Abortions and Atrocities

The issue of abortion is often a hot button issue with Christians. I tend to avoid the debate, but frequently Christians want to steer the debate to that topic, particularly if we are talking about Bible atrocities. Abortion came up again in our discussion of absolute truth below. I will move the discussion here, since it is way off topic.

First, most people can agree that a mother can have the right to abort the life of any tissue that is not yet a person. But when does tissue become a person? Does it happen when the egg is created, when the sperm and egg combine, when the cell attaches to the uterus, when the cell starts to divide, when the heart forms, when the brain forms, at birth, or at some other time? There are numerous opinions on this. I understand many Catholics treat the egg almost as a person before fertilization (and thus contraception is sin); many conservative protestants consider the zygote to be a person at conception (and thus the morning-after pill is sin); and liberal Protestants see that the fetus becomes a person about 6 months after conception. You will see endless debates on exactly when this happens, with each assuming that they have the absolute truth, and that the other opinions are misguided. It is really quite comical, and I tend to avoid the whole thing. But somehow I can't even discuss Absolute Truth without somebody insisting I need to talk about abortion. Go figure.

The other instance where one might justify abortion, even when the fetus is acknowledged as a person, is where the doctors determine that there is no way to save the life of the mother without aborting the baby. It is like shooting down a hijacked plane full of innocent people before it hits a heavily populated building. Most people cringe at the thought of downing a commercial airliner, but when they think it over, most can realize that, if there is no other way to prevent the disaster, it would be better to shoot down the plane than to watch thousands of innocent people die. Many would see that the same principle could apply to a baby hopelessly stuck in the birth canal, with no possibility of saving either the mother or the baby unless the baby is killed to save the mother.

Much worse than being honestly mistaken about when life begins, or killing a baby in self defense, is the brutal act of killing a baby because one does not like his parents. But those who do that act are blessed in Psalm 137, and the act is even commanded in passages such as 1 Samuel 15.

In another thread I had been discussing Psalm 137:9 ( "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock."). I respond here to Lormar, who made the comments in quotes below:

--------
Lormar,

Do you or do you not agree that late term abortion (to save the mother's life) leads to the death of the baby? (guess what Merle, I happen to be pro-choice on that matter). Although I would like to save the life of the mother, I can admit that the baby is still dead. Can you?

First this response appears to be an evasion of the question. For you wrote this in direct response to my question, "Do you or do you not agree with Psalm 137 that it is blessed to dash babies against rocks?" And your answer doesn't address the question. Please answer. Do you or do you not think it was blessed to dash the Babylonian babies against the rocks?

Regarding your question, yes, of course, a late term abortion causes death to the baby. Why do you ask?

I believe the Bible teaches us lessons through the books included within it.

Sure the Bible gives us lessons. But it also gives bad advice. It has some good advice and some bad advice. Do you agree?

What would have happened if Hitler were killed as a child? What about Osama? Pol Pot?

So? You are not suggesting that it was OK to kill Babylonians babies because they would have grown up to be evil, are you?

Would your opinion change if the Bible declared that all of those babies were slaughtered through abortion?

If they were killed by a willing mother who wanted to terminate a pregnancy before the embryo became a person, sure, that would be different from slaughtering somebody else's baby to get revenge. Can you see the difference between the two acts?

You said innocent babies. Are you implying that babies sometimes guilty?

No, of course not. All babies are innocent in the sense that they have done nothing worthy of capital punishment.

Do I complain about babies killed in the Bible? Believe it or not, No. If I am pro-choice on late term abortions (to save the life of the mother), I see no reason to complain about the Bible. How about you?

Yes, I have a problem when the Bible says to kill babies. And you do not have a problem with that? If you were a soldier in the army of Saul, would you have willingly plunged your sword through enemy babies as the verses command?

I can admit that the baby is still dead, dashed against the stones or aborted. What about you?

Yes, I agree, dead babies are dead. Why do you ask?

You had a picture of a baby (one of your pages) as an example of your disgust at certain Biblical passages. Do you mean to tell me that you would see it as morally right to have that baby aborted (assuming he/she is still in the mother's womb at the 8th or 9th month) and morally wrong if the baby were dashed against a stone? Surely, you must see that there would be no difference since that baby would be dead either way.

