See the presidential debate a couple of days ago? I missed it…on purpose. I read the reviews. Many debate winners are those with the most effective debating techniques, not necessarily the best person or the one most deserving. They can be entertaining. Beyond the tactics and strategic moves, we should be looking for the truth above all other considerations. Debates should not be another source of entertainment but that’s not us. We’re all about the contests and less about the actual truths involved.

One effective, if not honest debating technique is the “Gish Gallop.” In employing this technique, a “galloper” will list in no particular order of significance a long list of bullet points: some true, some half true, and some completely wrong. The number is usually large, sometimes more than fifty. They will be delivered fast, with confidence. Every point will be delivered with the apparent authority of an expert and debates are fertile ground for successful use of the “Gish Gallop.” In an uninterrupted fifteen or twenty minutes, a “galloper” can lay down so much crap that the opposition couldn’t possibly reply to each point much less refute each one of them. The task is further complicated by the fact that the galloper sprinkles in some true information making it even more difficult the separate the points that need to be addressed without inadvertently arguing against the truthful statements. It’s a very clever technique.

It’s hard to counter the “Gish Gallop” in a debate. That is why it is so effective. In a debate, you can’t stop the “galloper” at each BS claim not like in a normal discussion where you can and should address each point as they are made especially if there are points of disagreement. It does no good to present an argument if the premises are not agreed upon. Bad premises mean a bad argument and bad arguments are a waste of time. In general, debates are a waste of time. With that attitude is it any wonder why I missed the presidential debate?

At a meeting of the Tucson Atheists a couple of days ago, someone new to the group was attempting to make a point about how the Atheist religion is no better than the fundamentalists when it comes to politics. The discussion was about whether or not there should be a political party centered about Atheism. It might have seemed rude to many but I had to interrupt the discussion to argue her first premise that Atheism is a religion. This often comes up in our discussions and it simply isn’t true. The argument from that point forward would be invalid since the starting premise was wrong. We got passed that and she started talking about the Atheist specific laws we might propose if we were in the majority. Once again I had to interrupt and ask her for an example of a law that an Atheist political party might propose. She said, “I’m speaking generally” but I asked her to be specific. I said, “What laws to you anticipate an Atheist to push through the legislature?” I was not making any points with anyone. I was now “the bad guy.” She had plenty of supporters that thought I was being rough on the “new girl.” Someone came to her aid and pitched an example. It was a “straw man” that would never be considered and the situation turned friendly again when the defender stated, “You asked for an example. You didn’t ask for a good one.” It turned out to be a fun exchange and we all left as friends but the point of the discussion is that you can’t allow faulty premises to be accepted just because they’re not challenged. The problem with a debate is that you’re not allowed to address the false premises as they are made.

In doing research for this piece I found it out that the term “Gish Gallop” was coined by Dr. Eugenie Scott the director of the National Center for Science Education. She often argues with Creationists that employ “clever” techniques to score points instead of using logic, reason, or discussions based on brilliant insight. An article about Eugenie Scott’s experience with Duane Gish can be located HERE. It recounts Dr. Scott’s first encounter with Dr. Gish.

A more complete definition for the “Gish Gallop” can be found HERE.

Here is another incredulous entry from Jim Wilson:

Americans display disinterest, distrust, or illiteracy when it comes to science. They enjoy their smart phones and the other toys and conveniences science produces, but few delve further than that. Many felt a sense of nationalistic pride with the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars in August but these moments seem all too infrequent. On a given day, there is more interest in sports or celebrities than scientific issues. Too many in this country reject scientific thinking in favor of new age superstition or ancient religious nonsense.

Today’s case in point is US House Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia; he recently told an audience at Liberty Baptist Church that:

 God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.

In other words, we have a superstitious, religious zealot in our government who rejects all scientific findings that contradict his favorite story book. The theories he rejects as being conspiracies from Satan himself are the cornerstones of our understanding of the universe. Evolutionary biology, old Earth geology, and the big bang cosmology are consistent with all existing evidence and are contradicted by none of it. The universe we live in makes no sense without these theories. Scientific literacy requires knowledge of these theories. Representative Broun rejects them in favor of willful ignorance.

Can you believe that this superstitious ignoramus is on the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology which has jurisdiction over NASA, the Department of Energy, EPA, ATSDR, NSF, FAA, NOAA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, and United States Geological Survey as well as over federally funded scientific research and development that is not military-related? He shares this position with Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, who recently made news because of his incorrect belief that pregnancies are not likely to result from rape. There is certainly disagreement, among freethinkers about what role government should have in the sciences, but nearly all will agree that if we are to have a science committee the last people on it should scientific illiterates like Broun and Akin.

There are quite a few problems with Broun’s claims that the Bible is a good source of information on how to run society or a family. It is silent on many important issues like Nuclear proliferation, space travel, vaccinations, fossil fuel usage, and television to name a few. The New Testament’s main political instruction is to be obedient to earthly authorities: The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1). The Bible’s instructions on family life are completely insane. For example, it prescribes killing rebellious young people as well as family members who suggest you join other religions. Jesus himself was surprisingly anti-family when he said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

Unfortunately, as of the time of writing Representative Broun is running unopposed. We need to free our government from the influence of superstitious crackpots and scientific illiterates who cling to Bronze Age mythology. Science has endless potential for improving our lives and our understanding of the universe we live in. We need law makers who understand this, rather than ones who want to base policy on primitive stories and outdated belief systems.

Just yesterday, I received the following letter:

Hello Mr. Lacey,

I am student at %%%%%%%%%%%% Community College and I am writing a research paper for my English Composition class. My thesis statement is; “Atheists are not welcome in today’s society”. I need to cite from an expert in the field. I would be so grateful if you could answer a few questions.

What is at the heart of anti-atheism? Fear? Distrust? Or are there other reasons?

Since organized religion has a large voice and deep pockets, what is the future for atheists?

I will also need to know your credentials and title.

