Atheist Central

Early today, a doctor named George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who was one of the people in the country who specialized in performing late-term abortions, was shot to death while ushering in his church. The suspected killer is a 38 year old “pro life” activist named Scott Roeder. I have a question for Christians: How can you rule out the possibility that Roeder was doing God’s will?

Please don’t bother responding by citing Bible scripture; any particular variant of Christianity is entirely consistent with God directly instructing person A to do something which contradicts scripture — or person B’s interpretation thereof — and with that instruction thereby being maximally imparative for that person.

If God exists, then it is possible that God ordered Roeder to murder Tiller, and that he therefore committed a good act. This is not a problem for the atheist, who rejects the antecedent. But it presents an internal contradiction in the Christian worldview: action A taken at time T cannot be both absolutely wrong and possibly absolutely right. If you deny the former, then you reject a moral dictate whose acceptance or rejection arguably separates the human from the inhuman. If you deny the latter, then you deny the ultimate supremacy of your own deity, and thus, presumably, your Christianity.

If you consider yourself both a Christian and a human being, how do you resolve this contradiction?

Imagine a country — a moderate-sized industrial country in the Eastern Hemisphere — which recognized a certain philosophy, a certain dogma, as absolute truth. History, science, literature are all taught selectively, where things which are inconsistent with the Official Philosophy are left out of the curriculum. More significantly, philosophical studies as we know them do not exist. Only state-published philosophy texts are allowed; these are just as selective, and portray philosophers who reject the state philosophy either not at all, or in the context of showing them why they’re wrong.

Belief in the state philosophy is compulsory. Any adult person who utters a statement contradicting the state philosophy is tortured at length, and then executed, his assets seized, his family imprisoned. Everything he worked for, his whole life, taken away from him for having the wrong belief.

Suppose you were a citizen of that country who managed to escape, and obtain asylum in America. As you were acclimatizing yourself to your new life, one day you wander into the philosophy section of your local library, and your eyes are opened. You see hundreds upon hundreds of volumes, each espousing every conceivable philosophical viewpoint under the sun — some of them, especially compilations, espousing more than one. You find a few books laying out and defending the state philosophy that you’ve lived with your entire life. You find many other volumes who agree with MOST of the philosophy, but disagree with one or two points — which, where you come from, would likely still be a capital crime. And you find many other volumes still which completely and totally argue against your state philosophy, arguing from a point of view which frightens you. Surely such people could not be allowed to live! And aren’t you yourself in danger merely for looking at the cover of such blasphemous material?

This fear you experience is misguided, as you are no longer bound by your native nation’s laws; they cannot touch you. But this fear is also quite justified. You grew up living under the premise that if you reject the state philosophy and adopt a different one, you would be horribly punished.

A personal confession: this is how I feel with respect to Christianity. I grew up believing, and in my teenage years willfully accepted, the proposition that Christianity was Absolute Truth, revealed by the Creator of truth itself, and that anyone who didn’t buy into it completely would be punished horribly. I now have every reason to believe that that is wrong. Am I afraid that it might be true? Not really. I’m more afraid of being wrong — who isn’t? That’s why I make every effort to be right, and if Christianity is true, then I want to accept that fact.

But going back to the analogy: unlike the country where you came from, one of the methodological axioms of analytical philosophy conducted in the western world is that no matter what arguments you make, no matter what views you agree with, no matter what philosophy you hold, you are free to do that without being tortured and killed for it. But the opposite principle, that naysayers can — and SHOULD — be tortured and killed for having the wrong philsoophy, is not only a state-mandated practice where you come from; it is embedded into the philosophy itself.

So it is with Christianity. Whenever I read or hear about a new work of analytical philosophy by the likes of Craig or Moreland or Plantinga or Swinburne, I feel a twinge of bitterness. Because the philosophy that they subscribe to, and to which they believe you should subscribe, but which they never discuss in the context of rigorous analytical work, includes the propositions that (a) I will be tortured for an indefinite period of time if I die without accepting their philosophy, and (b) it is entirely right and proper that this should be the case.

