Lest Thee Be Deceived About Deceipt

“Ah! lips that say one thing, whilst the heart thinks another.” – Edmond Dantes, Count of Monte Cristo…in reference to a distrusted neighbor.

Where is the line between deceipt that is acceptable and deceipt that is not? A woman may compliment a friend’s new hairstyle while thinking that the new style is not at all worthy of a positive remark. A father may encourage a young child about how beautiful a drawing is while actually considering it to be quite terrible. In the quote above, Dantes suggests that his neighbor is insincere in congratulating his good fortune.

Whether the matter involves a social situation, a family encounter, or even a business arrangement, surely it can be universally acknowledged that there are times when telling the full and complete truth would be inappropriate. In fact, it may be that not only will some portion of the truth be withheld, but also a false or insincere statement may be substituted. And even the casual observer will quite readily identify the point in such a situation as being to “deceive” or “mislead” or “lie,” though these words may be disliked in such a scenario.

So, when is it okay to deceive and when is it not? No, please don’t rush to an easy answer; this is not a black and white sort of thing. Ultimately, this is a “gray area” where circumstances dictate the appropriate path. If someone tries to tell you that they disagree on this point and that they always speak only the complete truth, you may rightly call that person a liar. Deceipt is a tool, a means to an end. Everyone does it. Sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong.

If the government decides to exterminate all children under the age of 12, you would be right to tell the soldiers at your front door that you do not have any children of that age and do not know of any in the neighborhood, though in actuality you are hiding 14 of such children in your basement.

If you witness a car which runs a red light and causes an accident with another vehicle, you would be wrong to tell the investigating police officer that you saw nothing, because this deceipt would be working against an orderly and safe society.

Sometimes things aren’t so clear and we end up with a real dilemma. Then begins the process of weighing various possible injuries and/or benefits that may result from one path or the other, striving to maintain some sense of balance and objectivity lest we overestimate some perceived benefit or underestimate some perceived injury.

Atheism Not To Be Ignored

I am always pleased to find a prominent Christian preacher or prolific Christian writer who can't help paying attention to the so-called "New Atheism". I consider it flattery for the position of atheism when one of these folks feels the need to address the popular works of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. It is encouraging and even emboldening to see the thinly veiled fear among Christians that this "New Atheism" might actually take root and grow out of control if not rebutted. Interestingly, it seems that some may just be more interested in writing rebuttals for the sake of cashing in on Christian fear and interest, as it is nearly inevitable that a response book to a bestseller will sell enough to make a profit.

One concerned or ambitious Protestant Christian is Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He has written several response books and engaged in debate with Hitchens. Here are some links to his site if you wish to be likewise encouraged and emboldened:
Why The Horse Isn't Dead
Can't Tell The Players Without a Scorecard

Also, I ran across a response book which seems to be popular in Catholic circles:
Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God by Catholic priest Thomas Williams
"Father Williams offers an easy-to-use resource for building up one's own faith and igniting others'." - Amazon product description

Presupposing the Conclusion

To the atheist who asserts that god does not exist, the Christian responds, “That cannot be proven.”

To the atheist who states that they simply do not believe that gods exist, the Christian responds, “God does not believe that atheists exist. Atheists have to believe in God whether they acknowledge it or not. Their words and actions betray their self-deceit because all good things are of God, and atheists speak, think, and try to act on the basis of good.”

To the atheist who states that it is impossible to know whether gods exist, the Christian responds, “The existence of God can be known through the use of ordinary observation and reason, because God’s creation testifies to His existence…and truth only makes sense if it originates with a supernatural source…and reason only makes sense because God Himself is Logic…yada yada yada, many other goddy statements…”

To this last response, the atheist makes an observation beyond reasonable dispute in saying, “Claims of certainty with regard to knowledge of the existence of gods are impossible apart from the presupposition of the existence of the claimant’s particular god. Such a presupposition renders the claimant’s argument circular and therefore only acceptable to those who would choose by faith to accept a circular argument, contrary to logic. Indeed, the believer's argument presupposes its own conclusion."

Imaginary Friends

A major reason that adult Santa-believers are fewer in number than adult Jesus-believers is that the Santa myth involves a man (a real man in church history just like Jesus) actually coming down your chimney and leaving gifts in your living room. Relatively young children, even if they don’t have a heads-up from a non-believing friend, can objectively dispell the Santa story with minimal investigation. The Jesus myth is much more crafty in this regard. He sends his spirit to interact with people with an inaudible voice, which means that if you tell me that he came down your chimney and left important messages in your head, I can call you a liar, but I can’t point to any objective data showing that the event didn’t happen.