Thank you for helping me in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

%%%%%%%

Dear %%%%%%%

I will gladly answer your question to the best of my ability. However, understand that you’re asking me, an Atheist, about the motivations of people who are anti-Atheist. I can speak with great authority about my motivations but I can’t know for certain what’s in the hearts and minds of what is apparently my opposition. Anything that I say about the motivation of others, friends or foes, is a guess. I have to make assumptions. All too often, ascribing motivations to others creates unnecessary conflict. Playwright James M. Barrie once said, “Never ascribe to your opponent motives meaner than your own.”

Question: What is at the heart of anti-atheism? Fear? Distrust? Or are there other reasons?

Answer: Fear and distrust might be at the heart of anti-atheism but I believe it is discomfort that makes the religious believer shun the Atheist.

Most people, me included, were introduced to religion at a very young age and grew up with the belief that God was the creator and has a personal stake in our lives. When something comes up that is seemingly unexplainable—God did it. There are many ways to maintain this comfortable belief. We can short circuit logic by employing confirmation bias. When things go right, God is responsible. When things go wrong, that’s just life or we can find a way to blame ourselves. It’s also comfortable to be with friends that share beliefs.

The mere fact that Atheists exist make some people uncomfortable. While it is uncomfortable to discard something that has been a part of our life from our earliest memories, the more powerful source of discomfort comes from cognitive dissonance—trying to hold conflicting ideas simultaneously.

Atheists remind the believer of their doubts and shake their faith. I suspect that every person that believes in a god has had doubts. It is certain that anyone believing in the literal Bible has had questions. Logic and evidence doesn’t support a literal interpretation of the Bible. In order to stitch together a religious world view, faith must be introduced. Faith according to the Bible is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11)” Without faith, belief in an invisible creator and the tales of the Bible are impossible. To the religious, everyone must have faith and it’s a virtue to believe things without evidence. That’s not true for the Atheist. The natural reaction is to shun the thing that causes the discomfort.

Question: Since organized religion has a large voice and deep pockets, what is the future for atheists?

Answer: The future for Atheists is bright and I reject your unstated premise. Atheists have a large voice, too and there are plenty of deep pockets. In the past five years, “none” is the fastest growing religious affiliation according to Pew surveys. We’re now at 19% or almost one in five and the numbers are growing. There are rich Atheists and 93% of the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences are Atheists.

As far as my qualifications, I’ve been an Atheist since the age of 15. I am the Arizona State Director of American Atheists and have been for over three years. I am also the Treasurer of the Secular Coalition for Arizona and serve on the board of directors for FreeThought Arizona, a secular Humanist group in Tucson. I’m the organizer for two Meetup.com groups—Tucson Atheists with over 500 members and Skeptics of Tucson with over 200 members. I’m also the editor of the Tucson Citizen FreeThought Arizona blog.

In this part of Dr Stephen Uhl’s story, he explains how religion can make you mentally lazy. 

 You can learn more about Dr. Uhl’s book HERE or you can find the audio version for free on iTunes or HERE.

St. Paul wrote that faith is the foundation of things hoped for, the explanation of things unseen. And the poet Robert Browning wrote “Ah, that man’s reach exceeds his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” This basic and commonly felt desire for more than man can actually achieve creates a wish-fulfilling heaven for many. On the other hand, it energizes curious, rational, scientific minds ever further in their pursuit of knowledge of the real facts of life. The former see a lot of supernatural mysteries and miracles with God solving human problems; the latter work hard building better microscopes, spectroscopes, and computers to expand human knowledge and dissolve the mysteries of ignorance.

Recall that the original sin against God in Moses’ Garden of Eden, as described in his biblical story in the Book of Genesis, was man’s desire for knowledge. Adam and Eve (more correctly, “Man and Woman” or “Male and Female”) were given totally free access to all the delights of the Garden of Eden with one very important exception: they were not allowed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Well, you probably know the rest of the story, how Satan (Snake) tempted Eve, Eve tempted Adam, and they both ate of “the Tree of Knowledge.” Having eaten of this specially forbidden tree, having committed The Original Sin, they discovered they were naked, became ashamed of their good bodies, and were kicked out of the beautiful Garden of Eden.

And what was God’s specific punishment for Adam and Eve and all their descendants for this curious seeking of knowledge? “In the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread.” Ah, ha; now man has to work in order to eat. What a shame! And the very natural and reasonable tenet that man has to work in order to eat is a hard reality for the lazy. It is surely not nearly as hard as the reality for the little fish swimming his tail off trying not to get eaten by the big fish. Did you ever wonder what that little fish’s original sin was? Why does he have to work so hard to stay alive or else suffer and die so that the big fish might live?

It is so much easier for some to “believe and be saved” from such harsh natural reality—all things are possible for him who believes; the Bible tells me so. Therefore, just believe and you’ll be saved; ask the ignorant poor in a soup line waiting for a free handout. Their faith assures them that God will provide! But some sweaty human being first has to kill an innocent turkey.

The oldest Catholic order of monks, the Benedictines, have a central tenet: Ora et labora, pray and work. When I belonged to that order of monks, yet another of the thousands of divisions within the Christian Churches, we were taught to pray as if all depended on God, but work as if all depended on us. Is that a can’t-lose or a can’t-win arrangement?

The first part of this blog was published on the 16^th, a couple of days ago. Here is the fourth part of This is a Christian Nation: What That Statement Really Means by Gregory W. Chmara.

 In part I, Gregg listed four statements:

1. “The United States was founded on Christian values and all are troubles are because we have drifted away from those.”
2.  “Christian values are founded on the rock solid principles of the Ten Commandments and they should be on display in public buildings and courts to remind us.”
3.  “All Christians believe the same things – those taught by Jesus Christ.”
4.  “I am a Christian and that settles the argument.” (Whatever the argument is.)

FOURTH STATEMENT:

“I am a Christian and that settles the argument! (Whatever the argument might be.)”

As Dana Carvey’s Church Lady might have said, “Well, isn’t that special?”

Well not really.  There are in excess of 15,000 various Christian sects for the billion professing Christians. I might add that one billion professing is a number greater than actual practicing Christians.  Each sect has its own interpretation of what Christianity is, who gains the rewards of recognizing Jesus Christ as a savior in their own special way, and what range of issues they wish to control.