Imagine if a non-Christian philosopher concluded each of his submitted articles to peer-reviewed periodicals with, “If you don’t agree with the conclusions of this article, you will die.” Do you imagine he would be published — ever? What about a philosopher who did not include that statement in his articles, but about whom it was common knowledge that he believed it to be true? I have a hard time believing that the editors of any peer-reviewed periodical would publish such things. And yet we see contributions from known Christian salvation-exclusivists all the time — several of whom supercede my own skills in rigorous philosophical analysis, and that’s saying something, as I have a rather high opinion of myself in that regard.

I honestly believe that if exclusivism weren’t so commonplace in our society, as a result of cultural inheritance, no editor worth his salt would publish the likes of Craig or Plantinga. I freely admit that I may be biased by my own bitterness at the underlying (or at least parallel) premises of exclusivism which these Christian philosophers employ in their works — and I recognize that the compossibility of propositions (a) and (b) above are a valid area of analytical philosophical research, which we are free to investigate. But I wonder, and wonder very loudly, how a viable methodology can incorporate a situation analogous to that of myself standing in a room with two other guys, one of whom is holding a gun to my head and threatening my life if I don’t subscribe to their philosophy, and the other explaining to me, with admirable rigor and reasonable-sounding arguments, why the first man is perfectly right to threaten my life.

I don’t know which frightens me more — the idea that their philosophy turns out to be false, or that it turns out to be true. If the former is correct, then any statement to the effect that I believe the philosophy would be a lie, and I would lose my life. But if the latter is correct, then we live in a truly nightmarish universe. Am I wrong to propose that the underlying methodology in analytical philosophy should be more optimistic than that?

Ray is actually off to a good start this morning, with respect to the challenge I issued him yesterday. He actually managed an entire blog post without mentioning atheists or atheism! The whole thing was addressed at non-Christians in general, which is within bounds for the challenge, and if there was a “wink wink nudge nudge” there to show that he was really talking about atheists, I didn’t catch it. Good show. (Also, his post talked about a non-Christian from Minnesota, which I happen to be. Coincidence, or a message to me that he’s accepted my challenge? Time will tell, I suppose.)

Unfortunately, he committed a few violations in a response to someone named Bathtub in the comments of his previous post. I won’t dock him for quoting what Bathtub said, although that is a technical violation, but he did mention the word “atheist” three times in three separate sentences. This means the donation has been reduced from $119,784 to $14,973. It is said that addictions are costly; in Ray’s case, this is the literal truth. His addiction to atheism just cost him over a hundred grand. How sad.

The bright spot is, per the terms of the rebooted challenge, the length of time of the activities I promised to carry out is unchanged — if he goes cold turkey now, he gets me to hang out with Christians and go to church for 32 weeks and to read 32 books of his choosing. But with three violations under his belt, Ray’s on the bubble — one more, and those numbers are halved.

A quick recap: Yesterday, I offered to donate $119,784 to Ray Comfort’s ministry at the end of the day on June 11th, said amount to be reduced in half for every instance between then and now he makes mention of atheism, atheists, evolution or evolutionists. As it turns out, it took him less than 13 hours to blow through nearly $119,784. There can be almost no doubt remaining that Ray Comfort is obsessed with atheists.

However, for the sake of removing that “almost,” we’re going to try this one more time. And this time, we’re going to sweeten the pot. I don’t have the financial resources to increase the monetary value of the $119,784 offer, so instead I will offer Ray something that he would no doubt claim to find more valuable than money: the chance to save souls.

