Natural Evil and the Fall

Unless you live under a rock, you've heard by now that a major Earthquake has hit Haiti and done lots of damage. You've probably also heard that asshats like Pat Robertson have been claiming that it was divine retribution for some sin or another of the Haitians. Of course, other Xians are rushing to god's aid and claiming that god had nothing to do with it. The problem, you see, is that we live in a fallen world and humans (specifically Adam and Eve) are to blame.

Honestly, I find the former approach to be more intellectually honest and better thought out. How does eating an apple cause Earthquakes to happen? How did eating an apple cause the Earth to be made in such a way that tectonic plates would exist that can bump and slide against each other causing devastating earthquakes that would result in terrible human suffering? Even if it was a direct result of the actions of Adam and Eve, who came up with the idea to make this part of the punishment, a punishment that would affect people for thousands upon thousands of years after the original supposed transgression? And, who put it into effect?

Is there any possible way to claim a god that rules over all that isn't somehow responsible? No, there really isn't.

The Cure?

On a recent blog post, in response to a comment I made, the author of the post included an analogy:

Who said you go to hell just because you’re human? They lied to you. You don’t go to hell simply because you are born with the disease called sin. You only go to hell if you reject the cure.

“Well gee, I got gang green on my foot and they had to amputate my whole leg and I’m mad about it!”

“Well did you take medicine for it when you first noticed it??”

“No. I don’t believe in medicines.”

Who’s responsible for the amputation, the advanced gang green or the guy who rejected the medicine after he was told it would cure him?

My response is rather long and directly follows that, but I think this is an important point that often gets thrown out there by Xians, and looks pretty reasonable until one actually looks at it a little closer.

If god is the "cure" then wouldn't we be stupid to resist? Wouldn't it be our fault for going to hell for not taking the "cure" that's staring us right in the face? Oh, if only it were so simply though, right?

This is similar to Pascal's Wager, which I won't rehash too much here, I hope. But, it must be said that the Xian has no assurance that a cure is even necessary, or that their beliefs constitute the true cure if one is indeed necessary. There are tons of purported cures out there for the all too human fear of death, and picking one out of a hat has just as much a chance of being right as being born into those beliefs.

But, what the analogy really misses is why the victim is suffering in the first place. How did the patient get gang green? If someone somehow gave the patient this condition, would we not find fault with that person? If that person then went out and found the cure and brought it back, would we simply absolve them of all their responsibility in bringing about this sequence of events? Wouldn't we hold that it was their moral duty to try and correct their mistake?

In this instance, is it not god that created humans as fallible beings with sinful natures? It would only be god's moral responsibility to fix that by giving us a cure, and one without strings, like demanding obedience from us and that we conform to specific beliefs. Sorry, but this is an analogy fail, because it glosses over the important parts of the equation, namely god's involvement in the condition. That's part of the problem with a so-called perfect, omni-max god, the buck always stops with him.

Living With Sin

So, apparently god is really, really perfect and stuff, and that means that god can not live with sin, so that's why he sends people to hell. You see, it's not his fault that he's perfect and can't live with sin, and it's not his choice, it's just the way things are. So what if he created beings that by design can't live up to perfection and therefore can't not sin? He's perfect after all.

But, seriously, this brings to mind a couple issues. First, god is supposedly omnipresent, so the existence of hell kind of calls that into question if it is supposedly a place where sinners go and god can't be around sin. Also, sin supposedly exists right here on Earth, and god would be around it if he were omnipresent, so I guess something's gotta give. I'll leave it up to the apologists to decide which part of their story they want to jettison (although I predict that most apologists will cling to the notion that nothing is amiss in their idea).

Secondly, how can it not be god's choice that the system is set up so that people will sin and then go to hell because god can't be with them? Why set up the universe in that way? This makes god out to be either extremely cruel and vindictive or extremely stupid. Even a non-omniscient being should be smart enough to see the problem with this arrangement, yet a perfect god didn't? It's just another story from Xianity that strains credulity.

It's Not About the Love

I had another post that was going to go up today, but I decided that I had to write this post now. I just watched part of a program on gays and religion and something in me decided I had to write about it. The program was about the fight between religious peoples over gays, where some religious people call gays abominations and others are more tolerant and accepting. Actually, to be more specific, the show was about Xians and gays, as all the people featured were Xians.