A person who stops conversations with the phrase, “I’m a Christian, and Christians believe…” is avoiding any real discussion or study of a particular problem. Those problems could range from whether Mary was a virgin (totally unimportant), world hunger (important), the proper role of clergy in politics (very important), and acceptance of science and technology in solving problems of health and well being (exceptionally important). Using “my mind is made up by Christ” statement above indicates blind, willful ignorance.  It exposes the individual’s limited capacity to approach the real world in a thoughtful and understanding way.

The Amish Community openly rejects modern technology beyond that of a horse and buggy. Christians with a similar rejection of the discoveries of science should not be allowed to politically sway the rest of society. It is antithetical to everything I believe.

For example, science found that lives can be saved with blood transfusions.  However, refusal to receive whole blood is a settled issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They are doctrinally enjoined from using whole blood to save their own life.  They cite ecclesiastical and Biblical references to support their views and go as far as to maintain their own health facilities (I refuse to call them hospitals) that do not offer transfusions.  I would hate to be in an accident with blood loss and be transported to a Jehovah’s Witnesses facility emergency room. It is OK for these ultra-religious people to accept that threat into their own life, if it’s a choice freely made but to push this anti-scientific faith-only doctrine as a law on everyone, or to force the belief on any other individual, including minor children or non-believing family members, is a crime against humanity. To deny that transfusions save lives more than prayer is a form of insanity — but it is a socially acceptable insanity under the U. S. Constitution, nonetheless.

This belief is similar to the no medical doctor or medicine beliefs promulgated by Christian Scientists. They, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ was the great scientist healing with prayer, driving out spirits, demons, and defeating attitudes that caused ill health. A number of minor children with common but life threatening conditions have had to be removed from families who believed only prayer would save their disease ridden child. They imposed their irrational belief on the child often letting the child get close to death when a simple anti-biotic could quickly restore them to the state of health. (Prayer is not as effective as anti-biotics against infections.) Others have refused food to children in order to drive out demons. Recent court cases, luckily, have removed minors in danger from these fanatics and mandated life-saving treatment until the child is back to health.  Personal religious belief does not trump an individual’s right to live with the protections of our advanced secular society.

Consider the Terri Shiavo case. It is another example where the Christian dogmatic arguments conflicted with science while determining life and death. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been expended keeping Terri’s body alive by machine. Her body had shrunk and science showed that recovery was not possible. Her parents went as far as Congress to stop her legal representative (her husband) from pulling the plug. The Christians in congress aligned with the Catholic Church to make “pulling the plug” look like murder instead of recognizing very real and very unpleasant medical facts.  Being Christian, the parents fomented a religious vote seeking congress to vote for the idea you fight for life regardless of truth, pain, medical evaluation, or cost.  They tried to create a law that would make it a Christian’s (with a capitol “C”) duty to protect life at all costs and give prayer the time to work a medical miracle. The courts finally ruled that the husband had the right to withdraw the treatments that were running her vital signs by machine. As expected by Skeptics, no miracle took place and Terri Schiavo died. Prayers of all the Christians and even Congress did not save the life of her brain dead body. Quietly, an autopsy report was issued. It showed there was no possibility for recovery. Her dysfunctional brain had shrunk to a totally non-functioning organ during the months on the machines which kept her body “alive” in its vegetative state.

These are just a couple of extreme cases but they demonstrate that the ignorant, very vocal, dogmatic Christians involved were effective in using their passion and religiosity to sway public opinion and thwart the benefits of scientific advances. They used their beliefs to suggest all good Christians must morally support their radical view or lose heaven, and maybe go to jail. While Terri Schiavo’s body lived under the type of artificial stimulation that makes a dead frog’s leg jump with a shock from a battery, the legislators wearing their Christianity on their sleeves used the moral bludgeon of guilt (we are all sinners, but we can prevent this one murderous death) to force their view into a political precedent, one that could affect everyone under law in the United States, believer or not.

This is the same technique used by the Roman Catholic church in its very political alliance with Evangelicals to outlaw abortion.  Consider this, the term “abortion” (not just for birth control) covers natural functions of a women’s body and now includes psychological guilt cast on women who suffer a natural miscarriage and may seek medical aid. Consider too, that the religious articles of faith advanced by each Christian group as to when a soul enters a human embryo or fetus to make it human are very different. The Catholic Church believes the soul’s potential begins with ejaculation and even condoms are a form of “abortion.” Conjecture, evidence, and evaluation standards other than those found in the 2,000 year old philosophies of the Bible need not apply. Evangelical doctrine agrees that abortion is a sin — but not necessarily with the Catholic prohibitions on condoms.

In Arizona the legislature, controlled by Republican religious conservatives, passed a law that makes abortion illegal past 20 weeks following the last intercourse before a woman misses her period. Where is the evidence that would support this law’s assertion? By what fiat do they make rules for all women based upon little or no medical efficacy?  Now it’s up to the courts to decide if this law is another religious travesty. What happened to the previous tacit and legal agreements that a fetus must be viable before the mother’s choice is limited by state intervention?

Then there is this: In the past few years the infallible Roman Catholic Pope declared that Limbo does not exist — but did not explain what happened to all those souls of fetuses that previously allegedly resided there — or if in-vitro baptism to save them would be restored.

It was not too long ago that the Catholic Church was sure that any aborted (or miscarried) fetus’s soul went to Limbo instead of Hell. Now, everyone (infants too) who is not baptized as a Catholic ( you know those who are supposed to hell anyway) has no way station to get to Heaven except Purgatory, a  place of punishment for sin until released to heaven, after burning to perfection.

This doctrinal change is in no way is a comfort to Catholic women who lose a fetus and have tremendous hormonally caused emotional problems of loss to deal with but most Christian’s believe “God’s ways are not man’s ways” as if that was an explanation or comfort.

Previously, not too long ago in history, the Catholic church in its wisdom required in-vitro (in the womb) baptism to save an unborn child or fetus in danger of dying before emerging from the woman’s body. This applied especially in cases of then inoperable and deadly breach birth and used enema like inserts. This would assure the unborn fetus a place in heaven, even if it risked the life of the mother and/or child.

