us?
In addition, thanks to the commonality of the set we associate with, there is bound to be someone that agrees with our statements. Who can stroke our ego and support us. “Naw, you were fine. That silly thin-skinned Christian was too sensitive when you called posted a picture of a naked Jesus in Chocolate. Not your fault.” We can offend others AND receive encouragement at the same time!
Where can we do that in real life?
And the neat part is that it is so immediate. In life, when we offend others, or are offended, we pause and reflect. Sometimes we will not even see the person for a period of time before we can respond. That gives us a moment to stop and consider what to say, and how to say it.
Here, we have hardly finished reading before we have clicked “Reply” and start banging out a venomous response. Our brain does not have time to kick in and say, “You know, maybe you should re-think this…”
Another interesting dynamic that has recently come across my radar—how do we communicate that what we find is unacceptable to us. To use another example—what if I am on a forum. And another poster makes a comment about me, or another, or in general that I find completely distasteful. I respond, to no avail. I PM, to receive either hate-mail or no response. I complain to moderators who are uninterested.
What do I do? What does my ethic require of me? Do I shrug it off and continue? Do I walk with my feet? Do I demand an apology over and over and over? We don’t have a great many options.
Do any of us like those blogs were all of a sudden a seemingly rationale person begins to type about how “CrazyEight”* over at “bobo.blogspot”* wrote something mean about them, and now the blogger is going to show THEM by telling the world about what has transpired, and how they were hurt, and let’s see the whole history…
Yes, I know it may be cathartic for that blogger at that moment…but after having read the first dozen—are they that interesting? Isn’t just another internet battle with different names and different issues, but the same words?
Recently I have been struck by the difference between internet ethics and life. Sorry—no answers in this blog entry. I almost feel as if this is too big of a creature to wrap my arms around.
Any thoughts?
*completely made up moniker(s). If there IS someone who happens to have this as an internet name, I most certainly did NOT mean you!
My daughter turned to me and said (as only a 15-year-old can) “That would be SO boring!” I reminded her how, prior to Television, people were entertained differently. Speeches were events. Variety shows were the highlight of the year. How people could not just turn on a box and watch something 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Whether we like it or not, how we relate has changed. Prior to telephones, the only relating we could do is face to face, or by letter. The idea of relating to another person in another continent would be a commitment. Not an afterthought.
Life progressed with telephones, automobiles and airplanes. We sat on porches in the evening to talk to our neighbors. We were on bowling leagues. We were in 4-H.
Life progressed more and faster. Front porches gave way to back yard decks. Rather than attend a church because it was within walking distance, we attended a church we liked within driving distance. And if we became disenchanted with that church, we found another within driving distance.
We began to pick schools, not because of where we lived, but the quality of the academics or the programs offered. Our friends live 10 or 20 or 30 miles away. We no longer knew our next-door neighbors first names, let alone how their children were doing.
But even with that, we have a limited resource by which to develop our relationships. Our pool was church, school, work or locale. Each of us have been faced with a situation in which we have had to make a decision whether to continue a friendship within this set of people, either because of offending the other, or being offended, or some other moral reason.
Along came the internet. Our “pool” has now developed into a world-wide relationship base. If I want to find a white male, unmarried, who has converted from Mormonism to Islam, a google search and some effort, and the next thing you know, I am talking to not one, but five or six. What would be the chance I could find such an individual within the old social circle of church, school, etc.? Not very great.
And with this new gang of people talking, chatting, blogging, foruming and e-mailing, I wonder how our old ethics system will fair. It is not designed for this much interaction.
Take the adage: “Love your neighbor.” In my average day, there are only so many people I can encounter and utilize that principle. I can only offend so many! Maybe a few drivers on the way to work, I let cut in front of me. Or a tip and a smile to the harried coffee clerk. A help to some co-workers. An extra effort for some clients. Then back home (letting in a few more drivers) to help my wife and children.
Here, on the ‘net, I can encounter millions. Now, I seriously doubt that millions of people are reading my blog. Frankly, without a counter, it may only be a faithful dozen. BUT, the potential is there that any person of millions, could inadvertently wander in and be offended. What is my responsibility under “Love my neighbor”?
Can I start a blog called, “ChristianityCanSuckMyBigToe” and seriously be considered as “loving my neighbor”? Yet we have a site called “AtheismSucks.” Is that “Loving your neighbor”? Would Jesus be a contributor at “AtheismSucks”? (WWJB?) I wonder how a Christian can effectively write on-line, yet constantly maintain a “love your neighbor” attitude. Somebody, somewhere is certain to be offended. Can we just write that person off?
In real life, we have a limiting factor by time and locale. Here, on the ‘net, I can probably find a way to offend somebody at any time of the day. What do I do about that responsibility? Sadly, I see most simply shrug. “Hey, you can’t please everybody.” No, you can’t. So what ethic do you develop by which enough “somebodys” are bothered that you change?
Imagine I write a blog entry. And one Christian writes in “Hey, this was offensive to me.” My personal moral is to treat others as they would like to be treated. This person does not want to read what I have written. Do I delete it? Do I explain myself, in the hopes of convincing them otherwise?
Another Christian writes in that this was offensive. And another. Eventually 100 Christians write in, all claiming it was offensive. And not a single Christian said it was fine. I would think we all agree that I have violated my personal moral. I did not treat others as they would like to be treated. But what if 1 out of the 100 said it was O.K.? Or two? Or it was divided 50/50?
How many Christians does it take for me to violate my own ethic?
Of course, the most dramatic shift is the ability to be anonymous. In real life, I am immediately aware of when I have offended another driver. That middle finger she is waiving at me communicates effectively. When we offend or hurt another in life, it is very often face-to-face. We see the person. Or we will see them next Sunday.
That personal interaction tempers our speech and tone. We have all read internet battles. Have you ever read one as if the two (or more) participants were speaking face to face? If you saw that on the street, you would be certain that a physical fight was imminent! But when “DagoodS” is writing to “PapaBear 352”* I can call them an “ignorant buffoon who couldn’t outsmart a rock, and should do their personal effort to help increase the average I.Q. of their country by moving somewhere else. Like an unpopulated island.”
We think nothing of such statements on-line, yet in real life we would be aghast at the affront of someone saying such things. (Add the capital letters and we could REALLY see a fight!)
I don’t know PapaBear 352. I literally do not know what hemisphere of the world they live in, their sex, age, marital status, or anything. And that “not knowing” coupled with them not knowing mine, gives me license to write what I want, when I want and how I want?
Is what is transpiring on-line going to cross over to real life, or are we developing a completely different moral system here? I see us as an evil Superman, with a secret Identity.
Clark: Morning Lois! Boy, this is great coffee! Anything I can help you with?
Lois: No, Clark. Thanks.
Clark: Great! I’ll just check my e-mail.
*Logs in to ‘EvilSuper’*
*Reads e-mail from ‘JimPhoto’*
EvilSuper: What?! [typing] You senseless TWIT! It is PEOPLE like YOU that give newspapers a BAD NAME! How you EVER got a job is beyond me! You can’t even spell ‘hawsehole’ correctly! Its one word—moron! Come back when you have a third-grade education. DUMBASS.
*logs off*
Clark: Hey Lois, can you call Jimmie? He’s such a nice kid; I want to take him to lunch.
Lois: Not right now, he got an e-mail from some guy called ‘EvilSuper’ and is typing out a response…
Is the internet making us worse, the same, or just different by being able to communicate anonymously? Is it the real us, or a different side of us?
In addition, thanks to the commonality of the set we associate with, there is bound to be someone that agrees with our statements. Who can stroke our ego and support us. “Naw, you were fine. That silly thin-skinned Christian was too sensitive when you called posted a picture of a naked Jesus in Chocolate. Not your fault.” We can offend others AND receive encouragement at the same time!
Where can we do that in real life?
And the neat part is that it is so immediate. In life, when we offend others, or are offended, we pause and reflect. Sometimes we will not even see the person for a period of time before we can respond. That gives us a moment to stop and consider what to say, and how to say it.
Here, we have hardly finished reading before we have clicked “Reply” and start banging out a venomous response. Our brain does not have time to kick in and say, “You know, maybe you should re-think this…”
Another interesting dynamic that has recently come across my radar—how do we communicate that what we find is unacceptable to us. To use another example—what if I am on a forum. And another poster makes a comment about me, or another, or in general that I find completely distasteful. I respond, to no avail. I PM, to receive either hate-mail or no response. I complain to moderators who are uninterested.
What do I do? What does my ethic require of me? Do I shrug it off and continue? Do I walk with my feet? Do I demand an apology over and over and over? We don’t have a great many options.
Do any of us like those blogs were all of a sudden a seemingly rationale person begins to type about how “CrazyEight”* over at “bobo.blogspot”* wrote something mean about them, and now the blogger is going to show THEM by telling the world about what has transpired, and how they were hurt, and let’s see the whole history…
Yes, I know it may be cathartic for that blogger at that moment…but after having read the first dozen—are they that interesting? Isn’t just another internet battle with different names and different issues, but the same words?
Recently I have been struck by the difference between internet ethics and life. Sorry—no answers in this blog entry. I almost feel as if this is too big of a creature to wrap my arms around.
Any thoughts?
*completely made up moniker(s). If there IS someone who happens to have this as an internet name, I most certainly did NOT mean you!
Friday, June 01, 2007
The Amalekites
When I discuss the mass killings of the Tanakh, I normally rely upon Numbers 31 and the Midianites, because it introduces concepts that are difficult to explain.
I have, however, fallen into discussions surrounding the Amalekites of 1 Samuel 15:1-35. Thought I would plot out some ideas on the matter.
Biblical Description of Amalekites
(with some of my reflections in italics)
The first mention we have of the nation of the Amalekites, is when the Hebrews were leaving Egypt, during their sojourn through the wilderness. To give a little background: Pharaoh had decided to let the Hebrews go. They were on their way to Canaan (modern day Israel.) The simplest route, and the trade routes that existed, would be to travel along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea between Egypt and Canaan.
However, this area was controlled by the Philistines, and God felt that immediately having to battle would discourage the Hebrews, and they would return to Egypt. (Ex. 13:17) Odd hesitation, considering we are about to view them engage another enemy in battle. Therefore God sent them into the Wilderness of Zin. This is the land mass between the two fingers of the Red Sea. The Sinai Peninsula. An area of approximately 130 miles by 240 miles.
