"Quake Victims Deserve God's Love, Our Prayers" Times Leader 3/30 LTE

My recent Letter to the Editor regarding the problem of evil and the Japanese earthquake is getting lots of responses from Christians who are making my case look very good. Here's a response that was published today.

Someone writes,

I’m writing in response to a letter to the editor titled “Natural disasters require our help, not our prayers” (March 17), which was submitted by Justin Vacula, co-organizer and spokesman of the NEPA Freethought Society.

Vacula wrote: “The recent devastation in Japan has led many well-meaning believers in God to pray, but their prayers are futile, displaying an obvious contradiction in their supernaturalistic worldview.

“Theists believe that God created the universe and that everything happens according to his will.”

He further wrote, in part, “disasters of the world should lead us to the conclusion that belief in an omni-God is irrational.”

Mr. Vacula, by your words, you appear to be an atheist and/or New Ager and hold the belief that you are what I lovingly refer to as a “monkeyman,” evolved from your ancestral ape lineage. Your views on God and prayer are irrational and without merit. Ask the countless believers who have and do know the power of the living God, which contradict your unsubstantiated viewpoint. Why you had to publicly associate God and prayer with disasters and death, and then with the American Red Cross and donations, is beyond comprehension.

God did create the universe, and man was created in his image. Jesus is our salvation, for no man will come to the father but through him. God does not wantonly kill men. He is a loving God. Men kill men. Sin, irrational thinking and stupidity destroy men.

If a man builds a house on top of a volcano, would it not be logical and rational to believe that one day that house will be destroyed? Would it not be rational to believe that people will die? If men build nuclear power plants on or near volcanic fault lines, would it not be rational to believe one day catastrophic events will ensue?

And, yes, it is our moral obligation to try to help our fellow man in times of disaster or misfortune, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the help must come in the form of material things or money, as you suggest. Prayer is far more powerful and lasting.

I respond,

The reader who responded to my letter hasn't done much research at all because it's quite easy to come to the conclusion that I'm an atheist and not a new-ager. He offers no arguments, but rather just makes assertions and resorts to name calling such as "monkeyman," whatever that means. Of course I accept evolution. The scientific community has gathered the evidence and genetics, speciation, the fossil record, etc show that evolution happened.

The author makes a fallacious appeal to popularity when he says "ask the countless believers who know the power of the living God." Personal testimony in this case is worthless because naturalistic explanations can offer a better reason for this "power of prayer." Millions of people from different religions attest to their gods answering their prayers and they certainly all can't be right. I associate God with natural disasters and death because theists believe that he created the universe and everything happens according to his will. If this is the case, he's responsible for natural disasters and obviously did nothing to stop them if he does exist.

I want people to donate to relief efforts because this humanitarian aid is actually needed. The moral priorities of many religious people are greatly skewed, including this author's, who think that help need not be material and "prayer is far more powerful and lasting." The author says "men kill men," but he somehow neglects the presence of natural disasters. My arguments are not against moral evil, but rather natural evil. The author fails to respond to my natural evil arguments. In the Old Testament, God actually does kill a great number of men. Remember the Great Flood that wiped out almost all of humanity, for example?

The author tries to place the blame on humans who build homes near areas of potential disaster, but this still doesn't work because God set these conditions and presumably knew that these people would die, yet he didn't build the earth in a different manner. Also, it's not very obvious that people build their homes in areas of natural disaster. In any case, the argument is a non-sequitur and fails to answer my arguments. You can't possibly put the blame on humans for natural disasters. I rest my case. The mind of the religious can often be very harmful when people think that donating money to relief efforts is not a priority.

US Bishops Oppose Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as Protected Categories

I'm not making this one up or stretching the truth at all here; this post's title is from an article on Catholic Online.

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the following Press Release on March 25, 2011:

"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has urged the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) not to adopt a proposed regulation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited.

"In comments filed on March 25, 2011 with HUD, Anthony Picarello, USCCB general counsel, and Michael Moses, USCCB associate general counsel, noted that, when it comes to orientation and gender identity, "a protected classification for purposes of federal housing programs has no support in any Act of Congress and appears at odds with at least one other, namely, the Defense of Marriage Act."

"They added that "the regulations may force faith-based and other organizations, as a condition of participating in HUD programs and in contravention of their religious beliefs, to facilitate shared housing arrangements between persons who are not joined in the legal union of one man and one woman."

"By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing. Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter," wrote Picarello and Moses. "Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple, be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.

"Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs, the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs, leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive."

Do I need any more evidence to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is not a friend of homosexuals and is the biggest threat to the normalization of homosexuality?

I've discussed an issue like this regarding Catholic charities who closed their doors because they were forced to provide services for gays and children who were to be adopted by gays. Some charities would (and did) close their doors just because they don't want gays adopting their foster children. Charities are willing to virtually blackmail people to uphold their discriminatory beliefs.

The arguments from the bishops are terrible. If an organization receives government funding, they must play by the rules and not discriminate. HUD is not a Catholic organization by any means, so their arguments are even more ridiculous.

If people want to provide housing for others and don't want to deal with homosexuals, they should "do their own thing" and discriminate all they want, but this isn't what HUD does because equal opportunity should be available to all.

A commenter on the article's comment board "gets it."

This is a diverse country. Many people in our country do not adhere to our Roman Catholic beliefs. We expect tolerance from anyone who disagrees with our beliefs as we extend tolerance to those same folks. I could never understand why we Roman Catholics participate in government programs where we take monies from a government entitiy then complain about the "attached strings" ( read regulations) coming with the money. Oh, I know we Roman Catholics do great good with government money. It subsidizes hospitals, schools and yes HUD sponsored retirement homes. HUD sponsored meaning low cost mortgage loans for construction and a permanent mortage loan, usually at an "under market" interest rate. I suggest to our esteemed leaders in the USCCB to stop whining about the "strings" attached to government subsidies and do what can be done with OUR money. Respectfully yours, Jerry Reidy

NEPAtized Book Now Available on Amazon!

NEPAtized is now available on Amazon! Get your copy today!

I'm featured in chapter two of this book that discusses the nativity controversy. Listen to my interview here!

Since 2008, Northeastern Pennsylvania has been the crossroads for presidential politics, the national media, and, above all: Fraud. Dominating the headlines are stories of greed and controversy; news reports that reveal the corrupt, the immoral, and the idiotic. With so much attention given to the region in recent years, it inevitably leads one to ask: Who and what defines us?

