jump to navigation
The bare fact of our mortality stares us in the face and demands life of us. —Dwight Lyman

War or Reason? a reply to Rev. Charles Stanley February 13, 2005

Posted by Rastaban in : Bush Wars,Christinsanity , 4 comments

In early March of 2003, a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, relatives sent me the tape recording of a then recent sermon by the Rev. Dr. Charles Stanley entitled “A Nation at War”. Rev. Stanley is not some minister on the religious fringe: his credentials are very mainstream. As senior pastor of the 16,000 member First Baptist Church in Atlanta, his “In Touch” TV broadcast is heard on more than 200 TV stations, 7 satellite networks, and 450 radio stations. It reaches over a million viewers a week. A former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Stanley has written 45 plus books of which more than 3,500,000 copies have been sold.

The focus of Stanley’s sermon was two-fold: God loves war, and it was wrong for protesters to oppose the Bush administration’s forthcoming invasion of Iraq. Since I was both atheist and protester, the tape was undoubtedly sent my way in an effort to change my outlook on each count.

Instead, I responded with a long emailed reply, which follows: (more…)

An Irreverent Look at God, Sex & Design

Posted by Rastaban in : Non-Existence Arguments,The Bible,Unsacred Texts,gods & God , 11 comments

Theists like to argue that design — especially the complex design we see in organisms — is proof there must be a Designer. And theists denigrate evolution precisely because it provides an alternate explanation for design. If evolution suffices, then not only does there exist a viable competitor to God, but it is a competitor without the contradictions and supernaturalism of theism.

It follows that the debate between atheism and theism is to a significant extent a debate about which viewpoint — God or evolution — provides a better explanation for the design we see around us.

One prominent observation about organisms is that they often come in sexes; that most complex animals have male and female sexual organs and engage in a variety of sexual behaviors. I will now proceed to look at which explanation — God or evolution — better addresses this aspect of animal design. (more…)

Competing Moralities & Perfect God

Posted by Rastaban in : Non-Existence Arguments,gods & God , add a comment

The existence of evil is difficult to understand if we assume the universe is the product of a perfect God. However, embrace the scientific/evolutionary viewpoint and evil becomes understandable. After all, what is supremely “good” for the ebola virus is extremely “evil” for the primate infected by ebola.

Natural selection provides a framework which enables us to understand why species are so often in conflict with each other. If each species has its own morality or “rightness”, it follows that the result of the evolutionary process is a world of competing moralities.

Evil exists, from the evolutionary perspective, simply because other species exist with their own conflicting needs and rights. Why conflicting? Because there is a limit of resources — so much sunlight, so much oxygen, nutrients, energy resources, and no more. Sometimes, it is true, a species will develop a symbiotic relationship with another species in those situations where the two use resources in a mutually beneficial way. But far more common is conflict.

The simple truth is that species often feed on each other. The delicious meal which is profoundly good and necessary for the wolf is profoundly evil from the lamb’s perspective. This is understandable within the context of natural selection, but not easily explained if there is a perfect God.

Why would a perfect God create a world of such limited resources and resulting competing moralities?* Or, to turn this question around into an even more devastating form for theism: why would the existence of a world of limited resources and competing moralities, be best explained by postulating a perfect God? (more…)

Thoughts, Feelings & Faith

Posted by Rastaban in : Atheist Culture,Faith & Reason,Religious Atheism , add a comment

People don’t like to be told that their feelings are wrong.

Which is understandable. Feeling are, after all, not thoughts. They can’t be proved — or disproved. They just are.

Which is why religion animates us, and philosophy does not. Religion is built of feelings, not thoughts. That’s why we refer to a religious outlook as a “faith”, and insist one must “have faith”. Religion is a matter of feelings.

And feelings are never wrong.

Nor right. (more…)