How Many Beers?

Two old friends are sitting at the bar, and the subject turns to religion.

Tom asks, "So you don't believe in God?"

Rick admits, "No, actually I see no reason to."

"Well, then, who or what created the universe then, if it wasn't God?"

Rick thought for a moment. "I have a cooler in my garage. It's large enough to hold two cases of beer. How many beers are in it?"

"Changing the subject? What does that have to do with anything?"

"Just tell me how many beers are in it. I'll bet you $50 you are wrong."

Tom decides to play along. "Ok, sure. There are... 27 beers in the cooler."

"Wrong, there are 41. Pay up!"

"Wait! How am I supposed to just know there are 41 beers in there?"

Rick explains, "I bought 2 cases on Wednesday and stocked the cooler full. I drank 2 on Wednesday night, my brother and I drank 3 on Thursday. And my son stole 2 on Friday afternoon. It's simple math, you can't deny that. 2 + 3 + 2 = 7, 48 - 7 = 41. Pay up!"

Tom is incredulous. "You think I'm a fool? I'm not paying you $50 just because you say I am wrong? That's hardly proof enough for me to pay you! You'd have to show me the cooler before I'd even think of settling up."

Then Rick looked him in the eye. "If you can't part with $50 based on my word, how do you expect me to believe some god created the universe based on yours? I asked you a question with 49 possible specific answers, you asked me one with millions. And you had as much evidence as I did to answer the question. Whatever I say caused the universe that isn't the same your answer, you will say it's wrong.

"The difference is simple - I can actually take you to my garage and prove to you I am right. There is a way to settle this bet. But unless I do, you have to either take my word or reject it. So, really, what's the only answer you can give to my question? How many beers are in the cooler?"

"Well, I can only guess, I can't know for certain!"

"Exactly. And that's the only answer I can give to your question as well."

Defensively, Tom explains, "But I believe in my answer! I have faith that God created the universe!"

"And I believe there are 41 beers in my cooler. But I could be wrong. Maybe someone is drinking one right now. Maybe the cooler was stolen. That doesn't mean I am wrong to believe there are 41, it just means I can't be 100% certain.

"As strongly as people believed that the Earth was circled by the Sun thousands of years ago, it was still wrong. A few thousand years later we found out. But there was simply no way to know back then!"

Tom asks, "So you're saying I'm stupid for believing what I believe?"

"Not at all. In a few thousand years maybe we will know enough about the origin of the universe to be more certain how. In twenty minutes I could be more certain how many beers I have in the cooler. You are no more stupid for believing in an idea about how the universe came about than I am stupid for believing there are 41 beers in my cooler."

"Well, that's fair."

"Now, if I expect you to simply accept that there are 41 beers in my cooler, then I am a little stupid, though."

"Hmm... we could go to your house and check...."

Rick smiles. "We could. The beer here is a little pricey anyway. Let's go."

"Sounds good!"

"Oh, do you have your ATM card with you? You might want to take out $50 on the way there."

The Athiest Witness

Once, many years ago, I was in a diner and ran into an old friend. We caught up on things, and we was very excited to share with me how he had recently found Jesus.

Out of respect, I decided to keep my atheism to myself.

He went on and on about how he was finding such good things in the Bible and how his feelings about life were turning better after this discovery. I smiled, offered praise where I felt it was warranted, and let him go on. At the end, I told him I was happy he was happy, and I hope he continues to discover new things and grow. We shook hands, and he left as I finished my coffee and waited for my bill.

Just then, a person I had never met approached me. She was smiling, and thanked me for how I witnessed for my friend. I really didn't know how to react. I smiled back, told her he was an old friend, and I was happy that he was doing well.

But did I witness to him? I did in a sense; I listened to his story of finding Jesus, I let him talk about his experiences. But doesn't that simply mean I was doing what a friend should do? Doesn't witnessing also demand that I, too, believe? Perhaps it was not possible to see that I did not.

Did I do the right and moral thing? I think so. I could have screamed at him and told him no, no, this is moving backwards, you are abandoning reason for faith, etc., but I did not because I knew he was happy and I didn't really think there was an immediate purpose in spoiling that.

But it makes me think about how we can similarly share the atheist experience with others, especially those we care for. How do we do it respectfully and without causing divisions and anger?

I started writing this blog, in part, because it allows me to express these ideas in a way that is not going to upset people who don't wish to hear them, but is available for all those who do. I don't want anyone to accuse me of trying to strong-arm people into letting go of religion. I think it's the right thing to do, but now may not be the right time for many people, and I must respect that.

