Relative Morality, What god Should Have Done, and Historical Context

When pointing out immorality in the Bible, often the rejoinder is that we have to consider the historical context and the time the book was written. Atheists are often accused of being shallow thinkers who haven't considered all the nuance of the historical period in which the book was written. Unfortunately for the Xian, this criticism falls flat on its face when examined.

For example, let's examine the Biblical treatment of women. Women are treated as property in the Bible. We might be tempted to simply shake our heads and say, "Well, that's just how it was back then," but it's not so simple. One of the Xian tenets is that absolute morality exists and is displayed by god (god being perfectly moral and all that). Yet, this defense relies on an appeal to relative morality. This is a big no-no for the Xian, as it directly contradicts the idea of an absolute morality.

To expand on that idea, the Xian is in effect saying either that the treatment of women back in Biblical days was indeed moral, that it was moral at the time but isn't now, or that it was never moral. The first in the list leads to the absurd conclusion that treating women as property is indeed a moral thing to do. I'm not going to waste much space on that idea.

The second leads to the destruction of the idea of absolute morality. If morality changes (treating women like property was good then and now is not) then it is not absolute.

The third leads to the idea that god did not display perfect morality because he instructed, in his holy book, immoral attitudes and behavior. Instead of telling the Israelis that their attitudes and culture were immoral, he sets up rules that enforce and propagate that immorality, which is, in itself, an immoral action.

To anticipate one objection to this, the Xian may claim that god knew the Israelis would not follow certain moral strictures, so he did not promote them. But, this too fails for a couple reasons. The first is that it would still be moral for god to outline his perfectly moral behavior and not simply concede that "Boys will be boys." The second reason is that the story of the OT is one long story of the Israelis rebelling against god's wishes, yet that didn't stop him from putting forth rules that he knew they wouldn't follow in those areas.

In the end, the appeal to relative morality or the culture of the times is a bad appeal and should not be taken with any weight. Instead, we should push to find out why a supposedly perfectly moral god would include immoral instructions in his holy guide to life.

Howard Unruh - Murderer and Xian

Last week, Howard Unruh died at the ripe old age of 88 after 60 years of incarceration. For those who don't know who Mr. Unruh was, he went on a shooting spree in 1949 that killed 13 people in Camden, NJ. He had been in WWII and then came home to live with his mother. He often went with her to St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church and frequently read his Bible according to people who knew him. Apparently, he made a list of people he wanted to target, people that he felt were persecuting and belittling him, "that they were thinking of him as a homosexual." After the shootings, a search of his room turned up "700 cartridges, a book called the Shooter's Bible (he had used the building's basement for target practice) and a New Testament." [emphasis mine]

Yup, you can't be moral without god.

(note: All quotes taken from The Globe and Mail obituary report of Oct. 21.)

Truth vs. Safety?

The Bible is not a nice book. Beyond all the atrocities of the old testament (rape, slavery, genocide, misogyny, war, murder, animal sacrifice) the new testament is supposedly better. Yet, what we find is not much in the way of condoning the old testament and the addition of hell, the idea that we are all deserving of infinite torture, and human/god sacrifice.

Yet, most modern Xians today will say that the Bible is a wonderful book, filled with peace and love and all kinds of great moral lessons. I can only surmise that they are selectively reading both in which passages they read and how they interpret them (as there's no good way to spin genocide and those other things listed above). So, we are left with a serious disconnect between what people believe their holy book is about and what it's really about.

Well, maybe I've got it all wrong, right? Maybe it's all about peace and love and all that. Surely Xians have been peaceful and loving due to their Bible for the last 2000 years, right? Well, no, that's not right. It's only recently that this idea of the Bible as being a book about peace and love has been in fashion. Certainly early Xians didn't think this way, nor did Xians who participated in such things as the Crusades, Witch trials, the Inquisition, or even those Xians who participate in today's organizations like the KKK or any other white power movement. For them, the Bible could only be said to be about peace and love once you're done eradicating all non-Xians.