You want my opinion? OK, It might be morally acceptable to kill a baby if the only possible way to save the mother's life was to terminate a baby that is stuck in the birth canal. That is an act of self defence. Yes, it would be a heart-wrenching decision, but I can see the moral justification. We could have a deep love for both the baby and the mother, and nobody would ever want to be faced with such an agonizing situation.

But it would not be acceptable to kill a baby out of the desire to get revenge against the baby's dad. Can you see the difference?

You seem to believe that we should not kill babies unless we 'kill them nicely' (via abortion).

Sorry, that is not the issue. The issue is killing in self-defence versus killing in a premeditated act of revenge.

Since you love to debate, allow me to give you a tip for future reference: Be sure to get that person's stance on an issue before proceeding with a debate)...again, I am pro-choice when it comes to saving the mother's life.

Huh? What I had said was, "Do you care to weigh in with your opinion on this? If the doctors conclude that both the baby and mother will die, that the baby cannot be saved, but that the mother could be saved if the baby is aborted, what would you do? "

I did exactly what you ask me to do! I didn't know your views so I asked you. I had no intention of implying which way you believed on this isssue, and apologize if my words came across as assuming something wrong about you.

The difference with me is, I can admit that the baby is still put to death. Can you?

Yes, dead babies are dead. I agree. Why do you ask?

I was a victim of serious crime. I wished horrible things on those who hurt me. Do you see me as bloodthirsty and hateful?

It saddens me to hear you were a victim of serious crime. I can understand that you may have felt a desire for horrible things to happen to the guilty party. I suspect those feelings were also tempered by desires for fairness, justice, and mercy, but there is no problem with experiencing a mass of painful emotions after being a victim. Having such feelings does not make a person evil.

But if you had come on the Internet and said, "Blessed shall he be that takes my attacker's baby girl and smashes her head into a rock", then I would think you are not responding in a wise manner. Can you see the difference between feeling a desire for revenge, and announcing a blessing on killing babies?

American Theocracy

In George W. Bush's first term the national debt soared, America became entangled in a prolonged war in Iraq, and the environment suffered. But many Americans had something far weightier on their minds, the fact that Bush favored their Evangelical positions. In his book, American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips discusses the political movement that kept Bush in power. (Click here for more)

"I decided that Christianity was not the truth "

A reader writes of his deconversion:

I am 31 and I was a Christian my entire life until about 6 months ago. I was not just any Christian though. I was a "sprit filled", tongue talking, "demon rebuking", three day a week Church going Christian. Did just about everything there was to do with church. I was the guy that would gladly tell you why you were wrong and I had the truth and can help you find it. I would be eager to take on anyone in debate and was so proud of my knowledge of the Bible. Up until recent that is! I came accross the website http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ in January and I was stunned. After reading enough contradictions and horrible stories I decided that the Bible was the most evil book I had ever read, and I did not understand why I did not see it before. At that time I decided that Christianity was not the truth and to stop going to church and give it up. There is only one problem though. I would like to tell you a little about my story and even my current problem (with Christianity), but I wanted to email you first to see if you would be willing to discuss this with me, or if this was just an automated "read em and delete em" type of email. I know you probably get a lot of email and I did not want to pour my heart out and tell a long story without checking with you first. Let me know and I will continue my story and problem. Thanks.

I love to receive emails like this, and to learn what is happening in the lives of those who move on beyond their religion. I would love to hear the rest of this story. I will consider putting it on this blog --anonymously if the writer prefers--so all can read about another mind set free.

Also, if the writer would prefer privacy, and wants to discuss the "problem" without airing it publicly, I would certainly love to communicate with him privately.

A debate challenge on absolute truth

I respond here to an email discussing truth and nihilism.

----------------------

Dear BH,

Thanks for writing. You write:

I don't suppose you will give this email more than a cursory glance given the number of Christians who must launch their far ranging views at you but I hope you do that at least.

Actually, I try to read all emails sent to me. I enjoy reading views that differ with mine. I am glad for any feedback.

My son has done the same as you. He describes with remarkable similarity the sense of freedom from the 'rules and regulations' of the belief system to which he once adhered. Knowing what he understood I guess anything outside of that would be liberating. Its amazing how he is doing the exact opposite of what he once genuinely believed and condemned. Yes there is freedom in not believing anything and it is liberating to allow one's nature full reign to do what it likes. I know because half my life was as an unbeliever. Interestingly my son who is a deep thinker has started to come to the place where he is starting to question what he calls 'the shallow futility' of his new lifestyle.

