Religious Items are the Last Thing Haiti Needs...

I've constantly commented and blogged about how religion can throw your moral priorities out of whack in the areas of stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, and even helping the poor. The best example of this is, of course, Mother Teresa who had a very questionable ideas regarding suffering and how the plight of poor people is making the world a better place.

You may recall the nonsensical initiative in which a United States faith group decided to invest money in sending solar-powered Bibles to Haiti (instead of direct monetary donations) right after earthquakes devastated Haiti. Many religious and non-religious groups set up ways to help the Haitians...and solar-powered Bibles weren't on top of the list of priorities.

Earlier today, a local newspaper published an article regarding a local church sending religious items such as stained glass windows (!), chandeliers (!), statues, altars, and pews. It's always amazed me that churches spend egregious amounts of money on religious items when they can have worship in very modest buildings that aren't filled with astounding frescoes, chandeliers, expensive statues, etc.

Haiti is a devastated country and one of the worst places to live at the moment. The country is still recovering from earthquakes and there is a recent cholera outbreak. In light of this, a local church decides that sending religious items is the proper response. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? In times of great peril and the need for humanitarian efforts, religious items shouldn't be a first concern or even a concern at all. If you're going to help the Haitians, you should send monetary donations to the American Red Cross efforts in Haiti, Doctors Without Boarders, or another charitable organization instead of trying to bolster or reinforce religion.

It's great that this church community wants to help Haitians, but they should simply sell the religious items and send the money gained from the sales to get the most bang for their buck. Do you think that statues, altars, and pews are what emaciated people want? I don't. Haitians don't need stained glass windows, chandeliers, and other items mentioned in this article.

I knew I would get some flak for commenting on the article...and was right. Someone commented on a previous post of mine:

I just read the story in the timesleader regarding the donation of religious articles to a church in Haiti. Your comment struck me as a visceral response to anything positive about religion. Under your sense of intellectual honestly one would sum life up as this: You're conceived, you're born(maybe) you live briefly or at most 120 years. During that period you respirate, take in nourishment to sustain your body which grows at first but then starts to decline then die. You may reproduce but that truly does nothing for you as an individual. It's purpose is to perpetuate the species. You may delude yourself to think that your unique perspective on existence if imparted to anyone who will listen will bring you some type of eternal memorialization in the minds of future generations but in reality your situation probably assures you your wisdom no matter how profound will be forgotten with a few years of your demise. Just like the fondness you feel for one of your great great grandparents and the words they passed down to your generation.
If you think religious people are intellectually dishonest then that is your opinion. But in reality (which is the realm in which you operate) who really cares what you think. It will soon enough be forgotten.
I do thank you however for giving me a brief moment to reflect on what I believe.I beleive your need to comment was directed to me by the Spirit. And Justin, I don't believe you are trying to force your belief on others. Don't get mad that I am going to pray for you that you someday see the joy that comes from the belief in God. My name is not important. I hope you got that point from my writing.

This comment doesn't address my argument at all, but rather strawmans me and displays a great deal of existential angst that I don't have. I've briefly commented on "the meaning of life" and enduring accomplishments in previous posts and will soon post something more extensive.

I don't think that this donation of religious items to Haiti is a positive thing because the items could be sold and money can be sent to help dying people.*

* Someone may object to this post or raise objections like, "Well, why don't you use most of your money to help Haitians or sell your stuff to help the poor in your community? What about atheists who put up billboards? Shouldn't they donate to Haiti?"

At this moment, I'm a "poor college student" (really) and I spend money wisely. I don't spend much, try to conserve money, and spend little on entertainment. I need to build up money for college now and graduate school in the future. Later in life, I hope to donate much of my money to charities when I am able to. I'm not able to donate much at this moment.

Are Atheists "Forcing Their Beliefs" on others?

I constantly hear the phrase "atheists are forcing their beliefs on others" from theists and even some atheists. I certainly can't speak for all atheists and what they might do to warrant this accusation from theists and other atheists, but this idea of "forcing beliefs" is utterly ridiculous.

What I do is blog, try to make people think, promote critical thinking and skepticism, and encourage intellectual honesty. No one is forced to read anything I type, listen to anything I have to say, or have any conversations with me. If a theist is going to make a wild claim around me, I'm most likely going to challenge it/ask for clarification/ask a question if the situation is warranted. If I ask a theist to answer a potentially "difficult" question like, "Do you think non-believers deserve to go to Hell" and then criticize them for not answering the question, I'm not "forcing" anything...I'm simply calling for intellectual honesty.

If people read my information, listen to what I have to say, or engage me in a conversation, what do they really have to lose? Understanding is had by discussion with others and engaging with others' ideas. If your religious belief is important to you and/or you are concerned about having as many justified beliefs as possible, your best bet is to engage the arguments of those who most fervently disagree with you.

Although many people might call me a "militant atheist" (another ridiculous phrase), I would like to think that I'm quite mild in presenting my information. I have discussions, blog, and challenge wild claims. Oh no! I'm not knocking on doors of theists or standing outside with a megaphone yelling "Belief in gods is irrational!" I'm not going to elementary schools and telling children that Santa Claus is a myth. I'm very much unlike people who actually do force their beliefs on children via indoctrination.