Still, many Xians do hold this new view of a more peaceful scripture and presumably a subset of them will act more peacefully due to it. We've seen what rampant hate among a Xian majority can wreak in terms of havoc, and while we still see problems from the Xian majority trying to unduly influence others, this idea of a peaceful Xianity seems to have a dampening effect. So, my question is, should we embrace this and push more Xians to act in accordance with peace, or should we lay out the evil that is contained within the Bible and proclaim the truth?

I can see benefits to both sides. As I talked about above, a more secure lifestyle for non-Xians is a desired goal, and if Xians think that their religion should allow for this, it would be beneficial to us not to stop them. Of course, the downside is that the irrationality of the belief system will be seen as even more acceptable and more congruent with morality, which would be a serious drawback for actual morality.

On the flip side of things, truth is its own reward. We should be truthful and honest, and help Xians see how vile and evil their beliefs/scriptures really are. Yes, if some Xians succumb to that and actually become more vile and evil, it will be detrimental, but I happen to believe that other Xians may wake up and see their religion for what it is. They may throw off the shackles of irrational and outdated thoughts and help us to drag ourselves out of immorality and irrationality.

Not a Xian Nation

In today's United States, it seems that politicians are falling all over themselves to out god everyone else in order to remain elected...since this is a Xian nation and all, right? Well, all one has to do to put that misperception to rest is to look at the historical documents of this nation, like the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Happy 4th of July everyone.

Heaven-O?

Recently, PZ Myers linked to an article about a Texas town that had adopted "Heaveno" as a substitute greeting for "Hello." I don't think he realized that the article was from 1997.

But, I got to wondering whatever happened to that. So, I did some digging.

First, I found an informative website that shows (besides the cheesy graphics) the background behind the greeting (gets it wrong), the resolution that was adopted, a proclamation to the guy who started the whole idea there, and the proposal that started it all. Still, there was nothing in there about what happened after the adoption of "Heaveno." I had to make some calls.

A call to the mayor's office went unanswered. When I got through to the County Clerk's office, the woman I spoke to stated that no one actually says it. A call to the County Parks and Recreation department was met with the same information. I next called the library, thinking that they might be able to shed some light, and I spoke to a nice man who told me that it was no more than a passing fad. At the time, some people did say it, but not for very long, and it never really caught on. Now, he informed me, no one says it.

(As a humorous aside, I said, "I suppose old habits die hard." His reply was that they don't like change down in Texas.)

The nice man at the library suggested I call the Kingsville, TX Chamber of Commerce. So, I did. Alas, there was no additional information to be found there. I think I have to conclude that "Heaveno" really was just a fad, and the citizens rightly have thrown it onto the dustbin of bad ideas.

I do want to state that everyone I talked to was very nice, very helpful, and very open and willing to speak to me. They sound like wonderful people down there and I'm glad that they don't say "Heaveno."

Is it Laziness or Lies?

Try something for me. Visit a Xian blog and ask for evidence that Jesus existed that is contemporary to his life. You won't get it, but you will get a whole bunch of references to the gospels being eye witness testimonies, references to Josephus, etc. It seems that most Xians you find are blissfully unaware of the problems that abound with these sources (i.e. that the gospels were written well after the fact and not by eye witnesses, or that the writings of Josephus were later fabrications by Xians desperate to support their mythology).

This bothers me. Why is it that Xians can't be bothered to find out the facts?

Well, as it turns out, not all Xians are too lazy to look things up. Some are, and they rightly deserve to be called out on it, but some actually do look these things up. The problem is that the experts of the religion (popular apologists like Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig) uncritically assert this baloney and dupe innocent others into unwillingly passing on falsehoods. Now, either these Xian "scholars" are themselves duped or they are intentionally passing on lies.

Maybe they are themselves duped. This has become a cottage industry, the passing on of Xian lore, the upkeep of the religion. The old "scholarship" of Xian "scholars" that declared these things doesn't get purged because people simply want it to be true. So, even the modern "scholars" have been duped and brought in, and they can't be bothered to look outside of their own interests to find out what the reality is.

Or, maybe they simply like their position of power or their ability to sell books to an ever-eager audience that so desperately wants Xianity to be true and to be historically supported. There's lots of reasons why they would intentionally seek to mislead the masses.

