Apples And Oranges?

Recently, a friend of mine posted a link to an article by Subby Szterzsky of Focus On The Family, taking a look at the notion this comparative meme most of us have likely seen by now of anti-civil rights protesters of the 60's captures:

 I think this article misses the mark on several occasions. First, lets talk about the 'apples/oranges' talking point. This is a gross misrepresentation of the comparison of past racial and current sexual orientation discrimination, as shown in this meme, cautioning people of future retrospection. Stating that drawing comparisons is unfair - or worse (as this article states), simply a tactic to capitalize on emotion and historical guilt - misses the point that the topic is discrimination, not who is being discriminated against.

Equating physical traits with personal choice.  This paragraph, furthering the apples/oranges analogy, suggests that discrimination against a physical (or as stated, "intrinsic and immutable") would be considered improper, and justifiably contestable, personal choices are another thing altogether. That is, if I understand this writer correctly, it is wrong to discriminate against a person for their race (not a choice), but it is not wrong to condemn someone for their choices. The assumption being made here is that homosexuality is, indeed, a choice. I make no assertions one way or the other, but even if it were demonstrable that it, in fact, were a choice, this introduces a problem with this line of argumentation (in my estimation, at least); religion (or non-religion) is a choice. Under our laws, a person is protected from discrimination in several categories, and religion is certainly one of them. Despite any theological claims that may exist to the contrary, we each have the legal freedom to choose our religion (or lack thereof), and also have the right to be free of discrimination in response to that choice. So, again, even if it were proven that homosexuality were a choice, a sexual choice should be protected with the same vigor as a religious choice (keeping in mind, the assumptions being made here are such that the religious and sexual choices do not include anything illegal [i.e. persons of age, no one is being harmed, etc.]).

Failure to distinguish between types and degrees of discrimination. Here, again, is a misrepresentation of what we see in such memes as described above. The topic is discrimination. If one can get past the article-ending opening to this particular paragraph - "all discrimination is deplorable," - a number of problems meet the reader. Overall, the author takes umbrage over the side-by-side comparison because of the differences of experiences (relating to discrimination, that is). The author cites examples of experiences of racial discrimination in the following: "...slavery, segregation, public lynching, attacks by fire hose and guard dogs, denial of access to schools, jobs, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, buses, bathrooms and drinking fountains, as well as ongoing multigenerational poverty and lack of opportunity for social advancement." These are offered in the context that individuals in the LGBTQ community are not/were not subject to any of these items of discriminatory acts, or consequences. While this may be true for some of the items listed by the author, it would be categorically false to claim that LGBTQ people have never been attacked, bullied, killed, limited/denied access or service(s), etc, because of their sexual orientation. What I find deplorable is the author chose to make their own side by side comparison (a faux pas much like the one being decried in this article) of a group of people suffering conditions outlined in the previous quote next to, and I quote, "affluent, influential members of the LGBTQ community seeking cultural approval for their personal choices." If one is looking for an example of inappropriate comparisons, I would refer them to this portion of the article in question.

Redefining reality instead of defending basic rights.  This paragraph attempts to tackle the issue of marriage as it differs between interracial and same-sex. The reason interracial marriage laws had to change, according to this author, is because they, "sought to deny traditional marriage to certain people who would otherwise be able to have children." So, the issue is children - or, more specifically, naturally produced children by those involved in the union. Let's unpack that; if we all agree that marriage must remain as legal unions between a man and a woman, and that same-sex marriage is denied on the grounds that the expected result of said union be the possibility of producing offspring, then, legally speaking, marriage would have to be denied to those known to be infertile (be it because of a physical condition or age, etc.). This is unlikely to gain approval of the people. Next, the author makes a juvenile, snide remark about Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) advocates fighting for a person's right to marry whomever they wish, that this must include the ridiculous, such as children, and siblings. 

Mistaking disapproval for hatred.  I find most of what is said here to be largely agreeable. One obvious point of contention would be that issues raised over homosexuality because of religious reasons are described by the author as not properly qualified as homophobia, that genuine homophobia exists, but goes no further. A definition of homophobia would have been a natural place to go to try to defend this position, so I will offer that here. Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. The author could have made a reasoned argument as to why such a definition does not apply to the Christian view/stance on the subject of homosexuality, but instead chose to remain with a declarative statement.  It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that no Christian's views espoused, or actions, would not be considered homophobic.

