Is God a Moral Compromiser? by Thom Stark

I came across Thom Stark’s excellent and exhaustive book length review of Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011) he’s titled Is God a Moral Compromiser? A Critical Review of Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?” I uploaded it to Scribd.com and wanted to embed it on my blog, so here you go!

While reading through it, I agree with a lot of what Stark says. However, I do believe that the majority of complaints about the bible by the New Atheists are accurate. Nearly every critique I’ve seen of the New Atheists’ complaints about the bible fail to show why they’re wrong. Perhaps Stark would like to address the New Atheists’ errors about the bible himself since he feels so many other Christians have done such a poor job? Maybe this is the reason I feel the New Atheists’ critiques about the bible are mostly correct, because most apologists who attempt a counter-argument put up an incredibly poor defense?

I also have one more minor complaint. On page 8 Stark says that he will continue to stay a Christian

unless God comes down from heaven to tell me personally that he doesn’t exist.

Huh? If god came down that would be confirmation of his existence, not non-existence. In fact, that’s one of the very few things that would convince me of god's existence and I wish it would happen. But I think we all know deep down the honest truth about why he doesn’t don’t we? (hint: he doesn’t exist!)

[While I love books one thing I don't like is that humor doesn't always translate well to the written word...]


Is God a Moral Compromiser?, By Thom Stark

Is God a Moral Compromiser? by Thom Stark

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Atheist Hypocrisy

One of the interesting things about being an atheist and anarchist is I have the chance to debate and study both subjects. Because I spend so much time examining the arguments for both atheism and anarchism I've become very familiar with both positions, both pro and con. This has lead to an interesting realization. That of the similarities between the state (government) and religion. In fact, this is one reason that caused me to become such an ardent supporter of anarchism. If I did support government I would end up being a hypocrite. My religious and political views would become contradictory.

During debates that I'd have with various people about anarchism, atheists in particular, I discovered something very interesting. The same reasons Christians believe religion is needed for a society are precisely the same reasons atheists believe government is necessary for a society. It's also strange how atheists will criticize religion for precisely the reasons I criticize government and yet, despite very similar issues occurring with religion and government, atheists will often wish for the decline (if not the outright extinction) of one, while defending and promoting the other. I still find this cognitive dissonance strange...especially for people who are on average very intelligent. But, as I've written previously, just because someone rejects the idea of god doesn't mean they are an entirely logical thinker. Atheism does not make one immune to ignorance or error.

This is the controversial subject I've discussed in the past and I will explore it in more depth in this part of my series The Tao of Arizona Atheist.

Statism and Theism: The Similarities Are Striking

I suppose the best way to begin making my case is to give several examples of these similarities.

Religion/Government is Needed to Dictate Right & Wrong

I've been told on a few occasions that without government in place all will become chaotic and there will no longer be any laws or rules to govern behavior. For all you atheists reading, this argument sounds familiar, doesn't it? However, all atheists I know don't believe we need some authoritarian god to hand down rules for us to follow.

In both instances the counter-argument is the same, whether or not someone is promoting statism or theism. Human beings create the rules they wish to live under and there isn't any need of gods or even government to dictate these rules. We all know murder is wrong. We all know stealing is wrong. Atheists argue all the time, making use of evolutionary morality, that these things are just bad for a society and therefore will be weeded out naturally. No authority needed to tell you this, and yet even atheists fall into this trap when you mention the word anarchism.

This wrongheaded belief is even expressed in popular books by atheists. One such book is Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (2003), by Julian Baggini. There, he writes that,

Everything will be permitted only if we abandon ourselves to anarchy, and there is no reason why someone would want to do that just because they do not believe in god.

More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. The person who doesn't steal only because they fear they will be caught is not a moral person, merely a prudent one. The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so. (40) [emphasis mine]

When Baggini says, "More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward" he is contradicting himself because what is the purpose of jails and prisons? What is the purpose of speeding tickets? What is the purpose of police? All these things (and countless others) are to keep people in line through fear of punishment just like the laws in religion, and atheists claim they don't need religion to be moral, so why would it be different for the state and morality?

Religion/Government Kills People and is a Source of Conflict

A common argument against religion that atheists use is that religions are responsible for much of the world's violence and yet when an anarchist mentions all of the violence perpetuated by the government and its henchmen (cops) most atheists' eyes seem to glaze over and argue that governments may do some of these things but that governments also do a lot to help people, with such things as welfare programs, etc.

