Month: April 2010

It seems that recent events have taught us quite a few important lessons.

I am referring to:

The murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns by the “atheist” James von Brunn (some term his name James van Brunn).

The murder to George Tiller by the “Christian” Scott P. Roeder.

The murder of William Long by the “Muslim” Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.

And the media coverage and the internet hullabaloo including the statements of William F. Harrison.

Let us begin with the media coverage since it presented an interesting progression:
1) Scott P. Roeder murdered George Tiller and, being labeled a “Christian,” gave occasion to make reference to the American Christian Taliban, the right-wing extremists and such.

2) Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad murder Private William Long and, being labeled a “Muslim,” shifted the focus form the American Christian Taliban to focus on religion as dangerous in general. This is even though this story has been very, very downplayed both by Barack Obama’s administration and the media in general.
Still, we get to besmirch “religion”-hoorah!

3) James von Brunn murdered Stephen Tyrone Johns and, being labeled an “atheist,” lead to_
Well, certainly no disparaging remarks about atheists or atheism in the media. In fact, you may be hard pressed to hear him referred to as such.

These events brought to mind something that I have been thinking about recently and that was the 1971 AD Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford University psychological prison experiments.A prison atmosphere was set up and students played the roles of guards and prisoners. The surprising results were that since within a mere six days, including a riot on the second day, the guards had sadistically traumatized the prisoners and the experiment was terminated. The 24 middle class volunteers had been considered the most psychologically stable and healthy of the applicants.

Prof. Philip Zimbardo played the part of the superintendent and a research assistant was the warden.

Though various interpretations of the data have been proposed, one interesting aspect is that of the effects of authority: a-ethical authority (the only restraint placed on the guards what against physical abuse). Absolute freedom corrupts absolutely and it appears that anyone “atheist,” “Muslim” or “Christian” is subject to succumb.This seems to be so whether they consider themselves to have authority bequeathed by the struggle to survive as the fittest or by some god.Christianity has a basis upon which to restrain sadistic behavior.

Islam has some yet, the doctrine of abrogation may be problematic in claiming Qur’anically prescribed restraint.1

Atheism offers none whatsoever-anything goes; malevolence or benevolence are equally up for grabs.

Oh, right, I know: James von Brunn did not do what he did based on reason but was much more like a religious person and he, an atheist, was even a theist-as per Daniel Dennett’s claims that the atheist Joseph Stalin was.
Yes, the Sam Harris sect’s dogma strikes again: the one word answer to all of the world’s problems is “religion,” any atheist who commits malicious acts is excommunicated and also labeled as being too much like a religious person-nice try.

This brings us to a piece of illogic that has been floating about on the internet for some time (since 2002 AD) written a “Dr.” William F. Harrison. It has alternately been posted as “Militant Religious Fundamentalism” and “9/11, Terrorism And Militant Religious Fundamentalism” (etc.?).

“Dr.” William F. Harrison is involved in the multibillion dollar money machine as an abortion provider. Some versions of his article have his opening line as “As a physician who openly provides abortion for my patients” and some “As a Gynecologist who_” Some versions have certain details that differ from others as well. Yet, the overall point is worth considering as the article is a good study in hypocrisy.

“Dr.” William F. Harrison makes his living by murdering beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies in painful and brutal manners. Yet, like others of his “profession” and their supporters they complain about opposition. Some of these complaints are quite valid as, for example, the recent with the murder to George Tiller evidences bad theology gone worse-these issues are to be dealt with judiciously and litigiously.

“Dr.” William F. Harrison sought to point out where fundamentalism goes wrong and why it is so very dangerous. He is at least kind enough to refer to the Ku Klux Klan as being “ostensibly Christian” and goes on to write:

Militant religious fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or of some splinter sect origin, presents the greatest threat to peace and security in the world today. Fundamentalists seem to share certain widely recognized characteristics and attitudes. They are certain that they, and only they, possess “The Truth.” They all cite an external source for that “Truth”: religious dogma, the Bible or similar sacred texts, or a charismatic leader. They adhere to a good vs. evil belief system, all black or all white with no shades of gray – an “us versus them” mindset_

Fundamentalists usually express a justification for violence to oppose what they perceive as evil or to support what they “know” to be the good and true. They reject efforts to accommodate to inevitable social change and moral ambiguity_