Confusing scriptural teaching is cultural practice.  This is where, I think, the article was trying to head from the onset.  The author, Szterzsky, says the following: "Equating today’s gay rights with yesterday’s civil rights is part of a broader narrative that seeks to lay blame for all the social ills of Western civilization at the doorstep of the Christian church."  If a narrative exists, I would refer the author (or reader) to the appeal to a persecution complex prevalent in "Western" Christians.  In fact, such an attitude is largely supported in scripture; (2 Timothy 3:12), "Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."  This verse seems to suggest that if you are (or feel) persecuted for obeying the scriptures, you must be doing it right, and that persecution is to be expected.  Not a very tough crowd to convince they are being persecuted (as opposed to, say, a difference of opinion) if this verse is any indication.  To further bolster this position, the author goes on to suggest that the scriptures are, "unique in their radical and repeated assertion that all people – men and women and members of different races – are created equal in the image of God and thereby worthy of dignity as His image-bearers. One has to look pretty hard and distort rather perversely in order to come up with any Scriptural rationale for racism or sexism."  There do exist bible verses that seem to support such a claim, and I am no biblical scholar, nor linguist, to do justice to this point, but I would caution the author against propping such verses up as definitive evidence against racism.  For example, John 7:24 (often used in such context) says, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly," could be talking about situational appearances, rather than physical appearances (the verse, coincidentally, seems to be talking about the situation when the previous verse is brought in for context).  However, to say that one would have to, "look pretty hard, or distort rather perversely," to make the case for racism/sexism being supported in the Bible is a stretch, at best.  Sexism is almost ubiquitous in the scriptures.  One need only ask if women are permitted to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), or who was responsible for the, "fall of man," or if they should be submissive to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 - 25).  Szterzsky goes on to say that the scripture is, "unmistakable in its teaching that sexuality is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church."  While it may have clear direction about keeping sexual activity remain between a husband and wife, there is some ambiguity on the point of marriage, if I'm not mistaken.  That is, marriage, throughout the Bible, is not strictly limited to one man and one woman; polygamy was once the norm, for example (King Solomon had 700 wives, or as cited in laws found in Deuteronomy 21:15-17).  Views on marriage are rather dim in the Bible, as well; not only is a raper required to purchase and marry his victim, but the institution of marriage itself is contextually put up against hell as a preferred alternative (1 Corinthians 7:7 - 9).

The author fails to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice, that such memes as offered above is truly an "apples/oranges" comparison, that marriage is limited to those to whom naturally produced offspring are possible, that manifestations of objections lobbied by Christians do not fit the standard definition of homophobic, or that Christianity itself is the victim of conspiracy to become society's scapegoat.  This seems no more than an attempt at distancing Christianity from the notion of homophobia, and conflating the issue of discrimination based on race and sexual orientation to relieve some of the pressure off having their own agenda for marriage definition "protected" under law.

How Do You Know What You Know?

How do you know what you know?  Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?  Is it viciously circular to use your reasoning to justify your reasoning?

Familiar with these types of questions?  I sure wasn't, and found myself facing them recently.  I was baffled that I would be facing something as ridiculous to begin with, and yet facinated at the same time at the use of this presuppositional apologetic.  As I've said, the questions are nonsensical, and yet the individuals asking them think they are asking the real hard hitting questions that atheists and non-believers can't answer. 