Adults, I would think, are primary consumers of my work. If I were to give a presentation to children, I would give a presentation on critical thinking and science that was age appropriate. Instead of "telling kids to be atheists," I would teach them how to think, not what to think. How many priests and leaders of religious school programs for little children can possibly say that? When I was younger, I was told that God was real on authority, not good reason. There are certainly some youth teachers out there who aren't indoctrinating and some Catholic schools that may have a non-indoctrination approach, but indoctrination is usually the name of the game.

Reading what I have to say won't force you to do anything...you might not even decide to think and might just turn the blinders on and ignore my arguments. You hear arguments, listen to advertisements, and are the target of persuasion in many areas of life. If you walk into a furniture store, for example, sales associates are going to try to persuade you to purchase furniture. Would you charge them with "forcing their beliefs" on you if they told you that a certain couch is a good buy? Would you ever tell a teacher who presents information about why evolution is true that he/she was "forcing beliefs" on you?

We're consumers of information and draw conclusions on our own accord. We [hopefully] don't just listen to what others say and uncritically accept everything they say. We look for flaws in arguments, we ask questions, and we make decisions. It's very clear that others don't force us to believe or not believe in certain propositions. We make decisions based on what we hear.

It's nonsensical for theists or atheists to charge atheists with "forcing their beliefs" on others. People come to their own conclusions and decide what is reasonable and what is not.

Claiming that atheists are forcing beliefs on others is ludicrous.

God, Thanks, and Thanksgiving

As expected, God is getting thanked this Thanksgiving. Friends of mine on Facebook are posting things like

God has blessed each and everyone [sic] of us with so much! let's be thankful for all that we have and pray for those who are less fortunate. Wishing everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving :)

[sic] "hAppy thAnksgivinq tO All-- I Am thAnkfuL 4 my faMily & friends+ma boo&Just siMply 4 bein alive and havinq all da things I have,nd wat I don't thanks tO God" [/sic]

Happy thanksgiving to everyone. I have never felt so blessed in my life. I thank God for my job, my health, and friends like u. Most of all I thank God for blessing me with a family of my own!

I wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving, and thank the Lord for all that is provided to me, my family and friends. God Bless you all

I can be a grammar Nazi at times, for sure, but have been more of a descriptivist after progressing in my "The English Language" course. I still don't understand why people type like the person in quote two. I thought that typing like this died out with twelve year old girls using AOL. I feel that people who type like that greatly discredit anything they say.

Anyway, it annoys me when people thank God for everything and totally overlook all human efforts. This happens quite often when people have successful surgeries, attain great jobs, or are generally very successful. What's God got to do with it (got to do with it, got to do with it)? Theists also often overlook all of the evil and suffering and only focus on the good. When was the last time you heard something like, "Thank God for giving us this day where little girls will be raped and Haitians will die of cholera!" For more discussion on the Problem of Evil, check out my previous posts like this one.

Consider Joe. Joe has a family, a nice house, a nice car, a great job, and a great wife. He went to college for eight years, worked for a corporation as an accountant for ten years, and recently received a huge promotion at work. He recently found a way to cut expenses for his entire workplace by 15% and was able to raise profits by 30%. Joe's really successful.

Consider Jack. Jack dropped out of high school and is addicted to drugs and alcohol. Joe can't hold a job for more than one month, has no family members who care about him, and lives in an abandoned building. Joe gets food by picking through restaurant dumpsters at the end of the night. Jack's not successful at all.

Joe's efforts are the result of his hard work, determination, and intelligence. Joe studied hard to get where he is today and manages his money really well. Is God to thank for this success? If we remove Joe's effort from the picture, he may be in Jack's tattered shoes. We can explain Joe's efforts without evoking God at all. The first comment doesn't make much sense because the commenter says that God blesses everyone, but then goes on to say that people are less fortunate. Does God play favorites? Does God neglect to bless some people? If so, why?

Can we really thank God for friends and jobs? Although there is a good deal of randomness regarding who we're friends with (we live in a certain area, we met certain people at certain times, etc), we choose to remain friends with people and we seek out friends.

Theists are quick to thank God for everything, but when you ask them why they believe in a god, they throw up smokescreens, delete comments, object to the questions being raised, etc just like the students did after the Islam discussion. Of course not all theists do this, but so many do.

I'm thankful that there's no good reason to believe in the Christian god. Life is much better without an eternal supervisor who apparently loves humans, but will condemn them to an eternal torture for not believing in him, blaspheming the Holy Spirit, disagreeing with him, etc. It's nice that I can live life without worrying about whether or not my actions will transgress the Christian god. I can be a good person without God and fare just fine. It's intellectually liberating to think for myself, question everything, and doubt.

Should Atheists Promote Reason in the Media?

Before my recent article in the Times Leader was published, a friend of mine criticized me for responding to the interview request by Jen Andes. He thinks that I should have ignored this interview request because the nativity controversy was last year and all is well. He thinks what I'm doing is "grandstanding" and simply wanting publicity for myself.

I've defended my work and efforts in previous posts (here too!), but never specifically tackled "Should Atheists Promote Reason in the Media?"

The interview request came from a reporter (I didn't go hunting for a reporter) who wanted to hear what I had to say about the new display plans. She also wanted me to reflect on the events from last year. This is all appropriate because December is approaching and the "one year anniversary" is coming. When major events in a community happen, people are usually interviewed a year later.