Much like quitting drinking or smoking, quitting religion is simultaneously beneficial and extremely traumatic and difficult. But it remains that every day more people are seeing that reason is more helpful for day-to-day living on the whole than blind faith. I think it's our duty to express that in ways that are inviting and welcoming, but tolerant and non-aggressive.

Here are a few ideas.

1. Always be tolerant, not pushy. There's nothing to be gained by evangelizing your conviction that a person is foolish for believing the god myth. I think it's ok to let others know in quiet, peaceful ways that their feelings of doubt about religion are normal and that they are not alone, but there is no point in trying to convert anybody. Let them believe what they like so long as it does not hurt others.
2. Answer questions honestly but briefly. If your child, your neighbor, your co-worker, or anyone wonders why other people go to church but you don't, answer them as straightforwardly as you can. If they ask your opinions about religious matters, do the same. But be aware that some topics are best left untouched. Depending on your workplace, it might be wise to respond to a co-worker with, "I don't discuss religion at work, I don't think it's right. I hope you can respect that."
3. Let children safely explore. If your son or daughter decides to go to a church, temple, mosque, etc., be cool about it. Be sure you do your homework and know who they are going with, where they are going, and definitely talk with them about the experience before and after. If other adults you know and trust with your skepticism can help you find out more, talk to them and learn along with your child.
4. Encourage the consideration and acceptance/rejection of ideas. Parents should ask their children what they would do in a particular moral dilemma. They should teach children why lying, stealing and hurting others is unfriendly and encourage them to explain why they think so as well. When you read together, talk about whether the story is about something that is true, could be true, or must be make-believe. "Could this really happen?" "What would you think if this were true?"
5. Speak up when doing so is positive or necessary. If religious people do a good thing, even for the wrong reason, be sure to express your pleasure when the topic comes up. But if someone does something harmful, even with the best intentions, be sure to express your concern. Don't sit silently by as someone is harmed by an immoral action, regardless of the purposes behind the action.
6. Live as an example of morality. You may be the only open atheist many people ever meet, and there is a lot of responsibility in that. Always be sure to demonstrate a sense of moral purpose and respect in your daily life. Many religious people believe atheists cannot have a central moral code: prove them wrong through your actions.

I welcome more ideas along these lines. We need to be true to our understanding of reason and sensibility, but we must also live peaceably with those who disagree. Each one of us must be the best person we are capable of being.

Ten Commandments

We are all probably familiar with the Ten Commandments of Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Bible. It is often claimed that they are instrumental to the development of our nation's set of laws. David Limbaugh wrote, "Much of our Bill of Rights is biblically based, as well, and the Ten Commandments and further laws set out in the book of Exodus form the basis of our Western law."

Are they? Are they really the basis of our modern law?

Here's the list as found in Exodus 20:3-17. This is the traditional Christian way of dividing it up, you might have learned it a little differently.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

 For ease of discussion, let's shorten it up a bit.

1. One god
2. No idols
3. Don't misuse name of god
4. No work on holy Sabbath by anyone/anything
5. Honor parents
6. No murder
7. No screwin' around on your spouse
8. No theft
9. No perjury
10. Don't want other people's spouses and stuff

Can these be seen as the genesis of American law? I don't think there is a case.

First, there is the pesky First Amendment in the Bill of Rights which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religious involvement. So the first four commandments are impossible to rectify with the Constitution, and therefore American law. We permit all religions to peacefully coexist, we defend the artist's right to respectfully depict gods in their work even if it is offensive (the taboo against offending Muslims with representations of Allah is not in US law), we protect the right to even religiously offensive speech so long as it is not obscene or directly inciting violence, and even religious bookstores are open seven days a week.

There goes 40% of the case against the Ten Commandments influencing our laws.

I think it's a generally good idea to honor your parents. In the absolute worst case scenario, you must respect that if they had not met you would never have been born. In the best scenarios, they fed, taught, protected and nurtured you into an adult who still relies on their counsel often. I also think it's a generally good idea not to cheat on your spouse or to crave your neighbor's things. But nowhere in US law are these notions actually legislated.

There are some local laws against adultery and "deviant" sexual behavior, but these are being struck down on a regular basis because they are simply not supported by the Bill of Rights. And laws which require you to treat your parents with any more respect than other human beings or police your wants and desires would be seen as repugnant by thinking people, and cannot be supported by legal precedent in the US.

We are down to three remaining Commandments - the ones against murder, theft, and perjury. And these three are quite illegal in the US. So do we then have a 30% case for the Ten Commandments?

