Posts Tagged ‘rules’

« Older Entries

Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig

Monday, April 6th, 2009

I attended a debate this weekend between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig on the topic, “Does God Exist?”  The venue was a Christian Apologetics University and, of course, the audience was overwhelmingly Christian. We were packed like sardines into a hot and stuffy gymnasium with huge words painted on the wall, “Above All, Give Glory to God.” I was happy (and tried not to worry) to see that many of the few atheists in attendance wore t-shirts identifying themselves as such. Because of the topic, I was initially hesitant to attend. All a nonbeliever can really do in a debate such as this is break down the arguments of the theist, since arguments that God does not exist are in short supply, just as arguments that leprechauns do not exist are in short supply. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and as Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I suppose I anticipated too much in expecting that it would be a given that the theist in a debate such as this would accept the burden of proof. However, Craig laid out his own particular rules for the debate in his opening statement, indicating that he expected and required Hitchens to, not only refute Craig’s arguments to Craig’s satisfaction, but to make arguments to “prove that Atheism is true.” Despite the fact that Hitchens pointed out that to “prove that Atheism is true” is a misstatement altogether, Craig used the phrase nearly every time he spoke and seemed to believe that the simple fact that there exist arguments for a Creator makes the theistic position the stronger of the two. At one point, Craig said to Hitchens, “You seem to think that Atheism is merely a-theism, ‘without theism,’” as opposed to being a specific worldview. Yes, Mr. Craig. That’s exactly what it is.

I was hoping to hear something new at the debate, an argument I had not heard before, but this was not the case. I guess I should not have been surprised, but as someone who has studied the major theistic arguments and their refutations, such as the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, it is a curious thing to me that people still find them credible. It is even more curious to me that people not only repeat these arguments as if they are rock solid evidence for a Creator, but they then make the enormous leap from Creator to a deity which is personal, omniscient, benevolent and, of course,______ (fill in the blank with your personal religious preference).

The opponents’ debating styles were very different, and I cannot say that in this setting Hitchens had the more effective style. Craig was very focused and direct. He picked out the major arguments he wanted to make and drove them into the audience, frequently repeating the same points for emphasis. Hitchens came to his points in a more roundabout way and one almost felt that he was merely giving a monologue at certain points. To one who knows the arguments and knows Hitchens’ writing and other work, it was very enjoyable to listen to and made perfect sense. However, for the students who are studying Apologetics and expecting to hear arguments in a very particular format, and for those who may have been hearing these arguments for the first time, I can imagine that Hitchens did not come off as clear and specific as Craig did. Hitchens also yielded his closing arguments, as I have seen him do before. I can think of a hundred reasons why he might do so, but to hear the little gasps from the Christians in the audience, you would think he would have just lain down on the floor in defeat.

My suspicions were confirmed after the debate in conversations I overheard in the foyer and in the coffee shop down the street. Many Christians commented that the clear “winner” was Craig. Yet a debate is hardly a boxing match. Who “wins” and “loses” in these situations is entirely subjective. I have my doubts that anyone ever walks into a debate such as this with one opinion and leaves with another. Perhaps Hitchens expects too much from his audience, assuming they are coming in with a certain level of knowledge, or perhaps his intent is not to get through to the Christians at all. Perhaps he is speaking to those who are on the fence or who are atheists already. Perhaps these are the only people any of us on this side of the debate are ever really speaking to, and vice versa for the Christians. Regardless, I admire the willingness and tireless patience of Hitchens and others who are giving nonbelievers a voice and speaking out for the cause of rationality. Whether these debates change minds or not, I have to appreciate those on both sides who actually take the time to think about these issues. It is important that we have these conversations, and I hope we never cease to.

-Laura

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 8 Comments »

My 2009 Predictions

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

Evan Bernstein, from the Rogues Gallery (the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe blog) had a fun idea to test his powers of prediction for what’s to come in 2009, and he invited others to chime in. So, to spread the word, I’m posting my prediction comment here, as well. Be sure to head on over to TRG to submit your own predictions, so you can brag about them coming true later.