They are authoritarian, self-righteous, and zealously oppose any critical or analytical thinking which might alter their attitudes since reasonable doubt and a healthy skepticism are among their greatest sins_

But it is only when religious fundamentalism is wedded to a militant and tyrannical agenda used by a ruthlessly ambitious political figure or party that it becomes truly dangerous to dissenting individuals and to the society within which it might flourish_

This is not an attack on religion_But if it is read as a rebuke of militant, exclusivist, hostile and violent or violence promoting religious bigots, of those who have just enough religion to kindle sectarian hatreds, but whose faith is not nearly sufficient to quicken love and respect for others simply because of their humanity, this is exactly how I meant it_

a struggle between those who promote reason, tolerance, freedom, and the basic human dignity of the individual, and religious fundamentalists who proclaim and follow lives committed to intolerance of the religious beliefs of others and a slavish devotion to a particular religious superstition_

Militant fundamentalists too often have demonstrated over hundreds of years a willingness to “kill or convert” those who subscribe to differing belief systems.

Clearly, this is one sided hypocritical malarkey. Why? Because he is doing exactly that which he besmirches.

Read it this way:

Abortionists seem to share certain widely recognized characteristics and attitudes. They are certain that they, and only they, possess “The Truth” that abortion is a virtue or as per Dan Barker, “a blessing.” They all cite an external source for that “Truth”: cultural dogma, evolutionary biology texts, or a charismatic scientist. They adhere to a good vs. evil belief system, all black or all white with no shades of gray – an “us versus them” mindset: the abortionists are right and everyone else is wrong_

Abortionists usually express a justification for the violence that they commit, for money, in support of what they “know” to be the good and true. They reject efforts to accommodate to inevitable social change, moral absolutes and the right to life_

They are authoritarian, self-righteous, and zealously oppose any critical or analytical thinking which might alter their attitudes since reasonable doubt and a healthy skepticism are among their greatest sins and would get in the way of the multibillion dollar money machine_

But it is only when abortion is wedded to a militant and tyrannical agenda used by a ruthlessly ambitious political figure or party that it becomes truly dangerous to dissenting individuals and to the society within which it might flourish. Such as the agenda of Planned Parenthood which was established upon racist premises, the agenda of turning “women’s rights” into ensuring no rights for the babies, the politics of the abortion movement or the Chinese forced abortion policy_

This is a rebuke of militant, exclusivist, hostile and violent or violence promoting abortionists bigots, of those who have just enough “pro-choice” sentiments to kindle sectarian hatreds, but whose activism is not nearly sufficient to quicken love and respect for human babies simply because of their humanity, this is exactly how I meant it_

a struggle between those who promote true reason, tolerance, freedom, and the basic human dignity, even of human babies, of the individual, and abortionist fundamentalists who proclaim and follow lives committed to actual intolerance of the pro-life beliefs of others and a slavish devotion to a particular abortionists position_

Abortionists too often have demonstrated over hundreds of years a willingness to “kill” babies for money and declare themselves saints and those who argue for life as sinners.

Obviously, pop-culture, the media and internet personalities prefer thoughtless gut reactions, easy generic targets and emotive assertions but the fact is that, there is a lot more to it than that.

Some years ago I was very troubled, yet not surprised, by two articles published by the Jewish Bulletin of North California. One article is entitled, “Messianics use survivors in latest ads, enraging Jews” (4-27-01) the other, “Meditation deepens Judaism for Makor Or participants” (6-8-01). These two articles are a perfect (perfectly sad) example of the manner in which some Jews are being encouraged to tackle issues, a manner that is being adopted by many people and thus becoming all too common in our relativistic / syncretistic society.

The first article is a disapproving report on a video entitled Survivor Stories that the organization Jews for Jesus has produced. The video features seven Jewish holocaust survivors telling their stories about how they came to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The other article praises a combination of Zen Buddhist meditation and Jewish worship.

On The One Hand:
Generally speaking, it is common to find an attitude within Judaism which states that a Jewish person (born to a Jewish mother, or properly converted) can be Jewish even without practicing Judaism. A person can be completely secular and still be Jewish. A person can be agnostic and still be Jewish. And yes, a person can be an atheist and still be Jewish. But if a Jewish person believes that Jesus is the Messiah, that person is in no way shape or form any longer Jewish. They have been trapped by a cult and out of ignorance have renounced Judaism. The two articles are a perfect example of this sort of two-sided viewpoint (these points were evidenced in my essay: Jewish and Christian? Is Messianic Judaism Possible?).