Similarly, a theist will often argue how religion can be a source of much conflict but it also does a lot of good with its various humanitarian programs, shelters, etc. An atheist will commonly counter that argument by arguing that secular programs can be just as effective in humanitarian aid as their religious counterparts, therefore, that's no reason to keep religion since secular organizations can do the same job – and without all of that needless preaching.

Governments have started more wars then even religion has, so while atheists condemn one source of violence they embrace and even defend another source of violence that is much worse. Just as the atheist argues that secular organizations can aid people, so too can groups be put together in an anarchist society to aid people.

Members of Religion/Government are Often Hypocritical and Immoral

One of the major complaints by atheists about religion is the fact that religion preaches the utmost morality and yet countless Christians (and other religionists) completely contradict themselves when they lie, commit adultery, murder, etc. Christians claim to hold the key to moral truth and yet many of them consistently act immorally.

Those in power in our government constantly abuse their power and break the laws they themselves set, and those who are paid to enforce those laws, often break them themselves, often with no repercussions. This should sound familiar to atheists. The Catholic Church and the child molestation scandal anyone? The Church often protected those who were guilty, despite their moral preachings.

Atheists often are up in arms over this hypocrisy and would never want to be loyal to such people. Atheists often argue how they would never bow down to such an authoritarian god; that god is a moral monster if it was found he was real.

However, atheists contradict themselves when they actually defend similar behavior by their government. The god of the bible is told to have murdered many innocent people and the government also does this, except it's most often called “collateral damage.” The murder of civilians is a common occurrence in military operations (and is sometimes does intentionally) but this fact is (as far as I know) never (or almost never) condemned by atheists at large. But more importantly, they still defend their government and make excuses for it, just as Christians make excuses for their god's actions. Similarly, many atheists still believe police are necessary despite their brutal and murderous actions towards not just those who do wrong, but innocent people as well (See my Lucifer Effect series for examples). Atheists proudly proclaim they'd never worship (much less defend) such a being who has killed so many innocent people as the Christian god, but they defend the existence of a state that does the same thing.

Atheists often argue that religion does more harm than good and therefore it's not needed, but so many atheists insist we still need government to tell us what to do for some reason, and they continue to insist this institution is necessary. This is hypocritical because both religion and government cause more harm then they're worth and yet atheists defend one, while calling for the decline of the other.

Victimless Crimes and Sin

Often atheists complain about many of religions' restrictive and pointless laws. Such laws include no masturbation, certain forms of sex, alcohol, etc. Some of these things are even forced upon people by the government such as when alcohol is deemed illegal to buy on Sundays in some communities, and some states pass laws on sodomy, etc. In some cases stores are forced to close on Sunday.

Many atheists hate that religion often prevents people (sometimes by force, the vote) to engage in activities that harm no one and is a violation of their freedom. These are all examples of needless religious restrictions, some of which overlap with government because the religious have gotten the government to force their beliefs on others.

Similarly, the government often outlaws activities that harm no one. Such examples include drug laws; if a person wants to jack themselves up on cocaine that's their business and so long as they do no harm to another person should be free to put whatever they want in their bodies.

Speeding is another example of a victimless crime. The act of driving fast in and of itself causes no one harm so long as that person is not acting irresponsibly. If they happen to hurt someone then punish them, but do not restrict everyone's freedom for one person's mistake. I will go over laws and punishment/retribution in more detail in a later post.

Prostitution is often punished in states and is a purely consensual act between two consenting adults.

There are many victimless crimes that governments outlaw. Too many to list here so I refer the reader to the book Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society, by Peter McWilliams.

Government and Religion Are Authoritarian

In the third section about the hypocrisy and immorality of those in the government and many religionists, I mentioned the fact that many atheists would never want to bow down to such a cruel being as the Christian god. A related point is the fact that both governments and some religions are based upon the idea of authoritarianism; the favoring of absolute obedience to authority. How many times have you seen police taser someone for failing to obey whatever ridiculous command they give? Take a look at my Lucifer Effect series and see for yourself.

Each of the victimless crimes are examples of this. In these cases the government (like religion) foists its morality upon people by threat of punishment. The government dictates “right” and “wrong” and even if those actions harm no one you will be sent to their hellish prisons.

