Sleepycatz

Headache

There are days when my mind just can’t keep up with the insipid reasoning of the rightwing. I generally try to avoid engaging the poorly reasoned ramblings of the bloviating pundit class. But just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in.

Over at the conservative site, townhall.com, Dinesh D’Souza announced that he will be debating Christopher Hitchens on the subjects of God and religion. D’Souza has been considered to be one of the ‘great thinkers’ in the modern conservative movement. So how is this intellectual conservative defend Christianity and religion? He invokes laughable a prioric argument of Anselm of Canterbury, also known as the ontological argument for the existence of God.

For those who are unfamiliar with Anslem’s argument — later extended by Descartes — it can be stated simply as: “Humans can conceive of an infinitely perfect being (ie. God); This perfection is greater then any other perfection humans can conceive of; thus, the knowledge of this being must be a prioric, or innately known to be true; therefore this being, God, must exists.”

As any first year philosophy student will point out, Anslem’s argument is easily susceptible to what’s known as the ‘overload objection’. In other words, humans can conceive of any number of fantasitcal creatures which do not exist, pegasus, unicorns, and even invisible pink unicorns. The fact that these creatures can be conceived of but are nonexistent undermines the notion that God exists because we can conceive of God. We are left with the Anslem’s and Descartes notion of the ultimate perfection of God. We can only conceive of a single being of unmediated perfection - that being must be God.

This, however, leads to a different problem for D’Souza and others: that this perfect being is by no logical reasoning Christian. This is essentially the same problem suffered by Pascal’s Wager. We may argue that, perhaps, some God figure exists, but the arguments lead towards no evidence of the nature of that being. Even if we would blindly accept the a priori argument for God’s existence there is nothing in the argument to suggest that Christianity reflects the nature of God. If fact, we can conceive of an ultimately perfect being which is completely ambivalent towards mankind; thus, negating any need for religious devotion.

It is also worth mentioning, at this point, Immanuel Kant’s objection to the a prioric argument. Kant argues that mere existence is not a quality which defines the actual existence of an object. But that actual existence is defined by more specific properties of a thing.

Nonetheless, the silliness of D’Souza is to suggest that he can logically define or prove the existence of God in the first place. There is no rational argument which can prove the existence of God, and most conservative intellectuals have even given up trying. Even Michael Gerson, a conservative Christian and speech writer for George Bush, in a recent screed against atheists didn’t try to prove the existence of God, but instead focused on the necessity to believe in God. Gerson, like many conservatives, argues that man needs God to have moral order in this world and the next. God becomes an authoritarian necessity — an excuse to accept the ‘natural order’ and to defer unpunished injustices to the next world. For many rational conservatives this is the natural argument for the necessity, not the existence, of God.

D’Souza — who was once heralded as the new example of conservative intellectualism — seems to miss the fact that his argument for existence was dismissed over a hundred years ago and is now taught as a logical fallacy in most universities. It’s a fact that most conservatives would find it politically difficult to argue that religion is necessary for social order but has no basis in fact. This the primary reason why conservative theorists don’t engage in arguments about religion. Instead they leave those debates to the true believers. Those who — with no rational arguments — believe in their theology which supports the conservative authoritarian ideology. D’Souza is seemingly trying to bridge this gap between faith and the mind. From his essay it is abundantly clear that he lacks the intellectual ability to even begin such a meditation, let alone participate in any real discussion of the issues.

I want to make it clear that I have no love or admiration for Christopher Hitchens. I find him to be overbearing and much of his arguments flawed. His continued support of the war in Iraq has shown him to have lost any connection to a rational reality. His logic at a recent conference speaks for itself: sickening.

h/t Canadian Cynic

Him who judges righteously

The last few days have wreaked a veritable theo-paluzza of christian supremacist essays. It seems, based on these, that conservative christians have moved beyond simply preaching that there’s is the best interpretation to christianity - or any relationship with the divine - to actively stating that no belief other then their’s is christian, let alone divinely inspired.