When I agree to do media interviews, I don't do them just to get my name out there. I, of course, enjoy being in the media and getting publicity, but it's not just about me at all. It's about a larger movement of reason, critical thinking, and skepticism. It's about showing others that it's okay to speak up and that like-minded people in their communities aren't afraid to do so. It's about visibility - I'm showing others that there are atheists in their communities who they can talk to about struggles. It's about putting my ideas out there so that people can hear a different perspective.

It's ludicrous to think that "It's all about me" when I constantly blog about a milieu of issues, put tremendous amounts of time into what I do, and state that my goal is to get people to think. My goal isn't "get as much attention as possible and promote myself." I'm promoting ideas and skepticism. When atheists like myself are out there in the media, a great service is being done for so many people who can't speak about these issues, are afraid to speak about these issues, and are questioning their current stances.

If I really wanted to make it "all about me," I would convert to Christianity and would be loved by almost every church in the area would have an immediate platform as a "former atheist who argues for Christianity." I'd never do that because it would be the zenith of dishonesty and would only convert if there was good reason to.

I constantly get good feedback from atheists who like the work that I do. They feel relieved that someone can speak up and put the arguments forth. Many people simply can't because they'll lose jobs, be ostracized, and commit social/professional suicide. It's sad that this is the case, but the only way to fix that is to get out there and normalize the atheist perspective. We desperately need more atheists speaking up, sharing their ideas, and taking public stances. Shutting up and declining media interviews isn't the way to fix things.

Atheists should take almost every reasonable opportunity to be "out" when it is called for...especially in the media. It's obvious that you have to "pick your battles," be prudent, and avoid some people who will grossly misrepresent your positions, but for the most part, be out and be proud if you're able to. If you're not able to, host an anonymous blog, get an anonymous Facebook profile, and work behind the scenes.

Times Leader Interview 11/25/10

A holiday from controversy

Luzerne County’s diverse lawn display apparently satisfies religious and secular people alike.

By Jennifer Learn-Andes jandes@timesleader.com
Luzerne County Reporter

A seasonal display has returned to the Luzerne County Courthouse lawn, with the traditional Nativity mixed in with Santa,

a Menorah and candy canes.

AIMEE DILGER/THE TIMES LEADER

A seasonal display that includes a Nativity has returned to the Luzerne County Courthouse lawn, and King’s College senior Justin Vacula said he’s fine with it.

Vacula was the target of backlash last year when he initiated a complaint about the display that led to its removal.

After legal research, county officials set up a more diverse display that is being repeated this year.

According to a resolution recently adopted by commissioners, the display must now include a menorah, Santa Claus, snowman, snowflake, Christmas tree with a Kwanzaa symbol ornament and a sign that reads, “Luzerne County celebrates its cultural heritage this holiday season.”

Courthouse workers say finishing touches to the display will be made early next week.

Vacula said he has no problem with this arrangement, as opposed to last year’s initial display that isolated and illuminated the Nativity.

“This seems to be the way to go. Now everything is together as a unified display,” said the 22-year-old Exeter native.

His decision to turn to the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State last year turned him into somewhat of an outcast.

Vacula said he was inundated with hate mail, paper and electronic, and one local radio station described him as the third most hated local person after former county judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, who were implicated in the federal corruption probe. People called for him to be expelled from King’s College, he said.

There were also demonstrations outside the courthouse before the Nativity was returned to the courthouse lawn, and a page was set up on the Facebook social networking website to criticize Vacula, he said.

“I received a lot of after-death threats. People said I’d be tormented for eternity, and that they wanted to watch it happen. People said they hoped I’d get shot and hit by a van and die,” Vacula said.

In retrospect, Vacula said people turned it into a religious debate, when he thought of it as a legal one.

“It was a legal issue. Whether you’re a believer or not, I think everyone should be in support of separation of church and state. People didn’t understand that,” Vacula said.

He said he doesn’t regret his stance, though he wishes he had been better prepared for the “hysteria.”

“I thought there would be a backlash, but I didn’t think it was going to be as big as it was,” he said.

Vacula, an atheist who posts his views at greenatheist.blogspot.com, said he accomplished his goal: ensuring that the county complied with the law.

He said many came forward to support him in that goal, though some didn’t openly show it.

“People said I was taking away Christmas. That’s impossible to do. People can put anything they want in their yards. They can meet with their family at Christmas and go to Mass,” he said.

Jennifer Learn-Andes, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7333.

-----

For new readers of this blog, I was involved in a tremendous deal of controversy when I filed a complaint against a courthouse nativity scene and had it taken down. You can read more in the December 2009 section of my blog.

I really enjoyed the well-done and well-written article. My stance was well-represented and the article was printed quite hastily. Everyone should be on board with separation of church and state.

Don't Let the Condom Headlines Fool You!

(Picture from Macleod Cartoons)

Who would think that I would ever be defending the Catholic Church? Well, I'm kind of doing that in this post. Although I don't agree with the Church's stance on condoms, media outlets are misrepresenting the Church's stance. I'm here to tell you that the Church is still against condoms. I won't let the media paint a positive picture...especially when Catholic sources are fighting back and disagreeing with the way the media is reporting.

Many media outlets and reporters have egregiously misrepresented the position of Pope Benedict/The Vatican/the Catholic Church regarding condoms. Pope Benedict and various other Catholics have made it very clear that the official stance on condom use is "Don't use condoms because they are immoral and misguided." The Church is absolutely against the use of birth control, condoms, and contraceptives because they view them as interfering with the way God made humans. They think that God made sex as a special thing that should only be experienced by married couples with the intent of procreation.