NEPATIZED! investigates the most recent scandals, controversies, and corruption in Northeastern Pennsylvania. With more than thirty interviews by local politicians, media figures, and activists, this book takes a critical look at some of the people and events that have redefined the region. Lou Barletta’s anti-minority rage; Bishop Martino’s divinely-inspired bigotry; and Steve Corbett’s cacophonous diatribes are all part of, what the author calls, “a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy.”

With wit and intellect, author Kenny Luck’s fact-filled expose, complimented by Ted Michalowski’s engaging illustrations, explores the region through the people who have helped to mold it: Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, former WILK host Kevin Lynn, Filmmaker Josh Fox (“Gas Land”), Political Scientist G. Terry Madonna, Union Leader Michael Milz, Blogger Dan Cheek, and King’s College student Justin Vacula tell the recent story of Northeastern Pennsylvania in their own words, their roles in shaping it, and their grievances against it.

Betraying Spinoza: A Critical Review

I recently completed an essay that was a "critical book review" of Rebecca Goldstein's Betraying Spinoza. I wanted to read this book for pleasure, but it wasn't on the top of my unwritten list. It's great to have pleasurable reading assigned and have to read a book that I wanted to read! Enjoy. Rebecca Goldstein presents Spinoza as an autonomous philosopher who had a very high degree of courage, concern for looking for the truth, and rationality. The history of Jewish persecution, Goldstein suggests, deeply influenced Spinoza and led him to question his identity and shape his ideas. Goldstein writes, “Spinoza opted for secularism at a time when the concept had not yet been formulated,” suggesting that, as the title of the book includes, Spinoza gave us modernity (5). Spinoza's ideas greatly influenced and are apparent in the works of Nagel, Leibniz, Locke, Einstein, and many other famous thinkers. Goldstein's Betraying Spinoza is an interesting, informative, and engaging book about Spinoza's life, his basic philosophical ideas, and Jewish history that is accessible to a lay audience. Her book gently introduces Spinoza's philosophy and doesn't overwhelm the reader, but more philosophically-minded audiences might find the descriptions lacking in content and will be longing for more understanding and a longer book.

Goldstein portrays Spinoza as a likable, modest, and cautious individual. Spinoza, Goldstein notes, lived life like he wanted to: simple and isolated. Spinoza's group of friends ranged from freethinking Christians to protestant dissenters who listened to Spinoza's thoughts. Spinoza was cautious not to reveal his thoughts to narrow-minded individuals, but would freely divulge his thoughts to his close group of friends (5). Spinoza wore a treasured signet ring throughout his life with a rose symbol that bore the Latin phrase for cautiously – one of the main elements of his character. Goldstein classifies Spinoza as quiet, fiercely independent, respectful, quick in thinking, and loyal (200). Spinoza, although he was generally very calm and likable, had some episodes of showing his temper, but they were warranted and not even vitriolic (170). Upon his death, Spinoza was most concerned about the publishing of his unpublished work and pleaded with his friend to release his information to the world.

Goldstein argues that Spinoza's excommunication and ostracism were an important part of framing his identity. Spinoza's philosophy was so radical in the eyes of the Jews of his time that simply being called a follower of Spinoza would be an extreme slur against a person. Goldstein notes that “Spinoza remained throughout his life, and well into the eighteenth century, a thinker whom one could admire only in secret” (8). Spinoza was viewed as a betrayer of God (34) and was cursed, condemned, and reviled as a dangerous heretic (21). Many who were excommunicated from Jewish community were allowed to repent at a future time in order to lift the excommunication, but Spinoza's excommunication was non-negotiable (41). Jews were even forbidden from reading Spinoza (43) or talking to him (36). All of this, Goldstein claims, led Spinoza to reconsider his identity and define himself in accordance with his rationalistic philosophy and his cautious manner (165-166).

Goldstein calls Spinoza a “man who had given himself over entirely to the search after truth” (46). Spinoza viewed logic as the “fabric of reality” and insisted that reason alone can discover the truths about reality (48). Spinoza believed that the laws of nature are of necessity and that one need not look to an external world or a supernatural explanation to understand reality because reality's explanation is imminent within itself. Spinoza denied the is-ought gap, the idea that we cannot discover what we are to do from knowing facts about reality, and felt that we can find what we ought to do simply by knowing reality's true nature through pure reason (52-53). Spinoza's idea of salvation, much different than that of Jewish belief, was that reason could detach us from the primal fear of the truth and accept reality for what it is (163).

Spinoza felt that appeals to the divine were unnecessary and that explanations with supernatural content were erroneous (234). He felt that religious people who view themselves as the favored people of God are superstitious and their religions should have the status of superstition (15). Spinoza did not view religious faith as virtuous, but rather believed that virtue was attained through believing what one can know through proof (86). Goldstein notes that Spinoza was not interested in reforming religion, but rather offered a “religion of reason” (121). Spinoza believed that false beliefs “delivered unspeakable harm to our species” and superstition, rather than decreasing suffering, leads to an increasing of suffering and ends in “the most painful and violent contradictions” (222-223).

Goldstein chronicles a history laden with oppression of Jewish people containing death and violence that would lead Jews to question what being Jewish really meant; Jews experienced an identity crisis. Jews were not allowed to practice their rituals and were forced to convert to Christianity. Hysteria and a sense of surveillance permeated the Jews. Christians, many of them former Jews, who even seemed to be living a “Jewish lifestyle” would be viewed as secret Jews, even if they were not forced or influenced to convert. Anything that can be interpreted as “crypto-Judaism” such as excessive personal hygiene, wearing clean clothes on Sunday, or draining the blood of meat could cost a person his/her life. People were placed in trials under the flimsiest charges and were not allowed to face their accusers (106). Jews were allegated to perform the most menial and degrading tasks under the force of the Spanish Inquisition and statues demanding “purity of blood” [no “Jewish blood”] would deprive Jews or converts to Christianity who were former Jews from entering certain locations (103). Goldstein writes, “The Inquisition gave prominence to the question of Jewish identity” and jokingly asserts that “Wafers and wine could be transformed into the flesh and the blood of Christ, but no rite or ritual could turn a Jew into a Christian” (130).

