Causa Unus

Being a former conservative/libertarian and former Christian, I have read enough, and talked to enough people, to know that there must be still be people like William F. Buckley out there. Conservative intellectuals who labor over ideas and debate policy in the hope of perfecting our Union. There was once a time where vast swaths of the conservative landscape were recognizable by their intellectual curiosity. Finding them though, seems to be on par with catching the great white whale.

In the last six months, the petulant-child wing of the Republican party has managed to seize control of the headlines and the discourse. The problem with this is that it is a phenomenon devoid of content. Anger, slogans, and ad hominum is all that is coming out of this movement in any real quantity. It seems like, in a time when we need a strong conservative voice to offset the power of Democratic Party, the intellectual segment of the Right has disappeared in the sea of foamy-mouthed blue-hairs. So far, I haven't found what I am looking for - clear conservative thought - but it has to be out there somewhere. The entire Republican Party cannot be the Glenn Beck dittoheads.

I thought that perhaps P.J. O'Rourke would be a good place to start. I was wrong. In this article P.J. seems more than happen to lock arms with the crazies and mock the Left for mocking them. Most of the liberals I run across are willing to mock the Tea Party movement, but only because is it so devoid of actual policy and so full of misplaced anger that it begs to be mocked. For the most part liberals, like myself, seem truly perplexed that this is all the opposition has. The problem isn't that there is disagreement, that should be expected, the problem is the total lack of reasoned disagreement.

So here I sit, a liberal atheist who is totally behind a single-payer system, asking for the real conservatives to convince me there is a better way. I will not be convinced that there is no problem. The system is broken and is prostituting the sick for financial gain. No argument is going to shake this belief from my mind. Reality and hard facts support that our health system is not functional by any reasonable standard. I am willing, however, to be convinced that there is a workable private-sector solution. I would like to hear real arguments in favor of something of this sort. Ad-hominum, red herrings, strawmen, and the usual feable Fox fallacies will not be sufficient. I am also interested in hearing ideas on how we can push some civil debate back into the system.

These verses were sent to me by a dear friend, in an attempt to shake me out of my unbelief. The following is an excerpt from my response:

I pondered this obtuse passage all day at work, trying to wrap my head around it. From the passage I gather that God's wrath is on constant display in some manner regarding sin and immorality. In addition to that, his power and nature are supposed to be clearly evident. Failure to recognize this has led to futility and some manner of moral decay. Now, if you were asked to make observations about the world, and solely from these make a judgment about the character of it's overseer, what conclusions would you come to? In the natural world I see violence, starvation, extinction, and constant struggle for survival. I see crippling diseases and pandemics, birth defects, and bitter fights among opposing species. In the social world, I see the greedy and deceitful rise to power, the misappropriation of natural resources, pollution, and exploitation of the weak. I see cruel treatment of others, murder, rape, tribalism, and war. Beyond this, I see a pale blue dot. A small planet orbiting a medium sized star on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, one of billions in a vast sea black space. What am I to gather about the nature of a deity who reveals himself in these things? From this I am to gather that the creator of so vast and majestic a universe is also highly concerned with the thoughts of a infinitesimally small speck and will damn the speck accordingly? That is a highly dubious claim. Everything that can be gathered about the nature of God from observation alone is perfectly covered by Epicurius: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?".

So, I missed the boat on that one. Now, assuming that I did actually pick up on all the obvious clues and suddenly understood God's wrath, his invisible attributes, and divine nature, what use would I have for scripture? If everything necessary for the understanding of God is evident within me already and obvious in everything around me, of what use are pages of dietary restrictions, schematics for a mobile temple, tedious genealogies, etc.? I supposedly have an understanding of his nature so encompassing as to leave me without excuse, but he still thought it necessary to remind me that I should not commit murder? Why evangelize if the masses of unsaved are already in possession of the knowledge necessary to be reconciled to God? In fact, if this perfect morality and nature is so evident, why is Paul even bothering to write to the Romans at all? What a terrible imposition upon your friends to write a lengthy letter full of things they all already know. Again, obtuse.