Groups like the Knights of Columbus, for example, have lied about AIDS, condoms, and sex and tried to stop governmental distribution of condoms. Pope Benedict has said that condoms are not the answer to the problem of AIDS and can even make AIDS worse. I've previously covered this in great detail. Apologists for the Knights of Columbus have tried to argue that "It's just a few bad apples, but as you can see, this clearly isn't the case."

Anyway, various sources are featuring headlines like, "Condom Use Still Immoral, but Preferable to Spreading AIDS." This isn't accurate because the Pope only made a comment about male prostitutes using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope isn't standing up (as he should) saying things like, "Well, condoms actually can help diminish AIDS. Adhere to the ABC Method (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms). What I said earlier was wrong."

This USA Today article sets things straight. There has been no change in Church doctrine.

After the Vatican paper jumped the gun on an embargo on the book's text on Saturday, chief Vatican spokesman Rev. Frederico Lombardi told media Sunday this does not reflect any doctrinal change in the Catholic view forbidding artificial contraception.

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn't the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they may be used "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality."

Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activisits when he told reporters en route to Africa in 2009 that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms.

"On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.

Journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict over the course of six days this ummer, revisited those comments and asked Benedict if it wasn't "madness" for the Vatican to forbid a high risk population to use condoms.

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.

But he stressed that it wasn't the way to deal with the evil of HIV, noting the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way.

Clarifying the Omniscience Argument

I need to reformat this entire thing because I've changed my mind on same of these arguments. I'm going to drop the "I have free will" part from my argument and progress without it. My belief in free will has waned and this is quite a big assumption in the argument that is not needed. I will leave everything else up, though, for you to read it. Not too much will change, but a point of the argument will.

You can read my current thoughts on free will here.

Many people haven't understood my argument in my previous post. To clarify and recap, I argued that a set future via omniscience from God is incompatible with the idea of humans to make choices.

What do I mean by a set future via omniscience?

If someone or something were able to have a vision of what the future is and can't be wrong about the future, this means that humans are slaves to this vision of the future. If the future includes me eating pizza tomorrow at noon, I have no choice to refrain from pizza eating. No matter how hard I tried to avoid eating the pizza or what other people did to stop me from eating pizza, I'd still have to eat pizza. If God saw a future in which I never ate meat again, I would never be able to eat meat no matter how hard I tried to eat meat. I simply would not have any choice in the matter.

What do I mean by "freedom to make choices?"

In my essay, I use the concepts of freedom, freedom to make choices, and free will interchangibly. I'm well aware that free will (the idea of the ability to freely do anything) is highly restricted, but this isn't what I mean when I discuss freedom. When I discuss freedom, I mean the ability to choose to either do x or not do x at any given time y...such as eating pizza or not eating pizza. If I have the ability to eat pizza or refrain from pizza eating, I have the ability to make a choice. If I don't have the ability to refrain from pizza eating, I have no choice.

God doesn't matter, the future matters...

Many people object and say "God isn't controlling what happens! You're still making choices because God allows you to!" The focus of this argument is not on God, persay, but rather on a set future. I should have modified my essay to make this more clear. If a future is "set," no matter if someone saw it, a God made it or didn't make it, etc, we can't have freedom because we're restricted to making actions in line with such a future.

So, who or what is forcing the future to happen, then?

The problem with identifying what or who actually causes the future to "happen" is difficult because there are some logical contradictions involved. Suppose a future is set in which I never eat meat again. If someone were to place meat in my mouth, would the meat disappear? Would people be forced not to have thoughts about feeding me meat? I don't know. It really doesn't matter, though, for my argument. If the future is set, the future must happen.

My "The Argument" section is flawed.

Andrew pointed out that this section has problems. Unfortunately, I don't know much of what he is talking about because I have't taken formal logic classes yet (I will be doing so next semester). I will attempt to fix this section and better explain my argument using an argument from my philosophy professor who agrees with my conclusion and wrote a journal article and did his dissertation on this topic. Please view his paper here.

Johnson's argument:

Assume that God exists and call whatever action you will perform at noon tomorrow ‘X’.

(1) If you can freely perform X at noon tomorrow, it must be possible for you to not

perform X at noon tomorrow (from the Principle of Alternate Possibilities).

(2) God believed yesterday that you will perform X at noon tomorrow. (This follows

from God’s omniscience).

(3) God’s beliefs are events.

(4) All past events are necessary (the past cannot be undone).

(5) God’s past belief that you will perform X at noon tomorrow is necessary (from 2,

3 & 4).

(6) Necessarily, if God believes something will occur, it will occur. (This follows from

God’s necessary omniscience.)

(7) It is necessary that you will perform X at noon tomorrow (from 5 & 6 by a

‘transfer of necessity’).

(8) It is not possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow (from 7).

(9) Therefore, you cannot perform X at noon tomorrow freely (from 1 and 8).

OR

Assume that God exists and call whatever action you will perform at noon tomorrow ‘X’.

(1) If you can freely perform X at noon tomorrow, it must be now-ontologically

possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow (from the Principle of

Alternate Possibilities).

(2) It is now-ontologically possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow only if

your not performing X at noon tomorrow is not contrary to something that exists

(by definition of ‘ontological possibility’).

(3) God’s past belief that you will perform X at noon tomorrow exists.