Spinoza, Goldstein argues, undertook an ambitious metaphysical project and is “audacious in the claims he makes for pure reason” (48). Spinoza believed that his idea of presumption of reason, a principle stating that all facts have explanations, should be on par with the laws of logic (57). Everything, Spinoza believed, must be self-explanatory (218) because the world is nothing but logic (185). In order to arrive at these realities, Spinoza believed, we must detach ourselves from our personal points of view and gain “unblinking objectivity” (122). Spinoza believed that humans can attain a sort of immortality by abandoning personal identities “to become rational, believing only what we have good grounds for believing” (68). An objective point of view allows us to humble ourselves and counter our often overinflated views of our place in the cosmos (184) and possibly see ourselves from the outside (188) in order to attain the highest level of reason which amounts to love (195).

It might be impossible to determine whether or not Spinoza's views were the products of his environmental conditions, but it appears that many of his ideas and his identity were influenced by his environment. Spinoza is certainly not a passive thinker, but rather is active and concerned with arriving at the truth, sharing his ideas, and is quite confident that he has arrived at the truth in his writings. Jonathan Bennett notes that a culturally deterministic way of looking at philosophers can treat the philosopher as “a passive node in a network of influences” and can lead us to the conclusion that the philosopher's environment determined what he/she thought, easily overlooking the philosopher's autonomy (Bennett 1). Goldstein's work counters this view and adds a human element to Spinoza by describing his dispositions and intellectual commitments. Knowing about an individual and the individual's environment can be very helpful in reaching a conclusion about why a philosopher thought the way he/she did. On the other end of the spectrum, it would be wrong to ignore the philosopher's environmental influences and history.

I enjoy Spinoza's commitment to what he calls pure reason and find that many of his ideas resonate with my metaphysical commitments and epistemological ideas in some ways. Like Spinoza, I have a great regard and a need for evidence and don't think that faith, belief without evidence, is virtuous. The pursuit of knowledge and holding a radically objective viewpoint that Spinoza details and yearns for is a virtuous endeavor. Spinoza's idea that explanations for facts about reality exist in this world and require no appeal to the divine or an external world seems quite right. Spinoza, like me, prizes knowledge and finds great virtue in the pursuit of knowledge. Spinoza's idea of god, though, seems quite superfluous, and seems to confuse recipients of his ideas. Spinoza's view about reality is certainly materialistic and has no room for supernatural entities, but a word that is commonly used to imply the supernatural is employed by Spinoza when Spinoza can omit the word God from his philosophy and substitute it with reality or something similar.

Goldstein credits Spinoza with influencing thinkers who sought naturalistic explanations for events in the universe and insisted that progress in science should not be impeded by religious dogma (11). Using information that is presented later in the text, readers can come to understand that Spinoza's methods of pure reason would lead him to arrive at this conclusion; Spinoza believed that one need not look for otherworldly explanations when explaining the natural universe because everything that exists has an explanation that is rooted in this world. Contemporary scientists operate under methodological naturalism much in the way of Spinoza (but don’t totally eliminate the possibility, however slim, that a supernatural explanation can exist) and assume that there is a naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon. Scientists don't assume a supernatural explanation when investigating the universe, but rather look for naturalistic explanations and do not jump to conclusions containing supernatural content. Spinoza is also credited with influencing thinkers who posit a theory of everything, an explanation or formulation of concepts that can be used to explain the universe, such as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow who explore such concepts and discuss them in books written for lay audiences.

Contemporary atheists and secular Jews also may be inspired by Spinoza's works and much of their thinking may be the result of Spinoza’s philosophical ideas. Spinoza denied the supernatural, divine revelation, miracles, prophecy, and divine inspiration of books. Jews have longed for a reason that explained their persecution and suffering throughout human history – they believed that they were God's chosen people, but God was missing in their lives on a day-to-day basis. Spinoza answered this question of why Jews suffer and eliminated Yahweh from the picture. Goldstein called this the “ultimate betrayal” (164) of the Jews who believed in a literal God. Many Jews have given up their literalistic beliefs and continued to participate in cultural traditions and are frequently called reformed, secular, or humanistic Jews. Secular Jews may have gained a great deal of inspiration from Spinoza, the man who was brave enough to publicly challenge centuries of thinkers and texts that were believed to be divinely inspired at a time in which no one else did in the Jewish community. Goldstein notes that secularism was unthinkable in Spinoza's time (12) and he was the first modern Jew (26). Non-theists are standing on the shoulders of Spinoza in many ways.

Goldstein noted that Spinoza's city of Amsterdam was quite a tolerant place, but I don't think she expounded upon Spinoza's ideas of toleration or direct influences upon the founding fathers' beliefs about free speech and separation of church and state. I believe that Goldstein focused too much on Jewish history and not enough on the specifics of Spinoza's philosophy. The detail regarding Spinoza's excommunication was quite in-depth and allowed the reader to understand the severity and the implications of the unforgivable excommunication that Spinoza was faced with. I felt that this book was a good introduction into Spinoza and would be a great springboard into other works, but to learn more I would have to read a book that was more focused on Spinoza's philosophy. The concept of the detached self that Spinoza had was present in Thomas Nagel's The View From Nowhere, so I'm able to understand the influence that Spinoza had regarding this item, but only because I read Nagel's book. Goldstein could have expanded on this idea of the detached self. Goldstein did an excellent job detailing Spinoza's life, his environment, and describing the basics of Spinoza's philosophy, but I yearn for more detailed explanations of Spinoza's philosophy. More than anything else in Goldstein’s book, I learned about Jewish history. If I were a reviewer of books, I would rate this book as four stars out of five.

Works Cited

Bennett, Jonathan. Learning From Six Philosophers. 1. New York: Oxford, 2001. Print.

Goldstein, Rebecca. Betraying Spinoza. New York: Random House, 2006. Print.

Problem of Evil Apologists Fail...and more

In a recent letter to the editor to a local newspaper, I noted that theistic belief is irrational because natural evil serves as a defeater to Christian belief. The recent devastation in Japan should be "evidence enough" that there is no all-powerful and all-loving god who created the universe with the welfare of humans in mind. I was, of course, limited in space, so I couldn't type everything I wanted to type and include in the newspaper. For some unknown reason, my 250 word letter was limited to about 125, so my answers to common objections to my shorted argument were not included.

The person who responded to my article had this to say,

In times of crisis, faith also is vital

In response to the letter to the editor from Justin Vacula titled “Natural disasters require our help, not our prayers” (March 17).

Christians do believe that God created the universe and, yes, God has a perfect will for all of us. However, he does allow things to happen, even tragedies such as in Japan. Why this had to happen is a mystery. That is not saying God is without any feelings or emotions. The essence of God is “unconditional love.”