Not quite. The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BCE) is the oldest verifiable prohibition of murder, robbery and perjury. By contrast, the book of Exodus was not written much prior to 600 BCE. In other words, if I wrote something based on the Canterbury Tales, it would not be original work but a derivative - and the time between Ur-Nammu and the writer of Exodus is double the span of time between now and the 14th century.

Laws against murder, theft and perjury were not new in 600 BCE, they had been so for a millennia plus. Saying a work written in 600 BCE is the basis for our laws against stealing and killing and lying is like saying that the books by Emily Post are the reason we are polite to each other, or that Roe v Wade is the reason abortions started.

The facts are clear. 3 of these Commandments restate already established laws, and the other 7 just have no representation in American jurisprudence. Any argument that they form any basis for our system of laws, or the basis for any modern legal system, is simply baseless and wrong.

Posting these Commandments in a government building is not an homage to our laws and nation. It is a bald-faced homage to a deity, and that irksome First Amendment expressly forbids it. Remember than when you vote.

Throwing Away Ideas, Not Observations

Why do people believe in a god or gods? Two simple reasons.

1. They cannot explain the world around them (death, disease, natural disaster, etc.) with reason, so they guess that someone is playing a trick on them, or making things happen behind the scenes.
2. They were taught to - sometimes gently, sometimes harshly - at a relatively young age. If they doubt their beliefs, they fear reprisal from family as well as the "man upstairs".

No person is born with an innate knowledge of the existence of any god. I admit this is a bold statement and I probably can't prove it. But I can show why it is extremely likely to be so.

If I said that no one is born with an innate knowledge of the English language, or of juggling balls, or of making a fire, not one person would challenge me, because obviously we needed to learn these things ourselves before we knew them. There are many people alive today who cannot speak English, juggle balls, or make a fire without some sort of special technology. Clearly these are not innate.

However, we can argue that we have the innate ability to communicate, to manipulate objects, to experiment with phenomena we observe. I don't think anyone will argue these. It's those innate skills that led our predecessors to invent formal language, juggling and ignition.

And we also teach these skills with care to not abuse them. We tell our children what sort of language is permissible in certain places and situations, and which words would result in a less than favorable result for them if used. Jugglers are aware that they need a safe distance from others to perform the feat, and that the whimsical nature of it does not blend well with certain more sober situations. And we keep matches and lighters away from children while we let them plan our fire escape plan, and we collectively support the very socialist notion of a local fire department so even those who cannot afford to pay for such property and life rescue can benefit.

I think it is innate that we reason. I think it is innate that we look at things fall and notice that they never fall up. We see that fast things hitting objects perform more spectacularly than slow things. We notice that it is light out for about half a day, then it is dark out. All of these observations make us curious and drive us to understand more about the reality we find ourselves in.

The trouble is what happens when we can't reason it out. A few thousand years ago we did not understand why tides rose and fell. We needed some explanation because reason wasn't cutting it. We didn't understand why life can just stop, and someone becomes dead. We needed some sort of explanation.

Generally, the answers to the above problems was that a god or gods did it. God made the tides go in and out. God cursed a person for their evil, or called him home for his good deeds. And without any evidence to contradict all that, that served us as good as any other explanation.

Now we understand the Moon's gravity with the Earth and how it affects the oceans. We understand infection, disease and the genetics of old age. Yet there still are those who attribute tides and death to divine action, despite all we have learned.

There are many who reject science as against religion, as a sort of sorcery or evil craft that lies to us. They claim evolution is no better a theory than, say, intelligent design, and when shown mountains of strong evidence supporting evolution they simply say it is faulty, it doesn't prove a thing.

Now, having provisional explanations for things we don't understand is fine and normal. Gestalt psychology is criticized,  but most agree that when we see something that is incomplete we fill in the blanks naturally. It's in our nature.

The problem is when we use these provisional explanations even when our reason shows us that there are other, more reasonable explanations. When we dispense with the science of radiometric dating and insist that this book says the Earth is only so many thousands of years old, we are letting provisionality overrule reason. When we insist that a pregnancy initiated through a violent sexual attack is "God's will" we are letting provisionality overrule reason.

Tim Minchin wrote, "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." In other words, reason means dispensing with an idea when it does not match observation, not dispensing with an observation when it does not match an idea.

If the god idea was innate, why would there be so many contradictory versions of it? If there was one true god or set of gods that we can just know, why aren't we all in agreement? Does this deity want us to kill each other over it?

It's like the old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.When repeated observations and man's best ideas do not match up, we must throw away the idea, not the observations.