(4) God exists and cannot have false beliefs.

(5) It is now-ontologically necessary that, if God believes you will perform X at noon

tomorrow, you will perform X at noon tomorrow (from 4).

(6) Your future performance of X at noon tomorrow exists (from 3 and 5 by the

‘transfer of ontological necessity’).

(7) Your not performing X at noon tomorrow is contrary to something which exists

(from 6).

(8) It is not now-ontologically possible for you to not perform X at noon tomorrow

(from 2 and 7).

(9) Therefore, you cannot freely perform X at noon tomorrow (from 1 and 8).

An Omniscient Being Is Impossible

The caption should probably read "I've omniscience," but ignore that.

I need to reformat this entire thing because I've changed my mind on same of these arguments. I'm going to drop the "I have free will" part from my argument and progress without it. My belief in free will has waned and this is quite a big assumption in the argument that is not needed. I will leave everything else up, though, for you to read it. Not too much will change, but a point of the argument will.

My current thoughts on free will can be found here. Feel free to read this post, but it's not what I currently think.

I had to write a paper dealing with something from Augustine's works for my Ancient and Medieval Philosophy class. Instead of writing about the problem of evil again, I decided to tackle something different and more difficult: divine foreknowledge and human freedom. If you'd like to think more about this topic and listen to a three-part podcast about this, feel free to listen to the following episodes: one, two, and three. Enjoy the podcast and my paper. Feel free to point out errors and raise objections.

---

In The City of God, Augustine argues that human free will (the ability to make choices and be able to exercise such choices) and divine omniscience (the ability of God to know everything including future events) are compatible. I will argue that human free will and divine omniscience are incompatible; human free will entails that there can be no omniscient beings. To defend my conclusion, I will argue that knowing the future is a contingent property of omniscience; omniscient beings can only hold true beliefs and are incapable of making errors in reasoning; God has known the future of humans well before humans existed, so the future is “set;” and respond to various objections.

Laying Out The Foundations Via Augustine

An omniscient being must know the future. Augustine makes it very clear in several different ways that God must know the future because he is omniscient: “God […] is most rightly and most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass.” (p. 188-189) “For, to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.” (p. 190) “For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.” (p. 194)

Despite the idea that God knows the future, Augustine maintains that humans still have freedom to make choices and execute those choices: “But we embrace both [omniscience and human free will]. We faithfully and sincerely confess both.” (p. 196) “But the religious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety.” (p. 191) Some may argue that human free will and omniscience are incompatible, but Christian ideas say otherwise, as noted above.

Building on the Foundations

An omniscient being can only possess true beliefs; a false belief would negate the quality of omniscience. Omniscient beings are incapable of making an error in reasoning, thus if God knows the future today, the future cannot change because a true belief that was held cannot turn out to be false in the future. If God knew today that you were going to eat pizza at 9:19PM tomorrow, you would have to eat pizza for lunch tomorrow, otherwise God's belief would be false – and that is impossible because an omniscient being could only hold true beliefs. If God had this belief today about what will happen tomorrow at 9:19PM, this entails that there is only one possible future that can happen: you may only eat pizza at 9:19PM.

Right now, as I am sitting in a chair typing this essay, I am pondering a multitude of options: I can change the music I am listening to, leave the room, go to sleep, drink green tea, continue to type this essay, read a book, etc. It is obvious that I can act upon any of these choices and choose one of at least six possible futures. If God knew what was going to happen yesterday, only one of these futures would be possible, but this is clearly not the case because I can easily choose what is going to happen from the above list. If an omniscient being exists and knows the future, this entails that only one future is possible, thus I have no freedom to choose my own future. If God knew that I was going to take a break and read a book yesterday, this means that I could take no other action even if I really wanted to drink green tea or change my music.

In order to have the freedom to make choices, I must be able to either partake or not partake in any option I cogitate. In order to have freedom, if I were to think about drinking green tea, I must have the choice to either drink green tea or not drink green tea. If God envisioned a future in which I am drinking green tea, I have no choice but to drink the green tea because his belief about the future must be true. I do not have the choice to refrain from drinking green tea if God envisioned a future of me drinking green tea. God's beliefs simply can't be false.

Theists including Augustine assert that God has always existed and was always omniscient, thus his envisioned future was determined a very long time ago (or always has been envisioned?). Since this is the case, God must have known every event in every person's life and every minute detail of the creation that he would set in place such as the date of my birth and who my parents would be. If God exists and is omniscient, my parents had no choice in the matter of being in a relationship and were simply unable to cease seeing each other because God knew that I would be born at a specific time. It was impossible for my mother to move to Canada if she desired because God knew that she would become impregnated in Pennsylvania. God's knowledge of this specific future also binds many other countless events and limits the freedom of many people who may have wanted to assassinate my mother and father, kidnap them at an early age, etc.

The Argument

It is impossible to reconcile the freedom of humans to make choices with an omniscient being; If an omniscient being exists, humans have no freedom to make choices. Since humans have the freedom to make choices, an omniscient being does not exist.

1. Freedom entails that humans can choose either to partake or not partake in any given option.

2. If an omniscient being, God, exists, such a being knows exactly what is going to happen in the future and cannot be mistaken.

3. If God, knows my future (such that I must partake in event x at time y) it is not possible for me to refrain from partaking in event x at time y. Since I cannot refrain from partaking in event x at time y, I have no freedom.