Based on this paragraph, it would appear to me that your son has experienced something far different from what I have experienced. You speak of his shallow futility and his lack of belief in anything. This definitely does not describe me. I have discovered a new way of looking at life, a rich and full way of understanding and loving life. I am sorry that your son has experienced a shallow futility and no longer believes anything. Perhaps your son could learn from my website.

The bottom line as far as I can tell and what I would like to suggest to you my friend (if I may have the honor of calling you that) is that there still remains Absolute Truth. By Absolute Truth I mean only one set of facts about who we are, why we are here, where we are going, what happens when we die, and how this world and the known universe came into existence. That A T remains A T whether you or I believe it or not. It is unchanging; absolute. Now, if you can accept that premise I would like to challenge you to a discussion of how we can establish exactly what that truth is. If you don't accept that premise then I will be forced to leave you to choose whatever you want to believe. What do you say Merle?

I agree with you that there is a truth about the universe. Am I absolutely certain of that? Well, no, I cannot be absolutely certain. What if my senses are deceiving me? What if I wake up some day to find the entire universe was something I dreamed up? But assuming my senses have not invented the universe--and that does seem to me like a reasonable assumption--then there is indeed an objective universe with objective truth out there.

You have challenged me to a discussion of how we can establish that truth. I accept. I have written an email accepting the challenge and asking how you want to carry out the debate. You have not responded yet. If you are interested in discussing this, you could add your comments here, or you could write to me and let me know how you would like to continue.

Regards,
Merle

PS. I have written BH informing him of this posting at my blog.

That lingering fear of hell.

A reader writes:

I've been reading your stuff online and it really sums up my feelings over the last few years. When everything about a person can be explained physically, what remains to be called a soul?...I too was raised a Christian and was rather obnoxious about it back in my 20's with all my bumper stickers etc. If people back then could see me now! If God exists why would he punish me for using my brain which he created? I think what most people call faith is really superstition. Its not that they believe but that they're afraid not to believe...Hey, do you sometimes still get a little nervous about going the other direction? I mean can a person ever escape early life (sunday school days) indoctrination? I'm still worried about hell on some level that I don't think I'll ever shake. I envy people who'll on their death beds have no fear of hell because they never went to church or believed. I think every Christian fears death and even hell!

I understand your fears, but I can truthfully say that, if you continue your course, I expect those fears will disappear. You will become like the people you say you envy, a person who could face death without the terror of hell.

Though the question of what hell would be like is something I sometimes think about, it is not something I fear. Although the fear of hell once dominated my life, that fear is now gone. And others have told me the same thing. When one first begins to doubt the faith of his youth, he will naturally have such fears. But it is my experience that the fear goes away after time.

I have often considered the possibility that I might be wrong. Suppose I wake up after death and find to my surprise that I must now face a judgement. Then what? Well, if we wake to find ourselves in an afterlife, then I think none of us could be so arrogant to say we know for sure what will happen next. We don't. Such an experience is so far from any data that we now have available that we would all be uncertain at that point. Now my best guess is that, if I should find myself alive in the afterworld, I will be glad that I did exactly what I did, that I honestly admitted my doubts, and willingly helped people to use their own minds to escape beyond the bondage of religious fear and start living.

Although I have been taught to fear hell from childhood, I would be very surprised if the fear of hell would come back to me at death's door. I have thought about that moment so many times in my life that I think I would be prepared. I expect for me that death will be like going to sleep. It will be like realizing that the consciousness that I call "Me" is going to sleep, never to wake.

If you fear hell, I would ask you to face that fear boldly. Think about it. Read the evidence that death ends all. Read about the lack of evidence of the need to maintain certain beliefs to escape hell. Think about what is important to you in life, and what actions in life will make you the most confident when you face the end of life.

Face the fears boldy, and then move on. Live life to the fullest. For it is life that matters, not death. And it is up to each of us to make the most of this life.

A Debate on Salvation

Previously I responded to some questions about my born-again experience here on the blog. That led to some interesting discussion. I have continued that discussion on my website.

A Closer Look at Genesis

The latest addition to my site is a file entitled "A Closer Look at Genesis 1-25." I review many of the problems with the book of Genesis, and demonstrate that the problems with the Bible go far beyond a few scattered verses.

"I decided to challenge the God of the Bible."