Being a desert and wilderness, and considering having 2 million people to sustain—food and water become a priority. God resolves the problem of food with manna, but they still relied upon natural sources for water. After resting at Elim (12 wells and 70 palm trees for 2 Million), they travel on to Rephidim. No one knows exactly where these locations are in Sinai. The closest we can surmise is “somewhere on the peninsula.”
It is at Rephidim that Moses strikes the rock with his staff in order to obtain water. It is also at Rephidim that we first encounter…the Amalekites! They came as aggressors to attack the Israelites. But where did they come from?
We have no archeological evidence of the Amalekites. We don’t know their language, their customs, or even what area they occupied. We don’t know their religion, their architecture, their pottery. If it was not for their mention in the Bible, we would never know they existed at all. Therefore, any knowledge we have regarding these things comes from the Tanakh. Nowhere else.
When Moses sent spies into the land, they report that the Amalekites are in “the south.” Numbers 13:29. They are roughly placed in the southern portion of Israel and northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. Very near the land of Edom. (Amalek (who the Amalekites are presumably named after) was the grandson of Esau (who the Edomites are named after.) Thus most scholars place their locales close together.)
No reason is given for the Amalekites to attack the Hebrews. In an equivalent account (Numbers 20,) Moses requests the Edomites to pass through their land, and this is the cause for the Edomites to attack. (A good offense is the best defense.) Curiously, while the Amalekites are hated for attacking the Hebrews on their wanderings, the Edomites are forgiven for it. (Duet 23:7)
O.K.—so we have the Amalekites attacking the Hebrews at Rephidim. God tells Moses that as long as Moses holds up both arms, the Hebrews will prevail in battle. But if Moses lets his arms drop, they will begin to lose. This is exactly what happens. Eventually Aaron figured out that Moses would need some help (he is 80 after all!), so he and another fellow hold Moses’ arms up for him. (Ex. 17) (Apparently the Philistines were too smart to fall for that hand-holding stunt, and that is why God couldn’t use it on ‘em.)
The Amalekites fail. God takes this attack pretty hard, and swears enmity between the Amalekites and the Israelites from generation to generation. God vows to wipe out their memory. (Ex. 17:14-16) (And yes, we all get the humor of the fact that God says, “Write it down so we can blot out their memory.”)
Numbers records an incident regarding the Hebrews rebelling against God, and leaving camp. God uses the Amalekites to punish these miscreants by attacking and killing the Hebrews. Numbers 14:43-45.
In Deuteronomy, Moses gives his farewell speech to the people, and reminds them of how the Amalekites attacked them from the rear, and killed the stragglers. Moses tells the people to wipe out the Amalekites. Duet. 25:17-19. Oddly, although Moses is telling the people to “remember” no such incident is recorded in Exodus, Numbers or Deuteronomy. Further, Moses fails to mention the attack at Rephidim. (Yes, I know that the author of Exodus could know about Rephidim and choose to not write about the guerilla attacks, and the author of Deuteronomy could write about the guerilla attacks and not write about Rephidim, and the author of Numbers could be recording a totally different incident about Meribah—but to me, this has the marking of different stories being merged together.)
There is one other unusual incident regarding the Amalekites before we leave the wilderness. The Hebrews had destroyed the Amorites, which gave Balak, the king of the Moabites reason for grave concerns. Balak aligned with the Midianites, and sent a call out to Balaam the diviner. We know the story of Balaam; the fellow with the talking donkey!
Balak desired Balaam to curse the Hebrews, but instead Balaam keeps blessing them. After blessing them three times, Balak withholds his fee (not surprisingly) and Balaam then pronounces a curse on the Moabites, saying a star shall come out of Jacob and beat Moab. (Clearly a prophesy about David.) But out of nowhere, Balaam turns to Amalek and says it was first among the nations, but it shall perish. Numbers 24:20. We never knew the Amalekites were involved, it is uncertain as what it means by the Amalekites being the “first.” We do not hear how the Amalekites are involved after. It is as if this statement comes out of the blue!
However, there is a tie-in. When Balaam is offering the last blessing on Israel, he said, “His king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.” Number 24:7. Israel doesn’t have a king. Won’t for another 200 to 400 years to 1400 years (depending on when one prefers to date the Exodus.) But the very first king that Israel has is ordered to slaughter the Amalekites who have a king named “Agag.” Either Balaam is an incredibly accurate prophet, or this portion of Numbers was written after the period in which Saul is claimed to be king. (I’ll let the reader decide for themselves.)
The Amalekites are not mentioned throughout Joshua’s campaign, although the land in which they would have been living was given to Judah. Joshua 15:1-12
Continuing the history between the Amalekites and the Israelites, after Joshua conquers the land, we enter the period of the Judges. We read the same cycle throughout the book of Judges:
1) Israel Sins.
2) God has an enemy attack Israel as punishment.
3) Israel repents; asking for a deliverer.
4) God provides a deliverer through a Judge.
5) Once they are delivered, Israel goes back to sinning.
In two of these cycles, the Amalekites receive a nod.
Eglon, the king of the Moabites was strengthened by YHWH to attack Israel as punishment. (Judges 3:13) So Eglon aligns with the Ammonites and the Amalekites, attacks, and prevails. The Amalekites are not mentioned again in the encounter.
Instead, it is noted that Israel must pay tribute to the Moabites. Until God raised up the left-handed Ehud who manages to sneak a knife into Eglon’s throne room, ending Eglon’s reign and the Moabite oppression.
On of the most famous judges was Gideon. Who fought primarily the Midianites. But at the very beginning of this cycle, it is indicated that the Midianites were burning the Israelites’ corps, and the Amalekites were doing so as well. It is the Midianites and the Amalekites that fall for the broken pitchers with candles in them in the famous story of Gideon. (Judges 6-7)
With that as our background, we arrive at 1 Sam. 15-- the famous genocide passage. God says he will punish the Amalekites for ambushing the Israelites during Exodus. (vs. 2) (This could be either the attack at Rephidim recorded in Exodus or the flanking attacks on stragglers from Deuteronomy. Or Both. Unclear from the brief statement.)
God tells Saul to kill every Amalekite, making specific mention that even if it is an infant, or a baby so young it is still nursing. (It is this specificity as to why skeptics raise this particular genocide, I think.)
(Unexpectedly, Saul tells the Kenites to flee, as they showed kindness to Israel during the Exodus. I can find no story about this kindness. Only that Balaam (the talking donkey fellow) gives a blessing to the Kenites at the same time he was cursing the Amalekites. A tale that is lost in antiquity. However, at times we hear the claim that “Kenites” is synonymous with “Midianites.” Having read our history so far, how persuasive is it that Saul tells Midianites to flee because of “kindness” to Israel?)
As we learn, Saul does NOT do as God ordered. He doesn’t kill all the animals. He doesn’t kill the king—Agag. He doesn’t kill all the Amalekites. Although it is recorded that he killed all the people. (vs. 8) Samuel the prophet learns of this from God, goes to Saul, and informs him that his progeny will not be kings. To demonstrate the point, Samuel lops off the head of Agag. (there are also intriguing concepts of God not relenting and God having regrets within the passage, but this is not the focus of my discussion today.)
If we stayed within the four corners of 1 Sam 15, especially vs. 8, we would believe that the act was successful. That the Amalekites were wiped out.
Yet we learn they still existed. Saul was attempting to kill David, so this caused David to seek safety by living in the Land of the Philistines. While living there, David attacked numerous neighboring people, including the Amalekites. (and the Kenites!) 1 Sam. 27:1-8. Again, it is emphasized that David killed all the men and women of the Amalekites.
While the Philistines were off killing Saul, David returns to his home at Ziklag (in Philistine country) to discover that that Amalekites had raided his home, and taken all his possessions. 1 Sam. 30:1-2 (It is specifically noted that the Amalekites did NOT kill any of the women. They treated their Hebrew captives more kindly than the Hebrews treated their own. Who is the monster in this story?)
David pursues the Amalekites, attacks them, and kills all but 400 young men who escape. 1 Sam. 30:17. As a final postscript, and an uneventful ending, the remaining Amalekites are finally killed by skirmish during the reign of Hezekiah. 1 Chron. 4:43.
Thus ends the history of the Amalekites. Skeptics raise this story, due to the uncomfortable nature of a God ordering the death of babies that are breast-feeding, for something that their great-great-great-great-great-grandparents did. There are numerous Christian responses to this act; I will address a few.
It was not a Genocide
In reviewing what Christians say about this act, I came across this Christian Think Tank article which made the rather bold claim that this was not a genocide. (This would still leave the orders to kill all the non-combatants, including babies, which, however you want to term it, is not a moral thing to do.)
The article defines “genocide” as “generally denotes the deliberate killing of someone solely because of their indelible group membership (indelible is the term used for race, ethnicity, nationality etc.--that characteristics that are 'indelible').” I am uncertain as to how the Amalekites do NOT fit this definition. Saul could clearly determine who was an Amalekite and who was not, the Kenites were also identified and deliberately removed from the midst of the Amalekites, and the Amalekite babies were killed for being…well…progeny of Amalekite parents.
It would seem, on the face, that an Amalekite was killed for being an Amalekite.
The article goes on to make four (5) distinctions between the Amalekites and other genocides:
“1. They are NOT an internal group
2. They are NOT a minority group
3. Amalekites are NOT targeted because of their Amalekite-ness (since they were welcome as immigrants in Israel)
4. They are never under the government control of Israel.
5. They are not pursed and hunted in other countries for extermination.”
As to the first, “not an internal group,” the land in which the Amalekites were living was within the area specifically scouted by Joshua’s scouts. The land was within the borders given to Judah. Whether Saul had actual control over their land may be a question, but remember, we are talking about God ordering this thing. And in God’s mind, these Amalekites appeared to be “internal” to the land God had given Judah. The same issue with not being under the “government” of Israel. In God’s eyes, they were under Israeli punishment.
Given the fact we have no numbers as to the Amalekites, and inflated numbers as to the Israelites during this period, any claim as to “minority” seems premature. And it reads as if they were killed for their Amalekite-ness. (Why, for example, were the Kenites not allowed to adopt the Amalekite babies? Why must the babies be killed because of their parents DNA?)
I agree with the fifth point, that the Amalekites were not pursued and hunted in other countries, although the author does not seem to realize this contradicts the first point of them not being an internal group. If they were not in Israel, then Saul would have had to pursue them in other countries—namely their own!
I guess I am a little surprised at the tactic of claiming this was not genocide in that it has all the markings of genocide, is not distinguishable from genocide, and it is still an atrocity, regardless of whether it fits some technical term.
God is Sovereign
This is couched in the terms that God gave life, so God can take life away. That God reigns supreme over his creation and can, in essence, do what he wants.