First up we the Miter Man, the heir to Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. This week his holiness reasserted the primacy, or central truth, that his is the one and only true church of God:

These ecclesial (sic) Communities [Protestant denominations] which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Ie. No celebrate priest + No magic wafer = No God for You. To be fair, this has always been part of the catholic doctrine, and was hammered into us when I was a kid, but you’d think the church would have a somewhat more expansive view of the world and humanity after nearly 2000 years.

Next up, the battling Calvinist, Cal Thomas. On Tuesday, the pious pundit published an essay attacking the faith of Hillary Clinton. At the end of the piece Cal tries to suggest that he’s simply upset that Clinton would use faith a political prop: shocked he is; shocked I say! to discover there’s religion going on in politics. But make no mistake, Cal’s real problem is that he finds Clinton’s theology false:

Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns — such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other “do-good” pursuits — ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.

Yes Cal takes particular issue with the the notion that salvation is tied to good works — one can’t imagine why. Granted, this is an issue of hot theological debate, but Cal’s dismissing of it as just silly is sure to offend the Miter Man and his followers. As the catechism of the catholicism states:

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

But who you might ask could be more theologically unhinged then Battling Cal? In this ring we present Madman David ‘The Moralist’ McCullough. Crazed by the notion that Democratic candidates would participate in a debate on gay and lesbian issues, McCullough sat down at his 1961 IBM selectric, fed in some carbon paper, and began foaming away:

In the attempt by the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination America will see for the first time (or at least the ten viewers who get LOGO as part of their cable package) how far Democratic candidates are willing to pander to get a vote.
Does it take an entire broadcast hour for each of them to “out gay” the other one? Will Obama and/or Edwards show up in Chiffon? Will Hillary pass love notes to Etheridge?

What will happen is that each of these candidates will have to also later face the same “faith-based” audiences that they have been attempting to woo in recent weeks. Heaven forbid, but Obama might even have to make a follow up appearance in Rick Warren’s pulpit to announce the results of his most recent AIDS test. And what will they have to say then?

See here is the unrelenting truth, put as plainly as humanly possible:

Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on. So the candidates can not have it both ways.

Wow - what a rant: you got lesbians, a couple of references of cross dressing, and a little AIDS jab - just to remind us that even though the disease is killing millions of people a year, it’s still a ‘gay thing’. For the Madman, it just inconceivable that churches exist which welcome gay and lesbian parishioners. Christian churches which actually, allow gays and lesbians to serve as deacons, ministers, and even bishops. Dave makes it clear, these institutions just aren’t christian — of course this is bound to annoy some Episcopals and other denominations. In all fairness to The Moralist, a good half of his rant is devoted to the fact that the Democratic candidates will not appear on Fox News for a debate. He opines that they are simply afraid of the unbiased sharp wit of Brit Hume — a man who has dedicated more air time to John Edwards hair then any other newscaster. I would assume that that the Mr. Obama, and the other candidates, simply believe there is more substance in debating gay and lesbian issues then there is in receiving tonsorial tips from Mr. Hume.

Finally, we come to the fitful, fearful, fundamentalist, American Family Association. These defenders of all things American and religious issued a fatwa warning their followers of the gravest threat to America yet: Hindus. It seems that Rajan Zed, a hindu chaplin, was to deliver the open prayer for the US Senate on Thursday. The very idea of this sent them into a fit of conniptions:

WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto “One Nation Under God.”
. . . “And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration [of Independence] when they talked about Creator — that’s not one that fits here because we don’t know which creator we’re talking about within the Hindu religion.”
Barton says given the fact that Hindus are a tiny constituency of the American public, he questions the motivation of Senate leaders. “This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world,” he observes. ” . .
And while Barton acknowledges there is not constitutional problem with a Hindu prayer in the Senate, he wonders about the political side of it. “One definitely wonders about the pragmatic side of it,” he says. “What is the message, and why is the message needed? . . .”

Yea, what did India ever give us — except for sine, cosine, the modern decimal numbering system, the concept of zero, and metallurgy. But what have they done for us lately? The apoplectic AFA just can’t fathom the notion that maybe the message we are sending is one of religious tolerance and diversity. For them diversity is a simple matter of which jesus you worship: avenging jesus or salvation jesus. Yesterday, of course, some of the possessed, heading the AFA’s call to save our nation from the horrors of polytheism interrupted Chaplin Zed’s prayer. Shouting “Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer which is an abomination in your sight.”, they were handcuffed and removed. Their final words while being ejected were “we are Christians and patriots”. While one, obviously, cannot argue with the former, the latter is open to grave skepticism.