Foundationally, I guess it would be fair to say that the whole argument hinges on the following assertion: without God (and the Christian god, of course), you can't know anything.  Those most noted for this style of argument (you may already know of them) are Eric Hovind, and Sye Ten Bruggencate.  What I find interesting about this argument is the almost clever way it establishes early on in the debate or conversation not only traps to later spring on the other, but also really convenient ways of allowing the presuppositionalist a way out of having to answer a very pointed question or a very tough one.  What else is interesting is that the complaints one would have about the bible (and I'm pointing specifically at Christianity for this blog because that's the religion  on which these presuppositionalists hang their hat), those arguments can also be dodged with an admission that they fully expect a non-believer would consider them crazy for believing things in the bible like talking snakes and donkeys, teachings on rape and slavery, and the like.  Without God those things simply make no sense.  But because they have a God, for whom all things are possible, the seemingly impossible is then suddenly explainable.  Can't explain how slavery is moral?  Insert God, and the seemingly impossible task of making slavery a moral thing can suddenly be explained.  However, it is rare, it seems, to get into a conversation with a presuppositionalist on these types of issues.  Sye Ten Bruggencate will shrug it off as an interesting topic of discussion for a bible study, but that he isn't about to get into a bible discussion with a non-believer.  But!  If you're willing to accept the bible as true (effectively becoming a Christian, and conceding defeat) then he would be happy to discuss those topics with you.  I seriously doubt this conversation would take place, at least not in any meaningful sense.  All he would have to say, if you maintained your objection to the immorality of rape or slavery being sanctioned, your conversion wasn't a true one, and attempts at engaging in that conversation further would halt.  It's nothing more than an attempt to avoid answering or addressing the real problems people have with these texts.

So, let's unpack the presuppositional apologetic a little bit further.  Debates that I have seen thus far almost all follow the same pattern when this apologetic is employed; the theist will make a claim that they can prove to you that God exists (again, the Christian god), then proceed to ask you questions, the openers often being one mentioned above.  But this is the linguistic trapping I was talking about before.  I'm no linguist, so I'm not here to teach the subject, nor could I begin to, but it's important to note that the actual linguists this style of argumentation has been used on has ultimately failed.  They were able to point out what a layperson would almost certainly miss, and that is the switch in meaning of a single word they will use in their questions, such as 'knowledge.'  For a great example of this, look for the debate/discussion between Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind, and Dr. Michael Jones, Bob Greaves and Greg Brahe on a show called "The Place."  It's a lengthy conversation, but if you're interested in learning more about this style of apologetic it's worth the investment of your time. 

Sye and Eric are inconsistent in their meaning, but it's the switch in meaning from their opening questions to their follow-up uses that actually gives them their leg to stand on, and confuse people to begin with, and trick them into following them along in their line of reasoning.  At first, it would have been fair to say that, not being linguists themselves, they may not have been aware that they were even doing this, but after having it pointed out to them (and several times at that), they continued to make the same substitutions.  There were times when the switch was being pointed out to them where they would dodge the question by playing their conversational dodgeball games eluded to earlier, saying things like, "could you be wrong about that," or, "how do you know that?"  These questions are designed to distract from the topic at hand, evade answering an opponent's questions, and redirecting the conversation topic to the "quicksand" these apologists love.  These ploys effectively halt any meaningful discussion, which leads me to conclude that they are not designed really to convince non-believers, but more intended for those already in their 'camp.' 

Perhaps another fair way of rephrasing their argument would be to say that they take advantage of the position of the unbeliever not having a god, and then posit that because they account for their knowledge because of the god they claim exists, it therefore follows that the atheist cannot account for their knowledge by any other means than borrowing from the theist's worldview.

My experience with a presuppositional argument was just recently, and I was just as surprised to hear the silly question of, "how do you know what you know," but the inability to accept my reasonable answer.  My mind immediately went to evidence, and something that is demonstrable, and used the simplest example that came to me, and stated that others have demonstrated to me that two plus two equals four, and that I can test it, and repeat it, and verify it to be accurate and consistent. This would certainly be uncontested.  Well, no.  It, like many other answers to these apologist's ridiculous questions, is repeatedly met with the, "how do you know that," ad nauseum.

Trying to bring the conversation back to a place where both parties can take part in a reasonable conversation would seem impossible, but it's not a failing on the non-believer's part I would argue.  The very foundation of the presuppositional position is that of, "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore this conversation's only natural end point is where you finally see that this is so."  Once this is realized, it immediately ceases to be a conversation or debate.  It might be wise to walk away at this point, particularly if the individual happens to be a friend or family member, and it just isn't worth losing that relationship to you.  Not only is this style of argument extremely annoying, but also extremely arrogant in it's nature, and will ultimately, in my opinion, escalate to a heated exchange. 

In closing, if you're interested in learning more about this apologetic, the subtle traps it lays, and the refutations for it, I would recommend a few sources.  I mentioned earlier The New Covenant Group, which is a panel of sorts that includes both atheists and theists, and tackled this issue at least a few times in great detail, and is a fantastically comprehensive guide to understanding this apologetic.  Also of note, are Dan Courtney, and KnownNoMore.  All are available on YouTube.  