That the options come down to deceit or simply incompetence or laziness does not speak well of the Xian "scholarly" community.

Like a Brick Through a Window

If any of you reading this are familiar with previous commenters on this blog, you may remember someone by the name of "Bud," who has commented here in the past. Bud recently left a new comment after a long lay-off on my god vs. the Unicorns post. It wasn't extremely long, but as with many creationist comments, it is like a brick through a window in that it creates a huge mess and take a lot more words to clean up all the misperceptions and errors in it. So, I've taken the liberty of making a post out of a point by point response to Bud's brick through the window. It's not anything we haven't all seen before, and warning it's long.

you ask for some evidence of God and His creation, well i would like to examine the evidence for evolution first, if that is ok.

I suppose so, but I hope you aren't going to make a god of the gaps argument...

now we have to consider that there is only 2 possible explanations for the existence of the universe:

it created itself
it was created.

Why do I have to consider that, considering that it's a false dichotomy? There are other options out there, including that this universe is an off-shoot of another universe (many worlds hypothesis) that arose from purely natural means (natural to the other universe and maybe ours), that the universe was always there but that we didn't have a representation for time (remember, the laws of physics break down at the singularity), etc. So, I'm sorry, but your assertion doesn't hold weight, and this has nothing to do with evolution.

scientists, like richard dawkins, admit at one time there was nothing.

There is not a single cosmological model of the origin of the universe that starts with "nothing." Please get your facts straight.

for just one protein to be created (assuming there is something to create it from, since the odds are approximately 1 x 10 to the 40,000th power against it. ( btw 1 x 10 to the 50th power is the longest odds ever observed.)

Yeah, those are long odds, and not at all a realistic interpretation of the latest scientific findings. This is a common error among creationists, however. The odds you cite are estimated, ballpark odds for an event that no one is claiming happened, namely the formation of complex molecules ex nihilo. In reality, what happened was the formation of easier molecules (we happen to know that amino acids can and do self-assemble from the Miller/Urey experiments and the subsequent experiments done based on the original) and that these building blocks then formed into proteins and cells. So, yeah, the odds of a cell simply spontaneously forming from nothing are pretty astronomical, but no one actually posits that that is what happened. Oh, and this still isn't evolution you're talking about.

every cellular mutation causes a loss of information stored in the DNA.

This is trivially false. For example, suppose a point mutation causes a T to change to a G in the genetic code. Would you say that's a loss of information? Now suppose that the G mutates back to a T. Is that a further loss in the information? Yet, this is what you are arguing. It's nonsense. Not only that, but you are relying on conflating definitions of "information." Please also see here:

Mutations and Information

skipping millions of necessary and impossible mutations, we come to humans.

So, you are finally going to talk about evolution?

the eyes alone would have taken over 250 million years to form, according to scientists.

This is actually false, as new studies have shown that eyes have evolved multiple times in shorter timeframes, but even if it were, so what? Life has been around for 4.5 bn years, give or take.

not to mention the nose, legs, arms, mind, and reproductive organs.

I fail to see what your point is. Evolution is a process that has been ongoing for billions of years, thus giving ample time for all the emergent features we see today to have evolved. Are you perhaps arguing that it took X number of years for one feature and Y for another, and so on, and that if you add up all those numbers it is an obscenely large number? This would not make sense, however, as all features are all evolving at the same time.

here is another problem, how did this undirected mutation get the direction to create the extremely complex reproductive system of both genders without guidance?

"Guidance" comes from natural selection. When undirected mutations occur, those that are beneficial are selected and outpace those that are not. This is elementary. Also, sexual selection has been around for a long time. And, it's obvious why it would be a good idea. There much bacteria in your body that can lead to illness and death that you constantly have to fight off. Given a set of genes from 2 parents, the bacteria that they pass you are not accustomed to your genetic makeup and give you a head start in the arms race that is taking place inside your body.

the "self creation" theory is proven by scientists who understand the laws of science, to be impossible.

I would say that your strawman version of what you think scientists say is pretty far fetched.

this takes more faith to believe than i am capable of, so i will stick to the belief that there must be a creator.