4. If God exists, I am not freely performing any action because God knows what is going to happen in the future. My actions cannot invalidate God's foreknowledge, thus only one future is possible (the future that he knows is going to happen).

5. I am able to freely perform actions and can, at any given moment when I am cognizant and able to act, choose a multitude of actions.

6. Thus, an omniscient being does not exist.

Responding to Objections

A theist may object and say “The knowledge of a future event does not mean that the future event must happen.” This objection fails for several reasons. If an omniscient being has a belief about the future, the event must happen because the omniscient being could not hold a false belief. If God has a belief today that something will happen tomorrow, the event must happen and the agent has no choice in the matter because the event is “set in stone.” Once God has a belief, the belief simply can't change because this would entail that his past belief was false. If God knows that event y happens at time x, only event y could happen at time x because his belief would be false if anything other than event y took place.

Another objection might exist in the form of “Omniscience only means the being with this quality knows what will happen, but does not force it to happen.” This objection also fails. While God might not have to come down and literally force the events to happen, the events still must happen. Suppose God knows that I'm going to eat pizza at 6:19PM. Since the belief of the omniscient being cannot be false, I am forced to eat the pizza. God need not move pizza into my mouth or deliver a pizza to my residence, but the pizza eating will still occur without God acting. Regardless of whether or not God would force an event to happen, the event must still happen because God's belief cannot be false. The person who poses this objection also misunderstands the argument because the argument has nothing to do with being forced by God to take a specific action. Responding with this objection does not solve the problem or attack any of the premises.

An unconventional response to the argument may exist in the form of “Our future actions that we would have taken before we existed cause God's beliefs.” Even if God were to know that I, for example, were to attend King's College and major in philosophy and psychology if I had the chance to exist and make free actions, I still could never change my mind about this decision when I would later exist, thus I am not free.

A popular response to this problem of free choice and omniscience is as follows, “God knows all possible futures and all possible actions by all possible beings. He doesn't just have one vision of the future! People can still freely act and arrive at their freely chosen actions.” Even if this is the case, we're still constrained to one specific future and do not have freedom to choose another possible future. Only one possible future can exist. An all-knowing being must know precisely what will happen at any specific given time and cannot hold two or more beliefs about what will happen. An all-knowing being would know exactly what action I would take and what thought processes would exist in my mind that would lead me to that action. If an interview with an omniscient being would be possible and the omniscient being agreed to answer any question, the questioner could simply ask “What is Jim going to do at 4:00PM tomorrow?” The being would answer with a very precise answer such as “He will be watching television” and could not possibly say something like, “Well, if he is thinking of drinking water, he'll drink water, but if he's not thirsty, he'll watch television.” The interviewer would ask, “I'm not asking you what-if questions, I'm asking specific questions. What will happen?” The omniscient being would know exactly what will happen and will be able to answer the question.

This objection to the problem is also a misunderstanding of the argument because this objection is only positing how God knows the future, but is not objecting to any of my premises. It matters not how God knows the future; the mechanism of knowing is not at question and is not important. God, if he exists, knows specifically what will happen in the future and humans do not have the freedom to choose an action if God knows what will happen because they could not do anything that is contrary to God's envisioned future. If God knows of all “possible” futures, this means that God holds false beliefs because only one future can happen, but God can't hold any false beliefs.

Another possible objection to my argument is, “Omniscience entails that a being knows all possible outcomes, but not the particular outcome that will be chosen.” This objection is similar to the one previously discussed with a caveat. An omniscient being must know the outcome in the future. If the omniscient being did not know the outcome that would happen in the future, the being would not be considered omniscient. If omniscience entails knowing possible outcomes, but not a particular outcome, all humans would be considered omniscient when events containing a limited number of outcomes are concerned such as rolling a die, a horse race, an outcome of a sports contest, or flipping a coin. My definition of omniscience as far as God is concerned as previously mentioned is contained in (2): knowing exactly what will happen in the future and the ability to never be mistaken. Other properties of God are omnipotence, omnipresence, and omni-benevolence. Specific qualities may differ from believer to believer, but for the sake of this argument, we only need to be concerned with the foreknowledge and infallibility properties of omniscience.

Other Problems

Suppose our ability to make choices is just an illusion and someone attacks (5) in my argument above. Perhaps although I can sit typing this essay and really think about leaving my room and see a movie, I don't really have the choice to do this. Perhaps my actions are the result of my brain interacting with my environment and no matter how hard I think about leaving my room, I'm going to continue my essay because my neuronal activity leads me to the conclusion to stay in my room. Even if this were the case that I couldn't really make choices, my freedom would still be restricted by events outside of my control. Suppose God envisioned that I would be blindsided and killed by a church van at the age of 23. This is not the result of my choices, but is someone else acting to restrict my freedom.

Suppose that God had the ability to choose what the future would be. If this were the case, it obviously would not defeat the argument I presented, but would raise several moral objections. Many versions of theism include belief in a place of eternal punishment set forth for humans who wronged God in some manner. If God were able to decide a future, how can he be morally justified in punishing people for the actions that he knew that would take after either “designing” the people to take the actions or setting the future in a specific manner [it matters not how he goes about making certain events happen]? Why should people be punished for eternity for actions that they had no choice in partaking in? If God knows that Jim is going to be a murderer and chooses this future for Jim, God sends him to Hell for something that God declared. Any God who behaves in this manner is grossly unjust.