No Jew in their right mind would confront a Jewish holocaust survivor and attack them with the usual arsenal of arguments such as “You’re not a real Jew. You are ignorant of Judaism. You are betraying your people!” Forgoing the wise saying, “Don’t kill the messenger if you don’t like the message,” the article states, “Plenty in the Jewish community are fuming-not at the message but at its source: Jews for Jesus.”

Jewish holocaust survivors deserve our utmost respect and therefore, generally Jewish organizations would personally criticize them. Rather, they will state that the survivors have a right to say what they wish while the Jewish organizations have the right to censor the forum of their message. The article is also peppered with affirmations of the First Amendment, the politically correct mantra, and so Jews for Jesus is besmirched for giving the survivors the ability to have their message heard.

Holocaust survivor Marion Parkhurst who survived Bergen-Belsen1 states,

Before you dismiss my beliefs you should hear my story_My decision to embrace Jesus came only after many years of soul searching and study. All I ask is that you hear my story and those of several other remarkable Jews who have suffered greatly and now truly believe in Jesus.

My people, the Jews, are so very articulate and intelligent and have always considered illiteracy a sin, lest one not be able to study the Torah. What is extremely sad is that these same people are now being encouraged by publications such as the Jewish Bulletin to respond to extremely important issues out of pure irrational emotionalism.

The article is peppered with emotionally charged statements such as, “fuming,” “cheap shot,” “tasteless and offensive,” “a new low,” “shameful and disgusting,” “very low,” “falling prey,” “very vulnerable,” “this depressed me so much,” “Just when you think they’ve gone too far_they pull something out of their hats that’s even worse.” The few arguments that attempt to go beyond emotionalism fall far short of being reasonable.

Rabbi Doug Kahn (executive director, Jewish Community Relations Council) stated,

Logically one cannot believe that the messiah has not yet come, as traditional Jews do, and that he also has come, as Christians believe_One can be a Jew who converted to Christianity_The concern that has always existed is that [Jews for Jesus tries] to distort that fundamental impossibility that one can be both a Jew and a Christian at the same time.

This is very logical on the surface and only on the surface. It must be understood that Rabbinic Judaism means that interpretations and emphasis have a potential of changing from generation to generation as the Rabbis determine Judaism’s doctrines. Maybe we cannot logically be Christians and follow the doctrines of modern Rabbinic Judaism. But we know that the religion of God as prescribed in the Tanakh points to the Messiah Jesus.
Jews for Jesus does not distort the assumed impossibility that one can be both a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Let us consider what Jewish religious law has to say on this issue. The Encyclopedia Judaica 3:211 states,

In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains-as far as the Halakah is concerned-a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a)_For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice_in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible.

Such sentiments were evidenced in my aforementioned essay Jewish and Christian? Is Messianic Judaism Possible?

I have no problem being called a sinner by the Jewish community yet, as we saw here, Jewish religious law has no problem calling me a Jew even if individual Jews choose to act and speak against their own Jewish law which they claim to uphold and admit is still binding.

One holocaust survivor who has not accepted Jesus states,

if Jewish children who spent the war in hiding with Christian families chose to remain the religion of their rescuers, it was not for him to pass judgment. But since that was not the case for any of those in the video, he said, the tactics used by Jews for Jesus in this case were “shameful and disgusting.”

A narrow qualification for acceptability is offered and since the requirement is not met the true stories are rejected. Why is it acceptable for scared, suffering children to convert while it is not acceptable for a grown person to convert “after many years of soul searching and study.” This gentleman did pass judgment by discrediting the very life stories of seven survivors merely because they did not meet his subjective criteria for authenticity.

While the article admits, “The video is like many documentaries that feature survivors” it is considered a scandalous video because the survivors cannot be discredited. Rabbi H. David Teitelbaum (executive director, Board of Rabbis of Northern California) stated, “They have every right to publicize their organization but to use Holocaust survivors is a cheap shot.” Why then is it acceptable to use the Holocaust to publicize the Jewish spirit, survival, hope and strength? And why then is it acceptable to use the Holocaust to raise money for Jewish organizations and synagogues?

