10 Commandments better than God's

Author Sam Harris says that we probably all know that we could come up with a much better set of ten commandments than God did in the Bible. He said, "Consider the possibility of improving the Ten Commandments. This would appear to be setting the bar rather high, as these are the only passages in the Bible that the Creator of the universe felt the need to physically write himself." One would think these would be unquestioningly the most important rules we could possibly find. We should be awed at the wisdom of these laws. But instead we find a bunch of nonsense along with some proscriptions against murder, lying and theft. Does anyone really think the ten commandments as found in the Bible are really the best an omniscient god could come up with? I won't go into the sheer lunacy of the commandment "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," found in Exodus 34. I'm not claiming to be God. I'm just saying that I agree with Sam that the average person could come up with ten rules for life that are far superior to God's. Of course, God needed to use many of his ten to reinforce his dominance with things like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." And I don't' think most of us would feel the need to include hygiene or dietary laws either. I suspect that some believers will argue that these were laws given to the Hebrews and can't be expected to apply exactly with the world we live in today. If so many people did not think it was appropriate to post these "commandments" in public places like courthouses insisting that our laws are based upon God's law, I might agree. But obviously many believers think the ten commandments are the ultimate law. So I took some time to think about this and discussed it with friends. The following is what I came up with. Maybe they aren't the ultimate laws of the world and you might be able to come up with some better ideas but that only proves the point of this post.

1. Thou shalt treat other people with fairness and kindness as you would like them to treat you.
   
2. Thou shalt not abuse any person physically, sexually, psychologically, economically, emotionally or any other way regardless of their age, sex, color, nationality or creed.
   
3. Thou shalt never consider another person to be your property nor force or coerce them to serve you.
   
4. Thou shalt not kill any person unless you must to defend yourself or other people from grievous harm.
   
5. Thou shalt be truthful in dealing with other people unless the truth serves no purpose but to harm.
   
6. Thou shalt not cheat, exploit, extort or impose your will upon other people.
   
7. Thou shalt not steal the property of another person unless you must to survive and taking it will not endanger the owner. Try asking first.
   
8. Thou shalt not harm another person unless you must to defend yourself or other people from harm.
   
9. Thou shalt endeavor to contribute your talents and energies to the betterment of the entire community of humans.
   
10. Thou shalt endeavor to provide at least the necessities of life to those people who are unable to fend for themselves.

Obama's Presidency like the Second Coming?

I've found that most atheists are as far left leaning as you can get. It's understandable inasmuch as we are extremely liberal on so many issues. Naturally most of us align ourselves politically with the party that seems most attuned to our viewpoints on religious and social issues such as racism, sexism and homosexuality. However much I agree with them on these issues, I can't bring myself to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I cannot accept the tendency toward socialism and the Robin Hood mentality of the Democrat party. I'm a registered libertarian but I realize that my party is not seriously in competition for the presidency. This always makes for a difficult decision for me at the polls. On the one hand I want my country's leader to be opposed to bigotry of all kinds and not to kowtow to the dictates of religion and all of its ridiculous notions. On the other hand, I do not want America to become like the failed and failing socialist nations in Europe. It is clear to me that socialism is not the answer to our problems. Obama is right that we need change. But the change we need is not to turn our nation into another third world nation or socialist regime. For instance, socialized medicine is nothing more than a way to insure that everyone has free access to equally pathetic healthcare.

One of the ballot propositions in my state this year was put forth to keep our freedom of choice in healthcare from being overridden by well-meaning advocates of universal healthcare. The measure specifically and unequivocally stated that its intent was only to preserve our freedom to choose our own healthcare. And yet, the proposition was defeated because its opponents successfully convinced the electorate that it would prevent them from providing healthcare to those who are poor and on public assistance. No one has ever made a cogent argument for that position but voters fell for it. So we are now likely to have healthcare insurance foisted on us that will provide us with no choice and, just like Canada, we will be told that we will have to wait in a queue for important surgery or other treatment because our freedom to choose has been denied us. Freedom is what this nation was founded upon and that is exactly what is draining away like sand through our fingers.