Now, add to this the consideration that the Catholic Clergy’s mind is made-up in all matters of birth control. The Roman Catholic Church equates all birth control methods, except vaginal intercourse on the rhythm method, with abortion in the weighing sins that will get you to Hell.

If you look closely  you will discover that those particularly Catholic doctrinal views have now slowly been inveigled into state and national  health bills riding alongside arguments and legislation to remove a woman’s right to choose, (abortion) under the broad-brush that Christian views do not permit birth control.  This now influences not just abortion but all pre and post coital birth control measure in use — and if and when legislated, controls everyone of every faith or non-faith.

Many Christians who may feel that abortion is morally reprehensible and distasteful are less than thrilled with this shift in the anti-abortion movement’s goals.   They believe in family planning. These Christians do not want their newly won reproductive and sexual rights to contraception and birth control that is scientifically viable, safe and healthy, should not be broad-brushed into a Christian anti-abortion issue by those Catholics.

The dogma and doctrine of these Christians and the allied Roman Catholics hierarchy openly conflict in the real world when you move beyond the issue of abortion.

Clearly, these are secular issues, at best, based upon the health of a mother and potential child, and her mate. Religious discussion of fantasized and unsubstantiated claims of when a fetus is imbued with a soul belongs in a religious frame of the specific sect’s beliefs and rules do not belong in secular law.  They should not be imposed on those who do not subscribe to them.

And without a clear understanding of responsibilities for raising a child, when a fetus becomes viable, the potential costs to society of hundreds of thousands of dollars in care for the fetus and child, and the mental and physical health of the potential mother, legislation based upon religious dogma or doctrines should not be part of our secular government.

Now turn to this. There are some who believe that the theory of evolution is wrong-headed and un-Christian. It is supposedly capable of morally turning man into no more than an animal.  They would have us use a broad-brush to think this is a widely held Christian belief.

But the Catholic Church accepts evolution and believes the evidence for it is more than substantial, at least until it comes to the infusing of the soul of man into the human body. That infusion is the work of God.  Other sects believe that evolution and godliness ran concurrently, over unknown eons,

The broad-brush of fundamentalist, literalist, and anti-evolutionary theory Christians does not admit to the fact that science is always investigating, researching, and revising, based upon the latest information and advances, even contradictory evidence.

While us  humans do not know every last step of development from single cell creature billions of years ago to humanity, we can see and prove not only the blind alleys and pathways that nature has taken to develop life and human thought and curiosity, but we can use our brains to connect the dots. We can demonstrate a solid convoluted path to thinking humans even those using religious thought and blind belief to explain the creation of the world.

This should be clear to anyone who is rational, and more importantly in the future will be able to understand all the developments in medicine, physics, germ theory, and the sciences and technologies of human life and curiosity.

Let’s turn to global warming.  Note, more than 90 per cent of every living species that has ever been on earth is now extinct.  There is a Christian belief offered and promulgated on a broad-brush basis saying that the end of the world is near.  Broad-brush Christian preachers offer the idea that an apocalypse will occur in our lifetime, so we need not worry about the rapidity with which man (as a species) has changed (some would say spoiled)  the ecology of the planet.

Is it possible they do not understand the belief that Christ predicted that ‘the apocalypse” would happen before all the original apostles left the earth 2,000 years ago?  Then consider the Christian apocalypses of 1,000 CE, and Y2K, etc.

A change must be made in this broad-brush Christian belief.  It is too often applied to keep people in ignorance of our industrial destruction of the planet and changes that must be made, no matter how unpopular and difficult those changes may be. And changes must be made if we are to offer a living planet to future generations. These Christian people have a right to their apocalyptic opinions and speech. However I also have an opinion and a few rights under law and beliefs I feel are moral.  First, remember that law can be amended to account for modernity. I believe ignorance is not a benign state or a state of grace.  I believe that deliberately blind ignorance is at least a misdemeanor if not an intellectual crime against humanity. It is an excuse for not thinking, then not acting unless directed by a “Christian leader.” By the way,  I plead guilty of  inaction for too many years.

I firmly believe those who use the four arguments quoted at the start of this article have no right to avoid evidence, they have no right to promulgate falsehood (remember thou shalt not lie — as in bear false witness, etc.).  They have no right to force their unsubstantiated doctrinal beliefs into law or public policy to govern everyone.

No, we are not a Christian nation.  We are a human nation experimenting in self government. We do not subscribe to religious blind belief and adherence to mindless dogma or doctrine handed down from an unseen, improvable, invisible beings. We realize statements of doctrine come through men, whether they claim to be prophet, priest or king. Men, especially men in ecclesiastical power, have agendas that vary from advancing the full bloom, curiosity and development of mankind. These agendas may be couched in godly phrases, but most often do not bring liberty, thoughtfulness, and progress to all humans. Rather they benefit the select few in power or who subscribe to the dogma and doctrine advanced.

In closing, let me paraphrase the old Negro College Fund public service announcement used to raise funds during and after the Jim Crow era:

“A closed mind is a terrible thing – it is a waste of human potential.”

A nation that lets itself be run by religious totalitarianism, closed minds and willful ignorance, with laws based upon lies and misinformation that has been preached and repeated from pulpits and biased, unknowledgeable, and frightened news sources,  deserves everything it gets.  And that nation will probably, in the end, lose everything it really values as it deserves.   That’s my broad-brush statement.

Jim Wilson addresses an inconsistency in dealing with the different parts of the canonical Bible:

In debates over the morality of Christianity or the character of the God of Abraham, I am always happy to bring up instances in the Bible where this God condones slavery, orders mass murder, or sets laws that are utterly immoral or nonsensical. Often these references are met with: “those passages don’t matter because they are in the Old Testament!”

It’s as if being in the Old Testament excuses the utter moral nonsense that these books contain. It’s as if Christians are convinced that the Old Testament no longer has any bearing on their theology or it’s as if they want to be able to pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament, like the Ten Commands which they think still matters while disregarding the nastier parts of those books.

