I recently attended a funeral (not someone I knew, but I was there to support the family) followed closely by a wedding. And then, as if it was all part of some higher plan (irony intended), I find myself listening to this podcast which I downloaded a while ago, but hadn’t got around to listening to yet.

The funeral certainly reminded me of death (which, one might imagine, might be an unpleasant thing to think about), but because of my recent “brush with death”, I was able to appreciate the wedding so much more. Knowing that life will end (and will not go on forever, as many religious people might hope for) made the celebration much more special that it might have been otherwise. As Joseph Brisendine explains in the podcast – how long could you have a orgasm for before it became boring? Life is wonderful precisely because it ends.

If we were to “transcend” death, and live in a “perfect place” for eternity, nothing in this life would be special or have meaning, because we’d always be longing for this “other world”. And isn’t this exactly what religion teaches us? Religion (at least the Abrahamic ones, and probably most others) teach of an “after” life, which is supposed to be much grander and more fulfilling than this life ever can be.

It is claimed that without “God”, life cannot have purpose, but Nietzsche suggests (at least, Brisendine talking about Nietzsche) that it is only without God that this life can have any meaning.

1. Jesus was misquoted, or misconstrued
2. Jesus never actually existed

I still maintain that if Jesus did actually exist, he would be quite unhappy about how his teachings have been butchered and interpreted today. So in some sense, I still believe the first option is quite likely. I had not, however (until recently) actually seriously considered the possibility that Jesus didn’t actually exist.

The bible talks about people we know existed, right? Various Kings and so forth? So, it’s fair to assume that Jesus also existed? Given that Jesus is such a central part of the Christian mythology, Christianity would fall if it could be demonstrated that Jesus was simply a myth, right (please, correct me if I’m wrong)? Well, this might just be true!

I first came across these two YouTube videos² a while back, and it made me realise that, if true, it would be an amazing coincidence if he actually existed (of course, perhaps that was God’s plan to make Jesus even more difficult to believe, thus requiring more faith). Dionysus (one of the figures discussed in the videos) was supposedly born of a virgin, fathered by the king of heaven, turned water into wine, died and resurrected. Sound familiar? There are, apparently, many other mythical figures who have extraordinarily similar stories – all of which predate Jesus.

There seem to be many others out there who claim similar things, and while there is some criticism of some of these claims, there are, undoubtedly some parts of the Jesus story which were “borrowed” from earlier myths.

I plan to investigate this further, as I don’t believe it’s quite as clear as is suggested, but I wonder – how much of Jesus’ life has to be true for Christianity to remain?

1. I think it might have originally been by C. S. Lewis, although I could be wrong
2. Both videos are short clips from Zeitgeist – The Movie, available in its entirety via BitTorrent (legally!), streamed via Google Video, or for order on DVD

While I was watching a documentary on the history of religion recently, my sister said to me “but aren’t you an Atheist?”¹ At the time I replied, “no, I’m Agnostic”. It has made me think, however, about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.

While I generally describe myself as “agnostic”, and avoid describing myself as “atheist”, I could be viewed as both, depending on your definitions. As there seem to be many different views on what Atheism and Agnosticism entails, let me be very clear about what I take the meaning of these words to be.

Belief

Definitions for both Atheism and Agnosticism rely on the notion of “belief”, which itself can be contentious at times. For my purposes, when I say “belief”, I refer “to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true”² Belief, here, does not imply any lack of certainty – even though it might sometimes in common usage.

Atheism

Atheism, it seems, can mean many things – but broadly it seems to fit one of two definitions:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God³, or
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods⁴

The first definition is the one which I had always taken (I’ll call this “hard” Atheism), and it is why I have never described myself as an “Atheist”. To me, to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God – possibly even more so. While it may (hypothetically) be possible one day to prove that there is a God (perhaps he shows himself in some incontestable way, or we find a scientific method for exploring “heaven”) proving the universal non-existence of something is impossible (we can prove something doesn’t exist in one place – say, a box that’s empty – but proving universal non-existence is very different).