Conclusion

Despite Augustine's well-thought out belief in an omniscient god who knows the future and human free will, his belief has been shown to be false. Attempts to redefine omniscience do not work because an omniscient being must know the future and could not hold any false beliefs. What part of this definition could possibly change to salvage the concept of God's omniscience? If God doesn't know the future, as Augustine says, “one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.” (p. 194) If God can hold false beliefs, he is fallible, which can't be the case. Divine foreknowledge and the ability of humans to freely choose actions is incompatible. Since humans are able to freely choose which actions they will take, an omniscient being does not exist.

Works Cited

Dods, Marcus. The City of God by Saint Augustine. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1948. Print.

Think For Yourself Already: Discussion With Muslims

I've been attending many religious discussions on campus including "Perspectives on Scripture" and the "Interfaith Awareness Series." I attend these discussions because I want to learn and ask questions. Unfortunately, I can't stay long at the Perspectives on Scripture discussions because I have work an hour after the meetings start, but I've been able to stay for the full duration of the "Interfaith Awareness Series."

King's College allowed a student to host these series of meetings along with a campus minister. Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, and others come to King's College to discuss their traditions. Great. I'm all for it...but for some reason, King's is stonewalling my debate challenge that was accepted in early October! Allow and facilitate discussion with Muslims and Hindus, but god forbid (pun intended) facilitating something an atheist wants to do. In my third year, I also wanted to form a club for secular students, but this was denied because King's felt that it's against the mission statement although the Knights of Columbus and their sister group grossly violate the rules of the college because they only allow Catholics to join.

This week's Interfaith meeting was two-fold. The first part was discussion with two female Muslim students at King's and the second part was a trip to a local mosque to discuss topics with a group of practicing Muslims.

I asked the students why they believed in the metaphysical claims of Islam and got the usual "I was born into the tradition and it works for me" with no argument or reason for belief. I asked a student if she knew who Ayaan Hirsi Ali was. She said no. I asked the student what she thought about female genital mutilation in Islam and almost immediately got "this has nothing to do with the discussion" from the student organizer of the event. I retorted that it does because many claim that FGM is warranted because of Islamic teachings and got no response. A simple answer that was expected was, "I'm not in favor of it." Even if it had nothing to do with the discussion, the answer should have been given quite promptly. The group also heard about how people in Islam choose to wear burkas because this is how they view modesty. After some other discussion about how the extremists are twisting the religion [no true Scotsman, of course] and aren't correctly representing Islam and some bullying the students encountered in high school, we left and headed to the mosque.

Upon arriving, we were nicely greeted, all sat down, and a call for prayer was announced. We all proceeded to the prayer room, took our shoes off, and watched people pray for about ten minutes. We then received refreshments and were asked to "ask any, any, any questions" about Islam. Unfortunately, three Islamic apologists took up about 95% of the discussion that mainly consisted of preaching, but was informative.

The Muslims leading the discussion announced that they were creationists [God literally created Adam and Eve: dust from nothing, Adam from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib] who believe that God made everything, God made humans "special" and that they believe this "as Muslims." It seems very odd that they used this "we believe this as Muslims" line throughout the discussion because it reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Why not say, "We believe this" without the "as Muslims line." Of course they provided no evidence for this claim after I told them, "Many religious scholars and academics reject what you say, think the garden story is a parable, and accept evolution. What do you have to say about this?" A Muslim woman on the other side of the room committed intellectual suicide and said "If evolution is true, then why don't we see humans coming from monkeys today?" I was so shocked...but maybe I shouldn't have been after three others announced that they literally believed in the Adam and Eve story. Thankfully, I was able to rebut for all of ten seconds...

After much discussion about the Koran being the word of God that was "never changed and is still the same as it was when it was revealed by God," the Muslims leading the discussion talked about "the day of judgment." They explained that God chooses who goes to the hellfire and who goes to paradise. I asked them, "Do you think that non-believers and apostates deserve to go to Hell" with very careful word choice (notice I said do you think they deserve). I heard about ten minutes of mental gymnastics and silly stories and an overall avoidance of the question. One of the talkative Muslims said something to the accord of, "If someone asked told me that I was going to the hellfire, I tell them 'Where are you going'!" Another said, "It's up to God to judge, not me. He makes the rules! You have to account for your sins in front of God."

I told them that they didn't answer the question and repeated, "Well, what do you think? Do non-believers deserve to go to Hell" and got some nonsense about how our power has limitations and we can't say who is and who isn't going to Hell or judge people. I repeated that they didn't answer and some woman said something to the accord of, "Well, if you owned a business and one of your workers didn't show for a whole week, wouldn't you fire them? You make the rules!" I replied, "Well, punishment ought to be justified. I think I would be justified in firing this worker who failed to show for work, but I wouldn't be justified in putting him in my basement and torturing him. God poses infinite punishment for finite crimes...and I don't even think anyone should go to Hell if it existed. I don't believe in any Hell and can't." An all-loving God is impossible to reconcile with the concept of Hell.

Some others asked questions such as "Tell us about the pilgrimige to Hajj," "Explain what your prayers mean," and "What do you think about Jesus." I wasn't interested in these questions, but certainly listened to the responses. I was very unsatisfied that my question went unanswered. I'd discuss more about the discussion, but I don't want to write a book here... The discussion came to a close and I invited the group to attend an NEPA Freethought meetup.