One person stated, “Religion ought to reach towards people’s hopes and aspirations, not their doubts and fears.” What could be more positive, hopeful and inspiring than the stories of people who were hunted down like animals by a cruel, well numbered, well armed predator, and yet survive and have a belief in God which is sure and firm, the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The life verse of the Jewish-Christian may just be,

you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name (Isaiah 63:16).

On The Other Hand:
The article on Zen Buddhist meditation and Judaism is the exact opposite of the one about Jews for Jesus. It tells of Makor Or, a Jewish meditation center of San Francisco’s Congregation Beth Sholom.
One of the two leaders of the center was the former abbot of the San Francisco Zen Center. The Makor Or project was funded by a grant from The Nathan Cummings Foundation which is “rooted in the Jewish tradition.”2Rabbi Alan Lew, the other leader, who had been a practitioner of Zen before he became a Rabbi states,

At Makor Or, we freely admit the meditation we learn comes from Buddhist teachings. But then, Judaism has always borrowed techniques from other cultures when it served to make Judaism more vital.

The first article employs the often-leveled charge that organization such as Jews for Jesus are “opportunists of Jewish ignorance.” We are told that Jews who do not have much knowledge of Judaism are falling prey to such evangelistic organizations. However, in the second article we find tolerance and encouragement of exploiting this very same ignorance.

The article proudly tells of the ignorance of some of the participant in this Zen / Judaism concoction. One person “drifted away from Judaism for about two decades and said that he was even more of a novice at Jewish prayer than he was at meditation.” Another person’s practice of Judaism was reduced to “I just paid the check and went to the High Holy Day services.” Others “have prior experience with Zen meditation.” One proudly states, “I’m passionately indifferent to the question of what precedent there is in Judaism for meditation.”

Are these people seen as manipulated victims of a cult? By no means. This is because the article claims that the Zen Buddhist meditation is a facilitator of a deeper Jewish worship and a sense of community.

Buddhism is a Gentile-Pagan, and for all practical purposes, atheistic religion. Zen meditation is not the meditation on the Word of God of which the Scriptures do speak. Rather, it is a way in which a person can work herself into an altered state of consciousness. It is a way in which to harmonize one’s karma. Karma is a works based concept of “salvation” that involves believing that the universe is an illusion and the belief in reincarnation into human, animal, mineral or ghostly lives in the next world (conceptual variations exist under the umbrella term “reincarnation”). These are the very things that God prohibited and exposed as false over and over in His Word.

Messianic Jews are Jewish people who believe that the Jewish Messiah has come in the person of the Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth as predicted in the Jewish Scripture. We know with all of our hearts, minds and strength that we are worshipping, living and dying for the one and only God, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have not converted to a gentile-pagan religion rather, we know that we are living the life of a Jew as it is laid out under the New Covenant just as the life of a Jew, before Jesus, was laid out under the Old Covenant-the Tanakh. May God speedily bless my people with the knowledge of the truth.

These issues are far too important to be handled in an emotional manner. Instead, we are to have intelligent opinions and arguments. We are not to let our prejudices cloud the facts nor our ability to reason.

Susan Perlman, executive director of the Survivor Stories video states,

These stories of Holocaust survivors who have come to believe in Jesus is a story that must be told.

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORDIsaiah 1:18

In my essay To Lie, or Not To Lie: That is the Question I pointed out that three atheists – Dan Barker, Matthew Davis and Reginald Finley – have, in lockstep, promulgated the same logical fallacy, one that originated with Dan Barker. In the writings of Sam Harris we find that he too offers support for another logical fallacy, one originating with Bertrand Russell.

Sam Harris writes that Bertrand Russell:

“had it right when he made the following observation: ‘The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.
No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals_'”1

If this is what Bertrand Russell got right one would be frightened to death to see where he went wrong. If this is what Sam Harris considers right we can only mourn for him as it is sadly obvious that his is a mind so tragically flummoxed by enmity that he has lost the ability of basic rational thought processes.
What Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris presented was nothing but cynicism attempting to pretend that it is somewhere near the realm of rational, intellect and logic. But let us not fall into the same emotionally charged traps that serve as replacements for logic that Sam Harris and the other New Atheists are constantly laying out for us. Rather, let us see if we can muster some intellect and at least attempt a response.

Here we go.

But first, we have been forewarned: Bertrand Russell, with Sam Harris’ endorsement, has assured us that “No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action.”Firstly, let us note the extremism and absolutism of the statement: not one single orthodox Christian can find any, not one single, logical reason-period.