Just Be Honest

I have told my family that I'm an atheist. An emotional experience, to be sure, but one that I feel compelled to tell. I was so afraid of revealing this to my family; afraid of what would change, afraid of facing their disappointment. What makes this so important, though, is that the more people there are that are vocal about their atheism, the safer and easier it will be for others to make themselves known. My first piece of advice: don't rush it. Generally speaking, rushing into things is typically driven by emotion, and you need to keep a clear head when dealing with an emotional topic. And, be assured, this will be emotional for your family if they (like mine) are religious. Keeping a clear head is also especially important while telling them. Talking to my family, I faced teary eyes, and pleas about not wanting to spend eternity without me. I didn't discard these kinds of statements, but rather acknowledged them as how the other person felt, and that they strongly believe in these things. But what is important for them to understand is that I no longer believe what they do, and I can't fake it, nor should I. If God does exist, would he be satisfied with a poser? They don't have evidence to believe what they believe, and yet they still believe. Whatever allows them to reconcile those beliefs just doesn't exist within me; I need a reason to believe - I need evidence. My predictions of how my family would react wasn't exactly accurate. They were upset, to be sure, but they still surprised me. Apparently I'm not as good at hiding my feelings as I thought, as one of them told me they weren't surprised, and they would be surprised if anyone else in the family was. That certainly took a lot of the pressure off at that point. At least as far as my fear of how they thought of me would change. Obviously they already suspected I felt differently about the supernatural, and God specifically. Telling my parents was perhaps the most difficult. They raised me to believe in God, so my lack of belief would almost unfailingly have an impact on their thoughts of having done a good job. I took this for what it was worth, and did my best to assure them that they did nothing to fail me, that it was a decision I made on my own. What I thought important to say to them was to ask them if they thought I was a good, kind, and decent person. Their answer was what I thought it would be: "yes, of course, and that's why this hurts so much." What they meant was that yes I'm a good, kind, and decent person, but my lack of belief was going to send me to hell, which is what would hurt them so much. This response, while genuine, is emotionally driven. It is important not to react in kind. Keep your cool, otherwise those negative reactions you were afraid of might come to the surface. The best advice I can give is to just be honest. If they ask a question that you don't have an answer to, be honest about not knowing. And always acknowledge that you understand what they're saying and how they feel. You are looking for the same from them, so it's best to show what you are looking for. When faced with disappointment such as my parents expressed, I made it clear to them that I thought that I am who I am because of them. That everything good about me is because they showed me how to be a good person, and to be a positive contribution to society. I am kind, generous, and decent because they showed me those things, and while they may attribute those things to their religion and what they believe, I would argue they would be all of those things absent that religion. There may be a time to be firm, as there was with me, so I will share this as well. My mother told me I was being duped, and called into question my intelligence. If you do not address this at the time, it may be near impossible to establish this as a boundary in the future. While it is ok for your family or friends to disagree with your position, it is not ok for them to express it in such a manner that belittles you. I told her that I respect that she disagrees with my views, but that it is not ok to speak to me disrespectfully, and that the kinds of words she used were hurtful, and it was possible to find a more respectful way of expressing her position. It's important to speak calmly when speaking like this. Speaking angrily or otherwise agressively will only cause the person you're speaking to to get defensive, and the situation will escalate into an argument. Staying calm is perhaps the second most important piece of advice I can offer. The decision you have made has most likely been brewing for some time, and you've come to it based on research you've done, both into religion itself (whichever you're coming away from), and your understanding of science and reality. For myself, it has been a long journey getting here, and I've had plenty of time to weigh things out, and process what my decision means. But, it was important for me to go into it understanding that those I was telling did not have the benefit of the time I've had, or the awareness of all the things I've researched. There was an expectation of questions and concerns, and doubts that I was making the best, most informed decision. Being prepared for possible questions is important, not only to help your family and friends understand your position, but to help you remain calm when you are confronted with them. Resist the urge to get defensive. The third piece of advice I would have for those thinking of having a similar discussion with their loved ones would be research, research, research. This is a big deal to those in your life who love you and who are religious, and they are going to ask tough questions, so be clear about your reasons. If it's all about rebellion, or to fit in with friends, or something wishy-washy, you'll be seen for that. Further to that, you would need to re-examine your decision if you were really being honest with yourself. You will need to invest some time into completing this part, and it involves researching both sides. Some have said the best way for a christian to become an atheist is to read the bible. Be aware of what it says in the Bible, paying particular attention to happenings in there such as rape, infanticide, human sacrifice, murder, slavery, and so on. Equally disturbing material can also be found in the Quran, if the reader is interested. The second thing to research is what science tells us about the universe we live in. Evolution is not the only place to hang your hat in this regard. Geology, biology, astronomy, all of the fields of science come together to paint a little piece of the bigger picture about the workings of our universe. There are important questions we ask ourselves, and not everything is known yet. Some things we can't know yet. Don't be afraid of answering, "I don't know." This is a more honest position than plugging in an assertion of a deity being responsible and citing it as knowledge. Equally as important as researching is where you get your information from. Be skeptical of all you take in, and put it to the test. When it comes to things in the scientific realm, it's best to go with those who are experts in their respective fields. The great thing about science is that it is always trying to prove things within it false just to be sure the information we have is acurate, and what can be demonstrated to be true and acurate is true and acurate whether or not certain people choose to believe it or not. If I had to recommend a scientist to start out with it would be Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist. Type in his name on YouTube, and go from there. There is plenty of information out there. Another great website to visit would be talkorigins.org. Most conversations on this subject will lead to things that can be explained on this site, so it is a valuable resource. The important thing is to get out there, and soak in everything you can. Before you decide to have this kind of conversation be sure that you are prepared. On every level. Above all, be sure to take into consideration the impact it might have on your safety or livlihood. If either would be in jeopardy, then leave it alone, and wait until you think it is safe. If you think it's safe, and won't negatively affect your day to day life, then, to sum up, my advice would be remain calm when you're speaking, be firm if you're being spoken to disrespectfully (while remaining calm, of course), research your position, and just be honest.