There are two key limitations in exercising authority within sovereignty—physical ability and legal permission. For example, the President of the United States may have legal permission to wage war, but he cannot order his generals to use the “De-Atomizer Gun” upon the enemy. There is no such gun. Even within his sovereignty, the President cannot do that which is physically impossible.
Likewise, the President could physically utter the words, “You’re Fired!” to the United States Supreme Court; however he does not have the legal permission to fire a Supreme Court Justice.
I seriously doubt, when discussing the sovereignty of God, that either the believer or the skeptic is raising the question of physical ability. It is not as if the non-believer is questioning a God’s capability to exert enough power to harm the fragile human body to the point it ceases to function. We all get that a God would have enough “whammy” up its sleeve to kill one or more humans. In the present situation, this is a bit irrelevant since God himself does not do the act, but orders other humans to do so.
It must be something else the Christian is referring to when claiming, “God can create life; God can end it.” It must be within the legal permissive end.
Which raises the colossal problem of how to determine what a God has legal permission to do, within its sovereignty. It is not as if the Christian proposes a limitless God. They, too, impose legal restrictions upon Him. If the believer claims that God is solely moral, this would limit God from performing an immoral act.
Despite the physical ability, and sovereignty of God, the moral limitation would restrict God’s complete sovereignty. If one claims God is bound by logic, this would be another legal restriction. We see claims all the time, limiting God’s sovereignty. The claims that he is bound by Truth. That he is bound by Justice. That he is bound by his covenants. Even claims that he is bound by allowing free will in the restriction of immoral acts and suffering.
Which brings us back to the question—how can we possibly know WHAT God is legally entitled to or bound to not do within his sovereignty? It creates a curious kind of being that cannot lie to humans, but can kill them at will. A being that must be Just, but can exert mercy when and where it chooses to do.
This results in the problem of assuming a conclusion in order to prove it. A circular argument, if you will.
How can we know if God can permissively do an act? Because he did it.
Why is he allowed to do it? Because he has legal permission within his sovereignty.
Simply claiming that God is sovereign provides us no new information about God. We gain nothing by way of verification as to what, if any, limitation is imposed on his sovereignty. This comes across as an excuse, by which the believer attempts to absolve God by claiming it is within God’s right, when we can all see with brilliant light that there is no way to determine how God is limited or not.
God is Moral
Another statement brought up is that God is moral, so His ordering this genocide must be moral. Besides assuming the conclusion (again) this doesn’t provide us any new information. It is God’s morality that we are questioning, here. To simply declare, by definition, that “God is moral, so what he did was moral” is completely unhelpful.
Look, assume I told you that “Bob” did something against the law. To confirm or deny my statement, you require two key pieces of information—what it was that “Bob” did, and what the law is. If I simply tell you, “That Bob killed someone” we are still left with the inability to determine whether it violated the law. What if it was self-defense? What if Bob’s job was an executioner? What if Bob was a soldier in war? Likewise, if I told you that the Law says “Do not step on the grass” but fail to inform you as to how Bob acted relative to the grass, you are still left puzzling as to how Bob infracted the law.
In this situation we see God order what is apparently genocide. From what we have observed of genocide in history, we would declare this was an immoral act. Yet the Christian is informing me God did NOT violate some law. When I ask what law it is—it cannot be verified and is assumed to be…what?
What, exactly, is the law by which God can order Genocide and God cannot? When is it acceptable? When is it not?
Those questions (and inability to answer them) is what demonstrates this is an after-the-fact defense of God’s actions. There is no predictability in this method. If God orders Genocide—it must be moral. If God does not—it may or may not be moral.
Although to a Christian talking with another Christian, the blanket statement of “Whatever God does is moral” may be met with nods and affirmation, to a skeptic, we question two things—what is it that God did, and what is the law regarding those actions. Since the Christian has no way to verify that second statement, we are left wondering: If God did something immoral—how would you know?
The Amalekites were immoral
We have also heard the claim that because of the vast and terrible sins of the Canaanites, God was justified in wiping them out. That the Canaanites performed child sacrifice, homosexuality, temple prostitution and (cover your eyes) ate BLT sandwiches.
And, of course, due to these temptations the Israelites would never be able to withstand the strip clubs, so the only way God could possible hope to even remotely reduce the amount of sinning the Hebrews would do is to kill all the strip club owners. (Oddly, as we see through Judges, God never notices how ineffective this methodology is.)
There are two problems.
First, even assuming that the various peoples residing in Canaan were this hideously evil, the group that is NOT included is the Amalekites. In two distinct passages of Deuteronomy, God orders the Hebrews to wipe out nations for fear of turning the people away from YHWH by their abominations: Deut. 7:1 and 20:17. The nations listed are the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
Need I mention who is conspicuous by their absence?
Imagine we have a table with an apple, an orange, a banana and a pear. They are just sitting there. Questionable as to whether you can eat one or all of the fruit. Then I say, “Do not eat the apple, the orange or the pear.” By designating which ones not to eat, implicitly I am providing permission as to which ones to eat—namely the banana.
God is aware of the Amalekites (Deut. 25:17-19) God wants to wipe them out. In fact God wants to wipe out a number of nations. God gives reasons for wiping out the various nations. And God does not list the Amalekite reason as its immorality.
Secondly, this is bolstered by the very reason God gave Saul to kill all the Amalekites—NOT because they were evil. But because of what their great-great-(and so on) grandparents did to Saul’s great-great-(and so on) grandparents, by attacking them while they wandered in the desert. God had every opportunity to declare the Amalekites as being bad influences on the Hebrews and never did. Even when listing other nations that were.
Often when discussing God’s various orders of genocide, we see the claim of how immoral, and what a bad influence these peoples were. As if the human Christians are attempting to justify, in their own minds, a reason for why this was a “punishment” for sin, and not an arbitrary order by God.
Much easier to think of a God ordering the death of murderers and rapists and pedophiles. We don’t want to consider God ordering the death of people who were just…well…people. That is distasteful.
And so the Amalekites are lumped in with all the other heathens as being “bad, bad, bad.” Yet that is distinctly the opposite of what the Bible actually says.
Which brings back a question from the previous section—when can God order Genocide? Perhaps, in some uncomfortable fashion, it can be slightly palatable when considering God ordering the deaths of horribly immoral people. But the Amalekites do not present us with that situation. They don’t give us that option.
In looking at the Amalekites, what other reason can we determine that makes genocide allowable? What did the Amalekites do? Well—they attacked the Israelites in war. Unpleasant, and not very gentlemanly, true. But how does that differentiate them from the Edomites, or the Philistines or the Moabites or the Midianites or the Amorites or the Assyrians or the Egyptians or the Perisans or…dare I say…the Israelites?
If attacking the Israelites is justification for God to order Genocide…oh…wait. That seems to be more of a 21st Century concept, doesn’t it? How many Christian Americans secretly contemplate genocide of the Arabs would be a Godly and just punishment? We hope none.
Further, God does not order the genocide of the Amalekites that attacked Israel in the desert. Nor the ones that joined the Moabites in the time of Ehud. Nor the ones who joined the Midianites in the time of Gideon.
No, God chooses to wipe out the Amalekites in the time of Saul when they weren’t attacking anybody!
Gangrene
In light of this, the troubling aspect is why did the babies have to die? God specifically orders the death, and makes mention of babies who are breast-feeding, emphasizing the young age. What did they do wrong, other than be born to the parents of the great-great- (oh, you get the point) grandchildren of some ancient battle?
One apologist (who will go nameless) attempted to explain the question of why even these babies must be killed by comparing it to gangrene. He pointed out that doctors have to reluctantly cut off healthy skin (i.e. babies) to eliminate the disease (i.e. the parents) in order to save the body (must be the Hebrews. Which were technically another body, but we should be charitable in our review of the analogy.)
Of course the first and most obvious problem is that if doctors had the capability to remove the gangrene and ONLY the gangrene, without damaging the healthy skin, they would. This analogy is a testament to the limitation of human ability. Is God as limited as human doctors? Would Jesus have had to sever an arm that was gangrenous?
Why is it that God can do no better than humans? Couldn’t God rehabilitate the Amalekites? Could God not “save” the healthy babies, while destroying the diseased parents?
Secondly, as pointed out above, this is not very applicable to the Amalekites, as their only disease was the actions of their ancestors.
If the Hittites and Jebusites and Canaanites would have repented of their evil ways—what would God have done? Interesting question. But not one available to the Amalekites; they could never repent for what their forefathers did.
In fact, in reviewing the history, we see remarkable forbearance and restraint on the part of the Amalekites. After Saul almost wiped them out, David was busy attacking their cities, equally killing all the men and women. Yet when the Amalekites attacked David’s city, they do not kill a single women or child. Not one.
Can you imagine your parents or grandparents all but eliminated by Saul? Your cousins and brothers and sisters are currently being killed by David. And all are claiming the mandate of a God, the blessing of the Creator to kill you, your children and all you know.
And you have an opportunity to fight back. A moment to attack the dreaded enemy. And you do NOT do to them what they did to you. Sounds like the Amalekites had pretty good handle on the Golden Rule long before Jesus came along.
To no avail. God has no mercy when your grandparents went to war…
All of which leads me to the $64,000 question—how does a skeptic tell the difference? We see people justifying their actions all the time: “The Devil made me do it,” “I was a product of a broken home,” “He hit me first!” Certainly a God is a convenient justification.
Here we have humans killing humans. For reasons that are not acceptable. Yet it is justified with the claim “God ordered me to do it.” How do I tell the difference between humans using God as an excuse to do what humans have always done, and a God that has the moral ability to order genocide? An ability in which I have no feasible way to verify or even view the law by which God is supposedly conforming?
A small story to make my point:
When I was in the early stages of deconversion, I was struck by the unsettling issue of whether we were giving the benefit of the doubt to incidents in the Tanakh, simply because they were “Christian.” How do I remove my own bias from the equation and treat the story as if it came from another religion? How would it be considered then?
One day, in Sunday School, I mentioned how I had been studying the Qur’an. And that within the Qur’an it indicated that Allah had granted the land of Palestine to the Muslims, giving them the right to kill all non-Muslim inhabitants within. Further, that the Qur’an clearly states those of us outside of Palestine are Infidels, and if we did not convert to Islam, the Muslims are entitled to kill all the males, taking the females and children as rightful plunder.
There were statements of “Tsk, tsk” and “How awful” and “Can’t they see how wrong that is?”
