Objective Morals? Part II

Continued from yesterdays post.

I comment on the article by Dr. William Lane Craig where he again comments on Sam Harris’ book, The Moral Landscape. See the post yesterday for links and introduction.

…

Craig claims, in a very round-about way, that since it may be possible for psychopaths to enjoy inflicting pain on others and as such inhibit peaks on the moral/well-being landscape, it is no longer a moral landscape. Before returning to this I will mention an example made by Harris. Even though it may seem ‘good’ to kill a patient in the waiting room to supply organs for several sick persons, thus increasing the overall well-being (one loss to several gains), this would mean that people would always have the fear of being killed for their organs. This would result in a decrease in the general well-being and thus not be a peak on the landscape. In the same way, even though a psychopath may enjoy inflicting pain, and he may even enjoy it as much as the victim dislikes it, but the fear of this happening would still drag this down so that it could never be a peak on the moral landscape. There are other examples that can be made that are difficult to give an easy answer to, but as Harris truly says, the science of morality is not very developed yet, and answers that may be beyond us today, may be answered in the future though more work in the field.

Craig also argues that without a God, who supplies our morals? Well, as Harris has made quite clear, we can look at it objectively by looking at the well-being of conscious creatures. In essense WE supply the moral values through facts on what makes us pleased and what makes us flourish. Craig says that science can only tell us what ‘is’ and not what ‘ought’ to be. I argue that, likewise, medicine can only tell you that cutting of all your limbs is unhealthy, not that you ought not to cut off all your limbs. To say that science (in this case the science that tells us about what would be conducive to the flourishing of human and sentient beings) cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing is again ridiculous wordplay. What are moral obligations if not exactly the obligation to do good? And if ‘good’ is acting in a way that is conducive to human flourishing, which I cannot see an argument against, that is exactly our moral obligation. So if science can tell us what is more conducive to the flourishing of human and sentient beings, science can indeed tell us what our moral obligations are. For that is how we define objective morals. Of course, we can also define objective morals as following the word of God, and then I must agree with Prf. Craig, that if God does not exist there is no foundation for objective morals.

Craig argues that if there is no divine lawgiver, then what compels us to follow the laws? First of all, the police is a nice example of how we can enforce laws without God. Secondly, I truly hope that if Craig one day was finally convinced there was no God, that he would not then suddenly feel that it would be morally sound to go out and murder, rape and steal. I cringe whenever people ask what reason we have to behave well to one another if there is no God. It is an appalling mindset and I hope that whoever exhibits this mindset has just not thought it through. Would you really go out and rape a random woman right away if you were suddenly convinced that there was no God? Then you’re one sick puppy..

Craig argues that on the atheist view rape or incest is not really wrong. A rapist who flouts the herd morality is doing nothing more than acting unfashionably and that we cannot say that he is wrong. That is, frankly, bogus. We can all agree that raping is not very conducive the flourishing of human well-being.  Just as a person who argues that the world is flat is not just acting unfashionably but is plainly wrong, the rapist is indeed also simply wrong and his (mistaken) view of what is morally correct behavior can be ignored.

So far, all of this has come down to wordplay, which is rather infantile. I would find it highly interesting to hear Craig’s own definitions of the words ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘morals’ and ‘moral obligations’, for I simply cannot think of any better definitions than those put forth by Sam Harris.

The last point that Prf. Craig makes is not just wordplay, but highly philosophical. Harris believes (as I do) that we are in the end completely deterministic and that there is no such thing as real free will. We are like highly advanced computers and with a certain input there can only be a certain output. It should be kept in mind that this ‘input’ entails all our sensory input, all our memories and all the thoughts and feelings and hormones that inhabit our brain at any given moment. Craig argues that this completely invalidates the concept of moral accountability, just as you are not morally accountable for being pushed into another person. However, this is a very naïve way of seeing things. Just because a computer has no free will to decide to crash, we can still set down rules to avoid this. Just because we have no choice in flying out the windshield of a car in an accident does not make it meaningless to have seatbelts and to wear these seatbelts. If we had no morals, empathy or rules, our deterministic selves may indeed go and kill our boos or neighbor, but we do have morals, empathy and rules, and these become part of the deterministic system that ends up believing that murdering anyone is wrong and so we don’t do that. Just because a faulty computer that exhibits a glitch is not free to avoid that glitch we still need to discard or repair it and we need to try and avoid other computers getting the same problem. After all, why do we punish criminals? We threaten punishment to avoid the deterministic systems (people) comitting murder in the first place, and we carry out punishment to avoid having the system (person) commit the same crime again, or other systems commit a similar crime.