First off, it is a bit arrogant of Christians to refer to this collection of Jewish scripture as “the Old Testament”. After all, the culture that produced it does not even recognize the New Testament. What’s more, Christians often play up Old Testament prohibitions against male homosexual behavior, while ignoring similar worded prohibitions against pork and shellfish consumption. Fortunately, Jews and Christians no longer follow Old Testament instructions to kill people who leave their faiths or work on “the Sabbath.”

In spite of the fact that Christians like to talk as if the Old Testament does not matter, Matthew’s Gospel has Jesus saying otherwise.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19)

That is to say, Jesus viewed the Law of the Old Testament with all it’s ridiculous and immoral aspects as binding until heaven and earth pass. I have argued in previous posts that Matthew’s Gospel was very likely produced by a Christian community that was still closely bound to the Jewish faith and went through great lengths to connect Jesus’ teachings with Jewish Scripture. Throughout Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is shown to do many things specifically so that Old Testament prophecy could be fulfilled. Matthew’s gospel largely takes Mark’s more stripped-down gospel and expands on it by adding material drawn from the Old testament. This may have been in response to the fact that Christianity was becoming less and less Jewish at the time of writing and Christians were starting to completely reject the Old Testament.

Aside from Matthew, the Pauline epistles also rely on the Old Testament for their teachings on Jesus. These letters have surprisingly little to say about Jesus’ actually biography or teachings but instead draw on the Old Testament to justify the beliefs,they express about Christianity.

With that in mind, it is hard for Christians to take the New Testament at face value while showing such a complete disregard for the teachings in the Old Testament. The desire to do this though is understandable. After all, it is awfully hard to reconcile the “love thy neighbor” teachings of the New Testament, with the kill and enslave the members of every other tribe teachings of the Old Testament.

At least one group of early Christians agreed. The Marcionites, were founded by the shipping magnate Marcion. He produced one of Christianity’s earliest cannons featuring a collection of the Pauline epistles and a version of what is now known as the Gospel of Luke. Marcion and his followers explicitly rejected the God of the Old Testament as being a monster completely inconsistent with the God who fathered Jesus. He believed the Old Testament to be true but that its creator God was not the true God but a lesser being he called the Demiurge. He interpreted Genesis as describing its God as walking in human terms and lacking universal knowledge. He declared this to be inconsistent with the heavenly father Jesus spoke of. The Demiurge was a brutal, legalistic, tribal deity, while the Heavenly father was morally superior. This of course angered the early Catholic Church which declared him a heretic.

Marcion’s desire to separate the more love and peace teachings of the New Testament with the war god of the Old Testament is understandable. Of course, there is no evidence that Jesus ever said anything to lead us to that conclusion. The differences between the testaments are due to cultural developments that happened in the 500 years between them rather than different aspects of a God’s personality. Additionally, the Christian notion of hell is far worse than anything introduced in the Old Testament. The consistent Christian should stop dismissing or disregarding the Old Testament. They should read it and be more willing to own up to some of the morally questionable teachings of their holy book.

[Editor’s note: The “New” Testament isn’t all that new, is it? Perhaps the Bible should be called the Old Testament and the “not so old” Testament.]

The first part of this blog was published on the 16^th, a couple of days ago. Here is the third part of This is a Christian Nation: What That Statement Really Means by Gregory W. Chmara.

 In part I, Gregg listed four statements:

1. “The United States was founded on Christian values and all are troubles are because we have drifted away from those.”
2.  “Christian values are founded on the rock solid principles of the Ten Commandments and they should be on display in public buildings and courts to remind us.”
3.  “All Christians believe the same things – those taught by Jesus Christ.”
4.  “I am a Christian and that settles the argument.” (Whatever the argument is.)

THIRD STATEMENT -

“All Christians believe in the same things.”

The official title of the Mormon Church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”  It includes the proclamation that its members accept and follow the perceived deity of Jesus Christ. The church also maintains that Christ allegedly visited the American Continent after his crucifixion to teach true doctrine to the righteous descendants of the tribes of Israel who then inhabited the American Continents.

Mormon doctrines in other areas agree with that of many protestant sects. In construction and management the Mormons closely follows an interpretation used by the early Roman Catholic Church in centralizing how scripture and “moral” law are to be interpreted and applied.

Yet dozens, even hundreds of Christian sects, evangelicals, main stream Protestant and Catholic declare Mormons are not Christians.

Another example:

Until the election of John F. Kennedy no Catholic “papist” could be elected to the Presidency of the U.S.A. — because they would take their orders from the Pope. And were Catholics Christian? (Never mind the Constitution’s restrictions against religious tests.)

Schisms based upon both real-world problems and imagined theological discussions over the centuries have driven wedges into Christian beliefs.

To some, Baptists will go to hell, while to others all Jehovah’s Witnesses will take up residence there after death. Catholics know they are going to have to wear asbestos underwear if they wish to visit their Protestant Christian friends in Hell after death. They contend Catholics will be saved to heaven by deathbed confession and absolution by a priest even if the sinner was a cheat, liar, thief, adulterer, fornicator, and in most cases a murderer.  Mormons believe only Mormons can get to “the highest degree of Celestial Glory,” (heaven) but you can join their church by proxy after death and get there if you work at it.  They also believe only ex-Mormons can go to hell or “outer darkness” because they have known, and then denied the truth of the LDS Church and its priesthood.

Very recently the Christian designated First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi refused to permit their pastor to marry Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson in their facility.  The reason?  The couple is African-American (Black.)  The Church governing body (local) felt that blacks should not be married in their religious facility. Why?  Well because their Christian (with a capitol “C”) facility was for marriage of whites only.

For this nation it took a major war and constitutional amendments to give blacks their full rights after the fiasco of the 3/5 of a person and no vote compromise embodied in the original Constitution. Many of the founders knew it was inhumane, immoral, and abhorrent. It eventually led to the Civil War. Then it took another 150 years of struggle and constitutional amendments, the shame of Jim Crow laws, church bombings, lynchings, voting purges, poll taxes, segregation, and massive congressional action to drop the level of racial prejudice to its still unacceptable and inhumane simmering lower level of today.