And what have the Democrats given us atheists to be happy about with this election? Obama is just as much a religious person as the other candidates. He has promised to enhance the Bush doctrine of giving tax dollars to religious institutions. Just how have we gained any ground in the fight to secure real religious freedom? Sure, he pays lip service to the notion that people of every faith or no faith at all are all equal, but I am left to wonder how a man who sat for two decades in Reverend Wright's fundamentalist church and espouses a "growing" Christian spirituality can be serious about this. And the hate-filled racist diatribes of Reverend Wright didn't seem to bother Obama. So what kind of a champion against bigotry can we expect President Obama to be? Obama has been marketed as if he is the second coming of Jesus Christ and I think a lot of people are going to be woefully disappointed in what they got for their vote, especially atheists.

I am extremely tired of people who claim to be colorblind and eschew racism with their words but demonstrate a completely different attitude with their actions. I can't even count the number of people I heard in the national media stating flatly during the presidential campaign that they were voting for Obama simply because he is black. If anyone had said they were voting for his opponent because he was white, they would have been almost burned at the stake. But it's perfectly OK to say you're voting for someone because he is black. What kind of sense does that make? How is that not racism? Who cares what color a candidate is? In my opinion, color is not an issue and should not be a criterion for being elected to public office. While I understand the emotions of people like Tiger Wood's who was tearfully joyful at having the first black president, I think they are missing the entire point of a free nation. Of course it is excellent news that our country has risen above bigotry enough to elect a black person to the highest office. This event should encourage everyone of every race that they can achieve whatever they want if they work for it. The barriers are gone. However, if we have elected a man simply because he is black, we are only indulging in racism by that fact.

It dismays me that people can be blinded to the other real and important issues we face as a nation and elect someone who is not prepared to handle these issues or lead us to be a better and stronger nation just to prove we are not bigots. We have a black president. That’s fantastic. But have we just elected a symbol? Obama has never done anything of substance politically or otherwise. He was helped to every position in life by affirmative action and not completely on his own merit. He seems to have been living in a fantasy world and his politics are all theory based, not experiential. His complete lack of experience is a serious problem looming for his presidency and for us as a nation.

The real problem is that Obama's stated goals are completely impossible. He and Joe Biden want to indulge in rampant redistribution of wealth. They want to tax the hell out of anyone who they deem to be "rich." They want to increase taxes on businesses so they can implement their socialist agenda. But all they will succeed in doing is chasing more businesses offshore and their taxes on the rich will increase the costs of goods and services on the rest of us. Jobs will leak out of our country like water through a colander and they will be forced to define “rich” further and further down to keep funding their ridiculous plans for social engineering. They simply do not see what the country really needs to change in order to give people equal opportunity and to give incentives to make more progress.

Instead of growing government to massive proportions with ever greater grasping for revenue by an onerous tax burden, we need to shrink government and stick to the constitution. The government needs to be there to protect people from harm. It's that simple. The free market system is our best bet as China and other such nations have discovered. Of course we need regulations and protections in place to keep the populace from being abused by corporations and individuals who are unscrupulous. Of course we need to protect and provide for the less fortunate. But you cannot take away the incentive to be productive and expect people to keep forging ahead. As it stands now, our tax rates are confiscatory and unevenly applied. That needs to change. The government wouldn't need to have such preposterously high revenues if it wasn't trying to be everything to everyone. I hear people complaining all the time about our Big Brother government and yet they keep voting for more and bigger government. What do they think will happen? They want to give more and more power and control to the government and yet they want their freedom to be protected. It just doesn't make sense.

I wish President Obama well and I will enthusiastically support him when he is right but I will oppose him when he is wrong just as enthusiastically. I hope that as a nation we can be wise enough to insist on real substantive, useful and productive change from his administration and not just be happily mollified with the pabulum he served up in his campaign speeches. We certainly need change in this country but we don't need to change what made us a great nation that people all over the world flock to for protection from oppression and tyranny. Freedom is what made this country a great place to live. Socialism can only destroy that freedom. It is at least as bad as religion on that count. It cannot help us. Like Jesus Christ, Obama seems to be bringing tyranny disguised as utopia. I just don't see how so many atheists cannot make the connection. I am forced to think that they have given up thinking for themselves and want a nanny government to do it for them. The irony would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Beyond Belief - Food for Thought

In response to the recent books by people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, many theists are complaining about the tone of the debate. This also rankles some scientists who think that such arguments only serve to make the debate about religion more contentious and confrontational. I can see their point but I am with Sam Harris when he says that it is time to stop making it taboo to criticize religious dogma.