Doesn't It Bother You?

It strikes me as peculiar how the human mind works in various states; whether that be bliss or distress, or any other condition that brings about a response.  When it comes to religion, what struck me most was my automatic response to gravitate towards it in a time of crisis.

In an earlier post, I explained that my wife of four years unexpectedly left me.  This was, it goes without saying, a shattering experience, and I certainly feel for those out there that may read this blog who have gone through a similar experience.  Now, what came of this experience (one thing at any rate), was my almost automatic reaction to want to return to religion, and return fully.  In a tear-filled conversation with my eldest brother, a very religious (and intelligent) man, I explained how I had failed to be fully committed to God, and how that must be the reason my marriage had failed, ultimately.

This subsequently led to a Christian counselor to help me work through these issues.  While we were meeting, the shock of the situation began to subside, and my doubts began to return.  One of the things that helped speed along this "recovery," I'll call it, was the realization that the 'hook' for my healing was Jesus.  At first, the sessions began with describing my relationships with my mother and father, past traumas, etc.  And, at first, I thought that maybe we would get to the bottom of why I think the way I do, or perhaps do the things I do, but this quickly evaporated.  It wasn't long until I realized that what I was getting, what I was paying for, were sermons.  That it didn't matter what my real issues were, Jesus was the answer.  So no real assessment was needed really, just plug in Christ, and you're cured.  This, I thought, was deception wrapped in, what I have to assume, was a sincere delivery.  I say it was sincere because I do not doubt the person's conviction of what he was speaking about.  But, still, the package was still deceptive.  There may be a time, if this person were to continue with this counseling, when he is sitting across a table from someone with troubles and issues far greater than my own, in need of real analysis, and diagnosis, not a band-aid solution.

Eventually, I came to a point where I had to be real, and honest about my doubts about religion, and Christianity in particular.  I asked him one day if it ever bothered him that the tenets we associate with Jesus Christ also appear in other deities, especially troubling being the ones who predate his (alleged) existence.  Now, granted, the similarities are not across the board with all of those who share them with Jesus Christ, but enough, certainly, to raise questions.  The aspects of the virgin birth, or the death and resurrection are not unique to Christ.  Similarities do exist, and the problem is further compounded by the fact that Christ came later, and neighboured some of these other religions, giving rise to the notion that plagiarism was involved, and that there was some attempt to make Christianity more palatable to the pagan worshipers of the time.