I received a recent email from a lady who has begun to seriously question her faith. She asks many good questions, and brings an interesting perspective to the debate. I share it with you here.

I am a christian who has been struggling with my faith lately. Many of the things mentioned in your site are in some ways similar to what I am going through. First I'd like to say that I have not and will not question the born-again experience that you claim to have had. I know of a few people who were at one time born-again but are no longer. Christians have to come to understand that one can indeed have been on fire for Christ to later no longer believe in what they used to. I think the root of that belief is fear that one can lose their salvation. That is why some believe in the once saved always saved doctrine; which is based on fear. I know of a current pagan who described himself at one time as being a very spiritual christian. So it is indeed
possible to no longer believe.

I started out in a very strict pentecostal church-- no pants, make-up, movies, secular music, etc. I became disillusioned with that group and moved on to another which is much better. What really caused me to begin questioning was not science or the so called pagan influences of christianity (which after personal study, I find to be false), but this whole issue of faith. I just can't take any more of being told to believe for things that aren't going to happen. I'll give you an example: I met a woman whose son was killed in Iraq. She did so much praying for him to come home alive. Unfortunately, he died there. I had a brother who was there twice, and I did not want to "step out on faith", as many christians put it. I'd rather not believe for something and end up disappointed. As it turned out, my brother came back alive. My point is, I had no faith, and I had a great outcome. This woman had faith and her son died.

That isn't the only problem. Just about every woman has a desire to parent. However, I've spoken to many married christian women who have fertility problems. Yet, being a teacher, I see teen girls getting pregnant all the time. I also know of single church going women who have children without being married. Something is wrong with this picture, [quotes Psalm 127:3, "children are an heritage of the LORD"] My point is if children are a reward from God, then why are those who commit fornication rewarded with children while so many who are married do not get such a reward? I thought the wages of sin was death, not a reward. I have also heard about a British study which shows that a woman is more likely to become pregnant by a man who isn't her husband. So if that study is true, a woman is more likely to be rewarded if she commits adultery, another sin. This makes no sense at all. I want to make it clear, that I have not read the study. I have only heard about it on a medical documentary (the Discovery channel).

There is also the issue of tithing. Most churches teach that we will be cursed if we don't tithe. Yet, I have yet to see the windows of heaven open after giving so much to the church (as claimed). I'd have to admit that most people do not know of my feelings. I am known as a good christian woman and others would be shattered to know that I have such questions. I have even had others tell me that they admire my faith and have been led to Christ by my witness. Again, these people do not know that I have been questioning lately. This is only half of my story.

In all honesty, I am not sure where all of this will lead me. I wonder if I simply need a new denomination or a new outlook all together. With that said, I have decided to weigh all of my options. I will study more of the bible "contradictions" as well as other faiths more closely than I have. I even decided to challenge the God of the Bible. If he and his word are all they are claimed to be, it is up to him to prove it. No one should have to spend time debating or proving God. We are only human so it is up to God to prove who he is, not us. My study will lead me one of two ways. Either I'll find that the God of the Bible is a hoax, or my relationship with God will be stronger than ever after my study is over. In fact, all faiths and atheists have to prove their cases. Others may disagree, but I could never align myself with any group without evidence/credibility (whether believers or those who do not believe). Whatever the case, this is something I need to do.

I hope that my email did not bore or confuse you. I just needed to speak about this with someone who will hopefully not be judgmental or harsh.

Thanks for listening.

Yes, it could well be that many refuse to think that a Christian could stop believing, because that would then mean that they too could someday stop believing. If they think that the result of not believing will be horrible torment in hell, then it is hard to bear the thought that they too might someday not believe. So many refuse to think that it can happen.

Many 0f us have found that our observations of the world do not match what faith says it should be. There comes a time when we realize that our observations are not deceiving us, and that faith really does not work as claimed.

It is good that this lady began to study and question. She is on the right track, and can expect an exciting adventure of discovery ahead if she continues this course. I wish her well.

Questions About my Born-Again Experience.

A reader writes with questions about my born-again experience. He writes that he is not "trying to argue the truth of the Christian world view" but is rather trying to see if Christianity is "coherent and predictive with respect to your experiences."

His questions are shown in bold.

First, you state you were "born again". Would you describe what that meant to you?