Secondly, we should ask just how Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris can make such absolutists statements since if there was one single orthodox Christian who finds any, even one, logical reason they would be proved wrong.

Well, I will declare that I am an orthodox Christian. Now, with all due respect to those more learned than myself – of which the world is saturated – I wish to throw my hat into the ring and see if I, employing all of my scant intellectual faculties, can come up with one, just one, logical reason.

Here we go.

Actually, before we jump into the fray we should wonder if a trap is being set here. Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris point the statement at orthodox Christians. But could it be that if an orthodox Christian quotes the Bible they would be said to be providing an illogical reason? What would be categorized as a logical reason?
In fact, while the claim is that no orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning it is admitted that all nowadays do so. Now we learn, as if we did not know, that all Christians nowadays condemn the actions. Is the claim that they are doing so illogically? Have Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris conducted some great survey of “all” Christians and ascertained, on a case by case basis, that each and every one of their reasons are illogical?

I suppose that we could make our attempt and see where it takes us.

Here we go.

“Don’t murder.”

There it is. We are done.

That is our logical reason for condemnation and it took all of two words. Although, in most translation of the Bible this, one of the Ten Commandments, is rendered as four words “Thou shalt not murder.”

For all practical purposes, we are done; having provided a two word counterargument. Yet, anyone that would put forth, defend and promulgate such a fallacious statement as Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris did may not be able to conceptualize such basic logic.

“Murder” is the taking of an innocent life-it is illegal and immoral while “killing” is the taking of a life due to self-defense, fighting a just war, etc.-it is legal and moral. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably the context will bare out what the terms mean. Since we are commanded not to murder, those children should not have been murdered-that was a manmade, not a divine, command.

If the point was to get people who are heaven bound to heaven asap then maybe a global taskforce could be established the purpose of which would be to ask people if they believe that they are heaven bound. If the answer is “Yes” then their brains could be dashed out on the spot. Why not save some resources?

It should be mentioned that based on the Bible itself and not on subsequent tradition; infant baptism is not a valid practice. While much could be stated with regards to this topic this essay is not the place for it. Succinctly, I will mention that once a study has been conducted of all the texts that mention baptism not only is an infant never baptized but baptism always requires the ability to hear the Gospel, understand it, accept it and only then get baptized. Once such a survey has been conducted it seems that Acts 18:8 encapsulates the whole of references to baptism, “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” They heard, they believed and then they were baptized.

It should also be mentioned that based on the Bible itself and not on subsequent tradition; baptism is not for the purposes of salvation. Again, much could be stated in this regard but again, this essay is not the place for it. Let us note that the text that does refer both to baptism and salvation is, in fact, not correlating them:

“There is also an antitype which now saves us, baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1st Peter 3:21).

Note that baptism is not here defined as the physical act of getting one’s body wet but as the conscience decision that is being made.

Now that I think about, with my limited abilities, I seem to recall that Jesus’ great commission was stated thusly:

“Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:19-20).

The great commission states that they, let us call them missionaries, are to teach, baptize and teach. First, teach the Gospel, the initial message, baptize them when they have heard it, understood it and accepted it. Then baptize them and then teach them about the life of a believer. Not baptize and dash their brains out. In fact, you cannot teach, baptize and teach again to an infant. You may get them wet, if you want to call that baptism. But you cannot teach and teach.

Moreover, what appears to be Jesus’ opinion regarding children and their care? Jesus stated:

“And whoever shall receive one such little child in My name receives Me. But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass’s millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:5-6 also in Mark 9:41-42 & Luke 17:1-2).

“Then little children were brought to Him, that He should put His hands on them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Allow the little children to come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:14 also in Mark 10:14 & Luke 18:16).

We must also ask whether Jesus, the apostles or the disciple did any such thing or taught that any such thing should be done. The answer is; absolutely not.

We may have happened upon another thought: since God has given us life, this life in the here and now world, we are to live that life and let others live it themselves.

Let us conceptualize a school that guarantees that any child that enrolls will end up attending college. Now let us imagine that the children file into class on the first day of their kindergarten class and the teacher states, “You are all guaranteed college attendance therefore, you will immediately be shuttled from kindergarten to the local university.”

It would be interesting to state Bertrand Russell’s statement in the following manner:

“The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven. No atheist can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so (except when they support abortion).”