Here are mine:

1. The world will not end. (fn: if it does, there will be no one around to say I was wrong)

2. Sarah Palin will first pardon, and then eat, a turkey.

3. Pastor Rick Warren will say the word “God” at the inauguration at least three times, but no more than five.

4. Obama will say the word “God” twice.

5. Car companies will continue to manufacture gas-guzzling p.o.s. cars, despite the need for alternate types of vehicles.

6. Rachel Maddow will interview at least one new Cabinet member, and quite possibly the Pres or VP.

7. Keith Olbermann will not dye his hair. (And why should he?)

8. California courts will hold that all marriages that were held during the “gays are okay” window will maintain validity, despite the Prop 8 law against gay marriage. Complainants will lose their battle to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court because that Court will claim a lack of jurisdiction over a state matter (marriage). Gay marriage advocates will push to overturn Prop 8, and that movement will fail.

9. President Obama will sign a bill authorizing the FCC to censor the Internet. For everyone.

10. Credit card companies will increase the interest rates of all their customers (”victims”) just before Congress rules that credit card companies will be prohibited from doing so — and that ruling won’t be retroactive.

11. Multiple successful “civilian” stratosphere trips will increase in popularity, decrease in price, and make NASA look even more incompetent, which will prompt the government to nix even more space development and funding, which is generally what makes NASA look so bad in the first place.

12. Sports will continue to be about 3000% more popular than science, and will receive about that much more funding.

13. An amazing archeological find will prove once and for all that baby Jesus played with dinosaurs.

14. “Caligula” will be made into a Broadway show and musical, and it’s about time.

15. One prominent and famous Scientologist will denounce Scientology, claim he/she was brainwashed and mistaken, and then will claim to have found Jesus.

16. One state (besides Alaska) will seriously contemplate secession.

17. One house of Congress will pass (again) a Flag Desecration act. The other house will not pass it, but the margin will be the closest it’s ever been.

18. The U.S. will have a presence in Afghanistan and Iraq throughout the year, approximately equivalent to the presence it has now (but possibly shifting from one country to the other).

19. Marijuana will still be illegal for non-prescription consumption, and will still be illegal in most places for prescription consumption.

20. You’ll still be able to buy alcohol and firearms, though.

-Procrustes

State of Protest

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Religion, Science | 1 Comment »

Life is Like a Poker Tournament

Wednesday, December 31st, 2008

You arrive into the world pink, naked and squalling. You are immediately in possession of a ‘hand’. The hand was dealt to you at birth or even earlier – at sperm and egg fusion. You had no choice in the deal, no control over the cards. You are black, white, yellow, red, or some other racial mixture. You have the genetic propensity to be smart or not, tall or short, fat or thin, strong or weak, sickly, or hale. Some of these factors can be overcome with effort; some of them are beyond your influence or perception (if severely retarded, you may not realize how handicapped you are). You are not a set of jokers or wild cards, but a set hand; the suits and denominations determined by the genetic material and womb conditions as contributed by your parents.

Beyond the intrinsic value of the ‘hand’ you are dealt, there is the ‘lay of the table’. You are born into an environment not of your choosing, around people with various ‘hands’. The cards around the table are randomly dealt to those people as well, just like the ones you are holding. You may be holding a pair of aces, but there are straights, flushes and full houses sitting in the seats around you. Conversely, you may be holding two pair and have the highest hand around. Your environment sets the bar of achievement and that is beyond your influence as well.

As you age, you can improve your position by ‘playing’ your hand. You can accumulate chips, which are the equivalent of wealth, power and influence. Or you can sit at the table and try to exist off the generosity of others. There is no re-deal, although, with considerable effort, you can improve your cards to some degree. This can allow you to more easily increase your chip count.

There is a set of rules at the poker tables that needs to be followed. Some of the rules have minor punishments. One punishment might be the loss of some of your chips. Other rules have much more serious consequences if broken. The breaking of the serious rules can result in meeting the one player that sits at every table and in every room. This player holds the highest hand of them all, and he never loses. Ever.