I then indicated that those statements were NOT actually from the Qur’an, but were taken directly from Deut. 20:10-18. That it was YHWH, not Allan. And the Hebrews, not the Muslims. After an uncomfortable silence, and a few “Harumphs” as the people openly displayed their indignation at being deceived into condemning the Bible, a person coughed out, “Well, that was a different time…let’s move on!” and the whole uncomfortable affair was left behind.
I didn’t care. My fears were realized. We DO give the benefit of the doubt, and grant the God of the Bible concessions we never would in any other religion.
If Chemosh ordered the Moabites to wipe out the Hebrews for their attacks on them in the past, would any person claim that this was a moral act? Why would we do so for YHWH?
Finally, a common trend is to sweep the Tanakh atrocities under the rug. We see people emphasizing the God of the New Testament, and basically try to ignore the God of the Tanakh. I hear focus on “Love your neighbor” and not “Kill the Amalekites.”
At times Christians act as if their Old Testament is an albatross they wish would quietly go away. Oh, the Psalms and Proverbs can stay. And those neat prophecies in Isaiah. But when it comes to the conquest of Canaan, and the killing of people for some historical event…well… that is when the fidgeting begins, and the “hurry-up-let’s-get-this-over-with” comes in.
That distinct reluctance to embrace the God of the Genocide is more telling and screams louder about the immorality of the situation than anything I can write.
I have, however, fallen into discussions surrounding the Amalekites of 1 Samuel 15:1-35. Thought I would plot out some ideas on the matter.
Biblical Description of Amalekites
(with some of my reflections in italics)
The first mention we have of the nation of the Amalekites, is when the Hebrews were leaving Egypt, during their sojourn through the wilderness. To give a little background: Pharaoh had decided to let the Hebrews go. They were on their way to Canaan (modern day Israel.) The simplest route, and the trade routes that existed, would be to travel along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea between Egypt and Canaan.
However, this area was controlled by the Philistines, and God felt that immediately having to battle would discourage the Hebrews, and they would return to Egypt. (Ex. 13:17) Odd hesitation, considering we are about to view them engage another enemy in battle. Therefore God sent them into the Wilderness of Zin. This is the land mass between the two fingers of the Red Sea. The Sinai Peninsula. An area of approximately 130 miles by 240 miles.
Being a desert and wilderness, and considering having 2 million people to sustain—food and water become a priority. God resolves the problem of food with manna, but they still relied upon natural sources for water. After resting at Elim (12 wells and 70 palm trees for 2 Million), they travel on to Rephidim. No one knows exactly where these locations are in Sinai. The closest we can surmise is “somewhere on the peninsula.”
It is at Rephidim that Moses strikes the rock with his staff in order to obtain water. It is also at Rephidim that we first encounter…the Amalekites! They came as aggressors to attack the Israelites. But where did they come from?
We have no archeological evidence of the Amalekites. We don’t know their language, their customs, or even what area they occupied. We don’t know their religion, their architecture, their pottery. If it was not for their mention in the Bible, we would never know they existed at all. Therefore, any knowledge we have regarding these things comes from the Tanakh. Nowhere else.
When Moses sent spies into the land, they report that the Amalekites are in “the south.” Numbers 13:29. They are roughly placed in the southern portion of Israel and northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. Very near the land of Edom. (Amalek (who the Amalekites are presumably named after) was the grandson of Esau (who the Edomites are named after.) Thus most scholars place their locales close together.)
No reason is given for the Amalekites to attack the Hebrews. In an equivalent account (Numbers 20,) Moses requests the Edomites to pass through their land, and this is the cause for the Edomites to attack. (A good offense is the best defense.) Curiously, while the Amalekites are hated for attacking the Hebrews on their wanderings, the Edomites are forgiven for it. (Duet 23:7)
O.K.—so we have the Amalekites attacking the Hebrews at Rephidim. God tells Moses that as long as Moses holds up both arms, the Hebrews will prevail in battle. But if Moses lets his arms drop, they will begin to lose. This is exactly what happens. Eventually Aaron figured out that Moses would need some help (he is 80 after all!), so he and another fellow hold Moses’ arms up for him. (Ex. 17) (Apparently the Philistines were too smart to fall for that hand-holding stunt, and that is why God couldn’t use it on ‘em.)
The Amalekites fail. God takes this attack pretty hard, and swears enmity between the Amalekites and the Israelites from generation to generation. God vows to wipe out their memory. (Ex. 17:14-16) (And yes, we all get the humor of the fact that God says, “Write it down so we can blot out their memory.”)
Numbers records an incident regarding the Hebrews rebelling against God, and leaving camp. God uses the Amalekites to punish these miscreants by attacking and killing the Hebrews. Numbers 14:43-45.
In Deuteronomy, Moses gives his farewell speech to the people, and reminds them of how the Amalekites attacked them from the rear, and killed the stragglers. Moses tells the people to wipe out the Amalekites. Duet. 25:17-19. Oddly, although Moses is telling the people to “remember” no such incident is recorded in Exodus, Numbers or Deuteronomy. Further, Moses fails to mention the attack at Rephidim. (Yes, I know that the author of Exodus could know about Rephidim and choose to not write about the guerilla attacks, and the author of Deuteronomy could write about the guerilla attacks and not write about Rephidim, and the author of Numbers could be recording a totally different incident about Meribah—but to me, this has the marking of different stories being merged together.)
There is one other unusual incident regarding the Amalekites before we leave the wilderness. The Hebrews had destroyed the Amorites, which gave Balak, the king of the Moabites reason for grave concerns. Balak aligned with the Midianites, and sent a call out to Balaam the diviner. We know the story of Balaam; the fellow with the talking donkey!
Balak desired Balaam to curse the Hebrews, but instead Balaam keeps blessing them. After blessing them three times, Balak withholds his fee (not surprisingly) and Balaam then pronounces a curse on the Moabites, saying a star shall come out of Jacob and beat Moab. (Clearly a prophesy about David.) But out of nowhere, Balaam turns to Amalek and says it was first among the nations, but it shall perish. Numbers 24:20. We never knew the Amalekites were involved, it is uncertain as what it means by the Amalekites being the “first.” We do not hear how the Amalekites are involved after. It is as if this statement comes out of the blue!
However, there is a tie-in. When Balaam is offering the last blessing on Israel, he said, “His king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.” Number 24:7. Israel doesn’t have a king. Won’t for another 200 to 400 years to 1400 years (depending on when one prefers to date the Exodus.) But the very first king that Israel has is ordered to slaughter the Amalekites who have a king named “Agag.” Either Balaam is an incredibly accurate prophet, or this portion of Numbers was written after the period in which Saul is claimed to be king. (I’ll let the reader decide for themselves.)
The Amalekites are not mentioned throughout Joshua’s campaign, although the land in which they would have been living was given to Judah. Joshua 15:1-12
Continuing the history between the Amalekites and the Israelites, after Joshua conquers the land, we enter the period of the Judges. We read the same cycle throughout the book of Judges:
1) Israel Sins.
2) God has an enemy attack Israel as punishment.
3) Israel repents; asking for a deliverer.
4) God provides a deliverer through a Judge.
5) Once they are delivered, Israel goes back to sinning.
In two of these cycles, the Amalekites receive a nod.
Eglon, the king of the Moabites was strengthened by YHWH to attack Israel as punishment. (Judges 3:13) So Eglon aligns with the Ammonites and the Amalekites, attacks, and prevails. The Amalekites are not mentioned again in the encounter.
Instead, it is noted that Israel must pay tribute to the Moabites. Until God raised up the left-handed Ehud who manages to sneak a knife into Eglon’s throne room, ending Eglon’s reign and the Moabite oppression.
On of the most famous judges was Gideon. Who fought primarily the Midianites. But at the very beginning of this cycle, it is indicated that the Midianites were burning the Israelites’ corps, and the Amalekites were doing so as well. It is the Midianites and the Amalekites that fall for the broken pitchers with candles in them in the famous story of Gideon. (Judges 6-7)
With that as our background, we arrive at 1 Sam. 15-- the famous genocide passage. God says he will punish the Amalekites for ambushing the Israelites during Exodus. (vs. 2) (This could be either the attack at Rephidim recorded in Exodus or the flanking attacks on stragglers from Deuteronomy. Or Both. Unclear from the brief statement.)
God tells Saul to kill every Amalekite, making specific mention that even if it is an infant, or a baby so young it is still nursing. (It is this specificity as to why skeptics raise this particular genocide, I think.)
(Unexpectedly, Saul tells the Kenites to flee, as they showed kindness to Israel during the Exodus. I can find no story about this kindness. Only that Balaam (the talking donkey fellow) gives a blessing to the Kenites at the same time he was cursing the Amalekites. A tale that is lost in antiquity. However, at times we hear the claim that “Kenites” is synonymous with “Midianites.” Having read our history so far, how persuasive is it that Saul tells Midianites to flee because of “kindness” to Israel?)
As we learn, Saul does NOT do as God ordered. He doesn’t kill all the animals. He doesn’t kill the king—Agag. He doesn’t kill all the Amalekites. Although it is recorded that he killed all the people. (vs. 8) Samuel the prophet learns of this from God, goes to Saul, and informs him that his progeny will not be kings. To demonstrate the point, Samuel lops off the head of Agag. (there are also intriguing concepts of God not relenting and God having regrets within the passage, but this is not the focus of my discussion today.)
If we stayed within the four corners of 1 Sam 15, especially vs. 8, we would believe that the act was successful. That the Amalekites were wiped out.
Yet we learn they still existed. Saul was attempting to kill David, so this caused David to seek safety by living in the Land of the Philistines. While living there, David attacked numerous neighboring people, including the Amalekites. (and the Kenites!) 1 Sam. 27:1-8. Again, it is emphasized that David killed all the men and women of the Amalekites.
While the Philistines were off killing Saul, David returns to his home at Ziklag (in Philistine country) to discover that that Amalekites had raided his home, and taken all his possessions. 1 Sam. 30:1-2 (It is specifically noted that the Amalekites did NOT kill any of the women. They treated their Hebrew captives more kindly than the Hebrews treated their own. Who is the monster in this story?)
David pursues the Amalekites, attacks them, and kills all but 400 young men who escape. 1 Sam. 30:17. As a final postscript, and an uneventful ending, the remaining Amalekites are finally killed by skirmish during the reign of Hezekiah. 1 Chron. 4:43.
Thus ends the history of the Amalekites. Skeptics raise this story, due to the uncomfortable nature of a God ordering the death of babies that are breast-feeding, for something that their great-great-great-great-great-grandparents did. There are numerous Christian responses to this act; I will address a few.