But those who believe in the inerrancy of the Ten Commandments most often refer to their scriptures as the only correct moral guides.  This, in turn gives credence to those vocal enough to use those “moral” arguments and language. They focus unknowing voters’ attention on issues that end up being used as wedges to facilitate the broad-brush insidious agendas of totalitarian control of information, thought, and liberty. Some even believe segregated church buildings are moral and correct.

To these Christian folks, unlike the Constitution, neither the Ten Commandments nor their scriptures are open to amendment.  To them, as to rebels in the south during the Civil war – owning slaves and racial inequality, was and remains in the same inerrant category and is scripturally supported. It was, and is, to them  a matter of State’s Rights being used in protecting a religious belief and opposing national unity on the value of man.

I said in an earlier part of this essay the Ten Commandments are a distillation of 613 commandments given through Moses in what is called the Old Testament. (Even though it has been revised, condensed, and manipulated many times.)  Most Christians and their sects find the specifics of those 613 laws onerous at best. They tend pick and choose which their specific doctrines and laws they will follow.  As we see in the case of the Wilsons in Mississippi, picking and choosing the way through these ancient moral codes and laws in the Bible brings Christian in conflict with Christian, and none will brook amendments to their beliefs.

Too often the fallacious claim of unity of belief of among all Christians frightens politicians into positions that do not allow for compromise or amendment if they wish to continue to serve in elected office. Promised Christian voting blocks are meaningful in winning re-election.

In past generations, the United States population dealt with major problems and programs by coming together for common secular causes like winning wars, getting out into space, creating highways, and preserving public health through regulation of food and drug supplies.  Today those secular issues are being delayed and subjugated to discussions of matters best dealt with in ecclesiastical realms and in their member’s practices or in the areas of personal belief.

The resolution of these common sectarian issues should be happily applied to believers in the believer’s organized churches. But ecclesiastical matters and decisions have no place being forced upon non-believers.  These include subjects such as divorce, abortion, death with dignity, civil union versus religious concepts of marriage, birth control, the use of Shari’ah law, teaching evolution, and/or unsupported opposing religiously based hypotheses.

The entanglement of church and state in education funding was demonstrated recently in the Louisiana Legislature when it passed a bill to fund religious schools through a tuition transfer bill.  It was a little while before it leaked out how unhappy some legislators became when they discovered that religions other than Christian (for example: Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists and Jews) could receive those funds.

So, in this way, maybe all Christians do think alike.  My late father used to put it this way:

“Hooray for me — the rest of you — go to Hell.”

Here is a blog entry by Gregory W. Chmara. It is rather long and will run over 4 days. Today’s will run by itself but the other parts may be published alongside the normal daily post.

The first part of this headline is but one, too often thoughtlessly used, broad-brush statement that whitewashes many societal flaws, reinforces misinformation and stops conversation on issues that need public airing and open dialogue between all citizens, of every faith and belief.  True believers, however, most often support this by the following four statements in various forms:

1.  “The United States was founded on Christian values and all are troubles are because we have drifted away from those.”
2.  “Christian values are founded on the rock solid principles of the Ten Commandments and they should be on display in public buildings and courts to remind us.”
3.  “All Christians believe the same things – those taught by Jesus Christ.”
4.  “I am a Christian and that settles the argument.” (Whatever the argument is.)

[Editor’s note: A discussion of the first statement will run today and the remaining three statements will be in subsequent blogs.]

Any Skeptic, Freethinker, or person well educated in historic facts subjected to these four arguments knows that he or she is facing an uphill battle against ignorance as the person speaking them tries to take the “moral high-ground.” It might actually take a miracle (if they existed) to have any truth or opinion contrary to the speaker’s opinion heard, let alone recognized, thought about, or accepted by the speaker.

The Skeptic or Freethinker realizes that he or she is listening to someone who chooses to be ignorant and has closed their minds to fact and history. The people who use this phrase usually have someone else (like a minister or church leader) make up their mind for them.  This has been accomplished by feeding the speaker information or opinions that are incomplete, wrought with emotion rather than intellect, and can be found (even out of context) in the Bible. All this usually brings political and emotional power to the purveyors of the misinformation.

Before we look at these four phrases used by members of loud, often opinionated religious groups as they blindly repeat them, let me point out that none of the phrases contain facts. They do contain unsubstantiated personal beliefs. They are aimed at stopping discussion or presentation of an opposing, orderly, well thought out process, or ideas that might contradict the hubris of the speaker’s blind religious belief.

I believe these phrases do not belong in any issue based discussion of matters that include human curiosity, hypotheses, theories, or ideas that contain facts and evidence.

Deeply Christian scientists particularly agree with this when it comes to their specific and focused areas of scientific or scholarly work that must based upon tested evidence. They sometimes do not generalize this notion into their lives outside of work. Stepping outside their specific field, without access to tested and verified evidence, their opinion is just that, an opinion and remains such until they gather and present verifiable facts and data.

Generally opinion is based upon incomplete and untested ideas that do not even rise to the level of hypothesis; which is only a preliminary projection (guess) of how things may actually work.  It is through testing and failure, retesting, and eventually proving or disproving of hypotheses, that theories are eventually developed. When theories are finally accepted as representative of truth, they still remain open to further challenge, test, development, and verification.

By the time any theory like the speed of light, the existence of germs, using anesthesia, or evolution becomes generally accepted, the limitations and applications are well known. It allows for correction, if any, and looks forward to flaws, gaps, and new evidence being discovered and the theory being corrected.

This can’t be said of Christianity. Every one of our founding fathers knew and understood that the American experiment was, and would continue to be, a process needing correction and amendment through the years.

This brings us to the first statement on our list, the proposition that the U.S.A. was founded on Christian beliefs.  It is a claim that Christians were inspired by Jesus Christ to give this nation a revolution and constitution.  Any historian, who charts the facts of the era, realizes this is an inaccurate assessment of the tenor of the times. In fact, religious contention was constantly on the founders’ minds as each of them came from different systems of religious belief.