During this Lenten season, it is a good time to reflect on the Crucifixion. God loved us so much that he allowed his son to die an ignominious, cruel death so that we might be saved.

Some say there is no hell; but if that is true, why would Christ die on the cross? From what would he need to save us?

Many praying Christians are led to donate their time and money to help out the cause. It is a biblical truth that God calls us to tithe and give alms.

In closing, I would like to offer this quotation: “For those with faith, no explanation is necessary, and for those without faith, no explanation is good enough.”

The first sentence the author offers is a fragment, so the author isn't off to a great start at all (unless the editor is not at fault for this).

The author suggests that the destruction is a "mystery" that "God allowed to happen" and the "essence of God is unconditional love." The "mystery answer" to the problem of evil is not an answer at all, but rather an explaining away. If you think that the reason for this wrongdoing in Japan is mysterious and insist that God is loving in spite of deaths of thousands, you're forced to fall into utter moral skepticism about any possible destruction and think "Hmm...this is just mysterious and there may be some sort of greater good that can be had for event x."

Even if some greater good would be had, it's silly to think that this is the only possible way that an all-powerful and all-loving god could achieve whatever end he intended; God could simply achieve this greater good without having a universe without natural disasters. If this greater good can't be had, then God's plan is a horrible one and he obviously isn't all-loving.

At this point, the objector might tell me something like "Well, you just want a perfect universe, but how can any good be had if there were no "natural evil"?" I'm not asking for a perfect universe at all, but rather am saying that we should not expect an omni-god to make a universe that is like this. Earthquakes and other natural disasters aren't needed for compassion or some other greater good. If an omni-god created the universe, it should be radically different and without (or with less) deadly viruses, deadly natural disasters, stillbirths, etc.

I talk more about the problem of evil in various blog posts like the ones here and here. I only wanted to touch on the "greater goods" theodicy and the "God is mysterious" defense in this post.

This idea of "god loved us so much that he allowed his son to die..." is absurd. Love for someone is not demonstrated by sending your son on a suicide mission/"allowing" him to die. Imagine if I approached someone and said, "I love you so much and I want to forgive you for slighting me, so I'm going to kill my son because this is the only way that I can possibly forgive you." Acts like this from any human would be sick and disturbing, so why should an act like this from God be suddenly indicative of love? God could certainly have forgiven humans in some other manner besides having his son be crucified in a bloody death...and then require love for salvation.

Forgiveness through another human being, otherwise known as vicarious redemption, is quite disturbing. If we slight another human being, forgiveness is had when a person is genuinely sorry, gives an apology, and ceases to act in an immoral fashion. Theists try to say that the crucifixion makes sense because humans offended God, so God can forgive them through other humans , but this doesn't work either. How can forgiveness happen "through a person" without that person forgiving the other individual? Imagine that a husband kills his wife. The wife, in a supernatural realm, can never forgive and will never forgive the husband, but according to many Christians, God can forgive the husband without the wife forgivving...and then he goes to Heaven. Heaven, again according to Christians, is supposed to be a joyous place where people/souls/whatever live in harmony, but this can't be fulfilled if people/souls/whatever do not forgive others.

The author mentions that some people think there is no Hell and asks from what would we need to be saved from if no Hell exists? Many Christians are in vast disagreement on this idea because there is no coherent, widely accepted, or consistent answers on this point. Some Christians believe there is no Hell. Some define Hell as "absence of God." Some think that Jesus' death was symbolic. Some think that Jesus' death was to allow people to enter into Heaven. Some think that people go to limbo. Some people think that people go to some other transition before Heaven. Some people think that anyone can be forgiven of anything as long as they repent. Some people think that atheists will go to Hell just for not believing........ Even theologians don't agree on these issues. Regardless, this question has nothing to do with the problem of evil and just seems to be preaching.

Heaven or Jesus dying doesn't excuse evil. Shall the sufferings of about a hundred years or less be just a blip in existence and be all better like a mother kissing a son's boo-boo? With this defense of "Jesus died, so it's okay" (which the author may or may not be implying) just doesn't work. If it did, we'd plunge into quite a horrific mindset and say to victims of crimes "Oh, you got raped, but it's okay! God will make everything better in the end!" We obviously don't act like this because we understand that horrific events that happen on Earth have dire consequences and really do matter. Why shift gears when defending the idea that an all-loving god exists?

Many Christians indeed do give money to help victims of disasters, but religion causes the "moral compasses" of many believers to be skewed. Some people think that sending solar-powered Bibles to people or sending stained glass windows is a priority when people need food, medical help, and water. This is a huge problem. Secular people with good intentions aren't wasting time praying or sending religious items to people; they are donating what the people need.

The quotation that the author offers in the closing paragraph is quite ironic because it's showing that his/her faith is baseless and that the common sense way of needing explanations and good reasons for believing are needed. Faith needs no explanation, the author says, so this surrenders all rational thought and admits that the author has no concern with finding evidence and good justification for establishing the belief. I need good reasons for accepting extraordinary claims and in matters that are not supernatural, I'm sure that the author does to. He/she is, for some reason, operating in the wrong matter and not using his/her cognitive faculties properly. If a salesman went to the author's door and claimed to have magic weight loss pills, questions would certainly be asked or the claims would be dismissed automatically. Why should no explanation be needed when the supernatural is concerned?

I don't accept belief in the supernatural because the reasons are not good ones, the believers have not been able to offer good arguments, and the morality of vicarious redemption (in the case of Christianity) is not one that would be had by an all-loving god, and many other reasons. Supernatural claims have not been demonstrated to be true, so I'm not going to accept them until really good reasons are presented. Explanations have constantly failed time and time again, so my rejection of supernatural claims is profoundly justified. I am willing to change any and all of my beliefs given that the evidence and arguments are presented, but all at the moment are profoundly lacking.

There's also a great problem in distinguishing potential claims of the supernatural from advanced technology or something that we don't understand. How can we possibly distinguish the supernatural from "I can't explain this" or advanced technology? When the believer can answer this question and provide evidence/rational argument for supernatural claims, I'll change my belief. Until then, I'm not going to believe. This demand for justification and evidence should be the mindset of many more people, but it's sadly not. In day to day life, we operate in this manner, but some people, for some reason, are willing to lower the standards for justification and "turn our brains off" when God is concerned. The author is right with the last statement; no explanation is good enough because all of the explanations offered are profoundly lacking.

I can easily type for hours regarding these topics, but my time is quite limited at the moment. I'll be happy to follow-up provided that people disagree in comments here.