Before I say any more, I think it's important to note one thing. I think it's a good thing that some Xians are becoming more tolerant; that they are setting aside the barbarisms of their holy book and learning to accept gays as people instead of seeing them as sinners/abominations/etc. That said, one of the people being interviewed for the show said something that I'll paraphrase below:

We need to teach our fellow Xians that the Bible isn't about hatred and intolerance, but that it's about love and acceptance. We need to extend this love and acceptance to gays.

What the hell book has this woman been reading? The Bible is not about love - it is about evil, hatred, damnation, etc. The OT is most certainly about destruction and intolerance as god routinely kills whole peoples and orders the deaths of whole societies. He lays down draconian rules with death as the only penalty, and being gay certainly goes against some of those rules! It seems that god really does hate fags.

The NT is not much better. Sure, Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor (which was most likely defined in the narrow sense of other Jews) but there's also plenty of fire and brimstone and the damnation of others to eternal torment - a concept that came about in the NT and far outstrips the cruelty of the OT. I believe it was Dawkins that said something along the lines that at least the OT god left you alone after you died - the NT god will keep on torturing you for eternity. This book is about death, hatred, evil, intolerance, etc.

So, yeah, it's good that some Xians are changing their tune when it comes to gays, but it's a stretch to claim that the Bible is what is leading the charge. C'mon. Instead of using post-hoc reasoning to make the Bible fit with what we see as moral and good, why not look at the book that has brought about so much hatred and see it for what it really is and reject it?

Unforgivable Sin

I'm sure by now that we've all heard of the "Blasphemy Challenge." And we all know that anyone who blasphemes the holy spirit can never be forgiven. I'm at a loss as to why this is such a heinous crime, however. Is it really worse for me to say, "The holy spirit is a wanker," than to go out and kill someone? Yet, god, it seems, would rather I kill someone than talk trash about one specific aspect of him. Curiously enough, it's not unforgivable to say that "Jesus is a wanker."

And, why would an all-loving god lay down a rule that says that one can not be forgiven for something - that one must go to hell if one breaks rule X?

Pork

OK. So, god comes down and decides that pork is bad, immoral, sinful. "Don't eat it," he says. Why? Because it is immoral, bad, and sinful of course. If you eat it, then you are deserving of eternal torment and punishment.

Or, maybe the ancient Jews ate some pork and some got sick from trichinosis, because they didn't prepare it correctly. So, they made a rule that one shouldn't eat pork and they claimed it was from god to add moral and authoritative weight to it.

Which one is more parsimonious?

Even if it were the first, why would god make this rule? Did he make it in order to protect the Jews? It seems rather weird to enact a rule to protect people and then punish them for eternity with torture if they don't follow the rule. So, even if this did come from god, it doesn't make sense. Once again, we see the Xian myth as less than sensible.

Genetics of Sin

And god threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden and proclaimed that all of their descendants will be sinful because of their bad choice. OK, that's paraphrased, but it's the gist that counts. This is a greatly immoral action on god's part, but let's skip that for a moment. This is also a rather hateful ideology, but we'll skip that for the moment as well. god creates a situation where sin is passed from parent to offspring when he throws Adam and Eve out of the garden. The mechanism that science has uncovered for this is through our genetic make-up. So, is there a sin gene?

Let's say, for a moment, there is a sin gene. Is it possible that this gene can mutate and be selected out by evolution? It's quite possible that this would be the case, although it's true that certain genes persist for long stretches of time due to their necessity (if they mutate, the organism dies). Considering that Adam and Eve would not have originally had this gene (when did god insert it?) it seems unlikely that it would be necessary for survival, so it's possible that it would be susceptible to mutation and loss or change of function.

To get even deeper into the idea, with modern genetics we might be able to locate and isolate such a gene. This would open up the possibility of us modifying it (in the future of course) in order to design humans that would be free from sin. This would make it possible to undo god's work. Wouldn't this negate the Xian concept of the need for Jesus?

Questionable Parables

David and Goliath: At first glance this seems to be a heartwarming story where the underdog wins; however, the defeat of a larger enemy through superior weapons technology isn't always praiseworthy - look at Hiroshima. Maybe that was a bad example. If I suckerpunched a boxer would that make me pure of heart?

The Prodigal Son: Why work hard? The son who was loyal to his father was stepped upon whereas the son who stole money and acted morally was treated like a saint. Jesus told us that anything goes as long as there is an apology afterwards. The Lost Sheep: "I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance". So why are Christians so uptight about sinning?

Ten virgins: If anyone understands this give me a note.