This also reveals one of the first mistakes that modern myths do not recognize—the American Revolution went directly against the “God given Right of Kings to rule.”  Government all over the globe was by “divine right.” Very few parliaments were recognized by Christian Kings and religious subjects. Most parliaments of the time were closely controlled by nobility and other very rich and powerful men. To rebel against a king was a Christian sin, in some places rewarded with excommunication from the Christian church and expulsion or death from the state in which the rebel had membership.

During the 18th century, in which the American Revolution occurred, the most accurate historical accounts and records research finds show only 15 per cent of the Colonial population regularly attending church. Apologists for religion say that there were few church buildings and great distances to them, so each family was Christian even though not traveling to church.

They claim the main reading of the day was the Bible.  But, this ignores the fact that often it was because the Bible was the only affordable book available, with cost sometimes subsidized by various sects as a missionary tool. Does it consider that custom used the family Bible as the place to keep family birth, marriage, and death records since centralized records were often not kept except by a church?    (Think of today’s Gideon Bible in many motels, but with a family history on any blank pages.) Other books came at very high prices and were not carried for sale outside of urban areas until the mid-1800s

When we look at these traits of the 18th Century without delving into too many details, we can make a grave error in interpreting that the founders were a unified Christian body.  It also means we would have to discount the fact that the whole population of the colonies and that what was to become the United States consisted of a lot more humans than just the colonists. There were the uncounted and totally discounted Native Americans; slaves who were later counted as 3/5 of a person; indentured servants who were not counted until freed of indenture, depending upon the area in which they were located.

Here is a little known fact:  Black freemen, often former slaves, were a large contingent of the first revolutionary northern militias, but were not recognized by southerners as people.  One of George Washington’s first orders as general of the Continental army tasked with drawing together the militias from the various colonies, was to de-enlist and refuse enlistment of black people, Christian — or not.

One must also consider that in the 1700s the dozens of Christian sects were as frightened of each others’ heresies and beliefs as they were the raw challenge presented in buying and stealing land from the indigenous people.

We must remember that Roger Williams had to leave Massachusetts to form Rhode Island to gain religious freedom from the Pilgrims.  Virginia had to pass a religious freedom act to keep one Christian sect from gaining tax money to be spent in favor of any one Christian sect over another. In Virginia one doctrine would not be forced down the throat of the unfavored body by the one who had power of the purse and old law.  Maryland and the city of Baltimore were Catholic colonies that had tolerance laws.

So, which “Christian” doctrine or principle; Catholic, Unitarian, Congregational, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Ana-Baptist, Calvinist, or other, truly represented the Christian founders?  Other than the use of the name of Christ, there was no unified Christian faith.

The Christian religions did not agree then, and still do not. The questions of birth control are solid modern evidence of this.  Catholics still find all scientifically effective birth control egregious and sinful, while various thriving protestant churches and most of Judaism finds it human and healthy.

About 30 years ago, the Catholics and many Protestants found some common cause in the arguments over abortion.  With this alliance on this single issue, they all became”broad-brush” Christians in name and were hailed as speaking with a unified voice. They preempted the title Christian to lump together their one issue agreement into what looked like a singular political voting block — and moral structure. They promulgated the idea they represent a majority of people because they are Christian with a broad-brush capitol “C.”

Never mind that Catholics accept evolution and Evangelicals do not.  Do not look to the fractures of social meaning where Methodists and Episcopalians, Baptists and Mormons, Evangelicals and Catholics square off with completely contrary views on how homosexual behavior and homosexual individuals are treated.  Each claims to be a Christian (with a capitol C) spokesman for the whole, the constitution, and all the other followers of the various churches using the New Testament.

You do not have to look beyond the broad-brush used after agreement on the abortion issue between Evangelicals, some Protestant sects and Catholics to see more fractures developing.  The differences between Christians on birth control, gay marriage, divorce law, tolerance and defining who gets to go to heaven and who gets to have their ideas funded by tax money are a few. No one spokesman represents them all — particularly as a voting block. The claim that any one group has the broad brush to represent all of Christianity is an out and out lie.  But, a lie shouted loud enough may win over thoughtful truth if repeated often enough.

Do you think things have changed much since the historical animosities between sects during the Revolutionary period, or even the War Between the States?  Do these Christians speak with a unified voice now as they did then, or is that “unified voice” a myth promulgated by those who would seize power using the bible as a hammer?

My contention is that we have not drifted away from Christian principles to create problems in our democracy, but have instead drifted away from the secular principles of consideration, courtesy, compromise and fact based government to manage of our national activities.

We have drifted toward the totalitarian and dictatorial whims of the not so many, but very vocal media savvy martinets who wear their Christianity on their sleeve. They endeavor to control others who do not agree with them through political power force and shouting, not moral persuasion.  I believe the label on their sleeves says “Christian” to pull the unknowing into ignorant support of hidden agendas, support of doctrines and dogma not agreeable to many of the same people who have been lumped together, then painted with the broad-brush title “Christian.” This is designed to put the uninformed into political lockstep, and promised by these Christian leaders as unquestioning voting blocks.

Without the linchpin of the abortion issue, my opinion is that the term “Christian” would never be thought of as a broad-front political brush, and political hammer.  I equate the voices generated to the mass hysteria of the fear of Communism during the cold war, and the nascent fear of Socialism today as a harbinger of a resurgence of Communism.  It is well known the Soviets and the Chinese tried to rewrite history to favor their twisted political impositions of totalitarian control, while labeling it communism. Could this be unstated goals of certain Christians? Does historical example show us any rewriting of Christianity’s history or beliefs to support one opinion over another?

Look at the cold hard facts and terrible price paid by our founders and patriots through the years.  It is not pleasant, whenever the religious make the laws based upon their doctrines and dogma national turmoil ensues.  Just look at the Constitution and slavery.

