We now continue and conclude considering Dan Barker’s hypocrisy and contradictions as he seeks to condemn in others those very characteristics which he, himself, displays.
We continue considering his statements as he identifies one of the Unitarian Universalism’s (UU) primary dogmas. The previous segment ended by noting that Barker stating that the UU is “a truly creedless religion.” Yet, that they are a “creedless religion” is their dogmatic creed and you cannot be in good standing with the UU if you contradict that creed. Thus, he is utterly wrong in stating that they de-emphasized polarization, as they polarize the pseudo-creedless from the creedful. UU is like any church in that they “open the gates and let everyone in” but just as with any other church you cannot remain inside forever if you disagree with their dogmas and in doing so they most certainly “lock the doors and keep the evil ones out.”
This brought about an interesting point as the interviewer states:
Here are two questions about the controversy surrounding “the language of reverence,” which swirls within Unitarian Universalism. As you know, Rev. William Sinkford, President of the UUA, complained that the Principles and Purposes of the UUA were bereft of religious language. He then encouraged UU’s to “reclaim” that vocabulary, while mentioning his own strong belief in God.
Your organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote to Sinkford: “Your proposal flies in the face of the UUA motto to affirm ‘the inherent worth and dignity of every person’ by slamming the door in the face of some of the nation’s most thoughtful and peace-loving citizens–those who reject belief in the supernatural.”
This is why the politically correct concepts de jour about tolerance are fallacious; they amount to I will only tolerate that with which I agree. Did you catch it?
The President of the UUA—and who is he to make any recommendations to the UUA, right?—urges reclamation of “the language of reverence.” Now, to atheists such as Dan Barker, who recognize no being higher than themselves, everything is about them, every expression of religion is a personal affront, every religious display is actually aimed at them as they are meant to offend—will the day soon come when an believer gets sued because they said “God bless you” after an atheist sneezed?
Note how instantly Barker takes the issue to an extreme; urging the “the language of reverence” (note how generic and non-theistic that is) amounts to no longer affirming “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” (a dignity which Barker does not seem to recognize). But how? It is “by slamming the door in the face of some of the nation’s most thoughtful and peace-loving citizens.” But what does a generic “the language of reverence” have to do with the supernatural? As is quite apparent from his lectures and books, Barker prefers the “the language of irreverence” and I am not merely attempting to be clever; this is the very point.
Again, Barker seeks to merely turn the tables whereby he will put in place the very same standards but merely redirect them in his favor. Understand that there are UU members who do not “reject belief in the supernatural” and they feel as if they are being neglected by the loss of “the language of reverence” and they may very well state,
by neglecting “the language of reverence” you are slamming the door in the face of some of the nation’s most thoughtful and peace-loving citizens—those who reject atheism.
You see the problem? One side feels neglected and thus “the language of reverence” should be restored and the other side feels neglected and thus, “the language of reverence” should be removed. Either some perfect medium will have to be found or else both sides will have to actually practice the tolerance upon which the UU is supposed to be based.
Dan Barker stated,
The United States of America, for example, is a proudly rebellious nation. We fought a Revolutionary War kicking out the king, dictator, lord. There is value in not bowing to traditions that imply subservience to a Master–we are not slaves. Yet most religious language suggests the opposite: we must worship that which is above us and adore or obey the Father/Mother/Creator who guides our lives. [emphasis in original]
Being an atheist, Dan Barker is a self made man and the problem with a self made man is that he worships his creator. Barker states that “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” i.e., he is our authority, Barker states that you are free to choose actions “within the limits of humanistic morality” which he, himself determines for you, the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote, in In Defense of “Godlessness”,
The only “higher power” we can truly invoke lies in our own minds and our own intelligence.
Atheism is not about ridding oneself of God, it is about replacing the supernatural God with natural gods. Atheists console themselves with delusions of absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability. If God is then God surely deserves our worship and if God is not then we end up, essentially, worshipping ourselves and each other (professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues that the atheist Joseph Stalin was a theist).
God states, “You shall have no other gods before me,” atheists state, “I shall have no other gods besides me.”
Incidentally, it is commonly misconceived that the Bible contains a commandment against making images in general; it does not. It commands that no image be made of God since no image can capture that which is God. The commandment which many mistake to be against making images is misunderstood because people do not read it in context. Generally what is quoted is,
You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
Yet, this is part of a statement that represents a complete thought,
You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve (see Exodus 20:4-5, 23 & Deuteronomy 5:8-9)
Here is where the restriction lays; in how we treat them. It is not merely do not make them but do not make them to serve them. I elucidated this point and considered various images in my essay “On the Treatment of Images,” part 1, part 2. Interestingly, Philippians 3:19 refers to those, “whose god is their belly” they worship that which they most serve. Also, Luke 16:13 states, “You cannot serve God and mammon [riches, treasure, money],” you can have both but only serve one as “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.”
Dan Barker further stated:
About twelve years ago I performed a concert at a Unitarian fellowship in the midwest where the minister is an open atheist. She told me that her board had cautioned her to downplay her atheism and criticism of religion before the congregation because they need to keep people in the pews.