Karla (a recent commenter) suggests that the fact that no one has died for their belief in Santa is a major difference between the two supernatural beings. I say that doesn’t mean anything. With a few crafty modifications to the Santa myth in its earliest days, it is possible that people would have been more willing to die for their belief in him. If Santa was invisible and left invisible gifts under the Christmas tree, then no one would be able to prove his non-existence.

(Hat-tip to Beth, the recent commenter, for bringing up this topic.)

Hell Hath No Place in the Gospel?

While some preachers and teachers within Christianity have taught and continue to teach that fear of hell’s fires should be at least one motivating factor for becoming Christian, the modern “seeker-sensitive” movements have caused Christian leaders to put forward this notion in more subtle ways. In fact, some Christians today have actually convinced themselves that the fear of hell is not a part of the gospel at all. Gospel is supposed to be “good news” after all, and hell just doesn’t fit for some folks…right? Better to lure people in with warm-fuzzy feelings of purpose and friendship, then let them find out about the ugly bits of Christianity later on. But why join a Christian church instead of the Country Club? Well, eternal issues are in play here. Christianity promises eternal membership in the glorious Kingdom of Heaven for its faithful followers. And what does it promise for those of us who refuse to follow? Well, Seeker-Sensitive Sally may prefer to talk about the temporal, earthly lack of purpose and lack of moral code and lack of “true” happiness, but the Bible on the other hand, indicates eternal torment, weeping, and gnashing of teeth. Jesus himself is reckoned in the Bible to have spoken of hell multiple times in the "gospel" accounts, even saying "fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" and "those who commit lawlessness will be cast into the furnace of fire" and "these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

It seems like one more unhealthy aspect of the Christian conditioning, that the fear of burning in the fires of hell for all eternity should motivate the believer to refrain from sin and disbelief.

(Hat-tip to Beth, the recent commenter, for bringing up this topic.)

Atheist Nexus and Out Campaign

I want to recommend two websites that I have recently discovered.

Atheist Nexus is a new social networking site (similar to Facebook) and has quickly rounded up over 1,000 members. I like the look and feel of the site and obviously, the intent. Visit www.atheistnexus.org.

The OUT Campaign (CLICK HERE) supports and encourages people who choose to make it known publicly that they are normal, non-religious individuals. I think it is bad that people have to be supported and encouraged in this regard, but the reality is that many religionists consider us normal thinking people as diseased. For instance, I continue to use a pen name here and at Atheist Nexus because if I allow it to be known publicly that I have dropped my religionist delusions, I would very likely lose my job.

Agnostic Atheism

I do not believe in any deity and can therefore be properly called an "atheist," but like many others before me, I intend to maintain the descriptor "agnostic" because I cannot yet claim particular knowledge as to the non-existence of deities. So my pen name here of Non Sicuro Pensatore is still adequate because while I quite plainly do not believe that any gods exist, I also do not have any need or desire to assert the non-existence of gods with certainty.

Feed Subscriber Alert

For any blog feed subscribers who eagerly check to see if I am posting new material here, you need to be aware that though the new posts have been few lately, there have been some interesting exchanges in the comment boxes recently between the Christian Karla and myself. Particularly at "Theists Need Religion."

Assessing My Christian Experience

In a recent comment thread, the question was raised regarding my own Christian experience. If you are a Christian apologist looking to interact with someone who has deconverted from Christianity, one of the fundamental points you want to establish is that something was amiss about the deconvert's Christian experience. "True" Christians who are supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit and who dwell in an authentic loving living relationship with their Lord and Saviour Jesus cannot just walk away, right?!?

I claim to have experienced Christianity to its fullest from every angle possible. I felt that I had intimacy with the Christian God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I studied and believed the Bible cover to cover. I lived in close community with other Christians. My faith matured. I had experiences which I thought should be attributed to God. I prayed. I chose my wife primarily based on our shared Christian faith. I shared and defended the Christian faith to others…agnostics, atheists, etc. I took very, very difficult stands on Christian moral issues in opposition sometimes to family and friends, and even resigned a steady, good-paying job over a Christian view. I was urged on multiple occasions by different people throughout my Christian experience to become a pastor, youth pastor, bible study leader, deacon, missionary, etc. I was trusted. The Christians around me “experientially knew” that I was a real Christian full of faith.