I'm so disappointed since you went the route of god of the gaps after all. You didn't present any positive evidence for your god, you simply asserted that evolution couldn't a done it, so god musta done it. This may have worked had you accurately presented a true dichotomy, but you didn't. In fact, you made quite a few false dichotomies in there that I simply haven't pointed out, like the implicit assertion that it's either evolution or god.

note: the idea of the universe being eternal is discounted because it would require no molecular movement, creating a virtual heat death.

Note: the laws of physics break down at the singularity level so we can't really say what was there "before" time, which is a bit meaningless anyway, since "before" time can't be measured by any means that we currently have.

please note that i may a little flippant, but, out of respect, i am not being sarcastic.

Please note that I am also not being disrespectful in pointing out your errors and misperceptions. But, I do suggest that you actually look some of this stuff up in a credible source.

Piltdown Man

Anti-evolutionists love to trot out the old Piltdown Man hoax as if it were some sort of proof against evolution, but if they understood what actually happened a bit better, they would not be so quick to do this.

Piltdown Man was a hoax. It was, however, never actually accepted by most of the scientific community. The reason for this was that it didn't quite fit the rest of the data that supported evolution. It was an outlier. Scientists were skeptical from the outset.

While the press was eating up this new find, scientists went to work testing the find, examining, trying to verify - in short, they did science. And, they soon discovered that their skepticism was well founded, the Piltdown Man was a fake. This was good news for evolutionary scientists, as the Piltdown Man was hard to reconcile with prevailing theory, so the realization that it was not real meant there was no more challenge. Further, it showed that science works. Scientists were able to police themselves by using further study, by using the process of science itself! This was not a black mark for science, it was a triumph!

In summary, when creationists trumpet Piltdown Man, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. It was never part of evolutionary theory, so the realization that it was a hoax presents no problem for evolution. Further, it wasn't creationists who even discovered the hoax, but real scientists doing real science that discovered it and set things right.

Liar, Lunatic, or Lord...or Something Else?

How often do you hear the apologetic refrain that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or lord? The idea goes that either one must say that Jesus was a con-artist, mentally deranged, or one has to admit that Jesus was the son of god, etc. Unfortunately for the apologist, this is a poor argument in quite a few ways.

First, the argument assumes that what the Bible reports about Jesus is true. We have no reason to believe that, however. The evidence is scant that a person named Jesus existed to begin with, and even if we grant that, there's no evidence to suggest that the Bible is accurate about what he said or did. We know that the accounts were written well after the time period in question by people who were not there to witness the goings-on, which is fatal to the argument.

Second, the argument relies on an emotional response from the one being questioned. People don't like to accuse others of being liars, nor do they like to make pronouncements about the sanity of others, so the question is rigged to play on these emotions and present the third option as more comfortable. This pushes the one being questioned towards that answer due to their human emotions, not their reason or intellect.

Which leads to a third problem, which is that there aren't only 3 choices to this dilemma. It's quite possible that if Jesus did exist and claim to be the son of god, that he might have simply been mistaken or himself misled. There's no reason to rule out those possibilities if we assume that the story is historically accurate. It's just another example of bad apologetics.

Birth of Jesus

Some Xians seem to think that the Bible is very accurate and archaeologically proven. I've previously shown some examples of how this is not so. Let's take a look at another one, Jesus's birth.

In order to fulfill some prophecy, Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem, so the gospel authors had to invent some reason for Jesus's parents to travel there for his birth as well as establish a timeline. Luke and Matthew both tell us that it was during the time of King Herod's reign. Herod, however, died in 4 BCE. Luke goes on to invent a reason for Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. He tells us that Augustus Caesar has decreed a tax and that all people have to travel to their ancestor's homeland in order to pay this tax. Apart from the absurdity that the Roman government would force people to move simply in order to pay a tax (they were better governed than that and would not erect barriers to taking tax money from their subjects), the timeframe for this is supposedly when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. But, Cyrenius wasn't governor until 6 CE.

So, it appears that there is a problem of timeline here, one that the Bible writers were careless about. It does speak against the claim that many make that the Bible is highly accurate and reliable. There are many instances where the stories simply don't match up with history and evidence, and this is just another case.