He didn't have an answer right away, which I did not blame him for in the least.  He clung to the belief that, because the virgin birth, and death and resurrection were so fundamental to the validity of Christianity, it must be true.  There must be some explanation.  I told him of some of the names of the other gods that predate Christianity that share the same components of Christ, and even looked up some on my smart phone with him.  His first objection was that the Old Testament, which prophesied the coming of Christ, would have predated those other religious figures, and they would have been the impostors.  This, of course, is simply not the case, so I encouraged him to look into the matter himself, and we could talk more about it at our next visit.

I am sad to say he never came back.

This issue of story stealing extends even further, with the Great Flood, The Garden of  Eden, even the story of creation found in earlier texts than the Bible.  The stories went through some revision, and editing, but enough of the stories remained intact that any teacher would call their student out on plagiarizing another's work.

Credibility takes a hit when claims are shown to be false.  The Bible's claim to originality, and absolute morality have all been called into question.  I can no longer abide in the Bible as a source for morality, nor any of its claims.

Why Are There Still Monkeys?

A ridiculous argument, but one, admittedly, used by myself when I was a young believer: "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"  I remember the feeling of having a piece of information that seemed to slip by my teachers, and that I was happy to have it, but even happier to share it with them.  And dumbfounded when they would disagree.

To recognize a ridiculous argument, one should prepare by learning what some of them are, but more importantly, how to spot them.  An excellent resource I have leaned on in the past, and would strongly recommend to people who haven't already, is watch the YouTube video by QualiaSoup entitled, "The Burden Of Proof."  I've added the movie below.  Take a moment to watch it if you wish to see some examples of what I'm talking about in regards to logical fallacies.

There was one particular event in my life that I can recall when I did my "good son" duty, and informed my mother of the grade five lesson of the day that involved a look at Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.  Keep in mind my mother is a devout evangelical christian, so her response was that of a mother whose child was perhaps denied medical treatment for a broken arm.  She called the school immediately, and sat with me in the principal's office, visibly upset, and arguing against the merits of evolution, seeming the intellectual superior in the discussion.  It was here that I first heard the monkey question gem.  It made complete sense to a 10-year-old.  How could we possibly come from monkeys if I see them at the zoo?  Wouldn't they be humans too?  It seemed ridiculous to me at the time that something, that was against such simple logic, would be taught to students in school.  So lucky for me, and my education, that I had a mother to fight tooth and nail to protect her child.  Right?  No?

While, alone, my mother's logic (borrowed as I now know it to be), was seemingly unassailable, if I had the curiosity and drive to, I could have easily asked my teacher what he was talking about, read about the subject - researched!  But I was content with my witty argument against the notion that my species' history somehow shared the daily activities of a monkey.

When I reached high school, I had a history teacher who was teaching us about Charles Darwin, and his brilliant theory.  This, again, was divulged to my mother.  Her reaction this time was much more calm, and reserved.  Instead of lighting the torch and sharpening the pitchfork, she bought me some (christian) literature focused on the 'evolution vs. creation' debate, with a somewhat lengthy section on Darwin.  It was through this booklet that I placed into my 'quiver of refutes' another of the famous and failed arguments.  By now, I hope, most of us have heard the common argument that Charles Darwin recanted his position on natural selection on his death-bed, and the quote mine with the human eye used as an example and that evolution by natural selection would be, "absurd in the highest degree."  The proverbial 'head-shot.'  Or so I thought.

Again, had I dared to actually examine the claims made by my mother, and the source she provided me with, I would have discovered the fallacy of the argument she would have had me arm myself with.  I, instead, took it at face value and marveled at the rest of the world's level of stupidity at rejecting the evidence right in front of them.  We didn't evolve from monkeys; we share a common ancestor with the great apes, and our evolution was a slow, gradual process.  The Charles Darwin deathbed confession needs to find a deathbed of its own.