When I was a fundamentalist, being born-again meant that I had put my faith in Christ alone for salvation. Before that I had lived with a horrible fear of hell which dominated my life. I was constantly accepting Christ into my heart, begging for forgiveness, confessing my sin and my faith in Christ, etc., but never quite sure if I had done it right. After reading the tract What Must I do to be Saved I determined that faith alone was sufficient, and put my faith in Christ alone. This greatly relieved the fear of hell, for I now believed that I was safe from the torment.

Later, after fundamentalism had failed me and I had spent years in apathy, I had a second experience in which I determined that I needed the help of God, and set out once more to live in fellowship with him in a close relationship with Jesus Christ. I thought that the God of the universe was now with me, guiding me and talking to me on my way.

Second, in light of your answer and in conjunction with your "change of mind", how did that change your concept of being "born again"?

I now see the first experience as a natural result of the relief from the immense fear of hell that I had experienced in early life. Having lived with that fear, and then later finding relief, it gave me a tremendous boast in life. I now see that this experience was nothing more than a relief from artificial fears.

The second experience is harder to explain. I was in despair before my "walk with God", and had great hope afterward. I now see that the reason for that hope is because I was committing myself to something, and was working to make a better world. I now think that I could have had the same experience by committing myself to many other views. I tell more about my story here.

Third, you obviously have a reasonable grasp of the Christian worldview. Do you believe that within that view, there is an explanation for your experiences?

Christians have a wide range of views about my experiences. I have had many people express their opinions about my experiences in my past debates. And they can't seem to agree.

Some think my experiences were bogus because the true Christian experience comes from the Catholic church, and I was not there. Others think my fundamentalist experience was the correct one, and that since one cannot lose salvation, I am still saved. Others think my fundamentalist experience would have been correct, but they will tell me I never really believed (even though I know I once sincerely believed). Others would think my fundamentalist experience was bogus, but that my later evangelical experience was real, and that I was therefore a child of God and am still a child of God (but backslidden). Others think my evangelical experience was real, but they think one can lose salvation, so they think I lost mine. Still others think my evangelical experience was an ersatz replica of true evangelical experience, and never valid. And some think that neither the fundamentalist nor the later evangelical experience were valid, but that Christianity is instead about following the Sermon on the Mount, and not about born-again experiences. One Christian even told me I was not "saved" back in my Christian days, but I am now! (see this thread, post 294).

So are one of these Christian views the "coherent and predictive" truth about my experiences? If so, which one?

To see more of the confusion about what is required for heaven, see Requirements for Heaven.

Why I am a Humanist

I am a humanist. By this I mean that I accept and promote the values and principles traditionally accepted by humanists. Here I will list some of the more important of those values, and explain why they are important to me. (Click here to see more.)

Why no Bible stories about China or America?

A reader writes with another deconversion story:

Thank you for making this great website in a clearly organized and greatly analyzed way. I accepted Jesus Christ in 1999 after seeing how happy Christians' lives can be and after learning the story that Jesus had died on the cross for my sins as preached by an evangelist. Soon after that, I joined bible study groups and church regularly, where we were taught many miracles that Jesus has performed. However, since I was not a Christian (sorta Buddhists/Taoist) before this and I have many Muslim friends, I questioned my group leader and more experienced Christian friends about the story of evolution, why the earth is much older than the bible said, and why do we have to believe the Bible when Muslims claimed Quran contains God's true words and Bible incomplete. Also, I asked them why can't the bible be a fictional story written by the people that live in the old days? I am sad to say, I did not get convincing answers and most of the time, the discussion will end abruptly when my Christian friends could no longer answer my doubts. They will usually tell me that I do not have to see to believe. All I need is to believe by FAITH. Slowly, my faith decreased and I stopped attending church or bible study.

Also, each time I read the bible, I thought that if God had created the world and humans, surely he must have known that the Chinese people exist too. However, the stories written in the bible only revolves around people in Egypt and places surrounding it. Why is there no mention of the Red Indian tribes in America? The only reason that could answer this is that, those people who wrote the stories in the bible did not know that "outside" world exist at that time. Although I have this conjecture in my mind, I still thought, NO WAY, I have to believe by faith because I want to go to Heaven!

After reading the Da Vinci Code, and The Last Templar, I had actually made up my mind that even if in the future Jesus is proven to be not godly and is merely a mortal, I am open to it and will accept it. But I still believed on certain things Jesus taught which I learnt from bible study and sermons.