Here is another excerpt from Dr. Stephen Uhl’s book Out of God’s Closet. It was my intention to take a commentator’s “proof of God” and discuss it here, today. However, I read the “proof” and found nothing but a string of anecdote outlining a series of happy and not so happy occurrences in the commentator’s life that she took to “prove” God’s existence. It was not proof or even credible evidence. It was interesting reading, at times, like reading the Bible. The stories were interesting if not compelling and she was not shy about exposing some sexual dalliances that she felt earned her direct punishments from The Almighty (part of her proof). You can read her “A Foolproof Test That Proves God Exists” Click HERE  .  It’s 3,392 words. I visited her website, read her “proof,” and read her rather verbose comments,  it was clear that she is thoroughly convinced but she is more into preaching than communicating. Preachers can comment here but if it is obvious that they’re not participating in the conversation and just preaching, they can’t continue to fill up the comment space and will be banned. Feel free to visit with 1prophetspeaks at her website at www.1prophetspeaks.com but she’s done here.

Since my plans fell through, I decided to use another excerpt from Out of God’s Closet. It’s on the topic that I intended to cover and follows a couple of pieces from Jim Wilson, FreeThought Bible Studies: A Job Well Done, and Evidence for God: The Argument from Cacti.

As always, f you’d like to get the book or listen to Dr. Uhl read it to you, you can do both right HERE.

Beauty and order in the universe argue for God’s existence. It is easy to say, “Look around you, Stupid Writer. See all the wonderful beauty and precision in the universe! Where did it come from?” Yes, of course, I see a lot of beauty and order in the universe much bigger than humanity. I also see a lot of ugliness and disorder or chaos much bigger than humanity. Humankind wrestled with this problem of ugliness and evil in the world long before the biblical allegory of the Book of Job.

Can man make a sunset? Of course not; but realize the most beautiful sunsets are not mysterious or divine creations but are totally natural refractions and reflections of sunlight by the various levels of pollution and moisture in the atmosphere. The human creation of the selfless smile of a caring nurse or friend helping a cancer victim outshines the most gorgeous sunset. A sunset may be ugly for the person who desperately needs more time or daylight to find his way home; an artist at leisure may see great beauty in the very same sunset. Beauty and ugliness are created in the perception of the beholder, not by some mysterious Force beyond or above nature.

Perceived mysteries, as mysteries, argue for the supernatural. Early man looked at nature and, because of his ignorance, saw all kinds of mysterious wonders. Because of his limited understanding, he could be excused for letting his mystifying world convince him of the existence of lots of superstitions, devils, and Gods. He was surely overwhelmed by his limited knowledge of his world. Like an inexperienced child, he feared the unknowns of his mysterious world that he knew so little about, unknowns that he could neither control nor understand. So when ignorant and desperate pre-scientific man felt helpless, he prayed. In a drought he prayed to his rain-God; when hungry because the hunting was bad, he prayed to his God of the hunt; when fearful or desperate, he begged for help from the God of storms, the God of war, the God of love and more. His faith was intermittently reinforced by bountiful nature, so he believed ever more strongly in his many Gods.

When the rains came late, or the hunt was so unsuccessful that the villagers were going hungry, manipulative leaders, shamans or priests easily convinced the desperate believers to make sacrifices and give generously to appease the angry Gods. Understandably the earliest belief systems of such awe-inspired folks included an abundance of superstitions. These simple folks created lots of Gods to be respected, thanked, feared and appeased. Of course, the rains eventually came, and the hunters eventually found food; this convinced the believers that their sacrifices and offerings to the Gods and their representatives were effective.

What might have developed as our cultural heritage if ancient man, with his lack of scientific knowledge of nature, had imagined himself as a very tiny part of magnificent nature, perhaps as an ant or a little bug. The ant finds a nice crumb or bit of food dropped in its way. Does the natural ant worship or thank the unknown “litterbug” for dropping the gift from above? Or does the dung beetle worship the cow that defecates so that he has a place to roll around and have a ball? Not likely. I suspect that both the ant and the dung beetle just enjoy what came their way without any evidence of a leftover obligation to the big crapper in the sky. As far as we know, these natural animals simply appreciate nature’s gifts and go on being part of nature.

Much later in human development, after appreciable philosophical development, by the time Marco Polo was traveling to China (1271), and by the time St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was writing his Summa Theologica, the majority of humankind had reached the conclusion that there must be only one God, one Highest Power in charge and that they had to worship and obey that one unknown Power.

St. Thomas Aquinas, reputedly one of the greatest philosopher-theologians of Catholic Christianity, saw the need to prove God’s existence philosophically or logically. He proposed five formal proofs of God’s existence; four of them being emotion based ad hominem arguments which I will not bother to address beyond what has already been done above. The only so-called proof that even approaches a logical proof of God’s existence is “the proof from causality”; this is the one that is still seen as an effective proof by millions. This causality proof gets a bit abstract, but because it is still accepted by serious thinkers today, it must be dealt with carefully and adequately.

 [Editor’s Note: Dr. Uhl’s argument on the invalidity of St Thomas Aquinas’ “the proof from causality” was previously covered and can be found HERE. The comments on that post have long been closed but if you have fresh comments you’d like to make that pertain to the current conversation, feel free top post them.

The more you know, the less you have to remember. When I took high school physics, I had to remember a page full of equations of motion. After I learned the Calculus, I found that I no longer had to keep the equations memorized. I could just remember the basic one and derive everything from that basic principle. This idea seems to be demonstrated over and over again in the game of Tetris. In the game, a completed row allows more room in the well. It’s a fun game and addicting. There is a related idea, though, if there is a hole in your knowledge, you’re not allowed to fill it with just anything. Gather the knowledge if you can but in any case leave it as a hole until the right knowledge is available. If you don’t know how life appeared on the planet, leave it as an unknown. It’s perfectly OK to have unknowns. Don’t stuff in an irrational, imaginary, creator from a Bronze Age mythology and then stop looking for the real answer. It doesn’t have to be about religion either. We don’t know the exact cause for autism. Unscientific “mommy sense” can’t give you the answer at least not the final answer. In the case of autism, the scientists and statisticians went back to the available data. The scientist that published the one study that indicated a connection between autism and vaccinations has been discredited for shoddy and perhaps fraudulent claims. Yet, the belief that vaccines cause autism persists despite the lack of supporting evidence and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It’s better to live with the unknown—live with the holes—truth matters.