Here's a fun video:

Nepatized Book Tour April 8th

I'll be the special guest of local author Kenny Luck at the April 8th kick-off book signing at the Barnes and Noble bookstore in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. We will be at the bookstore from 6:30PM to 8:30PM. Kenny Luck will be singing his book, NEPAtized! that will be sold by Barnes and Noble and I will be giving a presentation/speech regarding the nativity scene controversy and "my take" of Luzerne County. After 8:30, we'll be heading to Rodano's (restaurant across the street) for dinner/drinks.

You are invited and encouraged to attend both events!

Where: Barnes and Noble bookstore

7 South Main Street

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711

Date/Time: April 8, 2011 6:30PM-8:30PM

Dinner/Drinks following at Rodano's (across the street) after 8:30PM

Parking: On the "square" or the parking lot across the street

Book Info:

Since 2008, Northeastern Pennsylvania has been the crossroads for presidential politics, the national media, and, above all: Fraud. Dominating the headlines are stories of greed and controversy; news reports that reveal the corrupt, the immoral, and the idiotic. With so much attention given to the region in recent years, it inevitably leads one to ask: Who and what defines us?

NEPATIZED! investigates the most recent scandals, controversies, and corruption in Northeastern Pennsylvania. With more than thirty interviews by local politicians, media figures, and activists, this book takes a critical look at some of the people and events that have redefined the region. Lou Barletta’s anti-minority rage; Bishop Martino’s divinely-inspired bigotry; and Steve Corbett’s cacophonous diatribes are all part of, what the author calls, “a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy.”

With wit and intellect, author Kenny Luck’s fact-filled expose explores the region through the people who have helped to mold it: Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, former WILK host Kevin Lynn, Filmmaker Josh Fox (“Gas Land”), Political Scientist G. Terry Madonna, Union Leader Michael Milz, Blogger Dan Cheek, and King’s College student Justin Vacula tell the recent story of Northeastern Pennsylvania in their own words, their roles in shaping it, and their grievances against it.

RSVP on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=186670118044231

The Ethics of Membership and Supporting Organizations

"Oh, but the Klansmen do so many good things! Even though I don't agree with what their national organization does, I still can give to local groups?"

Is this a reasonable position? Let's explore.

For months, I've been an "out gay ally" and have been fighting against the pressures that be (specifically the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus) that impede civil rights and marriage for homosexuals. I believe that the marriage of gays will greatly benefit society and allow for gays to solidify their relationships, share the same legal benefits as straights who are married, and diminish STDs and AIDS in the gay community. The benefits of gay marriage are tremendous.

Homosexuals and gay allies will often share the same goals and want to achieve the same ends that I am working toward, but they are being grossly decieved and are stifling my efforts by working against themselves. Personally, I will not benefit from gay rights, but I want to see society flourish, so I "fight." It's quite awkard that gays will undermine themselves and my efforts by supporting organizations that fund and spearhead anti-gay initiatives. I've previously touched in these issues in multiple posts, but I want to expand in this one. I will argue that gays and gay allies are acting in an immoral fashion when they support the Catholic Church and Catholic groups even if the local groups are affiliates of national organizations and even if the local groups don't publicly take a stand on certain issues.

People support a specific club or organization when they give a monetary donation, become members, or give nods of support. This is quite easy to see and very uncontroversial. If I give money to, say, the Red Cross, I'm furthering their aims, keeping them in business, and helping them fulfill their mission. If I become a member of an organization, I'm agreeing with their mission statement, giving the group power and legitimacy, and furthering their aims [unless, of course, I join a group to undermine their efforts, but this is a special exception]. The assertion, "someone legitimizes a group by giving money to it" is controversial, but it probably true, but let's not consider that here.

It follows that if I, for example, give money to a local chapter of the Klu Klux Klan, I am furthering their aims, keeping them in business, and helping them fulfill their mission. If the KKK's mission is counter-intuitive to my goals, I've undermined what I stand for. If the KKK's goals are harmful to society, I've acted in an immoral fashion. The KKK, for example is in direct opposition to my values because they want to make the practice of homosexuality illegal, stop the government from sending foreign aid, outlaw abortion except for in cases of rape in incest, and they profess that America was founded as a Christian nation. I can't possibly support this group!

Here are some arguments against my position:

Well, if I'm supporting a local chapter of the KKK, I'm not supporting their national organization.

Supporting a local chapter is still furthering the aim of the national organization and the local chapters' aims because local chapters endorse the mission statements of the national organization (otherwise they would not be affiliates).

Well, I understand, but what if the local chapter isn't an activist group and doesn't work to further its aims?

You're still supporting the group which furthers the aims of the national organization by existing to begin with. If there were no local chapters, the influence of the national organization would be greatly diminished. If your local Klan members fundraise and you give money to them, you're keeping them in existence and keeping the national organization strong. Even if your local Klan group is fundraising to help a girl with cancer and giving all of money to them for this goal, the group's donation is being recognized, the members' social cohesion is undoubtedly improved, etc. This is a reason parallel to that of those who refuse campaign contributions; people who refuse money don't want to endorse/legitimize the donor, be associated with the donor, etc. This argument simply does not work.

What about members who just join for the social aspect?

By being a member of the group, as I mentioned, you are furthering its aims. Before joining groups, you should have the responsibility of researching and discovering what the group's goals, mission, and money goes to. Ignorance is no excise. Also "not caring" is no excuse. If you join a local Klan, you have moral blame for supporting the group even if you didn't care or didn't know about the group that was very obvious and easy to find...even if you just want to go to meet people.

What if I don't support the group's mission, but want to join/support them?

Joining or giving money to the group is supporting the group.

I know some of the group's members and they aren't bad people. Although some KKK members may really hate black people, my friends who are members don't! They say they are about heritage, not hate! It's okay for me to donate to the group!

This is a red herring. Supporting the group, regardless of how great some of its members may be, is still supporting the aims of the local and national group.

You may think that your friends don't hate black people, but it's impossible to be confident that all or other members of the group don't hate black people. People often hide motives and won't come out and say what they really mean. You can, I suppose, be very confident that your friend doesn't hate black people, but what about those who you don't know. Either way, this part of the argument doesn't even need to be discussed because it's a red herring.

But the KKK does a great deal of charitable work and makes some people really happy! They offer social cohesion for its members! Even if some Klansmen do bad things, you can't condemn local groups!

This is another red herring. Groups who do charitable work still have other aims that can't be supported and furthered by objectors. They may make members and others happy, but this also doesn't matter. People can find charities that don't do harm or conflict with their values.