 

As always, please comment. I know this is a hot topic for many, and there will probably be many who disagree with me. I highly recommend reading Sam Harris’ book, The Moral Landscape, as well as watching the debate between Harris and Craig at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ

Thanks for reading.

The Beeble: 24 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

Abraham was getting old, and slightly on the kinky side so he called out for his eldest servant, who was in charge of the household on Abraham’s behalf. When the servant arrived, Abraham commanded him: “Put your hand under my thigh!” The servant looked perplexed for a moment, but as he was used to the strange fetishes of his master, he did as he was told. Abraham continued: “You have to do me a favor. No, no, not like last time, even though that was really good. No, I want you to go to my home country and fetch a wife for my son.” “But,” asked the servant “What if the woman does not want to follow me back here? Should I then lead Isaac back to your home country?” Abraham shook his head, “No, Gad has told me to go to this land, so we should stay here. No you have to get her to come with you here.”
The next day, the servant took ten of Abraham’s camels and was on his way to find a wife for Isaac. He came to the city of Nahor, where he waited by the well, as he knew all the young girls would be coming here to fetch water. He was not feeling too confident about the task he had been given, and decided to pray to The Lord of his house: “Gad almighty. Would you please make sure that the first girl who comes here is the right one? And to give me a sign, I will ask her for water and she will give me water and also give water to my camels” And thus the eldest servant of Abraham was the first to invent secret spy talk and passwords. Just as he had said this, Rebekah came down to the well, and the servant saw that she was smoking hot, and somehow he could also see that she was a virgin. Very astute man, that servant. He asked her for water, and just as he had asked of Gad, she responded by not only giving him water but also giving his camels water. He asked the girl who her parents were and if they might have room for him to sleep. Rebekah answered that she was the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah and that they had room for him, and the servant praised The Lord that he had come unto family of his master Abraham.
While he prayed, Rebekah ran ahead to tell the people in the house about the guest that was on his way. Rebekah had a brother, Laban, who ran out to meet the stranger, as soon as he had seen the jewelry his sister had already gotten from this man. “Why are you standing out here?” Laban asked the servant, “We have alreadu prepared the house and there is room for your camels as well. Come in, come in.” The servant followed him in and Laban helped the camels to their area and gave them straw and food, and fetched water for a food bath for the guest and his entourage (not the camels). Laban put meat before the man, but he said that he would not eat before he had told the story of why he was there. And so he told the entire story, beginning with the fact that Gad had made Abraham great and rich and that he had given all to his son Isaac, and that Isaac now needed a wife, and ending with the moment right before he met Laban. “… And I thanked The Lord that he had led me to the daughter of my master’s brother. Will you please tell me honestly if I can bring her to my master’s son to be his wife?” And Bethuel and Laban granted the servant his wish and said that Rebekah would go with him.

“So Abraham’s son was in a fixed marriage with his cousin?” “Well, you know you have to keep the line of Gad’s chosen ones clean.”

The servant was very pleased and gave them all lots of jewelry and raiments and other nice presents, and they all partied the entire night. The next day the servant said that he wanted to get going right away, but Laban and Bethuel asked if they could not keep Rebekah with them for at least ten days. But the servant was impatient, and Rebekah agreed to go right away. So Rebekah and her nurse went with Abraham’s servant and his men to go and meet her husband to be.
Isaac was out in the field when he saw the camels coming, and Rebekah, who had been told that it was Isaac she could see out in the fields, jumped off her camel and went to Isaac. Isaac took Rebekah to the tent of his mother, Sarah and took her to wife and Rebekah seemed to be able to do something to take his mind off his dead mother.