I have no problem if you want to personally fill in the cracks with God Spackle. I do have a problem when there already is an explanation for what you are spackling over, and you refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit your premise. My problem is that you then teach your children not to think critically. You encourage ignorance of reality over believing tradition. You celebrate the emotional security of a Father in Heaven over the need for stewardship of our Actual Reality.

If you must be religious, please never allow religion to become harmful to others. Take care to juggle a safe distance from me. Use words that are peaceful, not inflammatory.

And please, above all, don't let your children learn to love the flame of religion like a modern-day arsonist, but to respect it, just like our earliest prehistoric chemists did when they invented fire. Religion, like fire, can destroy if left unchecked, or if used without rational thought.

All marriage is gay

I've been sitting on this draft for a long time, and I have decided to publish it now, especially as "defense of marriage" is so hot right now. It's an imperfect essay, but it sure means well and it won't hurt anyone. SO feel free to comment all you want.

What is marriage, really?

It is, in its original sense, a bonding under a deity where the two people become one. But by now you probably know I don't believe in deities, so we will toss that angle into the rubbish.

In another sense, it is a government contract. Legally, married couples share a financial interest, they are privy to each others medical secrets, legal wranglings, etc. I suppose a notary public could do the same, but apparently not, since there is such a demand for marriage, marriage, marriage. (Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!)

So why do gay people want to be married? If it's for the legal benefits, why not get a lawyer, draw up a legal contract, and sign it? What really is to stop me from signing a contract affording another person certain rights? It's a free country. If I declare my personal information is to be shared with another person, regardless of gender, I can legally do that. So that can't be the issue.

If for religious reasons, well, if your god is not just, find a new one. Or none at all. I am not telling you what to do here. I am just saying that if religion is your barrier, break something down. Figure it out. Plenty of sects of religions recognize same-sex pairings, so that's not the issue either.

The real reason people care about gay marriage so much? Well, all folks want to have the same regard as others get. The acceptance of gay marriage is less a legal or a religious issue than it is a moral one. It simply is a need for acceptance. (And as I have always absolutely gotten gay people, I honestly will not ever understand the fuss.)

I've seen men empathetically console a friend, and I have seen women pee standing up. Unless I choose to mate with you, your gender is a bullshit excuse for anything. And being that mating is a private matter usually, despite what the porn industry depicts, there is no public matter which requires genital display.

That should include the union of two people.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in love. Love is awesome, and it demands a great deal of an individual. Love keeps us happy and healthy and whole. As The Captain And Tennille said, love will keep us together.

So what is marriage but a social convenience, a means for acceptance, a ploy for appeal? It is a tool for the empowered to flaunt their greatness. It is an arbitrary goal for our youth to blindly strive for.

In short, it is one of our society's greatest scams.

Back in the day, marriage was necessary to increase population. We really could stand a few less people in our world, so to me marriage serves not even that totally utilitarian purpose.

Half the married people I know are breaking up, and most of the rest tolerate misery in their marriage. Sounds like a sucker deal to me.

Think for yourself, decide for yourself, and for crying out loud examine your world before making the leap into marriage, gay or not.

It might be good for you. I kinda doubt it, but hey, I've been wrong.

The Man Who Isn't There

Imagine you walk into a room and you see two people in the room with you. One person says to you, "There are three people in this room now." The other person says, "No, there are four. You cannot see or hear the fourth person, but he is here." Let's also assume both these people are being completely serious.

Who are you more likely to believe? Do you feel more likely to believe the first person or the second? Which person requires you to put some faith in them to believe their statement?

Most people would say they believe the first person. One person I asked this question answered that he would consider the second person to possibly be insane. Clearly the first person's statement agrees with your observations, not only in the room but in general. There simply are not invisible, inaudible people (unless they are hiding from you, or ninjas, of course). It requires no faith at all to accept the first person's claim. The second person, however, would seem to be incorrect, but you might take them at their word if you felt faith was warranted.

Some people say atheism requires as much faith as believing in a god. They claim that atheism is a faith no different than belief, that atheists believing in no god is as unknowable as a theist claiming there is one.

However, there is a bit of a mistake here. In the room with the two (or three) men, I really do not know which man is right. It may well be that there is a fourth man hiding behind the sofa. Seems unlikely, but it is possible. Once I make a thorough search of the room and find no hiding person, I would have more reason to say with assuredness that there is definitely no fourth man. But if there was always a place he could be hiding that I could not search, then not only do I not know if he is there, I cannot know he is there.