I should admit that I have not conducted a great survey and yet I have an advantage in make a statement that is as broad brushed as Bertrand Russell’s. Christianity consists of absolute morals but atheism is amoral. Note that I am not stating that it is immoral but amoral-not necessary breaking morals but lacking them. Individual atheists may take it upon themselves to condemn such actions but they cannot offer any absolute standards for doing so (they can make epistemic statements but not ontological). They may say that we ought to harm none or cause the least amount of harm or various other generalities yet they cannot claim that these are universal or absolute.

What should be asked of atheists is, “If it is in fact true that infants were baptized and immediately murdered, why is that wrong?” If you they claim that it is wrong then they must be basing their condemnation upon a moral law in which case there must be a moral law author and administrator. If not it is merely keep up with Judeo-Christian morality based semantics.

If this seems to be merely a biased argument let us consult with Sam Harris himself who believes that:

“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”2

Moreover, we may consult with Prof. Richard Dawkins who made the following statement:

“There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. Now, if you then ask me where I get my ‘ought’ statements from, that’s a more difficult question. Firstly, I don’t feel so strongly about them. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don’t find that nearly such a defensible statement as ‘I am a distant cousin of an orangutan’. The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it’s true, I can bore you to death telling you why it’s true. It’s definitely true. The statement ‘killing people is wrong’, to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances.”3

“[Nick Pollard:] Suppose some lads break into an old man’s house and kill him. Suppose they say: ‘Well, we accept the evolutionist worldview. He was old and sick, and he didn’t contribute anything to society.’ How would you show them that what they had done was wrong?
[Prof. Richard Dawkins:] If somebody used my views to justify a completely self – centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did – I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. I think it would be more: ‘This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I’m going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.’ I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, ‘Well, in this society you can’t get away with it’ and call the police. I realise this is very weak, and I’ve said I don’t feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind. But I still think it’s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.”4

“I don’t think racism is a good thing. I think it’s a very bad thing. That is my moral position. I don’t see any justification in evolution either for or against racism. The study of evolution is not in the business of providing justifications for anything.”5

Thus, there is no biological, Darwinian evolutionary, nor intellectual grounds for condemning racism nor killing (here obviously “murder”). Yet, this does not stop Prof. Richard Dawkins, nor Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell for that matter, from breathing down brimstone and condemnation.

Simply stated, our lives have been established to follow a chronological progression. This is the natural and normal state of being.

Ever the fan of emotive assertions, Dan Barker struck again during his Feb. 12th debate with Kyle Butt (reviewed here):

A threat of violence, which is what Hell is; it’s a threat of eternal torture, any system of thought that has that thought in it, that scares the minds of children, who go to bed at night wondering if they’re gonna go to Hell, it is a morally bankrupt system.1

I do not know whether to think that Dan Barker is one of the most misinformed celebrity atheists when it comes to the Bible’s contents, if he knows better but manipulates it the most, or some combination of these and other factors. Fortunately, it is not my task to discern his thoughts or motivation but it is my task to consider his statements and parse the truth from fallacy. I have decided to combine a response to the above quote with a response to similar statements made by Prof. Richard Dawkins.

Let us make one thing clear: the Greek word odunao is translated both as torment and torture. Torture denotes the infliction of physical pain, while torment denotes mental anguish. Thus, let us be absolutely clear in understanding that nowhere in the whole Bible is it even hinted at that hell is to be pictured as a Gulag’s torture chamber. Neither is it even hinted at that there will be people, or demons, whose job is to inflict physical pain. Neither is satan ever pictured as some sort of king of hell. Rather, he is pictured as one who suffers like the rest, and indeed more so, for it was for him and the fallen angels for whom hell was created (Matthew 25:41). Dan Barker appears glean his understanding of hell from creepy medieval paintings or fallacious fire and brimstone preachers and not from the Bible.

One example of the concept of hell ought suffice:
From the safety and comfort of countries whose societies are based on Christian principles Richard Dawkins made the following narrowly prejudicial statement,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.2

Now, let us imagine that after dying Richard Dawkins finds out that this God is the one true God. Richard Dawkins has spent a lifetime expressing his hatred of this God. Thus, if God where to force Richard Dawkins into heaven this would be hell for him as he would have to spend eternity with a being whom he finds repulsive in virtually every imaginable way. Thus, God has created a place to which people can go, if he so choose, in order to be done with Him forever.