The player at all of the tables who never loses is called mortality. He is indiscriminate and ruthless. He is beating hands and cleaning people out at many tables, all at the same time. Sometimes entire rooms fall at once, in a single instant, the chips scattering around the room or disappearing with the losing hands.

So you sit and play and try to accumulate the most chips. And you try to win the most hands. You work at improving your position. Maybe you try and move to a higher-ranking table. You also try to develop your hand as much as you can to increase your chances. All the while, in the back of your mind, you realize that mortality is sitting at the table with you. And one day while you are trying to bluff another player by going ‘all-in’, mortality will call your bluff and win – every time.

-Noumenon

Tags: , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 2 Comments »

God and Reason

Friday, December 26th, 2008

Someone who professed to be Christian once said to me, “If I didn’t believe what I believe, I would be living a whole different kind of life.” I wish I had asked him to elaborate, although in the context in the conversation, I got the impression that he meant he’d be living a much less moral existence. The implication here is that religion or god or gods are the source of morality and basic value systems.

I would have to disagree.

While I am sure there are many of the religious stripe who would be less moral individuals if they did not believe, that says nothing about the source of ethical behavior. These particular individuals are driven to “proper” behavior by a promise of eternal reward, or, if they fail, punishment. Their reasoning is, why else be ethical, if it will mean nothing in the end? They say that if god commands it, it must be good, and the ends justify the means. But, is that what morality truly means?

I am sure there is a view that many believers take of agnostics and atheists – that they must be immoral individuals since they are uninterested in taking orders from a higher power. This shows poor logic, but that is not surprising, considering the uneasy relationship logic and religion have had over the years. God and morality are not a package deal. God belief doesn’t make a person moral, and neither does lack of belief make a person immoral. The point is, one does not need to believe in, or even be aware of, a god to be moral, good, or just.

Religion doesn’t give human nature much credit. Many things known to be instinctual behaviors are considered “sinful” by most religious standards. But human nature is not dumb. Certainly, things like the instinct to eat and breed have kept the species alive. But those are not the only kinds of survival mechanisms that humans have evolved. A majority of us have a strong sense of wanting to help others; at the very least our immediate family members. While initially, altruistic behavior probably evolved from selfish means in order to establish and maintain communities, this doesn’t mean that it cannot be intrinsic to one’s being. My having a conscience does not necessitate belief in a god or a religion and its stipulations. I will always wish for the happiness of my friends and family, and I still make it a point to do the right thing. Do I do this because someone or some establishment tells me to? No. I do it because I want to, because that is the kind of person I want to be, whether I am rewarded for it or not, whether it meets the approval of a clergy or not, and whether it is what god wants or not. The reward is that hopefully, I will contribute to the happiness of others. Often, though, even when the right thing is done, there is no reward at all, and sometimes, there is even punishment. While this can be frustrating, it doesn’t change the fact that I think the right thing should be done, and that morality is not about the reward at the end, but about doing what is best, no matter the consequences to oneself. I will clarify that what is best is rarely found in a set of rules that were written down millennia ago. I think “what is best” will usually present itself in the form of “what causes the least amount of suffering for all involved?”

I will make the assumption that even if there is a god, then we can know nothing about it, under the standard definition of “god”. The gods that all the various religions describe are not terribly impressive, and if I were to be convinced of their existence, then I would be harder pressed to be convinced to worship them. Descriptions of god have made “him” out to be alternately jealous and forgiving, wrathful and loving, having a “plan”, but still requiring our prayers for intervention. If anything, god sounds like he was made in man’s image, instead of vice-versa. This shows not only a lack of imagination, but also a lack of god-like features one might expect from a being dubbed as the “almighty”.