Some exceptions:

The environment is oppressive and your morality has to take a back seat.

This is a contestable claim that I believe should be left to an individual, I think. I go to a Catholic College, for example, and have faced tremendous consequences for being an active atheist and fighting for seperation of church and state. People hate me. I've been called a "bitch ass trick" and threatened with violence if I visited someone's room. I feel that I can deal with the social consequences. Some friends of mine feel that the environment is too oppressive and they believe that they'd be kicked out of their house and thus feign belief. This makes sense. (They could, though, be an anonymous activist and still support groups anonymously.)

What of the person forced to be a member of Hitler Youth? Can we really find a person blameworthy if his parents would be killed if he refused to join? I think not. This is an extreme case, of course. I don't think, though, that this can be applied to many situations today when your life isn't threatened or social consequences aren't extreme. Perhaps your father is a Catholic fundamentalist and you're an atheist. You can't possibly reveal your beliefs, so you remain a member of some church organization and feign belief. Is this very dubious knowing that the consequences of quitting might be severe?

I don't see how this counter-argument can apply to giving money to groups. Is there a situation that commonly happens in which one would suffer severe consequences if he/she failed to give money? If you give money to the KKK, as I mentioned above, you're acting in an immoral fashion.

-----

After reading all of this, some may be skeptical of my attendance at a Catholic institution, so I'll direct these concerns here and note that I could not possibly afford to change schools (and did not want to) after I became an atheist after my second year.

Hopefully, you'll agree with everything I posted above (and if you don't or I missed something, please comment). Above, I used the KKK as an example (and presumably local KKK chapters just do exist to socialize and not do anything), but these arguments can be applied to other groups/organizations such as the Knights of Columbus or the Catholic Church. Not accepting my conclusions just because "some groups are different" is intellectually dishonest special pleading.

Gays and supporters of gay rights, for example, who support the Knights of Columbus are acting in an immoral fashion by doing so. Recently, the King's College Knights of Columbus chapter had a show fundraiser and some homosexuals and their allies supported the group by purchasing shoes, much to my chagrin. I'm against the Knights of Columbus for several reasons that I have elaborated on in the past. The organization/s is/are against abortion, contraceptives, sexual education, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. Gays should immediately "be sold" on the indisputable fact that the Knights of Columbus are against gay marriage. Gays should not support groups that fight against and undermine gay marriage! You can buy sneakers at a local store instead of giving money to an organization that is part of a national organization which has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay initiatives.

These arguments, of course, work for someone at an individual level. Should groups be openly opposed to other groups that work against them? Regardless of the answer to this question, individuals can still be against the group by not supporting them whether they do this silently (not donating to them at fundraisers) or openly (telling others not to support).

---

Some other considerations:

The Knights of Columbus and the KKKare so much different! What about other groups who don't have anti-gay agendas?

This is not an argument from analogy. The main points of my argument are this: if a group has unsavory goals that are against your values, you shouldn't support them, become a member, or give them money.

What about political groups and the United States government? They both commit unsavory actions and often have dubious aims.

Political groups are an interesting case. With them, you don't have to vote at all. You can completely abstain from the whole process and not endorse any candidate. I tend, though, to vote for "the lesser of the two evils" because it seems to be a "forced" two party system and no candidates from other parties are typically able to win. With the case of politicians/parties, it's quite reasonable and expected that you don't agree 100% with the people running for office. Regarding other groups, you can totally abstain, it's often not a forced option, and there are other viable alternatives. If you're an environmentalist, for example, you don't need to support Greenpeace because there are many other groups out there.

What about groups that have members who are shady?

You have to ask, does the shafy stuff stem from the mission statement and aims of the group or is this individual failure? Even if it is individual failure, you're not forced to support and can certainly cease doing so.

What about groups who have a goal that will never be reached and/or is unattainable?

I could never find myself supporting a group that, say, like the KKK, wants to make the practice of homosexuality illegal, even if they donated millions to a really good charity and their mission statement is unattainable/will never be reached. Perhaps they can be lauded for their efforts (would this legitimize their actions, though?), but one should still not support or donate money.

How about change that may happen in an organization? Individuals can change groups from within and some individuals can be progressive within a fundamentalist community.

Changing an organization is a good point that I didn't consider. Barry Lynn, the leader of Americans United for Separation of Church and state, for example, is certainly trying to change the minds of religionists from the inside, as a reverend and Michael Dowd's "Thank God for Evolution" is making waves.

The issue of changing has come up within the "atheist community" in the issue of accomodationism vs confrontation. Are we wanting change in the group to moderate them or to get rid of it? I would love to see churches close and have non-theistic humanists who provide care and social support without dogma, but I'm not interested in working to moderate these people (although this may happen in the process unintentionally).

Are you claiming that giving someone money causes one to be responsible for their actions?

I don't claim that one is always responsible for the actions of others by the spending of money, but rather say that those who donate to groups are furthering the goals, etc of the group. The government isn't a group at all and it's a forced choice for Americans, essentially.

William James' "The Will to Believe" : Critical Response

Here is my essay written for my Modern and Contemporary Philosophy class. I argue that William James' criterion presented in "The Will To Believe" are untenable and one should not believe a proposition just because it makes them happy. True belief should be the goal and persons should not intellectually resign and let their emotions lead them to belief. Happiness can be had a a result of a rigorous intellectual process in which one is firmly grounded in belief. This paper was to only be around eight pages, so I didn't get a chance to object to Clifford's arguments (although I have done this a bit here) and otherwise had to limit myself. I would have also liked to talk about intellectual virtues and what it means to be a fulfilled epistemic agent, but I didn't have the chance in this essay. I could have also elaborated more on absolute certainty and more about the benefits of critical thinking.

Will to Believe: A Critical Response

Background and Further Reading

James' Will to Believe

Clifford, William K. "The Ethics of Belief." 1999. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .

Pascal, Blaise. "Pensees ." Web. 31 Mar 2011.

"Natural Disasters Require Our Help, Not Our Prayers" Times Leader 3/17/11 Letter to the Editor

I submitted the following Letter to the Editor to the Times Leader and it was published today. We need more rationality in these local papers...far too many writers write about glorifying God and how he's going to save the world. He's not.

For some reason, my 250-word letter was cut! I'll post the "full" 250-word version here instead.