The Beeble: 23 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

Sarah, Abraham’s wife, died at the tender age of 127 years. Abraham mourned the loss of his wife and wanted to find a nice location for her grave. And so he went to speak to the sons of Heth.

“Who are the sons of Heth?” “I don’t know – but he went to them. Okay?”

He told them: “I am a stranger here among you, but can I please get a place to bury my dead wife?” The sons of Heth replied politely: “You are a prince among us – take any spot you want for the grave.” Abraham thought for a moment and then asked to speak with Ephron, for he knew that Ephron owned the field on which the cave of Machpelah was situated. In Abraham’s mind, that cave was just perfect. “I will buy the field and cave from Ephron for as much money as it is worth, so that I can bury my wife in the cave.” Ephron stood up and replied: “Oh no, my good sir. I will give you the field and cave. Here in front of all my people I say that I will be so generous as to give it to you, free of charge.” Abraham replied equally politely: “Oh no, my good sir. I will pay you for the field and the cave..”

“Is it going to continue like this much longer?” “Ahem, no. Sorry.”

Blablabla, polite talking back and forth, and Abraham ended up paying Ephron 400 silver shekels for the field and the cave. Then Abraham buried his late wife in the cave of Machpelah.

Objective Morals? Part I

Comments on “Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape” by William Lane Craig

I recently finished reading Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape, and have seen the debate between him and William Lane Craig on the topic of morality with or without God. Both gentlemen are outstanding debaters, each with his edge and certain brand of arrogance and I truly enjoy listening to debates involving either of them. As readers of this blog will know by now, I am an atheist, and as such disagree with the world views of Dr. Craig, but enjoy hearing his eloquent and mostly well thought out arguments. I stumbled upon this article by Dr. Craig on the same issue as was discussed in the mentioned debate and decided to read through it and try and provide some of my own opinions and retorts to Craig’s arguments. The article can be found at:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/navigating-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape

The main topic of the article is the existence of objective morals with or without God. To clarify what is meant by objective morals, Craig gives this example: “To say that moral values and duties are objective is to say they are valid and binding independent of human opinion. For example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively evil is to say it was evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought it was good. And it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so everybody who was left thought the Holocaust was good.” If you have a hard time seeing how it could still be ‘evil’ though everybody were brainwashed to think it was ‘good’, just think of the example of medieval times when everybody thought that bloodletting was good medical practice. This did not mean that it was correct, and even if we killed off all trained medical personnel, burned all medical works and convinced everybody that bloodletting was good medical practice, it would still not be true. The trouble with morality is that many think that it is a matter of one of two things; and absolute set of rules laid down by God (or gods, depending on your religious beliefs), or a matter of opinion and cultural background if there is no God/gods. According to Sam Harris, the latter is not true. You can have objective morals without any absolute rules from God. In his book, The Moral Landscape, he compares it to health, in saying that even though it’s difficult to give a precise definition of good health, there is still a very distinct and obvious difference between a seemingly healthy person and a dead one. Just as some people are experts in the confusing field that is medicine, some people could be trained to be experts in objective morality. Every person’s view on morality is not equally valid, just as every person’s view on medicine is not equally valid, due to lack of expertise.

 

Craig is interested in the question of what the best foundation might be for such objective moral values. He asks; on atheism, what grounds are there for objective morals? In particular, why think that human beings have objective worth? What reason do we have to think that human well-being is objectively good, anymore than insect well-being. This is what is called the value problem.
The naturalistic view is, according to Craig, that moral behavior is just a byproduct of evolution – a tool for improving our chances of survival and perpetuation of our genes, just as a troupe of baboons exhibit co-operative and even self-sacrificial behavior. Craig asks why Richard Dawkins, according to atheism, is wrong in his depressing assessment of human worth: “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. … We are machines for propagating DNA. … It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Craig claims that Harris solves this value problem by mere wordplay and infers that the problem is not solved at all: “The trick he proposes is simply to redefine what he means by ‘good’ and ‘evil’. He says we should define ‘good’ as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures. He states that good and evil need only consist in this: misery versus well-being. … So to ask why is maximizing creature’s well-being good is the same as asking why does maximizing creature’s well-being maximize creature’s well-being. It is simply a tautology – talking in a circle. Thus Harris has ‘solved’ his problem simply be redefining his terms. It is mere wordplay.”