In 2006, Dr. Melvin Konner, the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology at Emory University, expressed a desire for more sensitivity in the debate between rational scientists and the theists of the world. Whether or not there is any real validity to this approach, even the most sensitive approach cannot avoid the conclusions below. These are the statements of accepted fact that were put forth by Dr. Konner.

• There is no verifiable evidence to support religious claims and all testable claims fail.
• Science continually closes all the gaps in knowledge that religion has been used to fill.
• What is called the soul is just brain activity.
• Religion is divisive and causes bigotry, violence, hatred and war.
• Religion is the "opium of the masses."
• God is the product of human yearnings for:
  • A perfect parent
  • Reward and punishment
  • Companionship
  • Meaning
  • Escape from death
  • and other human penchants for agency-detection and imagining other minds.
• More generally in psychological and psychosocial terms religion is a product of human yearnings for:
  • Identity
  • Belonging
  • A sense of superiority
  • Blameworthy enemies
  • Narrative


• All "sacred" texts are characterized by:
  • Errors and lies
  • Internal contradictions
  • Mutual contradictions
  • Supernatural (i.e. highly implausible) origins
  • Silly or cruel behavior of gods and religious heroes

To validate his contention that arguing with theists is pointless, Konner points out, and I'm paraphrasing somewhat:

1. Most religious people don't care about and are not swayed by proof.
2. They do not generally care that religion has been the cause of great harm and injustice.
3. They do not generally care that religious texts are fatally flawed.
4. They do not generally care that they cannot even define God.
5. They have been developing rationalizations and subtly fallacious arguments against all these things for millennia.

For different reasons, Dr. Konner and I don't accept the notion put forth by Steven J. Gould that religion and science are simply areas of nonoverlapping magisteria. He says "Neither one is magisteria." I agree that neither is magisteria, partially because that is a religious term. I say that science and religion do overlap and that science is better because it is the only one of the two based on evidence.

Atheism is not a religion but it is a perfect substitute for religion when it proposes to explain purpose or origins. It may not be as comforting to some when confronted with harsh reality but I don't think the vacuous promises of religion are any better. I do not mean to imply that atheism per se explains the origins of life or that it ascribes purpose to the universe. What I should say is that when religion fails to explain origins and purpose, atheism is naturally the correct conclusion.

The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom but to set some limits on infinite error. - Bertolt Brecht's Life of Galileo

It's also commonly imagined that atheists think there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. The truth of it is that atheists are free to admit that there's much about the universe that we don't understand. I mean it is obvious we don't understand the universe. But it is even more obvious that neither the Bible or the Qu'ran reflects our best understanding of it. - Sam Harris

Is God Imaginary?

I am responding here to a blogger named Thom (The Beauty of Grace). Although I intend to respond to some of his posts here, I don’t plan to quote everything he said. If any reader wants to see Thom’s comments please click on the links below the main articles.

Hello Thom. Welcome to my blog. Thank you for your comments. I’m interested to find the path you took to reach me because I had never heard of godisimaginary.blogspot.com although I am quite familiar with GodisImaginary.com as evidenced by the fact that I provide links to that site in multiple places. But the blogosphere is too vast for anyone to keep track of it. Anyway, I’m glad you pointed it out to me.

I appreciate your cordiality and graciousness in your posts. Sadly that is not always the case with theists who post here. However, I have a feeling that you will soon become frustrated with my blog because it is clearly and without question atheistic while having a firm grounding in Judeo-Christian theology. It will be nigh impossible to sneak simple theistic arguments by me since I have been a master of such arguments myself in my past life. When you say that you are interested in reading what I have written I interpret that to mean that you are interested in seeing how you can attack my premises and circumvent the purpose of my blog. I don’t intend to discourage you from this endeavor. In fact, I welcome it. I am confident that you have nothing new to offer in the way of Christian apologetics or theistic rationalization. Do your worst. I have no fear. You are fighting from a position of weakness and will fail miserably. And I love you no less for all that.