They had just remodeled part of the sanctuary and had a hefty mortgage to pay off and did not want to scare off any new young families who might be using Unitarianism as a transition out of a stricter more conservative religion. She felt muzzled, complaining that she thought Unitarianism was supposed to improve the world, not keep it ignorant. [emphasis in original]
We are back to pleasing one side and angering the other in a pseudo-tolerant catch 22. Note that this atheist was smart enough to become a “minister” in order to promulgate militant atheism to a congregation week after week after week. Her messages consisted of attempting to intolerantly convert the “ignorant”—those not well informed enough to be atheists—and thereby improve the world; all hail atheism!
Dan Barker retells,
Carl Sagan was once asked by a college student after a lecture: “If there is no God, then how do we find a meaning for life?” Carl looked at the student and simply said, “Do something meaningful.”
Yet, this was just begging the question. Incidentally, I argue that “If there is no God” there is purpose in the universe but not meaning. “If there is no God” can lead to absolutely anything at all; what if I find violence meaningful? What if I find slaughtering millions of people meaningful?
This was the very fallacy in Carl Sagan’s atheist propaganda disguised as “science” known as “Cosmos.” Therein he promulgates the idea that we humans live on a little pale blue dot in the backwaters of the universe, etc. therefore, we should get along. But this begs the question as it does not necessarily follow. What if I conclude that since I am a mere accidental organism on a cosmically insignificant planet in the universe’s backwater I will do whatever I please, whenever I please, as much as I please and to whomever I please?
That a man of science as brilliant as Carl Sagan was forced into such non-sequiturs by adherence to his atheism is one thing and that Dan Barker would approvingly quote such an illogical and meaningless statement is quite another. In fact, when Barker made the comment likening himself to broccoli because “nothing cares and nobody cares….No one’s gonna care” he duck-taped a statement about getting along at the end of it but it does not necessarily follow and from that premise you can justify, logically, absolutely anything at all. If I find it meaningful to beat up my neighbors pets then I have fulfilled the Saganic/Barkerian great commission.
Lastly, let us note that Barker stated:
There is no purpose of life: there is purpose in life. If there were a purpose of life, then that would cheapen life: it would make us slaves or tools of some “higher plan.” As long as there are problems to solve, facts to find, beauty to create, then there will be plenty of purpose in life.
Note that he shifted from Sagan’s “meaning” to his own “purpose” which I point out in order to note that this is very common, to obfuscate the terms, but I think that they are very different.
Herein we also got another taste of Barker’s odd sort of logic, arbitrary standards and rebellion against God. If there was a “higher plan”—read as “God”—this would make us slaves; how? I do not know. When I play softball there is a “higher plan,” the team captain’s plan, but I am not a slave because 1) I joined the team willingly, via freewill, 2) I work with a team, 3) we set out to better ourselves, tightening up our game thereby, 4) we solve problems and 5) have a blast.
Note that, of course, Barker and Sagan are pushing one of atheism’s consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless universe. Note that being part of a “higher plan” would equate slavery or make us tools, and while with God—this is bad with evolution—this is good; with Barker’s “strict determinism” whereby we lack “libertarian freewill” —it is good; with the atheist “minister” who seeks to improve the world by converting theists/deists to atheist—it is good; with the “higher” goals of the Freedom From Religion Foundation—it is good, etc.
The point is that it is Dan Barker who, for whatever reason and in whatever way, determines for himself and for you, by the way, that “there will be plenty of purpose in life” “As long as there are problems to solve, facts to find, beauty to create.” The point is not even that these are not agreeable measures of purpose but that Dan Barker invented them and now doeth bequeath them arbitrarily.
For example, perhaps a certain man takes the generic search for “purpose in life” to heart and seek to find “problems to solve”—Adolf Hitler propose his final solution to the Jewish problem. Hitler sought “facts to find”—about how they were genetically corrupt and how to do away with them. Hitler found “beauty to create” by restoring the purity and beauty of the Aryans and the German nation. This is merely a point about how such arbitrary statements can be taken in any direction whatsoever.
Let us conclude by quoting a statement which I have quoted on a number of occasions. Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, offered a very interesting and succinct observation in his post Are Atheists Evil? Bad Reasoning in Sam Harris:
Imagine a situation in which A is in a position to impose his will on B (by raping and murdering her, say) and that A will “get away with it.” (No one cares about B, they are far off in the wild, etc. We may imagine that A will die in a month from cancer.)In this situation, does A have a reason not to rape and murder B, a reason to not gratify himself? If there is no God, and no surivival [sic] of physical death, what reason could A have? Because it is wrong in the abstract for A to rape and murder? That will strike A as a joke.“You are going to oppose to my real and furious lust an abstract moral demand that hangs in the air with no way of being enforced??” This is one way to focus the question that people like Harris and Shermer apparaently [sic] don’t grasp.
Overall, it does not seem that Dan Barker nor his interviewer were able to recognize his continuous contradictions and the fact that he exhibits the very characteristic which he so condemns in others.