Keeping that in mind, I will use a popular argument against the traditional notion of god. With all the suffering in the world, that an all-knowing god is surely aware of, he either can’t do anything about it (which contradicts him being all-powerful), or he won’t (which contradicts his supposed “loving” nature). How could a god who loves us so, allow for the horrible things that happen? Of particular curiosity to me are the Jews. They believe they have a covenant with god; that he has promised to protect them, that they are the “chosen people”. Why then, have they been consistently sought out for complete extermination for thousands of years? Why did their god allow the Egyptian Pharoah to enslave them, and then hardened Pharoah’s heart when Moses asked for their freedom? Where was their god during the rise of Nazi Germany? Was he looking out for them then? It almost seems like a cruel joke. Whoever this god is, he doesn’t seem terribly dependable, nor merciful, or even fatherly. He actually seems quite negligent, and if I were Jewish, I would have trouble reconciling some of these facts.

Of course, the usual response from the religious on these matters is that we are not to question god, and that he works in mysterious ways. I would think any god worth his salt wouldn’t need this sort of reasoning to excuse his inexplicably sloppy guardianship. I think what’s really happening here is that we’re searching for a why, and when there isn’t one, we invoke god’s “plan” as the basis for the atrocious acts that happen in the world every day. Honestly, though, I would rather believe that nearly everything is completely random, and that’s why bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. I would rather think that than to tell myself that there is some grand purpose that requires the pain and suffering of innocent people (children in particular). If, as a human, I allowed for the suffering of others, and justified it by saying that it was suiting some greater purpose of mine, I would be called a tyrant. I would be called selfish, and callous, and uncaring. Yet, when “god” is brought into it, then it becomes okay. Why?

Another oddity of religion is that it makes us think we can be immortal. The one thing that is sure to happen to us – death – is the one we deny over and over again, through religion. Sigmund Freud has said that a belief in the afterlife is wish fulfillment, the wish that we and our loved ones do not have to die. While I generally disagree with just about every other conclusion about humans Freud has made, I have to give him credit on this one. When I contemplate my own death, it makes me terribly uncomfortable. Contemplating the death of my husband and children is even more frightening. I cannot imagine how devastating it is to lose someone you love as much as I love them. I can understand the comfort it would bring to believe that I would see them again someday. However, I have no reason to believe this, aside from the fact that it would make me feel good, and that is not reason enough. Religion denies this reality, and I think it’s too bad.

I’ll explain why.

Thinking that we go on forever, that all the people we love are always going to be here – that’s the kind of attitude that allows us to take people for granted. When I go back to contemplating my eventual demise, it makes me realize that chances are good that this is the only life I get, the only chance I will have to spend time with the people I care about. It makes me value my time here more, because if this really is it, then I had better make the best of it. The only thing that may go on is memories of me in the minds of others, and that is incentive enough to live my life the best that I can. Punishment and reward has nothing to do with it, and neither does any god. Reason alone provides enough motivation to be ethical, and to love my family as much as I can, while I can.

The inevitable query, “But what if you’re wrong?” usually comes up at this point. What if, what if, what if…I suppose I could be wrong. If there’s a god, and it created everything, then it created me. It gave me this mind, these analytical skills, and these ideas. It gave me reason, but not faith. Keep in mind that I do not choose to be faithless; I just simply am. In the same way that I don’t choose to hate mushrooms or country music – I just do, and like having no faith, it is not something that I can help. Why would god make me, and countless others, this way, only to punish us eternally in the end for it? Another cosmic joke? Are these my choices? I must say, I haven’t been given much to work with. Sure, I could go to church and try to spread the gospel and hope that it grows on me. In the meantime, though, I would merely be operating out of a fear of hell. And I would still be faithless. Truthfully, I don’t think I would be much different than many other church-goers in that respect.

The usual reply here from theists is that I must sincerely ask god to come into my heart. You think I never tried that? You think that I just decided atheism sounded good and went into it with absolutely no investigation whatsoever? You would be wrong to assume as such. Like many atheists, I struggled with my beliefs for several years. Instead of quieting my concerns, my search only yielded more questions. With no faith to build on, and no real answers, I realized that I could not say I believed in any god while remaining intellectually honest. A more truthful statement would be that I would love it if there was a god that allowed for an afterlife where I could be with my family again. But do I really believe in it? No.