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks. You make a proposition that needs to be addressed. You say “I am assuming that anyone who claims Atheism is asserting at least some confidence in the non-existence of any God.” That’s stating the obvious but okay. You go on to say, “Now, from a science perspective, I hear that God is un-provable, so therefore He does not exist.” I would go even further and say that whether inside or outside of science God is unverifiable. It is all hearsay and opinion. But without further ado, let us proceed to your proposition.

You say, “I propose that since science, by definition, is limited to the ‘natural’ world, that by declaring the possibility of the existence of a ‘supernatural’ world - meaning a world that is not bound by nor even operating under natural law - the possibility, then, of God does exist.” That’s quite a mouthful. Basically you wish to declare the existence of an unknowable and unexplainable realm (apparently by fiat) in order to justify the existence of an unknowable and unexplainable being. Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? I suppose we could go on infinitely positing fantastical ideas but how does that make it any more likely to be true? It seems to me that the more we multiply entities (or realms) the more farfetched the whole notion becomes. With a supernatural being we have one item for which we have neither adequate description nor validation. After you posit your “supernatural world”, we have simply added an item to that list. It sounds to me like we are doing nothing but making our task more difficult. Aside from that, I think the very concept of “supernatural” is nonsense.

There is nothing except nature. We define what exists as nature. It’s very simply put thus: Existents exist. Nature is what is. Additionally, all things are defined by their nature. It doesn’t mean anything to say something is outside of or above or beyond nature. We obviously don’t know the extent of existence nor do we completely understand everything of which we are aware, but the natural universe is the sum total of all that exists – by any definition of existence. Let’s say that something exists or functions in some way outside of the laws we have heretofore recognized. That does not put it outside of the universe or outside of nature. It just means that we need to re-evaluate our understanding of the universe. But there wouldn’t be much point in modifying our understanding of natural reality on pure speculation. Perhaps there is a being that can create things by sheer force of will. Perhaps it can somehow defy the currently understood limitations of nature. If so, these abilities would be part of that beings nature – its attributes. But it would only be unnatural if we were to cling to our outdated understanding of nature. Once a being like that is discovered, everything about it would need to be incorporated into our understanding of nature. There would never be a need for a supernatural realm.

Your casual dismissal of the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells me you don’t even understand the point of it. I hope you do not think anyone seriously believes in the FSM. It was created as a demonstration of how one could posit any being at all and claim that it was supernatural with just as much validity as any god. The only thing that makes the notion of God more respectable is how long that particular myth has persisted. It makes no difference if we are positing gods, unicorns, leprechauns, the FSM or a fire-breathing chicken. If one must rely on tradition or the testimony of others to ascertain the existence of any such being, they all have the same chance of being real. I say the chance is, at best, negligible. That’s being very generous. It is so unlikely that the only sensible thing to do is to ignore it. As my Dad used to say, “The chances are slim and none. And slim just left town.” By your reasoning, anything at all might exist. We should be open to the possibility that it might rain gumdrops next Tuesday. What we are talking about here is the logical fallacy known as “The Argument from Ignorance.” The classic example is Bertrand Russell’s china teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. It might exist. You cannot prove that it doesn’t.

Theists have probably always argued that since you can’t prove God does not exist you should assume he does exist. If we grant there is a chance that God exists, the next step is to say, “Do you want to risk his wrath by assuming that he doesn’t?” Pascal’s Wager is a prime example of this rationale. This is the way that many people are suckered into religion. The point is that it is not up to the atheist to disprove anything. People just don’t operate on the “Believe whatever is not disproven” philosophy. We would be crazy to do so. In the case of any proposition, it is up to the claimant to substantiate his claim. There is no substantiation for the claim that God exists and therefore we have no need to even entertain it as a possibility. Whether you assume God does exist or that he does not exist, there is no difference at all in the way the universe works. The entire idea has zero value.

You repeat that science is, by definition, limited to the five natural senses. I disagree with this statement. Science is not limited to the five natural senses. Only our ability to observe is thus limited. We are limited to our natural senses but only for direct observation. Since we are humans, human science is primarily based on what we can perceive in some way. But it is not limited to mere observation. Reason is a much more important part of science than simple observation. By couching your argument this way you try to eliminate reason and rationality as major components of our understanding.