Don't Pray for Japan, Donate Money

The recent devastation in Japan has led many well-meaning believers in God to pray, but their prayers are ultimately futile and display an obvious contradiction in their supernaturalistic worldview. Theists believe that God created the universe and that everything happens according to his will, but the reality of natural disasters serves as defeaters to both of these beliefs. We should not expect a universe plagued with earthquakes and other natural disasters if God exists; God could have easily designed the universe in a different manner. What, then, should we take from this information? Seeing patterns of disaster and realizing that the universe is ultimately indifferent to human life should lead us to the conclusion that belief in an omni-God is irrational.

Natural disasters have nothing to do a “fallen nature,” unless, of course, you believe that the way God made us is a license for us to suffer, but being made in a disordered condition and punished for it is quite sadistic. If you believe that “God has reasons beyond us,” you're forced to fall into utter moral skepticism and would have to also believe that rape, murder, and other actions might not be evil because “reasons are beyond us.” If God exists and does nothing, he's hardly loving because he can “snap his fingers” and make all the horror stop without effort.

Instead of praying to God, return your concerns to the natural world and donate money to charitable organizations such as the Red Cross.

More Earthquake Nonsense

As you've probably seen on P.Z. Myers' blog, many people are behaving very poorly and are insisting that "God got Japan back for Pearl Harbor" and thus delivered(?) an earthquake to Japan. I expected really stupid stuff like this to happen because when natural disaster happens, God's wrath lurks around the corner. People like to write off those who say terrible things like this and say, "Oh, they aren't real Catholics" or "They are the extremists," but this often really isn't the case. Sure, you have Pat Robertson and his ilk blaming Satan, but the moderates are out there too.

Most recently, Glenn Beck professed that the earthquake might be a message [from God].

Today, a priest is blaming atheism and materialism on the Japanese earthquake:

Senior pastor Cho Yong-gi of Yoido Full Gospel Church, the largest Christian church in the world, has faced vicious public condemnation as he called the catastrophic Japanese quakes and tsunamis "God’s warnings."

"I fear that this disaster may be warnings from God against the Japanese people’s atheism and materialism," an online Christian press quoted the elderly religious leader as saying Saturday.

"I hope that these series of events will drive the Japanese to turn their eyes towards God."

Also, we have this "gem:"

As noted in this article, a Korean government official thanked God for sparing his country:

“I thank God and my ancestors for keeping the Korean peninsula safe,”

Some Christian groups, while they may be well-meaning and are certainly offering help, are unfortunately plagued with proselytizing and profess that their main mission is "to help the nation to raise its eyes to Heaven, and to keep alive the flame of hope."

Oddly enough, right after a massive disaster, "God's love" is still seen [although, presumably, everything is done according to his will and he created the universe]:

There were just over 10,000 Catholics in Sendai before the earthquake and tsunami, and it is unknown how many will be left in the aftermath. Nevertheless, Bishop Hiraga said the survivors “will do everything possible to bring relief – to testify, at this time of suffering, to the message of Christ's love.”

Upcoming Book Chapter in which I am Interviewed

Update:3/20/11

I'm going to be giving a speech/presentation regarding my chapter at the Wilkes/King's Barnes and Noble bookstore on the tentative date of April 8. I will give more details as that time approaches and I get the information.

In April of 2011, local author Kenny Luck is publishing a book about Northeastern Pennsylvania in which I am featured. I previously posted an audio interview in which the author interviewed me.

I am going to be accompanying author Kenny Luck when he goes on tour with his book and will be giving a presentation regarding my take on Northeastern Pennsylvania and the nativity controversy.

Here is the sample PDF of the chapter of the book in which I am featured that you can download (the link recently stopped working, so I had to reupload/change URL). Enjoy. I have permission from the author to upload/link this file. If you desire to share this, please link my blog post!

At the time of this posting, the book's manuscript gas been sent to the printing house to be published. When a pre-order site and new information is released, I will update.

Since 2008, Northeastern Pennsylvania has been the crossroads for presidential politics, the national media, and, above all: Fraud. Dominating the headlines are stories of greed and controversy; news reports that reveal the corrupt, the immoral, and the idiotic. With so much attention given to the region in recent years, it inevitably leads one to ask: Who and what defines us?

NEPATIZED! investigates the most recent scandals, controversies, and corruption in Northeastern Pennsylvania. With more than thirty interviews by local politicians, media figures, and activists, this book takes a critical look at some of the people and events that have redefined the region. Lou Barletta’s anti-minority rage; Bishop Martino’s divinely-inspired bigotry; and Steve Corbett’s cacophonous diatribes are all part of, what the author calls, “a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy.”

With wit and intellect, author Kenny Luck’s fact-filled expose, complimented by Ted Michalowski’s engaging illustrations, explores the region through the people who have helped to mold it: Lackawanna County Recorder of Deeds Evie Rafalko McNulty, former WILK host Kevin Lynn, Filmmaker Josh Fox (“Gas Land”), Political Scientist G. Terry Madonna, Union Leader Michael Milz, Blogger Dan Cheek, and King’s College student Justin Vacula tell the recent story of Northeastern Pennsylvania in their own words, their roles in shaping it, and their grievances against it.

Taoism and the Naturalistic Fallacy

Taoism and the Naturalistic Fallacy

Don't Support the Knights of Columbus

I've posted and have spoken a great deal about the Knights of Columbus' insidious efforts to oppose contraceptives, gay marriage, abortion, and sexual education. The organization is fundamentally opposed to many ideals that I hold, thus I make a point out of identifying their agenda. The Knights like to talk about their charitable works (and yes, they do do some good, but this doesn't make up for the harm that they cause) and their fraternal aspects, but they often don't advertise their religiously motivated goals of baning contraceptives, making abortions illegal, opposing gay marriage, etc.

The Knights of Columbus of King's College will be hosting a shoe sale this Thursday. Please don't support them or any of their activities if you care about gay rights or any of the other issues I presented above, for the organization is a staunch opponent of gay marriage and has funneled millions of dollars (and this is only one link) into anti-gay marriage initiatives and has recently funded a DVD that was sent to Catholic households in Minnesota with intentions of demonizing gays and rallying support against gay marriage. If you want to support the rights of homosexuals (and presumably you do), you should not support the Knights. While the individual members at King's may be well-meaning and not directly responsible for anti-gay marriage initiatives, they are still members of the organization and are helping those by giving legitimacy to their cause.