Does this make me immoral? Does this make me evil? Depends on who you ask. When it comes to believers, there are some that believe that even those who haven’t been saved but who still do good works, are good people. And there are some that believe that good works have nothing to do with it – that it’s all about your salvation. That is, you may be a serial killer, but if you repent, you will get further with god than an atheist who devotes his life to helping others. Once again, a belief like that seems downright harmful when it comes down to what we do know: That we’re here now. The concept of a repentant criminal receiving better treatment than a charitable atheist is pretty ridiculous, considering that the atheist is doing something right now to make things tangibly better – in this life that is guaranteed real – while there are believers who allow suffering because they don’t see the point in intervening.

So going back to the original statement, that believing in something makes one moral… those are the people I wonder about: the ones who are moral simply because god says so. What kind of people are they really, on the inside? To need a reward and/or approval to act properly – I think that’s juvenile. Only children operate like that. Adults are defined as such by knowing better. I guess for those adults that feel that god is keeping them in line, I should be thankful for religion, because who knows what kind of people they would be otherwise.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Morality, Religion | 5 Comments »

Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?

Friday, December 12th, 2008

As reported by ABC news, an Oregon couple, by offering up prayer instead of what would have been an easy treatment by medical professionals, allowed their infant daughter to die. Or, put another way, murdered their infant daughter.

Carl and Raylene Worthington, the killers (should we really call them parents?) happen to belong to the same church, the Followers of Christ Church, as Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in October, 2008, after they attempted only prayer healing for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, instead of medically treating him for what was an easily treatable illness. Apparently, this church as been the catalyst for at least twenty other child deaths as a result of applying faith healing techniques, when every one of them could have been easily cured with proper medical treatment.

Although my first reaction to these heinous acts is to shrug and hope the result is the direct or indirect thinning of the herd, my more contemplative criticism is not based on what the parents or church have done, but what our laws and the courts have allowed and currently allow. Specifically, the fact that a decade ago, during the events that led investigators to believe that twenty children affiliated with the Followers of Christ Church had died because of that affiliation, the existing Oregon law allowed for claims that religious beliefs prevented defendants from seeking medical help — the “spiritual healing defense.” In 1999, the Oregon state legislature, upon hearing about the twenty children, changed the law to bar such claims.

The original language of the defense:

Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
{ – (3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating
subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent
person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means
pursuant to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or
person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.1

But a lot of good that does when the law currently allows the same spiritual healing defense to be used to reduce sentencing: (emphasis mine)

137.712. (1)(a) Notwithstanding ORS 137.700 and 137.707, when a person is convicted of { + manslaughter in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.125, + } … the court may impose a sentence according to the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the minimum sentence that otherwise may be required by ORS 137.700 or 137.707 if the court, on the record at sentencing, makes the findings set forth in subsection (2) of this section and finds that a substantial and compelling reason under the
rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the lesser sentence. …
(2) A conviction is subject to subsection (1) of this section only if the sentencing court finds on the record by a preponderance of the evidence:
{ + (a) If the conviction is for manslaughter in the second degree:
(A) That the defendant is the mother or father of the victim;
(B) That the death of the victim was the result of an injury or illness that was not caused by the defendant;
(C) That the defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s recovery from the injury or illness….

In short, what it means is that if the court believes the parents believed that the spiritual healing would have worked, then the court can reduce the sentence of parents who murder their children based on their religious beliefs. Well, if you could call it “spiritual treatment,” which can really include just about anything, apparently.

This is clearly a law respecting an establishment of religion, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Of course, the counter argument is that the First Amendment also prohibits the government from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion. What the counter argument and those who would use it (obviously those who got that law enacted in the first place) fail to acknowledge is that we have employed our government to protect an even greater self-created right — the right not to be killed by fellow citizens. That greater right trumps any defense of religious preference when it comes to murder. (Yes, technically, it’s “manslaughter,” but I don’t view it that way).