In some cases if you protest, even peacefully, you are either arrested or attacked, or both.

Anti-war protester Bradley Manning was arrested for “aiding the enemy” and leaking government documents. Of course, no one can cite a single case of “the enemy” making use of any information that was leaked. Due to Manning's harsh and unnecessary treatment it seems to me that the government is just angry at this 'unpatriotic' soldier, and the embarrassment caused by the leaked documents, because it exposes the government's deceit. Because of this embarrassment the government and military decided to abuse him and violate his rights. [1]

Many religions are obviously authoritarian. The very Commandment to “have no other gods before me” is a good example of this. This is even more explicitly expressed in the bible. In 2 Chronicles 15:13 it says, “All who would not seek out the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.” (NIV)

The very authoritarianism inherent in government and some religions (particularly the fundamentalist branch that is so active in attempting to curb our liberty) is another example of atheist hypocrisy. Atheists express their outrage about the authoritarianism of one group but not the other. They wish for the weakening, if not the outright abolition, of religion, all the while arguing that the government is needed despite these similarities.

I've been confronted with the argument that because this is a democracy the people can vote and boot those who commit atrocities and act immorally out of office. Though, those who make this argument are hugely missing the point. The fact is, as I mentioned in the piece about anarchism, those in power have always acted immorally at some level, regardless of their political bent. Democrat, Republican (who are the primary office holders) it matters not. They each commit atrocities such as war, theft (taxes), and the restriction of our rights. As I quoted Rose Wilder Lane, “They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchs by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king, the king by --- there’s six thousand years of it, in every language.” No matter who is in power our freedoms have never been entirely secure. Only through total equality can we be free of these abuses and restrictions of our freedoms.

I contend that a majority of atheists are hypocrites for the reasons I've explained above. The fact that both religion and government harm people and needlessly restrict our rights is something that should cause any rational thinker pause and to question such institutions. Luckily, most atheists understand the reasons of getting rid of religion, though at the same time, the same atheists often defend another institution that does the same things. The very fact that many atheists wish to see the decline, if not the outright disappearance, of religion, while defending government, is a case of pure cognitive dissonance. That atheists would defend government is a slap in the face to the very concepts of freedom and rationality.


1. The government has also targeted Wikileaks.org itself for the same reasons. One piece of leaked information by Manning was the murder of journalists by the military. No wonder the military is pissed. It's been shamed by Manning. That's what this is really about. For more information about this I'd recommend this Salon article.

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Atheist Hypocrisy

Why I’ve Become More Moral Since Becoming An Atheist

The above statement might shock some, but I believe it’s entirely true. Despite the mountain of propaganda and religious close-mindedness to the contrary, an atheist can and more often than not does act perfectly moral. Many Christians ask how this is so, so I’ve decided to explain why I’ve become more moral since becoming an atheist and since I began my intellectual journey those six years or so ago.

When I was much younger I would sometimes lie, I shoplifted on many, many occasions and I sometimes even cheated on tests in school (though that only happened maybe two or three times throughout the entirety of my schooling). And a few times, and I am horribly ashamed to admit it, I even picked on a few kids who happened to be lower on the rung of the popularity ladder than I was. Like most other kids I was picked on a lot, though the fact that I am an amputee made that fact of life many times worse (I’ve discussed this here). Like many other kids who pick on others I realize that it was just my way of making myself feel better, not that this reason is any kind of justification. It’s not right to pick on anyone, and with my experiences of being picked on myself I should have understood this, but I did not at that time. It took several more years for me to come to this realization.

After becoming an atheist in about 2005 I continued (and still continue) to learn about science, philosophy, religion, history, etc. Around this time I also met Bob Clapp, who was my weight training coach, and his influence on me, along with my own self education and self reflection, lead me to the beliefs I now hold about morality and my relation to other human beings.

One of the influences on my moral beliefs was science. For those of you who might wonder how science might have influenced me morally it’s actually rather simple. I had begun learning about altruism in humans and other animals and while researching this I began to look inward and used my knowledge to better understand my own thoughts and feelings and tried to recognize any altruistic feelings I may have had in my life. I’ve found that when you have knowledge about how your mind works it allows you to become more aware of your own thoughts and feelings. This is a very similar process that I made use of in high school when I was very depressed and learned about psychology and came to understand why I was feeling the way I was. Knowing this helped me cure my depression (see the above link for the background about this). Similarly, understanding my own altruistic tendencies enabled me to understand and realize that I have a very strong empathetic response to other peoples’ suffering.