It was not a Genocide
In reviewing what Christians say about this act, I came across this Christian Think Tank article which made the rather bold claim that this was not a genocide. (This would still leave the orders to kill all the non-combatants, including babies, which, however you want to term it, is not a moral thing to do.)
The article defines “genocide” as “generally denotes the deliberate killing of someone solely because of their indelible group membership (indelible is the term used for race, ethnicity, nationality etc.--that characteristics that are 'indelible').” I am uncertain as to how the Amalekites do NOT fit this definition. Saul could clearly determine who was an Amalekite and who was not, the Kenites were also identified and deliberately removed from the midst of the Amalekites, and the Amalekite babies were killed for being…well…progeny of Amalekite parents.
It would seem, on the face, that an Amalekite was killed for being an Amalekite.
The article goes on to make four (5) distinctions between the Amalekites and other genocides:
“1. They are NOT an internal group
2. They are NOT a minority group
3. Amalekites are NOT targeted because of their Amalekite-ness (since they were welcome as immigrants in Israel)
4. They are never under the government control of Israel.
5. They are not pursed and hunted in other countries for extermination.”
As to the first, “not an internal group,” the land in which the Amalekites were living was within the area specifically scouted by Joshua’s scouts. The land was within the borders given to Judah. Whether Saul had actual control over their land may be a question, but remember, we are talking about God ordering this thing. And in God’s mind, these Amalekites appeared to be “internal” to the land God had given Judah. The same issue with not being under the “government” of Israel. In God’s eyes, they were under Israeli punishment.
Given the fact we have no numbers as to the Amalekites, and inflated numbers as to the Israelites during this period, any claim as to “minority” seems premature. And it reads as if they were killed for their Amalekite-ness. (Why, for example, were the Kenites not allowed to adopt the Amalekite babies? Why must the babies be killed because of their parents DNA?)
I agree with the fifth point, that the Amalekites were not pursued and hunted in other countries, although the author does not seem to realize this contradicts the first point of them not being an internal group. If they were not in Israel, then Saul would have had to pursue them in other countries—namely their own!
I guess I am a little surprised at the tactic of claiming this was not genocide in that it has all the markings of genocide, is not distinguishable from genocide, and it is still an atrocity, regardless of whether it fits some technical term.
God is Sovereign
This is couched in the terms that God gave life, so God can take life away. That God reigns supreme over his creation and can, in essence, do what he wants.
There are two key limitations in exercising authority within sovereignty—physical ability and legal permission. For example, the President of the United States may have legal permission to wage war, but he cannot order his generals to use the “De-Atomizer Gun” upon the enemy. There is no such gun. Even within his sovereignty, the President cannot do that which is physically impossible.
Likewise, the President could physically utter the words, “You’re Fired!” to the United States Supreme Court; however he does not have the legal permission to fire a Supreme Court Justice.
I seriously doubt, when discussing the sovereignty of God, that either the believer or the skeptic is raising the question of physical ability. It is not as if the non-believer is questioning a God’s capability to exert enough power to harm the fragile human body to the point it ceases to function. We all get that a God would have enough “whammy” up its sleeve to kill one or more humans. In the present situation, this is a bit irrelevant since God himself does not do the act, but orders other humans to do so.
It must be something else the Christian is referring to when claiming, “God can create life; God can end it.” It must be within the legal permissive end.
Which raises the colossal problem of how to determine what a God has legal permission to do, within its sovereignty. It is not as if the Christian proposes a limitless God. They, too, impose legal restrictions upon Him. If the believer claims that God is solely moral, this would limit God from performing an immoral act.
Despite the physical ability, and sovereignty of God, the moral limitation would restrict God’s complete sovereignty. If one claims God is bound by logic, this would be another legal restriction. We see claims all the time, limiting God’s sovereignty. The claims that he is bound by Truth. That he is bound by Justice. That he is bound by his covenants. Even claims that he is bound by allowing free will in the restriction of immoral acts and suffering.
Which brings us back to the question—how can we possibly know WHAT God is legally entitled to or bound to not do within his sovereignty? It creates a curious kind of being that cannot lie to humans, but can kill them at will. A being that must be Just, but can exert mercy when and where it chooses to do.
This results in the problem of assuming a conclusion in order to prove it. A circular argument, if you will.
How can we know if God can permissively do an act? Because he did it.
Why is he allowed to do it? Because he has legal permission within his sovereignty.
Simply claiming that God is sovereign provides us no new information about God. We gain nothing by way of verification as to what, if any, limitation is imposed on his sovereignty. This comes across as an excuse, by which the believer attempts to absolve God by claiming it is within God’s right, when we can all see with brilliant light that there is no way to determine how God is limited or not.
God is Moral
Another statement brought up is that God is moral, so His ordering this genocide must be moral. Besides assuming the conclusion (again) this doesn’t provide us any new information. It is God’s morality that we are questioning, here. To simply declare, by definition, that “God is moral, so what he did was moral” is completely unhelpful.
Look, assume I told you that “Bob” did something against the law. To confirm or deny my statement, you require two key pieces of information—what it was that “Bob” did, and what the law is. If I simply tell you, “That Bob killed someone” we are still left with the inability to determine whether it violated the law. What if it was self-defense? What if Bob’s job was an executioner? What if Bob was a soldier in war? Likewise, if I told you that the Law says “Do not step on the grass” but fail to inform you as to how Bob acted relative to the grass, you are still left puzzling as to how Bob infracted the law.
In this situation we see God order what is apparently genocide. From what we have observed of genocide in history, we would declare this was an immoral act. Yet the Christian is informing me God did NOT violate some law. When I ask what law it is—it cannot be verified and is assumed to be…what?
What, exactly, is the law by which God can order Genocide and God cannot? When is it acceptable? When is it not?
Those questions (and inability to answer them) is what demonstrates this is an after-the-fact defense of God’s actions. There is no predictability in this method. If God orders Genocide—it must be moral. If God does not—it may or may not be moral.
Although to a Christian talking with another Christian, the blanket statement of “Whatever God does is moral” may be met with nods and affirmation, to a skeptic, we question two things—what is it that God did, and what is the law regarding those actions. Since the Christian has no way to verify that second statement, we are left wondering: If God did something immoral—how would you know?
The Amalekites were immoral
We have also heard the claim that because of the vast and terrible sins of the Canaanites, God was justified in wiping them out. That the Canaanites performed child sacrifice, homosexuality, temple prostitution and (cover your eyes) ate BLT sandwiches.
And, of course, due to these temptations the Israelites would never be able to withstand the strip clubs, so the only way God could possible hope to even remotely reduce the amount of sinning the Hebrews would do is to kill all the strip club owners. (Oddly, as we see through Judges, God never notices how ineffective this methodology is.)
There are two problems.
First, even assuming that the various peoples residing in Canaan were this hideously evil, the group that is NOT included is the Amalekites. In two distinct passages of Deuteronomy, God orders the Hebrews to wipe out nations for fear of turning the people away from YHWH by their abominations: Deut. 7:1 and 20:17. The nations listed are the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
Need I mention who is conspicuous by their absence?
Imagine we have a table with an apple, an orange, a banana and a pear. They are just sitting there. Questionable as to whether you can eat one or all of the fruit. Then I say, “Do not eat the apple, the orange or the pear.” By designating which ones not to eat, implicitly I am providing permission as to which ones to eat—namely the banana.
God is aware of the Amalekites (Deut. 25:17-19) God wants to wipe them out. In fact God wants to wipe out a number of nations. God gives reasons for wiping out the various nations. And God does not list the Amalekite reason as its immorality.
Secondly, this is bolstered by the very reason God gave Saul to kill all the Amalekites—NOT because they were evil. But because of what their great-great-(and so on) grandparents did to Saul’s great-great-(and so on) grandparents, by attacking them while they wandered in the desert. God had every opportunity to declare the Amalekites as being bad influences on the Hebrews and never did. Even when listing other nations that were.
Often when discussing God’s various orders of genocide, we see the claim of how immoral, and what a bad influence these peoples were. As if the human Christians are attempting to justify, in their own minds, a reason for why this was a “punishment” for sin, and not an arbitrary order by God.
Much easier to think of a God ordering the death of murderers and rapists and pedophiles. We don’t want to consider God ordering the death of people who were just…well…people. That is distasteful.
And so the Amalekites are lumped in with all the other heathens as being “bad, bad, bad.” Yet that is distinctly the opposite of what the Bible actually says.
Which brings back a question from the previous section—when can God order Genocide? Perhaps, in some uncomfortable fashion, it can be slightly palatable when considering God ordering the deaths of horribly immoral people. But the Amalekites do not present us with that situation. They don’t give us that option.
In looking at the Amalekites, what other reason can we determine that makes genocide allowable? What did the Amalekites do? Well—they attacked the Israelites in war. Unpleasant, and not very gentlemanly, true. But how does that differentiate them from the Edomites, or the Philistines or the Moabites or the Midianites or the Amorites or the Assyrians or the Egyptians or the Perisans or…dare I say…the Israelites?
If attacking the Israelites is justification for God to order Genocide…oh…wait. That seems to be more of a 21st Century concept, doesn’t it? How many Christian Americans secretly contemplate genocide of the Arabs would be a Godly and just punishment? We hope none.
Further, God does not order the genocide of the Amalekites that attacked Israel in the desert. Nor the ones that joined the Moabites in the time of Ehud. Nor the ones who joined the Midianites in the time of Gideon.
No, God chooses to wipe out the Amalekites in the time of Saul when they weren’t attacking anybody!
Gangrene
In light of this, the troubling aspect is why did the babies have to die? God specifically orders the death, and makes mention of babies who are breast-feeding, emphasizing the young age. What did they do wrong, other than be born to the parents of the great-great- (oh, you get the point) grandchildren of some ancient battle?
One apologist (who will go nameless) attempted to explain the question of why even these babies must be killed by comparing it to gangrene. He pointed out that doctors have to reluctantly cut off healthy skin (i.e. babies) to eliminate the disease (i.e. the parents) in order to save the body (must be the Hebrews. Which were technically another body, but we should be charitable in our review of the analogy.)
Of course the first and most obvious problem is that if doctors had the capability to remove the gangrene and ONLY the gangrene, without damaging the healthy skin, they would. This analogy is a testament to the limitation of human ability. Is God as limited as human doctors? Would Jesus have had to sever an arm that was gangrenous?
Why is it that God can do no better than humans? Couldn’t God rehabilitate the Amalekites? Could God not “save” the healthy babies, while destroying the diseased parents?