The second (“soft”) definition of Atheism, however, is one I’d not been aware of until the last year or so. It seems this definition is common among Atheists, but in my experience it is certainly not the generally understood definition of Atheism. In this definition, Atheism is not the opposite to theism or religion, but an absence of it. It is in this sense that I am an Atheist, although without qualification, I still feel the word “atheist” misrepresents my views.

Agnosticism

This is where we get to Agnosticism. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge” and as such an Agnostic holds they they have no knowledge about the existence of God. This is not necessarily a “fence sitting” position, however, as Agnosticism (like Atheism) can be viewed in two subtly different ways:

1. a religious orientation of doubt⁵, or
2. a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God⁶

Certainly using this first definition (“soft” agnosticism), one could argue that the holder of this world-view is “fence sitting” – possibly still exploring or reasoning to discover the truth, or perhaps unable or unwilling to. But again, the second definition offers an entirely different position. A “hard” agnostic does not simply doubt the existence of God (and may, in fact, have faith that there is a God) but makes the claim that it is impossible to ever know if God does or does not exist.

When I describe myself as “Agnostic”, I make the claim that it is impossible to know if any of the Gods described by traditional religions exist. I am also, however, open to the idea that perhaps “God” (if he exists) is nothing like that described by traditional religion, and therefore may one day be provable. For me, the problem with the traditional notions of God are that proponents of these Gods leave no way to ever truly prove his existence – as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy joke goes:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

The Christian God, therefore, will always be out of the reach of science because as soon as it becomes answerable by science (no matter what the outcome), God will be relegated (by some, at least) to an even further “far away place ” so as to ensure the existence of God can never be proven.

So in this sense, I am a “hard” agnostic when it comes to Gods like that of Christianity (only because no one is willing to say exactly where this God might exist) but a “soft” agnostic when it comes to other possible higher powers. Either way, the existence of any such higher power seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible).

1. I’ll ignore the obvious issue with the suggestion that Atheists aren’t allowed to have an interest in religion… for now.
2. Schwitzgebel, Eric, “Belief“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
3. WordNet Definition: Atheism
4. WordNet Definition: Atheism
5. WordNet Definition: Agnosticism
6. WordNet Definition: Agnosticism

• Letter to the Editor: Kick the Atheists out of America – “I don’t care if they have never committed a crime, atheists are the reason crime is rampant.”
• Philosophy and the proof of God’s existence by Roger Jones – A nice summary of many of the traditional “proofs” of God’s existance, including the argument from design, pascals wager, and the philosophies of Kant, Hegal and others.
• What Evolution Left Behind On Humans – “I?ve always been fascinated with human evolution. To me, the most fascinating part of human evolution is learning about what was ?left behind? on our bodies from our ancestors and from our prenatal development.”
• Wife Beating – It?s therapeutic – I’m glad someone’s cleared this up. Wife beating is not a rule, it’s just therapeutic. Oh, but there are limits!
• Pharyngula: They’re running out of virgins! – Nice tasteless video about terrorists debating how many virgins they get in paradise

It’s a long read, but it seems to sum up Christianity quite well. A small snippet to tempt you:

Socrates: If God created man’s eyes, legs and mind, he also created man’s desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?

Jesus: He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.

Socrates: Who created man’s nature?

Jesus: God.

Socrates: It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.

Link: Socrates Meets Jesus

“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism – the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”¹

Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science – no question.

That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:

For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.

Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense²

Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity – he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.

But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:

Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?³

Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.