I had a relatively recent experience I would like to share that highlights another ridiculous argument some of you may be familiar with, or have had to endure yourselves.  I was invited to my sister's house for Easter this year, and when I arrived, there were tablecloths hanging from the ceiling in the dining room.  My first hunch was that the kids were involved, and I said, "oh cool, who's playing fort?  I'm in!"  She told me it was part of the Jewish Sadr (?) tradition that we would be observing this year.  Our family is not Jewish.  This was odd, I thought to myself.  Their kids all gathered around to hear about the meaning of the traditions and rituals they were being introduced to.  For example, the bits of horseradish they ate to represent the bitterness of slavery, or binding my niece's feet, and placing her under the table behind chairs to represent the death and burial of Jesus.  This, of course, the kids loved, because they got to do the binding of her feet.  The kind of fun that is rarely accompanied by parental consent.

After dinner, I had questions, as any rational person might.  Why the ritual, why now, what does it really mean, etc.  During the conversation, my oldest brother (an intellectual hero of mine) caught something I had said to my sister in response to one of her questions (I unfortunately do not recall the question, or my answer) that betrayed my position on the subject of evolution.  If you haven't guessed by now, we don't believe in evolution in my family!  So he stopped the conversation to ask me directly about my position on evolution.  My immediate reaction betrayed me, so I told the truth, and said that I subscribe to the theory of evolution.

I was alone, debating and defending, against four of my siblings, the theory of evolution.  I answered their arguments of,"you can't believe in God and in evolution," with, "tell that to the Pope," or "the Bible is very clearly against evolution," with, "don't you think it's arrogant to say your understanding of the bible is greater than the Catholic church?"  But, the silliest argument came in the form of, "if it's a fact, why is it still called a theory?"  This is the argument I spoke of.  The use of such an argument is either ignorant, or dishonest, and I'll explain why.

Let's consult a dictionary for help on this matter.  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.  Not to be confused with the common use of the word theory which would be a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.   Much of what we know about the universe and reality is under the umbrella of a theory; theory of gravity; germ theory; theory of relativity, etc.  Should we also stop teaching these in our schools?  Now that would be ridiculous.  What needs to change is the understanding of what a scientific theory means.

**UPDATE: I've removed a quote picture that appeared here because I recently found out that it was falsely attributed to Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  I bring attention to it because I value honesty.

If something fits your world view (as these ridiculous arguments might be described as doing for fundamentalist Christians), don't take it for granted, and accept it outright.  That would be intellectually lazy.  Research what you hear, or read, or any other pathway information comes to you.  Question everything (within reason - your sister telling you she ate a tuna sandwich is unlikely to be of any consequence, and doesn't require substantiation).  Can the subject matter be demonstrated?  More importantly, if you investigate something that highlights a disconnect with your current position on a subject, be bold and wise enough to change your position accordingly, and to do so again in the future if other evidence is discovered.

Obviously my tune has since changed, and I have adopted the practice of being a skeptic, and questioning everything.  Sitting here, I simply cannot pinpoint the exact time or moment things changed for me in that regard.  Realistically, I would have to say that it was a slow process.  Years, maybe.  But however I got here (or how any of us got here), the point is I am here.  Not because I have traded in one movement to blindly follow for another; that's absurd.  I'm here because I have opened my mind to the beauty and, in my opinion, necessity of critical thinking.

It is my sincere hope that the days of the ridiculous arguments that are thrown about so casually will soon come to an end.  Our generation has the most powerful information distribution apparatus at our disposal; the internet!  Use YouTube to search for informed discussions or debates by people who are not only educated and leaders in their respective fields, but who are actively shining the light on the archaic and misinformed (and dishonest, really) arguments that hold up progress in letting the correct information permeate society.

Is The Bible Moral?

I wasn't always an atheist;  I was a fundamental Christian for most of my life.  Evangelical, that is.  Basically, I believed that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit were all the same person (triune), but more importantly that the Bible, in its entirety, is the inerrant word of God, and the final authority in all matters. 

 When I was in my early twenties, I went to teach English in China for a year; in part to travel and explore the world, but also as a means to get away from the pressure from family to attend church every Sunday, and just 'breathe.'  That wasn't the cure-all for me, but it was a beginning I think.

Later I came home, reconnected with friends and family (I had a new niece that was born just before I left, so I was anxious to meet her), and quickly fell back into the church routine again (a consequence of having to live with the folks while I looked for work, not that I particularly wanted it).   I dated and married a girl who I had grown up with, and who I had kept in touch with while I was overseas, all the while going to church, getting involved in things, but still harbouring my doubts.  We started out our relationship and marriage founded in the church and religion, but slowly, over time, we went to church less and less, until not at all.