Secondly, as pointed out above, this is not very applicable to the Amalekites, as their only disease was the actions of their ancestors.
If the Hittites and Jebusites and Canaanites would have repented of their evil ways—what would God have done? Interesting question. But not one available to the Amalekites; they could never repent for what their forefathers did.
In fact, in reviewing the history, we see remarkable forbearance and restraint on the part of the Amalekites. After Saul almost wiped them out, David was busy attacking their cities, equally killing all the men and women. Yet when the Amalekites attacked David’s city, they do not kill a single women or child. Not one.
Can you imagine your parents or grandparents all but eliminated by Saul? Your cousins and brothers and sisters are currently being killed by David. And all are claiming the mandate of a God, the blessing of the Creator to kill you, your children and all you know.
And you have an opportunity to fight back. A moment to attack the dreaded enemy. And you do NOT do to them what they did to you. Sounds like the Amalekites had pretty good handle on the Golden Rule long before Jesus came along.
To no avail. God has no mercy when your grandparents went to war…
All of which leads me to the $64,000 question—how does a skeptic tell the difference? We see people justifying their actions all the time: “The Devil made me do it,” “I was a product of a broken home,” “He hit me first!” Certainly a God is a convenient justification.
Here we have humans killing humans. For reasons that are not acceptable. Yet it is justified with the claim “God ordered me to do it.” How do I tell the difference between humans using God as an excuse to do what humans have always done, and a God that has the moral ability to order genocide? An ability in which I have no feasible way to verify or even view the law by which God is supposedly conforming?
A small story to make my point:
When I was in the early stages of deconversion, I was struck by the unsettling issue of whether we were giving the benefit of the doubt to incidents in the Tanakh, simply because they were “Christian.” How do I remove my own bias from the equation and treat the story as if it came from another religion? How would it be considered then?
One day, in Sunday School, I mentioned how I had been studying the Qur’an. And that within the Qur’an it indicated that Allah had granted the land of Palestine to the Muslims, giving them the right to kill all non-Muslim inhabitants within. Further, that the Qur’an clearly states those of us outside of Palestine are Infidels, and if we did not convert to Islam, the Muslims are entitled to kill all the males, taking the females and children as rightful plunder.
There were statements of “Tsk, tsk” and “How awful” and “Can’t they see how wrong that is?”
I then indicated that those statements were NOT actually from the Qur’an, but were taken directly from Deut. 20:10-18. That it was YHWH, not Allan. And the Hebrews, not the Muslims. After an uncomfortable silence, and a few “Harumphs” as the people openly displayed their indignation at being deceived into condemning the Bible, a person coughed out, “Well, that was a different time…let’s move on!” and the whole uncomfortable affair was left behind.
I didn’t care. My fears were realized. We DO give the benefit of the doubt, and grant the God of the Bible concessions we never would in any other religion.
If Chemosh ordered the Moabites to wipe out the Hebrews for their attacks on them in the past, would any person claim that this was a moral act? Why would we do so for YHWH?
Finally, a common trend is to sweep the Tanakh atrocities under the rug. We see people emphasizing the God of the New Testament, and basically try to ignore the God of the Tanakh. I hear focus on “Love your neighbor” and not “Kill the Amalekites.”
At times Christians act as if their Old Testament is an albatross they wish would quietly go away. Oh, the Psalms and Proverbs can stay. And those neat prophecies in Isaiah. But when it comes to the conquest of Canaan, and the killing of people for some historical event…well… that is when the fidgeting begins, and the “hurry-up-let’s-get-this-over-with” comes in.
That distinct reluctance to embrace the God of the Genocide is more telling and screams louder about the immorality of the situation than anything I can write.
Monday, May 21, 2007
A Question I can’t get my mitts on…
How does an eternal being create fear of death?
I often see theists make claims that “because WE have such-and-such a trait, GOD must likewise.” A very common one is that we are social and desire relationships, therefore God must be more than one person. Or that we have an innate sense of Justice that reflects God must be just.
But isn’t this picking and choosing what attributes to attach to a god, and avoiding some problematic ones?
One of the most convenient reasons for being theistic at all is to answer that question, “Where did ___ come from?” “How did the universe come into being?” Why is there anything instead of nothing? And for this “god” is created as a reason. A god that is necessary (non-contingent) and eternal (without beginning or ending.)
To be honest, I haven’t wrapped my hands around the idea of how time can begin. (With or without a god). But assuming that somehow god is outside of time, or can start time without time already existing, this would mean god would have the requisite knowledge of what time was. That god may not be able to experience what it is to have time pass, but has the knowledge of what that would look like.
That is hard enough to grasp.
Yet even with that knowledge, in order to create entities that had the fear of the passing of time, god must have that knowledge too. Unless we are going to say that god fears its own death (!) then we must limit God’s understanding to being head-knowledge only, and not experience-knowledge.
By way of an inadequate analogy, I may have knowledge of what it means to give birth, but I have no experience in that regard. (“Inadequate” because my knowledge comes through interaction with women who have. Where would a god get knowledge of fear of death from?)
However, if there are items in which god has knowledge, but no experience, isn’t it possible this includes the ability to have relationships? To be just? To love? That the creator of the universe understands the existence of such things, but has never experienced them for itself?
The question I can’t get my mitts around is this: if we experience it, MUST a creator as well? If “yes” what does a god experience that we do, if “no” then what can we say about a god that has any meaning?
I often see theists make claims that “because WE have such-and-such a trait, GOD must likewise.” A very common one is that we are social and desire relationships, therefore God must be more than one person. Or that we have an innate sense of Justice that reflects God must be just.
But isn’t this picking and choosing what attributes to attach to a god, and avoiding some problematic ones?
One of the most convenient reasons for being theistic at all is to answer that question, “Where did ___ come from?” “How did the universe come into being?” Why is there anything instead of nothing? And for this “god” is created as a reason. A god that is necessary (non-contingent) and eternal (without beginning or ending.)
To be honest, I haven’t wrapped my hands around the idea of how time can begin. (With or without a god). But assuming that somehow god is outside of time, or can start time without time already existing, this would mean god would have the requisite knowledge of what time was. That god may not be able to experience what it is to have time pass, but has the knowledge of what that would look like.
That is hard enough to grasp.
Yet even with that knowledge, in order to create entities that had the fear of the passing of time, god must have that knowledge too. Unless we are going to say that god fears its own death (!) then we must limit God’s understanding to being head-knowledge only, and not experience-knowledge.
By way of an inadequate analogy, I may have knowledge of what it means to give birth, but I have no experience in that regard. (“Inadequate” because my knowledge comes through interaction with women who have. Where would a god get knowledge of fear of death from?)
However, if there are items in which god has knowledge, but no experience, isn’t it possible this includes the ability to have relationships? To be just? To love? That the creator of the universe understands the existence of such things, but has never experienced them for itself?
The question I can’t get my mitts around is this: if we experience it, MUST a creator as well? If “yes” what does a god experience that we do, if “no” then what can we say about a god that has any meaning?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Not My Fault
We all cringe a bit when we see someone get caught for doing something wrong, and they begin to throw the blame on someone else.
“Not my Fault!”
Not to pick on her in particular, but Paris Hilton was just found guilty of probation violation. What did she say? “My Publicist didn’t inform me I was not able to drive.”
“Not my Fault!”
Anyone who has small children can watch this repartee occur in almost machine-gun like precision:
“She hit me!”
“He hit me first!”
“She called me a name!”
“He made a face at me!”
“She started it!”
“He started it!”
It seems as if our natural human tendency, upon being discovered in the wrong, is to defensively determine some other person or circumstance to blame, in order to alleviate (even if just a bit) the responsibility of the action. To spread the blame. To share the fault.
I was recently struck by how Christianity is able to do this with the Sin Nature. To spread the blame, just a bit, with the fact that this is simply who they are. They can’t help it. If you get nothing else out of this blog entry, please get this:
It is not a sin nature. It is you.
If you think about it, Christianity put together a pretty smart package. For 1000 years, Judaism placed the blame squarely on the humans. The Israelites failed to follow God. God punished them. The Israelites followed God’s laws—God rewarded them. One was held (sometimes immediately) accountable for one’s own actions.
It would seem it was decided that this wasn’t working. Humans were not getting better. Humans were not getting worse. The same problems that existed 1000 years earlier, continued to exist. Tradition was perpetuation of the sameness, with no apparent end in sight. And therefore the concept of “Grace” enters Stage Right. An idea that God will pardon you upon the far simpler action of belief, rather than this constant retribution/reconciliation cycle.
In one fell swoop, one can be sanctified, justified, rectified, glorified, purified and –fied in every good way possible. Almost seems too good to be true. And it was. Because these sanctified, justified, etc. people continued to sin. Exactly as before. As Paul says in Romans 7:14-15, 17-21
Notice that last verse carefully, though. “It is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells in me”
“Not my fault.”
Oh what a convenient excuse to rest the blame. The person genuinely doesn’t want to sin. Of course they end up sinning anyway. They are genuinely repentant and will to never again. Of course they blow it. What is to blame—the person? Nope—it is that insidious sin nature within.
It is not a sin nature. It is you.
The Christian can claim it is the fault of Eve. Wicked, wicked Eve. Once she bit that fruit, all humanity, including the person, was doomed to inherit a sin nature. But for Eve…it would not be there. It is not their fault. Or they can blame biology. That they were “born into sin.” It is the fault of the human condition of existing in which each person is given, through their parent’s DNA this pernicious sin nature that no amount of praying, pleading and prying will ever remove.
If they are born with it, and cannot rid it (even with God’s intervention)—how are they totally to blame? We may as well “blame” them for breathing, or having a heartbeat!
This attitude was brought forcefully to home when I read a Christian blog raising that stale, oft-repeated observation that women must dress modestly in order to quiet the sex-crazed beast found in every heterosexual male on the planet. And as I was shifting through the familiar, “We are Men and can’t help it. It is who we are. We see a belly button and go ape” (you probably know the routine better than I) all I was hearing was “It’s not my fault. It’s not my fault.
I see Christians that blame the female for what she is wearing, but not the male. “Oh, he can’t help it, the ol’ horn dog! That’s just who he is.” wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. “You shouldn’t dress like that, because the boys will think you want sex.” Nothing about the boys being the problem—they have that sin nature. Can’t help it. Not their fault.
In fact, it is almost treated as a game. That the boys will think that way regardless of what a female wears (by the by, doesn’t this say more about where the focus should be made?) so cover up as much as possible to make the “game” as hard as possible, but they will be thinking those nasty thoughts regardless. ‘Cause that’s just who they are.