Some King's students were very upset with me and started to strawman me by saying, "You say you want harmony, but you make people very uncomfortable when you ask questions! You come off as very arrogant and make people feel threatened! Respect peoples' beliefs!" I told the student that I promote harmony, but asking fair questions is fair game and should happen. Discussion is a path to reaching understanding and simple questions should be asked especially when people invite discussion. Another student said that they would be "sinning" if they answered my question because God only has the power to judge people. I told them that thinking shouldn't be restricted and that all sorts of questions should be asked. Belief in a god shouldn't bar you from asking important questions. Someone else asked "Why was the question so important?" I said that the question was important because if the answer is yes, then this God and the person are immoral for thinking this and you should probably give up your religion if God sends non-believers to Hell just because they are non-believers.

People don't understand what the word tolerance and unfortunately think that tolerance is not challenging wild claims and just agreeing to disagree. This terrible attitude is probably what causes so many problems in society to being with. We need to discuss critical issues and come to understanding. We need to prioritize learning and have intellectual honesty in searching for the truth. All too often, students I meet never give reasons for their beliefs and just seem to believe just because it makes them feel good. Students were also promoting truth relativism and the wishhy washy "truth is what you believe it to be." I fiercely objected and brought up arguments in my "Truth About Truth" post.

If you can't give an answer to "Do you think that non-believers deserve to go to Hell" and insist that "you can't give an answer to the question," you should seriously rethink your religious beliefs and your moral priorities. Thinking and answering questions should not be restrained in any way. Think freely and have real discussion instead of throwing up smokescreens and doing mental gymnastics. Atheists aren't bad for asking questions and challenging beliefs.

TV Appearance on Local News

I was interviewed by WYLN News reporters regarding the funeral and the Westboro Baptist Church protest. As I mentioned in previous posts, WBC never showed and they lied about showing.

You can view the clip of my interview here. Start at the 19:15 to get the full story about the funeral of fallen soldier Dale Kridlo. My interview starts at 23:20. The buffering speed is slow, but it loads.

The interview went fine save one mistake...we're a philosophical group, not a political one :x

I also find it funny and ironic that the camera panned away to a Knights of Columbus sign during the interview. Their version of "respect life" is much different from mine because they're anti-choice, anti-euthanasia, anti-contraceptives, anti- [embryonic] stem cells, etc.

Westboro is now Misleading...After Not Showing

(Notice the "spreads the word" in this caption...they never showed.)

The Westboro Baptist Church is continuing their misinformation campaign... After not showing at the procession in Pittston after saying they would on live radio, they decided to put up a field report on their website here. They're misleading people by publishing a "field report" which usually requires them to actually be there.

What is their picture, anyway? This is certainly nothing from Pittston and it's obviously photoshopped. The Westboro Baptist Church is full of liars...and not just about their religious or moral claims.

Westboro Never Showed

(A picture of the crowd)

(Some members of the NEPA Freethought Society pose for a picture)

(Me being interviewed by WILK Newsradio)

Above photo credits to NEPA Freethought Society board member Mark R.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Westboro Baptist Church members said they'd be protesting the funeral of a local soldier...but they failed to appear. I brought some members from the NEPA Freethought Society and urged people to attend to counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church members on Facebook and in-person. A very large crowd of people who would come to the funeral regardless of the anticipated protest and a very large crowd of people who probably wouldn't have showed attended. Despite Shirley Phelps saying that church members would be in attendance on a local radio station, WBC never showed.

The biggest calamity during the procession was a woman with a very noisy shopping cart. Someone called her out and said, "Are you kidding me?" and the lady responded in a very loud voice something to the accord of "I'm just turning left here!" I'm curious as to why she would noisily disrupt the procession...but I assure you that this lady wasn't Shirley Phelps.

The Citizens Voice also, for some reason, published a picture of a sign with a tremendous grammatical error. Shame on them...and where were the parents of this child who is holding this sign? Why didn't they notice this error and fix it? I jest...somewhat.

(Photo Credit: Citizens Voice article linked below)

Hilarity also ensued when a woman released balloons and they were caught in a tree.

Several members of the local media recognized me and asked me why I attended the funeral including people from WILK Newsradio, WYLN, and The Citizens Voice. As far as I know, none of the interviews are online at the moment, but I'll post them as soon as I get them if they go online.

It was excellent to see people of our community standing in unity to honor the fallen soldier and be ready to deal with the Westboro Baptist Church. "The third most hated person in Luzerne County" was happy to stand with religious and non-religious in a common cause.

Update: Here is an article from the Citizens Voice about the event.

Debate: The Source of Human Morality

Watch this informative, exciting, and necessary debate about the source of human morality. Debaters are Matt Dillahunty and Father Hans Jacobse.

"Matt Dillahunty is the president of the Atheist Community of Austin, and host of the popular public access television and internet show "The Atheist Experience." He was raised as a fundamentalist Baptist, and was on track to become a minister until he started asking questions about the reasons for his belief. He rejected religion, and now serves as a public voice for rationality and secular morality.

Father Hans Jacobse is an Antiochian Orthodox Priest, who administers the website Orthodoxy Today and heads the American Orthodox Institute. Fr. Hans is convinced that Orthodox Christianity has an important part to play in American moral renewal. He views the current world as a battle between competing moral visions of the secular and the sacred, and hopes that Christianity can restore the moral tradition of the gospels."