Needless to say, I cannot convert to Christianity on a whim, as I honestly believe that the whole thing is false. What I CAN do, however, is devote an inordinate amount of time and energy in trying to convince myself otherwise — what Ray would no doubt style as “softening my heart.” Therefore, here’s the deal: In addition to the $119,784 donation if Ray can go three weeks without making reference to atheism or atheists, I will also do the following:

• Cease all my internet participation on atheism- and atheist-related websites for 32 weeks — including this blog.
• Become an active participant on at least three Christian blogs and/or message boards of Ray’s choosing for 32 weeks, and subject myself to whatever conditions and restrictions the administrators of those boards see fit to impose upon me.
• Attend a church of Ray’s choosing twice a week for 32 weeks, so long as the church is within 20 miles of my home (I live in Bloomington, MN).
• Within the next nine-month period, read 32 books of Ray’s choosing, so long as those books are available through my local library system — or Ray can mail them to me if he wants.

This is about the best I can do, and I think it’s more than adequate. Should I become a born-again Christian through these activities, I would return to the blogosphere as an advocate for Christ rather than atheism — and, not to sound immodest, I think the quality of my writings make it clear that I would be a formidable ally of Ray Comfort, should I come around to his way of thinking. Thus, he would not only be saving my soul, but also the souls of everyone whom I manage to reach for the rest of my life.

As before, the relevant numbers will be reduced for violations — the amount of the donation will be halved, as before, for every violation, and in addition, the amount of the activities mentioned above will be halved for every FOUR violations. For example, after the first four violations, I would leave the atheist community for 16 weeks, join the Christian community for 16 weeks, attend church for 16 weeks, and read 16 books. After eight violations, it would be 8 weeks and 8 books, and so on.

The other conditions of the challenge, including what constitutes a violation, remain the same. As before, I will give Ray a 12 hour grace period from the time of this posting before I begin to dock him. And finally, just to make the pot sweeter still, I will invite all atheists who would be interested in joining me in this challenge to do so.

So there it is, Ray — you give up atheism for three weeks, and you will most likely save my soul, and by extension, the souls of many others. Oh, and you get a whole lot of money. If you accept, then there it is. If you decline, it will become apparent to all, beyond any doubt, that you are obsessed with atheism and atheists.

Ray committed a total of 12 more violations in the comments thread to the aforementioned blog post — the precise number, as it happens, required to bring him below one cent.

Absolutely amazing. I suspected that Ray would reduce my offer of a $119,784 donation down to nothing or nearly nothing, but not even I suspected that his manical obsession with atheism would cause it to happen in less than 13 hours.

Let’s look at Ray’s first post-challenge post, “The atheist’s invisible friend.” As a rule of thumb, I will restrict violations of the challenge conditions to one per sentence — this is mostly to preserve my own sanity. I reserve the right to rescind this rule should it become obvious that Ray is using it to “cheat.”

Violation in the title. Amount remaining: $59,892.

Violation in the cartoon — the “magician” is quite obviously supposed to be an atheist and/or evolutionist. Amount remaining: $29,946.

Violation in the opening paragraph — a quote from Scientific American about evolution. amount remaining: $14,973.

Violations in sentences 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the second paragraph. Halve the donation amount five times — ouch! Amount remaining: $467.90

Violations in sentences 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the third paragraph. This is all pronouns which refer to atheists/evolutionists. Halve the donation amount four times. Amount remaining: $29.24.

No violations that I could spot in the remaining paragraphs.

A total of 12 violations in a single post.

How sad. Ray could have had a check for $119,784, but his obsession, his undying, manaical fixation with atheism and evolution has wiped almost all of that away. It’s almost not worth doing the rest of the challenge, as I doubt he would change his writing habits for three weeks for a mere $29.24, but I’ll continue to keep track, just to see how little time it takes him to fall to zero.

Keith Olbermann has withdrawn his challenge to Sean Hannity to donate $1,000 to charity for every second he lasts under the waterboard, as it has become unnecessary. Earlier today, a Chicago right-wing radio blowhard named Erich “Mancow” Muller subjected himself — live, on his show — to the waterboarding. He did not believe it was torture, and he did this stunt to prove it.

He lasted six seconds. He came out of it pale and shaken, and he said afterward, reluctantly but quite bluntly, that waterboarding is “absolutely torture.”