As many marriages do these days, ours eventually ended.  It was unexpected for me, so I was in a state of shock, and denial, and religion was the first place I turned to.  I eventually recognized this as indoctrination, and began to really investigate my doubts.  This led to a more in-depth look at the Bible.  This might be the most common thread people have who move away from religion;  actually reading what it is they are supposed to believe thoroughly.  There are really disturbing things in there, and I encourage anyone reading this - you may be on the same journey, or you may be looking to defend you religion - to read the passages in your holy books about subjects such as slavery, murder, incest, rape, homosexuality, etc.

I had an interesting conversation with someone the other day about the public and catholic school curriculum including the topics of homosexuality, gender identity, and so on.  This person, a christian, with three children in school, was quite upset about this subject matter being taught to their children.  Their argument was that because this subject was in direct conflict with their religion, that the education to promote tolerance violated their freedom of religion.  Further to that, teaching children about these things would lead children into thinking those "lifestyles" were acceptable, and may even adopt them themselves.

I recognize this as a specious argument.  Perhaps there would be children who would learn about this type of subject matter and realize things about themselves because those things exist in themselves, but to say that they learned about homosexuality, and because they learned about it they "decide" they might give it a shot?  There is more evidence today that our biology is the deciding factor of gender identity, and sexual orientation, be it in our genes, or brain chemistry.  The facts we DO know are that homosexuality has existed in humans in recorded history, and also in other species.  It is not uniquely a human trait.

Hatred, intolerance, or discrimination towards a person or group of people because of something as irrelevant as their sexual orientation should be a thing of our past.  Something we talk about in the sense of, "this is how our ancestors used to think; how dreary life must have been for some people, so let us strive to never return to such backward thinking."  Really, how does two strangers (to me) love ever affect me, or anyone else?  It does not.  But as soon as those two people share the same gender it is suddenly on the table for debate, scrutiny, and shame?  What SHOULD concern us, as a society, is if, in any personal relationship, both people (or their dependents) are being treated fairly and lawfully (ex. abuse).  That's it!

Now, this is where the "debate," I'll call it, turned interesting.  So far, it was about homosexuality, but the topic turned to morality in general, and I divulged to this person my problem with obtaining my sense or rules of morality from the Bible.

When asked why not, I told this person about a few of the stories in the Bible about God ordering his "children" to go into neighbouring towns occupied by people who were situated on land that God had promised to his "children," and slaughter them.  Now, this would be bad enough in and of itself, but their orders also included the slaughtering of everything that "breatheth," including women and children.  This is not to say that the killing of men is moral just for the sake of it, or for some imagined crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, that aside, the Bible is painting a picture of God's warriors entering a town they claim is theirs, and killing all of the "trespassers,"  leaving none alive, even the children and infants.

I asked this person to imagine themselves as one of those "warriors."  They have a small infant by the ankle, screaming and terrified, not even comprehending the danger it is in, what is happening, nor does it possess yet the language to plea for its own life.  I asked also that they imagine that they have a sword pressed to the belly of this infant, ready to run it through.  Now, I asked them to take me down the road to where completing this act would ever be considered moral to them.

A tough question, I know.  But one that needed to be asked, and asked of all Christians I would say.  What struck me as deplorable, resonated as sane and justified to this person when they responded, "if I was certain God commanded me to do it, then yes, I would do it."

It is this mentality right here that is, in my opinion, why religion is a danger to humanity.  You may be familiar - if this subject matter interests you as it does me - with the quote, "There are good people and there are bad people. Only religion makes good people do bad things."  This person I was debating is certainly a good person; they are honest, kind, loyal, charitable (things they would attribute as results of their religion, but i would argue they would be good absent religion), but all it took for them to place themselves in a morally repugnant situation was the aspect of their religion (a commandment from their deity).  Shocking behaviour, but surprisingly normal and rational to them.  This is a clear, and present danger.  This is the same mentality that enables a suicide bomber to enter into a crowded area with small children and babies, and still blow themselves and them up, because of the imagined command from their deity (not to mention the promise for reward).  The same  behaviour the person I was debating with would look down upon, and despise, but had failed to see in himself.