So I do not accept now and will likely never accept the attempts by any conversational friend or foe to suggest that the reason I am not a Christian now is that I never was one or was an incomplete or immature one. This is simply not the case. So, if you want to discredit me or if you want to win an argument with me, you are going to have to come up with another angle.

Exclusive Rights to "Good"??

Some religionists claim that making “decent” or “good” or “moral” decisions is impossible apart from a God who gives definition to those words, since according to their view, God is the author of all that is good. The Christian’s God is regarded as the reference point for all created things and is supposed to be the sole source from which all words or ideas gain meaning or significance. Apologists would like to strip non-religious people of the ability to frame up their conversations in terms of “good or bad” because they lack the reference point of God, who alone enables logical thought and expressions.

What is not taken into consideration by such people is the power of simple self-preservation which is quite evident apart from religion. Peter Hitchens says on his blog, “[without the Christian God as our moral reference point], when we think nobody is looking, or we'll never be found out, we're more inclined to jump that red light, or spread poisonous gossip about a career rival.” Hitchens cannot believe that people might be naturally inclined toward an orderly life simply because it is beneficial to their own general health and well-being, and that people can even be naturally inclined to have some concern for the health and well-being of other people. If the agnostic jumps that red light, he not only endangers himself and others immediately, he’s encouraging a disorderly culture in which danger generally increases for himself and others. Similarly, if I spread poisonous gossip about a career rival, I risk indirectly hurting myself by developing a reputation as a liar wherewith I cannot be trusted and my overall career standing is damaged.

Morality is not dependent upon God. There are readily identifiable factors in identifying good and bad, right and wrong, which do not rely in any way on God. To some degree, morality can be instinctive such as the interests of self-preservation. There is also a socially learned aspect, such as an interest in not behaving in a manner which is blatantly contrary to the behaviour of those around you. Surely these sorts of factors pre-date any coded norms of organized faith-based groups. Religionists certainly cannot make an exclusive claim on morality.

Who Did This For Me?

Surely it is not unjustified for some people to believe that Christian faith is an institution of imagination and theories rather than reality, when the reality-based “evidence” for God seems either non-existent or even contrary to his existence (seriously, check the grapes in that vineyard), while the readily available “evidence” for God seems to justify belief in any imaginary being. For instance, answered prayer never was a reliable source of assurance for my faith when I was a Christian. An applicant for a job prays that God would grant that job, and lo and behold, he does. Someone grows weary of their cold symptoms and prays that God would heal them, lo and behold, on the third or fourth day after getting a cold, the person starts to feel better. A car breaks down and the owner puts their name on the prayer list at church for needing financial assistance to get it fixed, lo and behold, God inspires a generous parishioner to help out. A difficult decision is stressing someone out so they pray for the Holy Spirit’s help and then they get “peace” about it. There are so many examples of “answered prayer” that could either be (a) more easily explained by ordinary means, or (b) explained via the existence of an extraordinary being other than God, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Theists Need Religion

Arguing against religion is an unwise path for the theistic apologist, because the claims of theism benefit from religion and conversely, are harmed by individualism.

Allow me to remind you that I am agnostic and was formerly a Christian. Ironically, this post is written for the benefit of a theist who has recently indicated in my comment boxes that "religion" is to blame for some atheists and agnostics either giving up on the Christian faith or refraining from trying it in the first place. The commenter's position generally is to say that Christianity is about "relationship", not "religion." I think this person is hurting her own endeavor by opposing a vital part of the theist platform. So...keep in mind that I am not in favor of religion and am not an adherent to Christianity or personal walks with Jesus, etc. I am an agnostic, benevolently writing to help a Christian stop arguing against herself.

If only one Creator God exists and wants to convert people to follow him and wants these converts to follow him in a particular way (such as having a personal walk with Jesus and turning from sin and obeying his commands and principles, etc), then he is highly unlikely to be in favor of a disorderly and haphazard message about who he is and what he requires of his followers. Instead, he is likely to provide a means of unity among his people.

Unity among Christianity is supposed to be one of the sure signs of legitimacy since God is supposed to be One in Three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is reckoned by the Bible to have desired that his followers be unified just as he was unified with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

So, what is required for unity? Follower A says that all they need to have in common is Jesus, but then also mentions that he doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Follower B says that belief in the Resurrection is a fundamental tenet for unity, but then also mentions that he believes women can be pastors. Follower C says that only men can have the role of pastor because Jesus was a man and chose men to be apostles not women, but then he also mentions that homosexuality is not a sin. Follower D says that no one who condones homosexuality can be a Christian, but then he also mentions that there are a few books which belong in the Bible which didn't get included. Follower E says that the Bible is God's complete Word and nothing can be added or taken away. And so on and so on and so on and so on.