Then, today, I finally chance upon your website. And guess what? I am quite surprised that even the church chose to use only the "good" stories to teach us of a loving God. Not a God who is irrational and killed babies. I am really greatful that you wrote in detail how we should believe in scientific facts. Thank you and now I am convinced and no longer believe in Christianity

Yes, why would a God of the universe be so intensely interested in several tribes along the Mediterranean Sea, while making no mention of the rest of the world? Did he have no message for the people of China or America? Why do the Old Testament writings look so much like the egocentric tribal rantings of the other nearby tribes? Surely an Omnipotent God would see beyond the next hilltop in Israel.

The writer of this email has asked good questions, and is on the right path.

The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Sam Harris wrote an interesting article entitled, The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos. Harris answers the common claim that, without the Bible, moral chaos would ensue. Harris shows that this is not true, for the Bible is far from the best moral guide. Further, there is no good evidence that Christianity produces better morals, and there is indeed a solid basis for morals from a secular starting point. Harris states:

According to the United Nations Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.

Harris is quick to point out that such correlational data does not prove that atheism is better, but it does show that it is indeed possible to build moral societies without relying on faith.

This article is a good response to the claim of Jeffrey Wilson in the debate I had with him. Wilson criticized my claim that secular humanists have good priniciples. Wilson wrote:

Good principles?!? You’re not even fooling the humanists here. Even they say that the Christian religion has a purpose in curbing total moral chaos in that if everyone believed that they were accountable to no one then everyone would do whatever it took to “get yours” and take and do whatever it is to maintain that fleeting high of happiness, such as, drugs, rape, murder, theft, etc.

But, of course, Wilson did not mention one humanist who believed that Christianity is necessary to curb moral chaos. We humanists teach that our message is a message of hope.

Why Care?

A reader writes, asking why we should care about others:

How would I go about determining whether to abandon the religious philosophies of my youth for 1) a greater personal freedom and happiness, such as you have found, or, 2) a violent, f--- the world and anybody who gets in my way philosophy?

I mean, I'm not sure why I should care about the propagation of the species or any kind of possibly "made-up reason" to love or be kind to others.

I know I don't believe in God like you used to but, it seems that if I am here by accident, why try to make up some ridiculous and temporary notion that life matters...... mine or anyone elses?

[A] few years ago I sent money to one of those starving children places, I quit after a few months because I needed the money myself. Now, I kinda feel like if people are sick or starving, why not let them die to the benefit of the rest of the evolving species. And, if the idea to care for them in the first place is a part of evolution anyway?????.... know what I mean?

Just wondered how you acheived your freedom and personal happiness with regard to this simple intellectual dilemma. I guess I'm saying it doesn't appear that I can learn from you either since it seems you are walking in faith with your own set of
inconsistencies that starve for intellectual integrity. Then again, what is integrity and why care anyway?

I would need to begin by asking this writer if he cares about his own happiness and personal well-being. I assume he does. For, if he did not care about his well-being, why does he eat? If he does not care about his happiness, why does he write and ask about happiness?

So if his personal happiness and sense of well-being are important to him, we must then ask how he can best get what he wants. The writer suggests that taking advantage of others might be one way to achieve his goals. But I think he is sadly mistaken. Humans are social creatures who depend on other people for their survival. It has always been the nature of humans--and many other animals--to form families and groups that support each other for the common good. Without this support, few people could survive long, and few would find happiness.

If the writer were to choose to get what he wants by selfishly taking from others, he will find little support from others. If he hurts others, hates them, and takes from them, they will be opposed to him. And he will not find happiness.

The writer suggests that evolution is all about competing with others. But evolution is not necessarily about defeating others. It is about promoting self-survival, yes, but that survival is often best accomplished by learning to build mutual cooperation and trust with others of the same species or even of other species. And so evolution encourages cooperation.

The writer asks that I offer him something more than a ridiculous and temporary notion that life matters. And I will not make up such vacuous reasons.

I cannot prove to anybody that life matters. We are the accidental product of natural forces. I cannot prove that we should care about life or that we should want our own well-being. But I do know this, that my happiness matters to me. And I suppose that the writer's happiness matters to him. If that is so, then let us both seek to find happiness. And I think that he, and I, and all other readers, will best find the happiness we desire if we set out to build mutually helpful relationships with others. We will best find happiness if we work together for the common good.