“Not my fault.”
I’ll let you in on the worst kept human secret of all time. If I see a woman in a bikini, my mind will wander for a moment. However, likewise, if I see a money-stuffed wallet on the ground with no one around, my mind will wander for a moment then, too. If I hear a particular juicy piece of gossip, my wind will wander.
Each of us is constantly barraged with opportunities to make moral decisions. Do I let that car in? Do I give money to that homeless person? Do I respond to this phone call in anger? Do I take the money and run? Do I share the gossip? And yes—do I initiate contact with the woman in the bikini in hopes of being unfaithful to my wife?
There is nothing spectacular about having a moment. An instant where, as creatures that have the ability to weigh moral consequences, we think, “What if I take this farther in that direction?” It is not having a moment that makes anyone special—it is what we DO with that moment.
A problem with Christianity is that it has become so sex-conscious that while it recognizes and attempts to deal with “moments” in a variety of other fields, when it comes to sex, it fears having that moment at all! Because while that moment may be justified with greed, or slander or hate, it is never, EVER to be allowed with sex. Even the thought is wrong.
Yet men recognize that is biologically impossible. That thought comes regardless. Rather than recognize it for a moment and deal with it—Christians must determine a way by which to never have that moment.
And the easiest thing to do is cover up the female. Make it their fault. The poor male is stuck with his sin nature—not his fault. The poor male must avoid this moment—not his fault. So impose restrictions on the female and if they fail their part, then the man is one-more step removed from fault.
“Not my fault. Is the sin nature. It is her fault.”
It is high time that Christianity realizes that it IS their fault. That, as a human, they need to start taking full and total responsibility for their actions. They need not feel shame, nor honor in it. All of us have regretted a moment where we wished we hadn’t done something we did, or didn’t do something we wish we had. Stop laying excuses on some “sin nature” and start owning up to being human!
It is also high time that Christian males realize those thoughts ARE going to come, it is not a matter of fault as much as a matter of biology, and to start dealing with them appropriately, rather than attempt to quash them by placing the blame on the female. While I don’t hold the Garden of Eden story to be historical in any fashion, it sure was spot on with Adam’s response as to his own decision—blame the woman!
It is not some biological inheritance of a sin nature, like your dad giving you a propensity for heart disease or your mother giving you a propensity for breast cancer, in which you are doing the best you can with the heredity you have—this is you! You make the decisions. You take the credit. You take the blame.
Please stop telling me you couldn’t help it because of something you have no control over. You do. You chose not to. That’s O.K.—it comes with the package of being human. But start taking responsibility for yourself, rather than surrender to the inevitability of laying the blame on something you claim you have no control over.
At best that is biology. At worst—it is an excuse.
“Not my Fault!”
Not to pick on her in particular, but Paris Hilton was just found guilty of probation violation. What did she say? “My Publicist didn’t inform me I was not able to drive.”
“Not my Fault!”
Anyone who has small children can watch this repartee occur in almost machine-gun like precision:
“She hit me!”
“He hit me first!”
“She called me a name!”
“He made a face at me!”
“She started it!”
“He started it!”
It seems as if our natural human tendency, upon being discovered in the wrong, is to defensively determine some other person or circumstance to blame, in order to alleviate (even if just a bit) the responsibility of the action. To spread the blame. To share the fault.
I was recently struck by how Christianity is able to do this with the Sin Nature. To spread the blame, just a bit, with the fact that this is simply who they are. They can’t help it. If you get nothing else out of this blog entry, please get this:
It is not a sin nature. It is you.
If you think about it, Christianity put together a pretty smart package. For 1000 years, Judaism placed the blame squarely on the humans. The Israelites failed to follow God. God punished them. The Israelites followed God’s laws—God rewarded them. One was held (sometimes immediately) accountable for one’s own actions.
It would seem it was decided that this wasn’t working. Humans were not getting better. Humans were not getting worse. The same problems that existed 1000 years earlier, continued to exist. Tradition was perpetuation of the sameness, with no apparent end in sight. And therefore the concept of “Grace” enters Stage Right. An idea that God will pardon you upon the far simpler action of belief, rather than this constant retribution/reconciliation cycle.
In one fell swoop, one can be sanctified, justified, rectified, glorified, purified and –fied in every good way possible. Almost seems too good to be true. And it was. Because these sanctified, justified, etc. people continued to sin. Exactly as before. As Paul says in Romans 7:14-15, 17-21
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do…. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.Paul rightly sees that even after the belief, after the justification, after the salvation, the person continues to struggle with moral decisions. There is no “quick fix.” No “magic bullet.”
Notice that last verse carefully, though. “It is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells in me”
“Not my fault.”
Oh what a convenient excuse to rest the blame. The person genuinely doesn’t want to sin. Of course they end up sinning anyway. They are genuinely repentant and will to never again. Of course they blow it. What is to blame—the person? Nope—it is that insidious sin nature within.
It is not a sin nature. It is you.
The Christian can claim it is the fault of Eve. Wicked, wicked Eve. Once she bit that fruit, all humanity, including the person, was doomed to inherit a sin nature. But for Eve…it would not be there. It is not their fault. Or they can blame biology. That they were “born into sin.” It is the fault of the human condition of existing in which each person is given, through their parent’s DNA this pernicious sin nature that no amount of praying, pleading and prying will ever remove.
If they are born with it, and cannot rid it (even with God’s intervention)—how are they totally to blame? We may as well “blame” them for breathing, or having a heartbeat!
This attitude was brought forcefully to home when I read a Christian blog raising that stale, oft-repeated observation that women must dress modestly in order to quiet the sex-crazed beast found in every heterosexual male on the planet. And as I was shifting through the familiar, “We are Men and can’t help it. It is who we are. We see a belly button and go ape” (you probably know the routine better than I) all I was hearing was “It’s not my fault. It’s not my fault.
I see Christians that blame the female for what she is wearing, but not the male. “Oh, he can’t help it, the ol’ horn dog! That’s just who he is.” wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. “You shouldn’t dress like that, because the boys will think you want sex.” Nothing about the boys being the problem—they have that sin nature. Can’t help it. Not their fault.
In fact, it is almost treated as a game. That the boys will think that way regardless of what a female wears (by the by, doesn’t this say more about where the focus should be made?) so cover up as much as possible to make the “game” as hard as possible, but they will be thinking those nasty thoughts regardless. ‘Cause that’s just who they are.
“Not my fault.”
I’ll let you in on the worst kept human secret of all time. If I see a woman in a bikini, my mind will wander for a moment. However, likewise, if I see a money-stuffed wallet on the ground with no one around, my mind will wander for a moment then, too. If I hear a particular juicy piece of gossip, my wind will wander.
Each of us is constantly barraged with opportunities to make moral decisions. Do I let that car in? Do I give money to that homeless person? Do I respond to this phone call in anger? Do I take the money and run? Do I share the gossip? And yes—do I initiate contact with the woman in the bikini in hopes of being unfaithful to my wife?
There is nothing spectacular about having a moment. An instant where, as creatures that have the ability to weigh moral consequences, we think, “What if I take this farther in that direction?” It is not having a moment that makes anyone special—it is what we DO with that moment.
A problem with Christianity is that it has become so sex-conscious that while it recognizes and attempts to deal with “moments” in a variety of other fields, when it comes to sex, it fears having that moment at all! Because while that moment may be justified with greed, or slander or hate, it is never, EVER to be allowed with sex. Even the thought is wrong.
Yet men recognize that is biologically impossible. That thought comes regardless. Rather than recognize it for a moment and deal with it—Christians must determine a way by which to never have that moment.
And the easiest thing to do is cover up the female. Make it their fault. The poor male is stuck with his sin nature—not his fault. The poor male must avoid this moment—not his fault. So impose restrictions on the female and if they fail their part, then the man is one-more step removed from fault.
“Not my fault. Is the sin nature. It is her fault.”
It is high time that Christianity realizes that it IS their fault. That, as a human, they need to start taking full and total responsibility for their actions. They need not feel shame, nor honor in it. All of us have regretted a moment where we wished we hadn’t done something we did, or didn’t do something we wish we had. Stop laying excuses on some “sin nature” and start owning up to being human!
It is also high time that Christian males realize those thoughts ARE going to come, it is not a matter of fault as much as a matter of biology, and to start dealing with them appropriately, rather than attempt to quash them by placing the blame on the female. While I don’t hold the Garden of Eden story to be historical in any fashion, it sure was spot on with Adam’s response as to his own decision—blame the woman!
It is not some biological inheritance of a sin nature, like your dad giving you a propensity for heart disease or your mother giving you a propensity for breast cancer, in which you are doing the best you can with the heredity you have—this is you! You make the decisions. You take the credit. You take the blame.
Please stop telling me you couldn’t help it because of something you have no control over. You do. You chose not to. That’s O.K.—it comes with the package of being human. But start taking responsibility for yourself, rather than surrender to the inevitability of laying the blame on something you claim you have no control over.
At best that is biology. At worst—it is an excuse.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Tip the Scales in my Favor
Much of the practice of law involves negotiation. The opposing attorney, the judge and I already know the law and the likelihood of the outcome, based upon the facts. The only thing left to do is see who can negotiate out a settlement.
We often “split the Baby.” (A term we use, ripped right from the story of Solomon. 1 Kings 3:16-28) A remarkably simple idea that if one side is willing to pay $10,000, and the other is willing to accept $20,000, then we will “split the baby” at $15,000. We even play with the concept, by demonstrating righteous indignation that we most certainly will not split the baby, and come up with a resolution of $15,500 or $14,500 to demonstrate to the world how we have justifiably defended our client’s position.
With this idea ever prevalent in the back of our mind, we are extremely careful as to what number to initially commit to. If I am pursuing a case, and they offer $10,000, requesting a counter-offer, I know that a $20,000 counter-offer will likely result in a $15,000 settlement. A $25,000 counter-offer in a $17,500 settlement. Of course, the other side knows that too, so their initial offer is likely to be $5,000.
My opponent starts extremely low, I start extremely high, and we play cat-and-mouse in attempting to see who will move the fastest to some middle ground.
Thanks to Guy Sonntag, I recently read a discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris regarding those old stalwarts: “Faith” and “Reason.” Sullivan concluded that his position was the most valid, partly because he does not rely solely on faith, nor solely on reason, but has a “balance” of the two.