Futility. I'll have to admit, this one irks me to no end. What self righteousness! To make such astounding claims about the nature of God, without even a shred of supporting evidence, then assert that these claims are just plain obvious, Q.E.D., is bad enough. To then go on to accuse those who have not been convinced, by this absurdly sophomoric line of non-reason, of being futile in their speculations is intellectual cowardice. It is a moral responsibility to examine the claims of any belief system. How valid are these claims? What is the historic origin of them? Do the claims line up with what we can prove about the world around us? If so, are there other explanations? What are the real world consequences of these beliefs? Not only should I question the belief system, but considering the sum of human misery that has resulted from these beliefs, it is a moral duty to question them. This is the polar opposite of futility. Paul's smug certainty smacks of obscurantism, which is exactly what one would expect from a charismatic cult leader.

The problem with this passage is that the collected stories, beliefs, customs, and moralities of a Bronze Age desert tribe are not obvious at all. These are one culture's first, best guess at why we are here and what we should do. None of the assertions about God that are made in the Bible are obvious with any amount of natural observation. They are simply claims, just like the ones in the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Upanishads, and Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard. Being able to recognize this does not make my thinking futile, and my morality, in practical terms, has grown stronger since I became an apostate.

I ran across this article from 2004 that describes the Dominionist movement in America. The coverage is on the history of the movement and its roots in the Bush administration. While being several years old, I think it is important to understand the beliefs and motivations held by these people. The election of a Democrat president, house, and congress may have slowed the plans of the dominionists, but they are still out there and working hard for a return to power. These are people who are utterly convinced that God has ordained a Christian state and made it the duty of Christians to make America in the image of an Old Testament theocracy.

In addition to the article, check out this video series by Joan Bokaer of Cornell University's Theocracy Watch:

Word seems to be spreading about the Illinois Family Institute's aggressive push to try to ruin Hemant Mehta. Hemant runs The Friendly Atheist in addition to being a public school teacher. He has posted articles in the past criticizing the IFI for all manner of religious nonsense. It seems that instead of turning the other cheek, the IFI is out for a bit of revenge. More information can be found here on Hemant's blog.

John Calvin once said, "... it is a faculty of the reason and the will to choose good with the assistance of grace; evil, when grace is absent”. This, of course, comes from a man who once had his rival burned at the stake, and also ran the city of Geneva in a manner the Sanhedrin would have appreciated. Despite these charming qualities, Calvin did manage to distill what most, if not all, of the faithful believe - that religion is undoubtedly a force for good in this world and without it we would all devolve into anarchy. Take as evidence of this ridiculous idea, the usual synonyms for the word "godless". Sinful, wicked, wayward, unrighteous, deceitful, immoral, unethical, profane, defiling, unholy, to name but a few. The general perception of someone who is non-religious is that they are, at the very least, empty, and at worst, downright diabolical. It is this line of reasoning that is the basis for the idea that, despite a somewhat tarnished past, religion has done more overall good than evil in the world.

Is it common for people to judge their own beliefs through rose-tinted glasses? The answer is absolutely yes. It is difficult to begrudge someone for doing what we all do at one time or another. Humans have a natural tendency to overlook the sins of their past, while at the same time casting a shadow of doubt on those who believe differently. With religion however, glasses capable of overlooking the shame, fear, murder, rape, sacrifice, etc. are simply out of reach for any species capable of moral contemplation. From the genocides of the book of Joshua, to the barbarism of Judas Maccabeus, the conquests of Mohammad, the black hole of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition, the sacrifices on alters in cultures throughout the world, the brutal oppression of differing views or differing sexes or differing skin tones. You could could fill volumes upon volumes with the wickedness of the religious. That, sadly, is not the most terrible part of religion's story. The truly terrible thing is that out of such a list, the faithful would no doubt step forward to defend the sins of their particular belief system. The cognitive functions of their brains would allow them to see and renounce the evils of other faiths, but their faith would force them to defend the evils of their own. This is what it means to be a believer.

Religion has done some good. There are charities, missions, and outreach programs that help the poor and oppressed throughout the world. The faithful give immense amounts of time and money in order to help those less fortunate. At what price are these sacrifices made, though? George W. Bush, acting on his belief that abstinence only education was the sole means of preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy, made U.S. aid to Africa contingent on a program of such education. Countries in Africa who received much needed funding would only receive it if they put into place educational programs that taught abstinence as the sole means of sexual education. In a continent with the highest rates of HIV/AIDS, a sexual education policy that ignores even the mention of condoms is nothing short of wholesale murder. To dangle the carrot of foreign aid and then pull it back in order to force governments to keep their people in a state of fear and naivety, is a policy who's cost in terms of human life, will never be measured. This policy is wholly derived from a biblical interpretation of what is and is not acceptable in regards to human sexual activity. There is no scientific research or tangible evidence in favor of this, just faith and the idea that death from a debilitating disease is better than eternal punishment. Parallels to this are found throughout the history of religions. Religions do good, but with strings attached, and those strings many times trump any benefits that may be gained.