What we all need to do, with swiftness and fervor, is contact our state representatives to find out whether our own states have similar laws unconstitutionally favoring religion and letting murderers off with potentially lighter sentences, and, if so, we need to tell them to work toward eliminating such laws. If there aren’t any such laws (doubtful), ask your legislator to ensure that none ever get passed, because such a breach of the separation of church and state is an affront to everyone (even the religious), especially when those laws favor the most vile of people. As Daylight Atheism skillfully argues, No Religious Exemptions from Child Abuse Laws.

Do you think the Followers of Christ Church should be tax exempt? If you live in Oregon, contact your state representatives and demand that the church lose its tax exempt status. The purpose of allowing religious organizations a tax exempt status is the flawed idea that the church is somehow benefiting society. The Followers of Christ Church does the reverse. It doesn’t deserve a tax break. Everyone in every state, in every country, should be demanding that churches be taxed.

Don’t let these murderers or anyone else use religion as justification for their actions.

—

Input from readers:

Blackstar9000, on Reddit, says:

The article leaves out the two clauses that follow:

(D) That no other person previously under the defendant’s care has died or sustained significant physical injury as a result of or despite the use of spiritual treatment, regardless of whether the spiritual treatment was used alone or in conjunction with medical care; and (E) That the defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection (4) of this section or for criminal mistreatment in the second degree. + }

Those clauses shed some light on why there’s a provision, I’d say. It’s basically a learning curve that says, if you’ve been taught to believe that faith healing works, and there’s nothing in your past that should have demonstrated to you that it doesn’t, a lesser sentence may be warranted simply because you weren’t fully aware of the damage you could be causing. It isn’t a get out of jail free card, but if a person’s been cloistered all their life and might not reasonably have enough experience to know the consequences of their action, they might need at least some legal protections.

My response:
Why couldn’t there be a general provision indicating that if the defendant lacked the knowledge or mental capacity to understand that a particular method of treatment would not likely be successful, then the sentence could be reduced based on that fact? Why not that instead of the direct reference to religious belief? If the principle is, as you suggest, whether a person reasonably possesses the knowledge or know-how to treat someone with proper care, then why explicitly restrict that to the “spiritual”? Are there never any instances where non-spiritual upbringing can mislead someone?

Any takers?

Blackstar9000 replies:

Those are all valid question, and it’s way beyond my competence to give anything more than a reasonable guess. I will say this, though: Generally, laws of this sort arise as a response to particular instances rather than as a consideration of future possibilities. It’s a fair bet that this piece of legislation was written after a specific, precedent-setting case, and that the circumstances of the case itself did much to dictate the form that the legislation ultimately took. In other words, it specifies the religious belief because the religious belief is what the court has had to deal with in the past. Caution probably also played a part; not all judges and legislators are willing to introduce sweeping provisions without first having seen how a given set of circumstances will play out in an actual case.

Having said all of that — and, of course, this is all lay interpretation — while the law cited is setting forth an exception, the sense I get from it is that it’s spelling it out in order to provide restrictions on that exception. In other words, legislators could have laid out a blanket exception for religion: “If you’ve got a note from your priest, we’ll let it slide.” Instead, what they’re saying is that, in certain circumstances, a person’s religious background does mitigate some of the severity that would otherwise be warranted, but the court has to retain some control over how it’s determined that those circumstances have been met. What those provisions are looking for, it seems to me, is some relatively reliable guarantee that the parents weren’t being intentionally malicious or even simply callous in their neglect. The provisions likely aren’t a perfect instrument for gauging that, but in dealing with matters of judgment like that of deciding whether or not someone was a caring parent, the legal system has to traffic in evidence that is more or less tangible.

Where that’s true, ie. where caring and concerned parents have lost a child through their own neglect, then any punishment the court can mete out is likely to pale next to the suffering the parents already feel.

StOP

  1. http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2494.en.html [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Logic, Morality, Religion, Science | 14 Comments »

« Older Entries