1. Dawkins, Richard (2007) Quoted in Dawkins’ Christmas Card List by James Randerson of the Guardian
2. Dawkins Says Threats to Reality-Based Community Not Limited to Right @ Atheist Revolution
3. Dawkins Says Threats to Reality-Based Community Not Limited to Right @ Atheist Revolution

• YouTube – Red State Update: Night at the Creation Museum – Jackie and Dunlap on Kentucky’s new Creation Museum, the new Billy Graham library, and Murfreesboro’s own Bible Park. Plus, a sneak peek at the new Ben Stiller comedy “Night at the Creation Museum”.
• Question Everything… – Funny photo of graffiti on a wall
• Even Evangelical Teens Do It – How religious beliefs do, and don’t, influence sexual behavior.
• 26 Reasons What You Think is Right is Wrong – A cognitive bias is something that our minds commonly do to distort our own view of reality. Here are the 26 most studied and widely accepted cognitive biases. Just show’s how important it is to really think about things.
• With God on side – Opinion – theage.com.au – “Atheism might be all the rage, but Christianity is about more than fashion”
• Nearly 1 in 3 Believe Bible is Literal Word of God – Believe in the literal word of the Bible is strongest among those whose schooling stopped with high school and declines steadily with educational level, with only 20% of college graduates holding that view and 11% of those with an advanced degree.

1. The teachings of all religions are wrong
2. The teachings of some religions are wrong
3. The teachings of all but one religion are wrong
   or
4. All religions are right

If “all religions are wrong” (but there still is a God), then we have a serious problem. It could be that there is a correct religion, but we just don’t know what it is yet (or, we’ve long since abandoned it), or that religious teaching is inherently incapable of allowing us to reach God. If these is indeed a God (which we’ve assumed, for now) and God has provided no way of “reaching heaven”, or at least, seems uninterested in educating us. Given the vast number of religious beliefs we have, if God actually played any part in inspiring these beliefs, we’re either incapable of being inspired in this way (which would be God’s fault, if we are his creations), or God’s doing a bad job of inspiring us. A powerless or incompetent God seems worse than no god at all!

If we assume that “some religions are wrong”, and therefore some are “right”, then there must be one or more religions (the “right” ones) which are similar on some fundamental level, and it is only at this level that matters. For example, we have two “correct” religions – Religion A and Religion B.
If both state that “there is only one true God”, but Religion A says God likes to be worshipped on a Friday, but Religion B states that all worshipping should be performed on a Tuesday, then it must not matter if you worship God on a Friday or a Tuesday. If this were the case, then religions are more complicated than they need to be – to reach heaven, we don’t need to follow all the rules, only the ones that matter.

The “all but one” option is, I suppose, an extension of the previous idea. For one religion to be right, and all others wrong – there must be some point at which two religions differ on a fundamental principle. In other words, if my religious views were exactly the same as the “right” religion except for one detail, and I am “wrong”, but the other religion is “right” then that detail must be fundamental to the “correctness” of religion. This seems to be the view that many religions take – every religion but this one is wrong. Of course, given that all religions make this claim, how do we know who’s telling the truth?

Finally, if “all religions are right”, perhaps the fundamental concepts of religion which must exist before a religion can be considered “right” are so broad, that every religion agrees on the points that matter. Eating pork, getting circumcised, abortion & contraception, wearing a hijab, etc. are trivial and God doesn’t care (or, is willing to allow us to make up our own minds on these issues). This could mean that every religion simply looks at the “truth” from a different perspective adding their own “flourishes”, but each is equally correct. Or, as far as God’s concerned, all that matters is that you have religion (whatever that may mean).

This last option is also the one I find most compelling, and in my next post, I’ll attempt to justify this choice using a variation of Pascal’s Wager.

• Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? – Here’s a type of “god” I can believe in – one which has a rational scientific explaination. Not that I believe we live in a computer simulation, but it’s definitely possible, and more likely (in my mind) than what any traditional religion claims.
• A List Of Biblical Contradictions – A list of many contradictions within the bible, with specific quotes and references.
• 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American – What to say to a creationist, if you ever meet one capable of vaguely rational debate.
• Athiest’s Wager: First Post – an atheist’s response to pascal’s wager
• Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples – “Providing Powerful New Reasons from Science to Believe in Christ”, aka Creationist propaganda