Some people help others because they believe that God will punish them if they don't. What a sad motivation that is! The result is a legalistic serving of others in an attempt to avoid punishment. Some who have this fear as their only motivation cannot imagine a world of love and cooperation if that fear of hell did not exist. But they are wrong. There is a natural need in all of us for each other. If we recognize our need of others, and recognize that caring for others is the best way to win the friendship of others, spontaneous outbreaks of good come from the human spirit.

Faith and Reason

A recent editiorial in the London(Ontario) Free Press says that I have gotten it wrong regarding the Bible and morality. (see Christianity melds reason with faith) In response I sent the following letter to the editor:


----------------------------------------------------------

I read Rory Leishman’s editorial, “Christianity melds reason with faith” with great interest. Leishman quotes from my website (www.geocities.com/questioningpage) and announces that I have “got it wrong.” Well I don’t know, but maybe I must take a closer look to see if I indeed have gotten it wrong.

Leishman criticizes a recent Supreme Court decision, and complains that many Canadians fall into grievous error because they “rely on reason alone as a guide for moral judgment.” But reason has long been the standard by which democratic governments strive to govern. Shall we turn away from reason?

Leishman says that, for many, “Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority on all questions of faith and morality.” But what of Deut. 22:11 which forbids wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? Is this verse the ultimate answer to that question? Leishman mentions that verse, and infers that it is an obsolete ceremonial law. But how would one know this is an obsolete law? The New Testament is not at all clear on that.

But even if we judge this law obsolete, that does not clear up the problem. For that law is in the early scripture. At one time, this was the only scripture people knew. And the same scripture allowed slavery. That is the problem. Are we really to believe there was a time in which slavery was right but wearing mixed fabrics was wrong? Those who followed the books of Moses at that time would have thought so. But reason would disagree. Would not a literal following of scriptures in those days have yielded a wrong morality? We cannot ignore this problem by saying the commands are now obsolete. What about the time in which they were taken as relevant? If scripture was wrong back then, how can one be sure that following the updated scriptures is the best way to morality now?

Leishman declares that “The moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments is universally binding and true.” But what about the fourth commandment, which says to keep the Sabbath holy? In its original context, this command meant no work was allowed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, with the death penalty for violators. Many now interpret this commandment to mean Sunday worship. But that is not what the original commandment meant. If we are allowed to change the meaning of the original word “Sabbath”, can we also change the meanings of “kill”, “steal”, and “adultery’? How can the Ten Commandments be said to be universally binding if Christians are free to change the meaning of the fourth commandment?

Leishman turns not only to scripture, but also to church traditions, which we are told “essentially concur on the substance of the moral law.” But I have found that church traditions differ widely. There are huge differences on the perceived morality on issues such as alcohol, gambling, divorce, and military service. The Amish even declare electricity immoral. How can one possibly say that all these traditions agree on the substance of morality? When we encounter the differences, should we not turn to reason to resolve the conflicts?

Leishman chooses the example of condemning “unchaste thoughts” of adultery as an example of unity in Christian tradition. But I know many Christians who do not think such sexual thoughts are immoral. Such “unchaste” thoughts come naturally to males. Sometimes men think and feel in certain ways. It just happens. And many Christians will tell me it is not immoral to experience such thoughts, provided one maintains a rational view of the other priorities in life, and does not act in an immoral way. So where is the unity that condemns these thoughts? Unless we exclude these Christians that differ, the claimed unity disappears. And if we must exclude some so we can claim unity, who gets to decide whom is excluded?

What we share, both Christians and non-Christians alike, is a common set of values and principles, such as the value of respecting the property of others, and the value of not killing. From these values, we can use reason to establish laws and moral decisions that best help us all reach our goals.


So I find that neither scripture nor church tradition is a good alternative to making moral decisions based on shared principles and sound reason.

All of this brings us to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Many see this decision as unreasonable. The answer is not in condemning reason, or in demanding blind obedience to church tradition. The answer is to show why reason might lead to a different decision. The answer is in open democracy, not in theocracy

Global Collapse

Years ago a group of Polynesians sailed to one of the most remote places on earth, Easter Island. Here they found a fertile island far from any other land, and started a prosperous society. They developed the technology to create and erect great statutes. But in the process they destroyed their civilization. They cut down every single tree, and ruined their economy. What did the man think that cut down the last tree? We don't know. But we know that the people sealed their own doom.