So, what is required for unity? Historical Christian Answer: Faith in Jesus of course...but also Faith in a God-ordained and God-preserved religion which serves as an objective point-of-reference for properly discerning God's intentions throughout historical events and through the God-breathed Bible. Since the time that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, the vast (and I mean vast) majority of Christians have believed that Jesus chose his apostles to ordain leaders and to preserve the true faith throughout every generation by handing-on (see the latin "traditio", where we derive "tradition") right doctrine (orthodoxy) and right practice (orthopraxy) through faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders, etc.

According to the historical Christian belief, after a few generations of faithful handing-on, the legitimate successors of the apostles began to deliberate about formally declaring certain religious writings as having been inspired directly by God. These successors (within the very clear context of formal religion...not loosy-goosy every man for themselves individualistic warm-fuzzy Christianity) debated and discussed and finally settled on what is known as the "canon". Christians believe that this process was guided by the Holy Spirit (otherwise it would just be the opinions of men). But some Christians believe that the Bible is essentially a very direct gift to Christianity from God...forgetting that the Bible is actually a product of formal, orderly, traditional religion.

These Christians who think that religion is bad for Christianity do not see how much worse individualism is for Christianity.

Here is the result of the individualistic rejection of the traditional, God-ordained, God-preserved religion of the successors of the apostles: there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations world-wide with many, many, many variances on who God is and what he requires of his followers. And here is how that happens:

Pastor A: God is XYZ and desires XYZ.
Follower A: The Bible says that is not quite right, pastor.
Pastor A: This is the traditional way of understanding the Bible on this point.
Follower A: But here are a few verses that contradict that teaching.
Pastor A: You are taking those verses out of context and not interpreting them correctly.
Follower A: But I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit confirmed that I'm right.
Pastor A: The Holy Spirit confirms interpretations of the Bible through the teachers of the Church, not through your private prayers.
Follower A: No, the Holy Spirit works in my heart and helps me directly. I'm going to the church down the street that sees this the way I do.
[then onto the new church, same situation, multiple times, various issues...then lo and behold]
Follower A cannot find the ideal church which agrees with his view on every point all the time, so Follower A calls a few friends to start meeting at his house on Sunday mornings, and shortly thereafter becomes a pastor teaching followers and encountering the same individualism among them that started this never-ending hoorah in the first place.

So my advice to all people who can't figure out why they should abandon the whole practice of Christianity is to do this for the sake of your Christian cause: adhere to an historic religious structure within Christianity that will give you some slight appearance of unity at least, instead of blatant do-what-you-want-to-do individualism which is a clear indicator that God (if he exists at all) does not exist in the way, shape, and form that Christians think that he does.

Religiosity Not The Problem

I am considering, when time permits, writing a brief treatment of why a Christian should not blame “religion” for an atheist’s or agnostic’s departure from the Christian faith. First of all, in my own story, I know that “religiosity” is not the problem. I know this because I’ve “been there and done that” with this line of evangelizing…"Christianity is about relationship not religion; it’s not about what church you go to or what rules you follow, it’s about your personal walk with Jesus.” Believe me, I really have been there and believed that sort of line and used that sort of line on others. I understand the point, completely.

But in the end, I can argue quite well from the Christian standpoint, that this angle is seriously flawed as an approach to “communicating the reality of Christ.”

Exposing the Limitations

Please find time to read a humble and interesting article by Mark Vernon titled "How To Be Agnostic" (LINK) in which he points out that, "Socrates came to understand that the key to wisdom is not being able to prove beliefs, but understanding the extent of your ignorance. He was agnostic in not assenting to philosophical systems, and instead went around ancient Athens asking awkward questions. For him, the importance of reason was not that it could potentially understand all but that it exposed the limitations of all our understanding. Hence the word philosopher was invented for him; he was a lover of wisdom that is desired precisely because it is lacked."

Believing Your Beliefs?

There is an interesting article at Fox News today about a survey showing that many Americans aren't actually buying everything their preachers and their bibles are selling.

Americans: My Faith Isn't the Only Way to Heaven