I see that come up so many times in our discussions. “I am not a fundamentalist. I am not an atheist. I am ‘balanced’ because I am a liberal theist.” “I am not this extreme. I am not that extreme. I am ‘balanced’ because I am in the middle.”
Somehow, we have come to glorify “balance” as if it is always the better position. “Extremism” is bad, so “balance” is good. There are two problems with this.
First, there are some things that the extreme actually IS correct. We would find the following statement silly, “I am not a geocentric theorist. I am not a heliocentric theorist. I am balanced because I hold that the sun and earth orbit each other.” On some things, we have to pick sides.
But the second, and greater problem I see, is that we can almost always make ourselves balanced, by determining the two extremes. A fundamentalist wants to be balanced? Pick the extremes of “hyper-Calvinism” and Pentecostal. Landing nicely in the middle. An inerrantist wants to be balanced? Pick the extremes of errancy and inerrancy in the copies. Claim inerrancy ONLY in the original writings and bingo—you are balanced.
Watch—I can do it too. “I do not hold to the Christian God. I do not hold to the non-Christian God. Look at me! I am nicely balanced between those two!” Do you see how easy it is to be balanced?
Just like a lawsuit that I want to settle at $15,000, I try to get the two extremes to be $10,000 and $20,000; that way, I am sure to be “balanced” right where I want to be--$15,000.
I got to thinking—how DOES one claim they are in a “balanced” position on faith and reason. Where is the middle ground, and how do we know when we have achieved it?
Perhaps it would be helpful to first understand what the balancing act is not. It is NOT the battle between opposite contentions. I would hope no one claims that “faith” is the opposite of “reason.” The opposite of “reason” is “unreasonable.” We are not saying that faith is “unreasonable.” Further, the opposite of faith is “lack of belief.” It is quite conceivable to reasonably have the lack of belief in something.
It is not as if we pile all the reason at one end of a line, and place all the faith at the other, and claim they are opposites. Assuming a “1” as reason and “10” as faith, we are not saying that a “1” has all reason, and lack of belief, and a “10” has unfounded belief and no reason. That some balance person must be at the 5 – 6 range. Treating these two as contrary and opposite only leads to trouble.
Secondly, I think it is important to see that none of us is 100% faith or 100% reason. The reality of the scales of balance is that we have a mixture of faith and reason, at times employing them both on the same premise. Humans are multifaceted, and rarely make decisions based solely on one category or the other.
I think what the person is implying when they say they are balanced between faith and reason is more analogous to the scales of justice. The scales with two free-standing platforms in which one places weights on each side to see the scale tip back and forth, eventually to rest either perfectly level (perfectly balanced) or demonstrating which side is heavier by being lower.
That faith and reason are not contradictory as much as separate creatures. We place 5 pounds of “faith” on one side of the scale and 5 pounds of “reason” on the other, and the scale tips to an even balance.
Two questions immediately pop out at us: 1) How do we measure the quantity of “faith” or “reason” and 2) Where is it written that we must have perfect balance between the two?
What does 5 pounds of faith look like? We understand that if we put 6 pounds on one side of the scale, and 4 pounds on the other, that the scale would tip heavily to the 6 pound side. If I see a Christian exerting 6 pounds of faith and only 4 pounds of reason, can I confidently point out, “A-ha! You have too much faith!” That seems silly. And how do I measure 2 pounds of reason to be applied to the premise to bring them back to “balance”?
Further, is it not possible that some decisions have more reason, and others have more faith? If I am making a religious decision, and my scales are at 6 pounds faith and 2 pounds reason—is that balanced enough? Or MUST I apply more reason, in order to claim the title of being “balanced”? If I am taking a math test, should my scales be at 2 pounds faith and 6 pounds reason? What about determining inerrancy? Or scientific evidence for the universe’s existence?
There are so many different discussions that take place with different amounts of proof, and different possibilities, that to claim perfect balance between faith and reason seems an impossible task.
What becomes clear is that there really is no way to measure faith or reason, nor weigh them, nor determine what an appropriate “balance” between the two is. I fear the claim of “balance” is more of an accusation toward the other person (no one wants to be “un-balanced”) than with any real meat to the concept.
Just as I cleverly appear to be very, very “fair” in setting a number in my negotiations so that we end up at a middle number where I really want it to be—this seems to be a tactic to claim that one (unlike their opponent) is seeing BOTH sides of the picture, and applying BOTH faith and reason. No lop-sided decision here, no sirree!
I am less than impressed with a person claiming to be “balanced” between faith and reason. I suggest we call the person on this claim, questioning where it is written that we must be balanced, how we know when we are within the correct zone of balance and how we can add an appropriate quantity of the immeasurable concepts of “faith” and “reason” to reach that balance.
Who is it reading these scales and shouting out, “We have Balance!” and how can we know when we have achieved it?
We often “split the Baby.” (A term we use, ripped right from the story of Solomon. 1 Kings 3:16-28) A remarkably simple idea that if one side is willing to pay $10,000, and the other is willing to accept $20,000, then we will “split the baby” at $15,000. We even play with the concept, by demonstrating righteous indignation that we most certainly will not split the baby, and come up with a resolution of $15,500 or $14,500 to demonstrate to the world how we have justifiably defended our client’s position.
With this idea ever prevalent in the back of our mind, we are extremely careful as to what number to initially commit to. If I am pursuing a case, and they offer $10,000, requesting a counter-offer, I know that a $20,000 counter-offer will likely result in a $15,000 settlement. A $25,000 counter-offer in a $17,500 settlement. Of course, the other side knows that too, so their initial offer is likely to be $5,000.
My opponent starts extremely low, I start extremely high, and we play cat-and-mouse in attempting to see who will move the fastest to some middle ground.
Thanks to Guy Sonntag, I recently read a discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris regarding those old stalwarts: “Faith” and “Reason.” Sullivan concluded that his position was the most valid, partly because he does not rely solely on faith, nor solely on reason, but has a “balance” of the two.
I see that come up so many times in our discussions. “I am not a fundamentalist. I am not an atheist. I am ‘balanced’ because I am a liberal theist.” “I am not this extreme. I am not that extreme. I am ‘balanced’ because I am in the middle.”
Somehow, we have come to glorify “balance” as if it is always the better position. “Extremism” is bad, so “balance” is good. There are two problems with this.
First, there are some things that the extreme actually IS correct. We would find the following statement silly, “I am not a geocentric theorist. I am not a heliocentric theorist. I am balanced because I hold that the sun and earth orbit each other.” On some things, we have to pick sides.
But the second, and greater problem I see, is that we can almost always make ourselves balanced, by determining the two extremes. A fundamentalist wants to be balanced? Pick the extremes of “hyper-Calvinism” and Pentecostal. Landing nicely in the middle. An inerrantist wants to be balanced? Pick the extremes of errancy and inerrancy in the copies. Claim inerrancy ONLY in the original writings and bingo—you are balanced.
Watch—I can do it too. “I do not hold to the Christian God. I do not hold to the non-Christian God. Look at me! I am nicely balanced between those two!” Do you see how easy it is to be balanced?
Just like a lawsuit that I want to settle at $15,000, I try to get the two extremes to be $10,000 and $20,000; that way, I am sure to be “balanced” right where I want to be--$15,000.
I got to thinking—how DOES one claim they are in a “balanced” position on faith and reason. Where is the middle ground, and how do we know when we have achieved it?
Perhaps it would be helpful to first understand what the balancing act is not. It is NOT the battle between opposite contentions. I would hope no one claims that “faith” is the opposite of “reason.” The opposite of “reason” is “unreasonable.” We are not saying that faith is “unreasonable.” Further, the opposite of faith is “lack of belief.” It is quite conceivable to reasonably have the lack of belief in something.
It is not as if we pile all the reason at one end of a line, and place all the faith at the other, and claim they are opposites. Assuming a “1” as reason and “10” as faith, we are not saying that a “1” has all reason, and lack of belief, and a “10” has unfounded belief and no reason. That some balance person must be at the 5 – 6 range. Treating these two as contrary and opposite only leads to trouble.
Secondly, I think it is important to see that none of us is 100% faith or 100% reason. The reality of the scales of balance is that we have a mixture of faith and reason, at times employing them both on the same premise. Humans are multifaceted, and rarely make decisions based solely on one category or the other.
I think what the person is implying when they say they are balanced between faith and reason is more analogous to the scales of justice. The scales with two free-standing platforms in which one places weights on each side to see the scale tip back and forth, eventually to rest either perfectly level (perfectly balanced) or demonstrating which side is heavier by being lower.
That faith and reason are not contradictory as much as separate creatures. We place 5 pounds of “faith” on one side of the scale and 5 pounds of “reason” on the other, and the scale tips to an even balance.
Two questions immediately pop out at us: 1) How do we measure the quantity of “faith” or “reason” and 2) Where is it written that we must have perfect balance between the two?
What does 5 pounds of faith look like? We understand that if we put 6 pounds on one side of the scale, and 4 pounds on the other, that the scale would tip heavily to the 6 pound side. If I see a Christian exerting 6 pounds of faith and only 4 pounds of reason, can I confidently point out, “A-ha! You have too much faith!” That seems silly. And how do I measure 2 pounds of reason to be applied to the premise to bring them back to “balance”?
Further, is it not possible that some decisions have more reason, and others have more faith? If I am making a religious decision, and my scales are at 6 pounds faith and 2 pounds reason—is that balanced enough? Or MUST I apply more reason, in order to claim the title of being “balanced”? If I am taking a math test, should my scales be at 2 pounds faith and 6 pounds reason? What about determining inerrancy? Or scientific evidence for the universe’s existence?
There are so many different discussions that take place with different amounts of proof, and different possibilities, that to claim perfect balance between faith and reason seems an impossible task.
What becomes clear is that there really is no way to measure faith or reason, nor weigh them, nor determine what an appropriate “balance” between the two is. I fear the claim of “balance” is more of an accusation toward the other person (no one wants to be “un-balanced”) than with any real meat to the concept.
Just as I cleverly appear to be very, very “fair” in setting a number in my negotiations so that we end up at a middle number where I really want it to be—this seems to be a tactic to claim that one (unlike their opponent) is seeing BOTH sides of the picture, and applying BOTH faith and reason. No lop-sided decision here, no sirree!
I am less than impressed with a person claiming to be “balanced” between faith and reason. I suggest we call the person on this claim, questioning where it is written that we must be balanced, how we know when we are within the correct zone of balance and how we can add an appropriate quantity of the immeasurable concepts of “faith” and “reason” to reach that balance.
Who is it reading these scales and shouting out, “We have Balance!” and how can we know when we have achieved it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