Similar stories have happened at other places. In the book Collapse Jared Diamond examine societies that have experienced collapse, and looks at the causes. He finds that the destruction of the environment as well as other factors lead to these collapses.

Diamond warns that a similar fate could await the global community today unless something is done about it. Overpopulation, diminishing resources, global warming, and pollution are just a few of the problems we face. Diamond calls us to seriously consider what we are doing to our world. He warns that a collapse could occur this century if we ignore the problems.

Think about it. You and I may not be alive that long, but what about our children and grandchildren? Many of us invest considerable time and energy into seeing that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy a good life. But what if the world does not address these problems, and our children find themselves in a desolate world?

All thinking people should listen to Diamond's warning. This is the only world we have. Let us make the most of it. Let us work together to protect the earth's resources to provide the best for humanity for many generations to come.

(Click here to see more about the book)

Questions about evolution

A reader writes with questions about evolution.

What makes things evolve?

Animals and plants evolve because their bodies are controlled by genes which occasionally experience random changes known as mutations. Some of these changes are good for survival, some are not. The creatures that have the most favorable genes are more likely to survive and pass their genes to the next generation. This causes creatures to gradually change into a form that best allows them to survive in their environment.

Why did man develop, and yet monkeys still exist? Did the monkeys who did evolve into men, simply have different environmental conditions than the monkeys who didn't?

Well, we really didn't come from monkeys. Rather, monkeys, apes, and humans all descended from a common ancestor (which, incidentally, was probably close to modern monkeys). The various offspring of this ancestor ended up exploiting various niches of nature to earn their survival. And so they diversified into many species, each with its own niche. Monkeys continue to survive in the tops of the jungles, finding plenty of food up there and quickly scrambling from tree to tree to escape predators. Humans would not do good in that enviroment.So we have both humans and monkeys, each surviving in a different way in a different environment.

Are we really just an accidental mutation, or do other forces cause such changes?

The mutations are random. However the forces of selection for survival drive the creatures to survive in their niche.

Why do some animals like crocodiles stay the same for hunderds of thousands of years?

Once an animal has become well established in a large niche, if that environment remains stable, the physical changes to that creature often become small. Thus since sharks and crocodiles have evolved to be well adapted to particular stable roles in the environment, they have little need of further change. There genes continue to mutate, but the forces of natural selection hold the physical forms ofthe creautres stable with time.

Scientists do admit that it seems there were evolutionary jumps from one species to another, so what makes this happen?

Jumps occur when isolated populations find themselves in a different environment. Creatures sometimes change "rapidly" to meet the new requirments. These changes actually take thousands of years, but compared to the age of the earth, the change is relatively rapid. A good picture of how this happens can be seen in the various dog breeds. Most of these breeds developed in the last several thousand years as humans guided their environment and selected those that they wanted to breed. Thus in a few thousand years, we see great differences in the dogs. Should this breeding continue, we will one day have many different species of dogs with different characteristics.

Will we humans evolve into something else in a million years, and if so what drives it exactlly?

Certainly human genes will be different in a million years. The extent and direction of the changes depend on the environment. Interestingly, we as humans can affect our environment, and thus can influence the future or our species.
Is there one or two books that could explain evolution for me, in simple terms?

I would begin at the Talk.Origins Archive. Also, many have found The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins to be good introductory books to the mechanisms of evolution.

Updates

There have been a few recent updates to my site:

Are the Gospels Historical? : I added a paragraph addressing the frequent claim that thousands of manuscripts (from the Middle Ages) validate the historicity of the Bible.

Is there Life after Death? I rewrote the section on consciousness to better develop my point.

How Old is the Earth? I rewrote the section on the distance to the stars, taking out redundancies and further developing my point.

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

The latest addition to my site is a page called Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Formerly this page had been combined with the page on the gospels. I have seperated out the resurrection question, and have expanded it to better address this important issue. I hope you find this helpful. I may come back and edit this page later, so let me know if you have any comments on it.

Defending My Story

You can read a challenge to my deconversion story and my response here.

Have you read the Bible?

In a recent survey, I asked people at the Christian Forums, "Have you read the Bible?". I found that the non-Christians have read the Bible about as much as the Christians there. Several said that it was reading the Bible that convinced them to leave the faith. This is the same experience I have had. When I sat down to read the Bible, it was obvious something was wrong.

Christian friend, if you would like to resolve this issue, then may I suggest you read the Bible this year? I think you will see the problem for yourself.