As such, I am agnostic about the fourth man.

Agnostic is often misused to define a middle ground between atheism and theism. In fact, both atheists and theists can claim to be either agnostic or gnostic. Theism means "belief in the existence of a god or gods" and gnosticism is "knowing something is true". Atheism is the absence of belief, and agnosticism is the absence of knowledge.

A gnostic atheist would assert there is no god or gods, while an agnostic atheist would believe there is not a god, but admit there is no way to disprove the existence. An agnostic theist would believe there is a god or gods but admit they cannot be certain they are right, and a gnostic theist knows without a doubt there is a god or gods.

Having or lacking knowledge does not necessarily change one's beliefs. I do not know for certain that my neighbor is sleeping in his bed at night, but it seems sensible to believe it is true. I do not know for certain whether I am being followed by clever spies, but it seems reasonable to dispense that thought as irrational.

I do not know if there is a fourth man in the room or not, but it makes sense in cases where I know all I can to go with what I see and observe and discount propositions that cannot be supported or proven.

In fact, atheism is the abandonment of faith that the stories we have heard of the invisible man have validity. It is no different than ignoring the lies people tell about us on the playground or dispensing with the childhood fantasies of the Tooth Fairy or the Monster in the Closet. Intelligent people eventually see that reality does not match the stories they are told, or they tell themselves, and as such they brush the nonsense away.

If a god exists, he is either hiding from us, or he is a ninja. But it seems far more plausible that in absence of any possible arguments for the existence of a god or a tooth fairy or a monster in the closet, they must instead be imaginary. And no matter how much a child begs you to check the closet one more time before he goes to sleep, no matter how hard he believes, you know you will find no monster, not tonight, not tomorrow, not ever.

When someone claims a man is invisible, it is as close to certain as we can get that the man simply isn't there.

Atheists want to sin

One argument we hear from time to time against the very notion of atheism is that it is all just a scam. People claim that atheism is a means to allow a person to do sinful things and not feel guilty. In this way, an atheist can do things that directly defy, say, the Biblical God, but they will not feel shame because they deny the authority of God.

Well, I guess I have to agree.

We'll look at Matthew 15: 1-9 and see. I chose this specifically because there are Christians who argue up and down against the laws of Leviticus, that they aren't meant for our times, well, except for the ones against homosexuality apparently. The ones that say a woman who is raped but does not scream should be killed, that one doesn't apply to us. But that's a blog for another day.

But back to Matthew 15. We are kind of jumped in to the story. Apparently, the Jewish elders wash their hands prior to eating as a ritual act. The disciples did not. Also, it seems they made up a rule that things earmarked for the purpose of giving to God cannot be then re-purposed for helping your parents out.

Anyway, on with the story....

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'honor your father and mother' and 'anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

"But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

"You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'"

Well, he sure told them.

Why is any of this relevant? He clearly believes the laws of God which we find in Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 that "anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death." So no matter what you say about the Old Testament being an old, retired covenant and the Good News of the Gospel being the New Covenant, Jesus here clearly says that his father said that disrespectful children should be put to death.

At any rate, I think we can safely say that a good Christian is supposed to kill children who curse their parent. It's in the Old Testament twice. It's in the New Testament, said by Jesus himself.

How many of you have children who have cursed you? Did you kill them? Aren't you violating God's command by not killing them?

If letting a bratty kid live to see another sunrise is a sin, I'm happy to do it.

The only way I see to reconcile the above passage to make it so Jesus did not advocate killing children  is to assume he was mocking all law, but that destroys his credibility as the son and embodiment of the one deity. So that can't be so. He meant it.

If we accept that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God " (2 Timothy 3:16) then we as men cannot cherry-pick it. (Galatians 1:9 "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" and Deuteronomy 12:32 "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.") If we cannot ignore parts and hold other parts as true, then we must either accept it all or reject it all.

I submit that moral people still ignore portions of the Bible despite the aforementioned admonitions simply because, for example, they see that killing children is wrong. And if the moral compass of Jesus includes killing children who curse their parents, even if they have Tourette Syndrome, even if they have been poisoned and cannot control their actions, I submit that compass is broken, and a useless tool by which a moral, thinking man can navigate.

Thus, I reject the Bible as a determinant of what is moral and what is not. It is an unreliable text for guiding peaceful, compassionate coexistence. Morality cannot be ascertained through study of a millennia-old text but must be understood through practical and scientific interaction with the world in which we exist. If it is sinful to use more compassionate means of determining moral and right behavior than the Bible, I am proud to sin freely.