As an atheist, of course, I find all of this a little sad and amusing — like watching a group of children argue as to whose father can beat up whose. As a human being and an American, I find all of this more then a little repulsive and appalling. As one commentator to some of these events pointed out, he was reminded of the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Others have pointed out that our religious tolerance has as a nation has fostered internal peace and theological growth. I have generally seen religion as a primeval force for division and disharmony, other have argued that it is the great motivating force to bring about a unified humanity. At this point, the evidence appears to be on my side.

Trade Ya

It seems a group of atheist students at the University of Texas, San Antonio, have set up an interesting program to trade pornography for bibles — not vice versa, however. I am not sure that the two, bibles and porn, are mutually exclusive though, that one would have to give up the latter for the former. Rick Hawkins, paster at UTSA, stated: “I don’t know one believer that would take his Bible and turn it in for pornography.” But paster Hawkins may put too much faith into his flock. A poll conducted last year suggested that 50% of, self-proclaimed, Christian men consumed pornography, and 20% of Christian women admitted to do so as well. One would assume that good Christians possess more then a single bible, making such an exchange less of a burden.

Prevailing Wisdom

Peasant #1: We have found a terrorist, may we torture him?
Angry Mob: TORTURE HIM TOOORTURE HIM!!
Sir Gonzales: How do you know he is a terrorist?
Peasant #1: He looks like one!
Sir Gonzales: Bring him forward.
“Terrorist”: I’m not a terrorist, I’m not a terrorist!
Sir Gonzales: But you are dressed as one.
“Terrorist”: They dressed me up like this.
Peasant #2: No! Nooo! We didn’t! We didn’t!
“Terrorist”: And this isn’t my beard, it’s a false one.
Sir Gonzales: [lifts off giant fake beard] Well?
Peasant #2: Well, we did do the beard.
Sir Gonzales: The beard?
Peasant #1: And the turban. But he is a terrorist!
[mob roars in agreement]
Sir Gonzales: Did you dress him up like this?
Peasant #2: NO! No!… Yes, a bit, a bit. But he has got brown skin!
Sir Gonzales: What makes you think that he is a terrorist?
Peasant #3: What, he blew up the white house!!
Sir Gonzales: The Whitehouse?
[pause]
Peasant #3: We rebuilt it.
Angry Mob: TORTURE HIM ANYWAY!!!! TORTURE HIM!!!!
Sir Gonzales: Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling whether he is a terrorist.
Peasant #2: There are? Are there? Tell us, tell us! Do they hurt?
Sir Gonzales: Tell me, what do you do with terrorists?
Peasant #3: Torture them!
[mob roars in agreement]
Sir Gonzales: And why do you torture terrorists?
Peasant #2: To Get Even! [Gets slapped]
Peasant #1: To get a confession?
Sir Gonzales: So, why do why do terrorists confess under torture?
[pause]
Peasant #3: ‘Cause they’re full of… sin?
Sir Gonzales: Good! So how do we tell whether he is full of sin?
Peasant #1: Sodomize him!
Sir Gonzales: Ahh, but can’t someone be free pf sin before you sodomize them?
Peasant #1: Oh yeah.
Sir Gonzales: Tell me, what else is full of sin?
Peasant #1: condoms.
Peasant #2: Hollywood.
Peasant #3: bananas.
Peasant #1: Ted Kennedy.
Peasant #2: The media.
Peasant #3: corn.
Peasant #1: women.
Peasant #2: New York.
Peasant #3: Carrots!
King Bush: [has been silent in the background] An Atheist.
[pause]
Sir Gonzales: Exactly! So, logically…
Peasant #1: …If he weighs the same as a atheist, he’s full of sin.
Sir Gonzales: And therefore?
Peasant #1: A TERRORIST!
[mob roars in agreement]

With some apologies to Monty Python