"The important thing is that the Knights of Columbus is, has been, and always will be firmly in favor of traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage," says the Knights of Columbus Vice President for Communications

If you are pro-choice, pro-sex education, for individuals making their own choices regarding life and death, pro-gay rights, and support the rights of people to make their own reproductive choices, you should not be giving a dime to the Knights of Columbus. If you want to give to charity, you have many other options. Shame on the Knights of Columbus and its members.

Update: King's College Should Serve Meat on Fridays during Lent

This post is an update of last year's post about King's College barring the serving of meat on Fridays during Lent. This post is more organized and is designed for view by the entire college community via the college's forum [I posted this here].

During the Lenten season, King's College removes meat from ALL dining locations on campus and forces students and faculty to abide by the Catholic tradition of fasting from meat on Fridays regardless of their religious beliefs, lack of religion, or general disagreement with the Catholic tradition of fasting. Some King's College students are not traditional Catholics in the sense of following all traditions and abiding by them. Many believers in the Christian god do not subscribe to church teaching and have their own views of how they should worship god and abide by church teachings. King's College should serve meat on Lenten Fridays so that the fast is an option and authentic. Serving meat will respect the choices of meat-eaters, not financially burden those who wish to purchase meat on Friday, and assure that the college's mission statement is upheld.

The purpose of fasting during Lent (at least as I learned it in Catholic schooling) is to defeat temptation and gain some sort of spiritual benefit in giving up something you enjoy for some greater good. How can removing meat from all dining locations on campus possibly fulfill the goal of defeating temptation through fasting if fasting is not even an option and the temptation of meat eating is not even present?

Imagine if Catholics decided that abstaining from eating ostrich meat was an obligation during Lent. Would one say that a person has genuinely fasted if ostrich meat was not even available? No. Fasting must require giving up something that is reasonably available. The ostrich-fasters should not be praised for their "fast" if they didn't even have access to the ostrich meat to begin with.

The policy of removing meat from all dining locations further defeats the goal of fasting because the fasting is not a genuine option since the meat is not available. Can one honestly choose to refrain from meat eating if the meat is not available? Can you assign praise to the ostrich-faster and say that he/she "chose" to fast when no such meat was available?

Much more often than not, for financial reasons, students will eat at the college dining facilities. Regardless of the choice to fast, all students who eat on campus will have no choice in the matter - they will not be able to order meat products. If meat-eating students who do not follow the Catholic tradition of fasting wish to eat meat, they must spend money in excess of what is already spent on the meal plan.

Forcing everyone to follow a Catholic tradition betrays the school's mission statement that aims to be open and respectful of individuals of different cultures, religious faiths or no religion, etc. The King's College mission statement says, "King's College welcomes students from diverse backgrounds and strives to educate them in a community committed to academic excellence, mutual respect, and social responsibility." What of the students from different backgrounds (i.e. non-Catholic or not following Catholic traditions) who enjoy eating meat?

Various students and faculty members enjoy eating meat and delight in the fact that King's College is not a school in which people are forced to attend religious services, abide by religious traditions, etc. Students and faculty can choose to go to religious services, religious discussions, go to religious retreats, etc. There is generally no compulsion for students or faculty to abide by the religious traditions of the Catholic Church. Why, then, should Lent be an exception?

If King's College wants to be true to the Catholic tradition of fasting from meat, the college should offer meat and remind students and faculty that Catholics are obliged [not forced] to refrain from meat eating during Lent. Serving meat will ensure that the fast is voluntary, linked with temptation/the possibility of not following the tradition, and genuine. King's College should allow individuals of the community to make their own decisions when Catholic traditions are concerned and not force its members to abide by Catholic traditions. Meat eaters with meal plans should not be forced to spend money off-campus and should be able to purchase meat as usual from campus restaurants.

Change the policy of no meat on Fridays, make fasting voluntary, and respect the decisions of members of the King's College community. Doing so will allow for a more authentic fast and reinforce the idea that King's College is a place for people of all persuasions.

Praying for Disaster Victims?

It's natural for humans to react to natural disaster and general misfortune with disgust. We think about natural disasters that devastate and feel truly sorry for victims.

Many theists believe that an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god created the universe and everything that happens is part of some divine plan. If God is good and all that comes from him is good, why should theists balk at the results of said divine plan? Theists would, I venture, ignore the implications of the naturalistic fallacy (that which is natural is good) because they believe that God is, by definition, good.

Christian friends of mine on Facebook are saying, "The residents of Japan are in my prayers." I understand, as I previously stated, why someone would be downtrodden when hearing about the events unfolding in Japan, but this sentiment doesn't seem at all consistent with a theistic worldview. I firmly believe that belief in an omni-god is irrational on the grounds of natural evil as I previously discussed, so the theist is already at a loss for consistency, but praying for the victims and being upset at the disaster seems to betray a Christian worldview and further demonstrate that the belief is irrational.

If everything happens according to God's will, it seems foolish to pray for the people who are impacted by God's plan because, of course, the plan surely won't be altered because some follower wills it to be. Humans, under the Christian worldview, are utterly hopeless to determine what God does if it is the case that everything happens according to God's will. He already put a plan in action, one would assume, and since a true belief was held when God made the plan (he is all-knowing), this belief can't be falsified because then God would have held a false belief (and he can't because he's all-perfect).

If God is all good and everything follows from God, you have to accept the reality that the conditions for life set up by an omni-god are far less than desirable and do not seem that they flow from the creation/plan of an omni-god. How can the theist deal with this reality and still profess that God exists and is all-good, all-loving, etc?

Praying for disaster victims is silly. If a god exists and has a plan, nothing you can will can possibly change such a plan. I suppose you can hope that people will survive, but many have already died through no fault of their own...and are you going to seriously think that part of God's plan is killing hundreds of people via a natural disaster? Certainly not.

Praying for disaster victims shows a basic human emotion that betrays and transcends Christianity. You're acknowledging that you are concerned with the fate of troubled people and the outcome of a natural disaster instead of taking a line from the Westboro Baptist Church and praising God for his earthquakes.

Regardless of whether or not God exists, prayer does nothing to effect the outcomes of earthly matters. Scientific studies have not supported the hypothesis that prayer has a significant effect [statistically significant and demonstrable] on improving the health of people, so why bother?

How, as a theist, can you possibly hold a belief in an omni-god when you see egregious non-discriminate killing via natural disasters?

----

In addition to the contradictions to belief, I care more about this topic for practical reasons. People who pray think that they are doing something to help and can easily forgo actually doing something to help a situation. You've certainly heard of children dying because their parents prayed for recovery of simple medical maladies instead of giving them proper medical care.