Richard Dawkins has made the point that religion’s real child abuse is its theology. He mentions that a particular woman was fondled by her parish priest and felt that it was “yuchy.” Yet, what really tormented her was the doctrine of hell which tormented “many a night.” Richard Dawkins tells that he, as a young Anglican, was “fondled by the Latin master” which he found to be a “disagreeable sensation…a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion.” He states that “As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile.” Moreover, he states, “I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power.”

He also makes various odd statements regarding power abusing pedophiles such as:

But reports of child abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent buggery…just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn’t mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like ‘predatory monster’ are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups.

Perhaps the Freudians of olden days would be better suited to comment on Richard Dawkins’ odd statements regarding pedophilia. What we are interested in addressing here is his virtual dismissal of sexual abuse and aggrandizement of doctrinal abuse as he states:

An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them.

Do take a moment to note that according to atheism death is the great salvation from all of life’s wows. Death is the driving force behind all of life’s advancements, it is the god of Darwinian-Dawkinsian evolution. As Richard Dawkins has stated, “In nature, the usual selecting agent is direct, stark and simple. It is the grim reaper.”3

Certainly some have taken the doctrine of hell far and away from the Bible and have accentuated particular aspects of the symbolic language that is used to describe it such as “fire” and “torture.” I have written on various misconceptions of hell in my essay On Hell and Why Would Your Lord Send You To Hell? and, for that matter, with regards to fallacious and dangerous celibacy in The Celibate Priesthood – God’s Will and Human Nature.
Thus, to the point, as Richard Dawkins states it:

Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds?…The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse.

At this point we ought to note that according to Dawkinsian style logic, evils done in the name of “religion” (whatever “religion” may mean) discredit religion but good done in its name do not accredit it. The Dawkinsian tactic, and that of many others such as Sam Harris, is to claim that evil done in the name of religion discredits the religion. Thus, they tirelessly point out these evils. How they determine what is “evil” is another matter entirely. Upon it being pointed out that they are only looking at one side of the issue by not mentioning the enumerable acts of charity done in the name of religion they simply retort with words to the effect of, “Good people would have done that anyway but religion is what causes good people to do evil” (whatever “good” and “evil” may be). Thus, their comments are logically fallacious on many levels.

Now, getting to the main point which is that torment of the mental/psychological nature are not unique to religious upbringing. This mere fact discredits Dan Barker’s and Prof. Richard Dawkins’ assertion that a religion that preaches hell is therefore discredited.
Presuppositionally, I would state that the doctrine of hell is about as abusive as a doctor telling you that you have a terminal disease that will eat away at your body for decades on end and cause chronic and intolerable pain-unless, that is, you simply take a medicine that is guaranteed to cure you. Bother Dan Barker and Richard Dawkins do make some valid points and preachers of hell ought to handle the subject with accuracy and love and we should certainly empathize with those who have been needlessly tormented.

I wish to end this essay by what prompted me to write it in the first place and that is by sharing an anecdote. I must admit that I too have similar experiences of being raise in sheer terror. I was raised in a 100% secular household by an atheist and an agnostic and I believed that when I died I would simply disappear, just altogether cease to be. This though was so terrifying that from my earliest childhood memory I recall crying to myself in utter despair.

This belief also made me horribly sad when, for example, my mother had to do something as menial as going to the market, what if she died before getting back home? I wanted my mommy.

It was horrific I assure you and, by the way, my older brother, in typical older brother style, played upon my fears and tormented me by doing things such as looking out of the window and saying things like, “Look! Mom is laying dead on the sidewalk!” I became so afraid of the dark that I used to tie a string around the light switch, then get in bed under my covers and finally pull the string in order to switch the lights off. I recall that when I was 18 years old I was at work and had to run into the bathroom to lock myself in the toilet stall because I was so consumed with despair. Imagine, a man crying to himself like a little child.

This is just my sad story of being mentally abused and psychologically scarred by being raised a secular environment.

Ultimately, I suppose that the argument from terror fails since it can be applied to theism and atheist as I can, sadly, attest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Incidentally, in case you are unempathetic and unsympathetic enough to attempt to turn this true story against be, as a theist, and make some sort of claim about my becoming a theist due to fear of death or some such thing allow me to note that I ended up becoming 100% comfortable with death and not in the least bit afraid of it long before I came to believe what I now believe.
I did, by the way, come literally within six inches of being decapitated once-but that is another story.