Whenever those without faith point out the innumerable sins of religion, the faithful change the subject to the sins of the secular. Instead of being forced to answer for the countless evils that their brethren have been allowed to unleash upon our species, the believers are allowed to indulge in logical fallacies. They can say what they wish, they can change the subject and put us on the defensive, they can even ignore or fight the obvious history for which they must account. Make no mistake though, history and the blood of the innocent is very real and cries out. There is not, and never can be, anything so good as to justify or atone for the sins of religion. The religions of the world have to answer for their sins and justify their existence. In a world who's secrets are being unraveled by science, the god of the gaps is left with fewer and fewer places to hide.

Michael Shermer from Skeptic Magazine hosts this short video. How equipped are you for assessing various claims? 10 quick techniques for judging validity.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned... For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. - Romans 5:12,17



Since Charles Darwin penned On the Origin of Species there has been great debate over how to reconcile evolution with the world's dominant religions. To many, the idea that life on earth has evolved over the course of millions of years seems to directly contradict the biblical account of creation. To others, it is simply a matter of interpreting Genesis metaphorically. The six "days" of creation could mean six "epochs" and not six 24 hour days. One could argue, from either point of view, at great length. We could examine the original Hebrew in the text. We could study how the word yom (Hebrew for day) is used in other parts of the Old Testament. We could argue that the bible is inerrant and therefore discount evolution altogether. We could, but I am not going to.

First, let's give a quick summary of what evolution is. Evolution is a "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." Over time, these changes have caused forks in the genetic road, leading to the diversity we now see around us. I won't go into more detail than this for several reasons. First, the vast majority of educated people on this planet already understand evolution and are comfortable with its claims and supporting evidence. Second, those who do not believe in macro-evolution generally are coming from a background that makes weighing scientific data virtually impossible. At some point in the future I do plan on addressing specific issues that Creationists bring up, but not now.

Without trying to be overly curt, the simple fact is that the Theory of Evolution is true. There is no controversy. We have multiple dating methods that are used to cross-check readings. We have an intact fossil layer, with organisms becoming decreasingly complex the further down you dig. We have found millions of fossils, tens of thousands of intermediate fossils, and have the DNA readings to tie them all together. There may be disputes about specifics, but the overall theory is sound and established.

Despite the mountains of evidence, there are well organized groups, mostly fundamentalist Christians, who are aggressively fighting to have the opposing biblical story of creation taught in schools. They have written books, appeared on TV, and even made a movie with Ben Stein. They have set up web sites and colleges, they have lobbied schools and various governments. They are very passionate and they are very wrong. Well, sort of. Their science is without a doubt wrong. Their opposing "theory" is not even a theory at all, since you cannot develop a theory on nay-saying and a lack of opposing evidence. They are wrong about everything scientific, make no mistake. They are right about one thing, however. They recognize that the biblical account of creation is incompatible with evolution. What's more, they recognize that evolution shatters the central tenet of Christianity.

Life has evolved, from simple to complex, over the course of millions of years. Man has evolved from simpler primates, who in turn evolved from simpler mammals. On and on, back hundreds of millions of years. The problem is then, that there never was an Adam. Nor an Eve. There was no first man, created out of the dirt and no first woman, created from that man's rib. Interpret Genesis how you want, literally or metaphorically, but you need Adam and you need Eve. You need them to be tempted and you need them to sin. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Rom 5:12. Without Adam's sin, there was no fall and no original sin to be passed on to the generations. Adam's sin, biblically speaking, is our sin. Without Adam, we have no origin for sin, no first cause. We have no sinful nature and no death. No fear of God's wrath, no Hell, and no need for a savior.

Quite simply, the evolution of life on this planet by process of natural selection is ruinous to the central tenets of not just Christianity, but many of the world's religions. However you choose to interpret your holy text, the simple fact is that it can't stand up against real and tangible evidence. You can go to a museum and see transitional fossils. You can study various dating methods and test them yourself. You can see how DNA ties all life together in a complex tree. You can observe the fossil layer and see that the theory stands. The same cannot be said about faith.