Kudos to Mancow for, at the very least, having the cajones that Hannity lacks — and Olbermann agrees, as he is donating $10,000 to a charity for military families in Mancow’s honor. (Thanks, by the way, to my readers who expressed interest in adding to the pot of the Hannity challenge, even though it turned out not to matter.)

So there can be no further doubt: waterboarding is torture. Where do we go from here?

It has become clear to everyone who pays attention to such matters that Ray Comfort is obsessed with atheists. And I don’t mean it’s his calling, or his chosen topic of interest, or even that he’s merely fixated upon us, although those things are probably true as well. I mean that he has the kind of obsession that made Glenn Close boil bunnies. An unhealthy obsession, perhaps even a dangerous obsession.

And I’m willing to demonstrate this. To show the extent of Ray’s obsession, I’m going to put my money where my mouth is.

Three weeks from today, on June 11, 2009, I will give Ray’s organization, Living Water’s Ministries, a check for $119,784 — the amount that Ray gave himself for salary in 2006, according to LW’s tax return — provided that, between then and now, he makes no direct or indirect mention to atheism or to any atheist. Every time he does so, the amount of the donation will be halved.

Even a cursory glance at Ray’s published bibliography reveals that he has many ministerial interests beyond atheism. If he wishes, he could easily focus on these interests for three weeks, and write a great deal indeed without once touching upon atheism. Alternatively, and preferably, he could simply shut up for three weeks. Either way, if he manages it, he gets a cool $120k.

If he references atheism or atheists a single time, he gets half that. If he does it twice, he gets a quarter. And so on.

So as to prevent “cheating,” the definition of what constitutes a reference to atheists or atheism will be quite broad. It will include, but not be limited to, the following:

• The name of an atheist.
• A quotation by an atheist, either attributed or not.
• An atheist organization.
• A pronoun, or generic phrase, that quite clearly refers to atheists (e.g. “There are those who say…”).
• An argument or assertion which is commonly attributed to atheists (e.g. the argument from evil).
• Any mention of atheists or atheism in any of those stupid cartoons which usually accompany Ray’s posts (presumably Ray controls whether to post them or not).
• Any reference to evolution or evolutionists — which, in Ray’s mind, are the same thing as atheism and atheists.
• Any word or phrase which, by convention, becomes a stand-in for any of the above.

I will make two exceptions: first, Ray may reference the name of any non-atheist organization or publication that happens to have the word in the title — for instance, he can say the name of his own blog, “Atheist Central.” And second, he may reference this post for the purpose of explaining why he’s spending a few weeks atheist-free, provided he quotes the entire post, and does so accurately.

If Ray is as predictable as I think he is, he will respond that he doesn’t do this for the money, but to save atheists’ souls. First, however, the money is going, not to Ray himself, but to Ray’s ministry, where it will presumably be put toward the soul-saving purpose. Second, the fact that Ray’s self-given salary increased to 120k in 2006 from 50k in 2005 suggests that money has at least some place of prominence in Ray’s mind. And third, according to Ray’s theology, there are plenty of non-atheist souls who need saving — in fact, the unsaved professed Christians vastly outnumber the unsaved atheists. Why not focus on the former for a few weeks?

I will give Ray a 12-hour grace period, from the time that this is posted, to give Ray a chance to be made aware of this challenge (it will be simultaneously cross-posted to his blog, where all comments are approved, and therefore read, by Ray or one of his representatives), and perhaps to plan what he’s going to do for the next three weeks. After 12 hours, I start docking him.

Should there be any amount left to donate at the end of the day on June 11th, the check will be sent the morning of the 12th.

This post contains spoilers for the new Star Trek film. If you have not seen the film, and do not wish to be spoiled — and I STRONGLY suggest you avoid spoiling yourself, even if you’re a spoiler-holic — do not read any further until you’ve seen the film.

Now, having said that, go see the film.

Seriously. Go see it. It’s really good.

Read the rest of this entry »