Now let’s look at your example of the ancient belief that the earth was flat and compare it to belief in God. When people were so ignorant of the facts that they believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, they also believed, at this time, that there was a magical being in the sky called God who would answer prayers and promised an afterlife and blessings for obedience to him. The notions about the earth were based on what limited observations the people could make along with a limited amount of deductive reasoning. The notions of God were based on no observation at all but on what was passed down through tradition.

Today, we have many more facts about the earth and we know that it is an oblate spheroid that rotates on its axis and orbits a star we call the Sun or Sol which is one of billions of stars in the spiral galaxy we call the Milky Way. Our observations and reasoning about the earth have grown exponentially over the span of a few thousand years. Human understanding of God has had the same amount of time to evolve and grow, but nothing has changed. People still believe there is a magical being in the sky called God who answers prayers and promises an afterlife and blessings for obedience to him.

I just don’t see the sense in clinging to such stagnant superstitions. The only effects of belief are psychological. Some might be considered beneficial. Many are impediments to progress. Some are outright dangerous. I personally think the time has come for people to stop perpetuating useless ancient myths and superstitions. Reality is not a maleable concept.

Pastafarians in the News

Common Misconceptions

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Nothing demonstrates that better than the way some religious fundamentalists with little or no familiarity with science use random bits of information from the popular press or casual conversation to claim that science validates God and religious dogma. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a theist who had apparently heard about work being done in physical anthropology to trace the genetic ancestry of the human race. She ecstatically proclaimed that it had been scientifically proven that Adam and Eve were real. For anyone actually following the research this kind of statement is stunning in its ignorance. Of course I will say that many researchers tend to fan the ardent fire of these believers when they use Biblical names or Biblical references in their research. And journalists can’t resist headlines like; Have Scientists Discovered Adam and Eve? It’s a sure way to sell magazines. The problem is that many lay people don’t get past the title and a quick skim of the opening paragraph. Their conclusions aren’t really surprising. It actually seems that people are telling them that science has found Adam and Eve.

Of course, if they bothered to read the actual research (assuming they could understand it) they would see that it does not remotely support Biblical genesis stories – nor could it. Yes, we do all have common ancestors but no one is seriously claiming that two people suddenly appeared and started a family that led to the entire human race. Even if that had happened, this research is statistical analysis of a fairly small number of DNA samples and there is no way for it to trace back to specific people. It is abundantly clear that we did not all descend from one mated pair of humans a long time ago. However, this kind of research has concluded that all living humans have two common ancestors, one female who is a everyone’s common ancestor and one male who is a common ancestor of all living men. These are called our most recent common ancestors (MRCA). This does not imply that we have found their bodies. As I said, it has only been calculated through DNA analysis.

The analysis suggests that our female MRCA lived about 140,000 to 200,000 years ago and our male MRCA lived about 60,000 - 90,000 years ago (determined through molecular clock and genetic marker studies). They were obviously not contemporaries. They were separated in time by tens of thousands of years. I think it's safe to say that these two people didn't even know each other, much less have babies together. Mitochondrial-Eve is the female MRCA of all humans as traced via mitochondrial DNA passed only through the maternal line. Y Chromosome Adam is the male MRCA all living men as traced via the Y Chromosome passed only through the paternal line. We all have Mitochondrial DNA but only men have the Y Chromosome.

Another misconception theists take from this research is that it is tracing lines back to when only one set of people lived. However, Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman in her day and Y Chromosome Adam was not the only living man in his day. If that had been the case, the human race would be extinct. The existence of a most recent common ancestor does not imply that there was a population bottleneck or a first couple. It is very likely that they were part of large populations. Each of these other people who were their contemporaries potentially has living descendents today although some lines have died out. As a matter of fact, the MRCA will change when a line dies out. This all might seem like a paradox but it can be easily explained, if the nature of genetic lineage is taken into account. I won't go into it. You can look it up if you are interested. There is something about this that theists can gloat about if they want. For what it’s worth this research does indicate that humans originated in Africa which is the continent where the Bible stories take place.

Note: I will be on vacation for the next week so don't expect any new posts or responses for a while. WF