The other influence was also my newly found philosophy of Scientific Individualism and it’s first principle, Prime. This philosophy built upon my realization of my empathetic response to others’ suffering and gave it philosophical support.

Since becoming an atheist I would never again steal and I do not pick on others or lie. In fact, it infuriates me to see others picking on someone, or when someone lies. I’ve been lied to and have been picked on and I know how that made me feel and can understand how the victim of those acts most likely feels.

If I did happen to act immorally in some way, or did something to hurt someone even unintentionally, my conscience still tears me up. I seem to have an overactive conscience. Even to this day, I still feel guilty about things I had done many years ago and wish I could do some things over. And some are pretty minor things. Once I was in a grocery store looking at the shelves trying to find what I was looking for and having no such luck. Intently searching the shelves, not paying attention to where I was going, I accidentally bumped my cart into the ankle of an elderly woman in front of me. It very wasn't hard, I apologized after it happened, and she seemed just fine, but I still feel horrible about it even though it happened probably three or four years ago.

To give a more recent example, I've been watching Democracy Now! daily and their coverage of the nuclear disaster in Japan. Many of the images of the disaster and its affects on the people are heartbreaking and my empathy for their plight encouraged me to donate $500 to the relief fund set up by the Asian Real Estate Association of America. Even though that is a substantial amount and I do feel good that I was able to contribute, I still feel like it's not enough because that amount is mere pennies compared to the cost that the destruction has caused. But, at least I gave what I could and that's what matters.

Morality can indeed be reasoned through. There is no need to have any god or government to legislate morality. More often than not what you find is that religion and government preach that people be moral, while at the same time acting immoral themselves. That is an entirely contradictory, illogical, and immoral position to be in if you're considered a source of morality. It's too bad most people don't seem to see this.

For all those who falsely believe you must have a form of theism or government to ground morality, that is false. I've demonstrated the moral influences in my life, and while they are subjective, they are still effective and do influence and ground morality.

Why I’ve Become More Moral Since Becoming An Atheist

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Prime

In the last piece I explained what anarchism was and in this third part of the Tao of Arizona Atheist series will explain how my friend Bob Clapp’s philosophy relates to anarchism.

Prime is the first principle of Scientific Individualism, the personal philosophy of Bob Clapp, and is the philosophy I’ve come to adopt as my own. For those who are interested in Bob’s philosophy I’d recommend his book Every Man and Woman an Island: The Individual Human Being as Prime in the Universe and his personal blog, bobclapp.blogspot.com. Bob has also written a very good piece about his first principle on his blog, here.

Allow me to begin by citing a quote of Bob’s from the second chapter of his book:

The individual human being and the planet Earth are scientifically given facts. The nation-state, borders, and gods are the fictionally given facts of non-existent collective man.

Prime, in essence, is the fact that without a conscious observer nothing exists. To quote Bob once more, “Very compactly and simply put, WHEN I’M HERE EVERYTHING IS HERE, WHEN I’M GONE EVERYTHING IS GONE.” With each individuals' consciousness they perceive the world and other people around them, as do others. Without each individuals' consciousness, nothing would exist, including other people. I’ve written about this in the past, though I’ll try to sum it up here as well, though I don’t believe I can get any more clear than I was in the post I just linked to: Anarchism: A Philosophical & Scientific Justification. Because this is the undeniable fact - the fact of existence - this is Bob’s first principle, the one in which everything else is based upon, such as morality, government and economics.

This first principle was chosen because in order to be a sound philosophy your first principle must stand on firm ground because that is the foundation for the rest of your particular beliefs. If your first principle isn’t sound, neither are the conclusions that are based on your premise. So, Bob chose what he believed was the most irrefutable position: the fact that everything begins and ends with each individuals’ consciousness. Of course, Bob readily admits that his first principle will fail once human beings transcend the carbon world and begin interfacing with the silicone world, and humans merge with machine. Then, human beings will likely become immortal and his first principle will become obsolete. But, until then, his first principle stands firm.

Morality

Now, just how is this first principle linked to morality? Well, before I get to that I have to explain this fact. The fact that we humans exist in groups does nothing to counteract Prime; the fact remains that, as I said before, without each individuals' consciousness, nothing would exist, including other people. This fact demolishes the “non-existent” idea of man as a collective entity. While individuals may gather to form various groups the fact remains that these groups are still made up of individuals and it follows from the first principle of Prime that each individual is to be taken account of because their very existence is special and should not be taken for granted. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone express this as eloquently as the famed atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, from his book Unweaving the Rainbow:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

The other reason the individual should come first is because of the very basis of morality under the first principle. Because only I exist, in theory, all I can truly know is how I would feel if another individual I came into contact with harms me, or violates me, in some way. Because I know how I would feel, I can rightly assume, since other human being are likely much like myself, that they most likely wouldn’t like to be harmed or violated in some way either. In essence, this is one of the oldest forms of moral advice there is and was spoken of by Jesus, the Buddha, and even the Greeks.

Due to the fact that so many moral and political systems are based upon society at large, and therefore forget that societies are composed of individuals, the current ideas of organizing society are often detrimental to the minority and favor the majority, which is anti-Prime and immoral.

Because of this group mentality so many individuals are forgotten or are trampled under the weight of the collective. The homeless, homosexuals, atheists, African Americans, etc. Throughout history minorities have suffered because of this group mentality and individuals have been brutalized, killed, and marginalized because of it.

The Social Contract and Democracy

How do we organize a system that takes into account each individual? I believe that the Social Contract is the best moral system because it most closely adheres to the first principle: Prime, and does not sacrifice the individual to the majority. Each individual gets their voice heard and is not forced by the (non-existent) collective to bow down to their will as is now done with the vote.

While Democracy has often been hailed as one of the best forms of government, when one really thinks about it, it leaves much to be desired simply because it, like most other forms of government, forgets about the individual while focusing on the majority. Because of this, all governments are anti-Prime, thus favoring anarchism, to which I will now turn. However, before I get to the next section I want to be clear. Prime does not de facto reject government. It does so because of the oppressive, murderous actions it commits against individuals. If a form of government only helped each individual prosper then government would be a welcome institution. Unfortunately this is not the case, hence the anarchist position.

Anarchism

By now, I think it should be clear how Prime assumes anarchism and why. It is the anti-thesis of government. It is its negation. It allows each individual to make use of their freedoms and does not sacrifice the individual for the majority. It abhors authority, and hence, the all too common abuse of that authority. It abhors the power that the government contains (forceful coercion) as the enforcer of the will of the majority upon an unwilling minority. It abhors the abuse of power that the government is guilty of as it is continually eroding our freedoms and rights away (I mentioned this fact in the last piece and gave references to back up that assertion).

Economics

When considering Prime, the best economic choice would be the free market. Free market capitalism, also known as laissez-faire capitalism, is the only economic system that takes into account each individual human being. Once I was chastised by a fellow anarchist for supporting capitalism because that was apparently an ‘un-anarchist’ thing to do but hopefully with this series, you will now understand why I choose laissez-faire capitalism. It supports Prime.

With free market capitalism no governments come in and try to set prices or tax anyone (theft). All people work to provide services that are dependant upon the needs of people, the subjective value that each human being sees in a product (thus determining its value without outside intervention, i.e. the state), and the whole system works without any interference by government. The idea of the invisible hand, as conceived by Adam Smith, is an ingenious concept because people themselves with their own desires and wishes will allow an economy to produce, consume, over and over again, all the while keeping abuses in check (individuals largely won’t want to deal with unethical or dishonest people), and prosper all without any outside intervention.

It’s actually with government intervention that things go wrong. Take for example, this article titled Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand, by Maurice P. McTigue, which gives a very good example of the excellent outcomes of keeping government out of economics and allowing the free-market to do what it does.

The Tao of Arizona Atheist: Prime

The Lucifer Effect - April 2011

Sorry folks but I’ve been very busy as of late and I forgot all about April’s post. Here is a horrible video of a teenager being beaten for pretty much no reason at all. Allegedly this was because he was riding his bike on the sidewalk (which is a stupid reason anyway), but I have a feeling there is more to this story. However the video and news report don’t give any real clues.

The Lucifer Effect - April 2011