I will refrain from making such long quotes too much, but I thought this one to be rather central to the entire treatment of both Harris’ and Craig’s arguments.

First of all I would like to address the issue of the definition of ‘good’. Craig states that Harris redefines the words good and evil. However, Craig fails to provide what definition he thinks that ‘good’ had to begin with. What is the meaning of ‘good’ – it is, after all, just a word we made up. I personally feel that Harris’ definition is very close if not identical with the definition of ‘good’ that I have always had. As such, I don’t see it as a redefinition. I could make a cheap shot of saying that I had a slight suspicion that Craig believed the word ‘good’ to mean acting according to scripture, and as such there is of course no reason to be ‘good’ if there is no God. However, I give Dr. Craig more credit than that, and I am fairly certain that he does not approve of offering ones daughters up for a gang rape and neither does he approve of slavery, incest or stoning an individual to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Nonetheless, it is clear that he has some other definition of ‘good’ than something that makes conscious beings more pleased and increases their well-being. I cannot see what other definition there may be that I could ever agree on.

As a side-note I don’t think Craig was being fair to Richard Dawkins. I am quite certain that Prf. Dawkins would find it rape, murder and torture just as evil as the next man. What I think he means is that there is no inherent ‘good’ or ‘evil’ except for what we define as ‘good’ or evil, just as Harris has given a definition of ‘good’. And yes, our sole ‘purpose’, if one can even say we have a purpose as such, is propagation of our DNA. But that does not mean we cannot make the most of life. After all, the sole purpose of a car is to get you from A to B, but there is still a huge difference in the aesthetic beauty of different cars, as well as how pleasant a driving experience each car provides.

Craig argues that: “at the end of the day Harris is not talking about moral values. He is just talking about what’s conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet”. Well what are morals then, according to Dr. Craig? What is his definition of moral values, if it is not the act of maximizing general well-being? It is not stated in his article, and I cannot make any guess as to what other definition he may give, short of “acting according to scripture”, which I doubt he would ever claim. I will claim that at the end of the day, this is ALL just wordplay, and it all comes down to our definition of this very elusive word, “morals”.

The Beeble: 22 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

After all this , Gad got bored and wanted a bit of action. So he decided he would again test the faith and loyalty of Abraham and so he said to Abraham: “Take your son, you know the one that I let you keep and not force to leave your house, and bring him to the land of Moriah where I want you to kill him and offer him to me. If you don’t, you don’t love the Gad who always loves you..” Abraham, being a shitty father and knowing what Gad was capable of when angered, chose to just go through with it. The next day he rose up and had his slaves help him and his son, Isaac, along. When they were close enough to see the place they were going, Abraham dismissed the servants. After a few days they reached the place they were going, Isaac finally noticed something strange: “Dad, you’ve got the fire, the wood and the rope and all, but no sacrificial goat or anything.” Abraham replied: “Gad always has a plan for him self. It will all work out.”
After securing Isaac in ropes, Abraham placed him on the altar and reached for his knife.

“How can this in any way be seen as correct, Gad fearing and good moral behavior?” “Don’t question, kids, just listen..”

As he was just about to take the knife to Isaac and offer him to Gad, and angel appeared to Abraham and told him to stop. Pretty nice timing, one must agree! It was all just a test and Isaac was allowed to live. Though the story doesn’t say anything about this, your old uncle King James is pretty sure Isaac thought it was no biggie to experience his father about to offer him to Gad.. All just normal family fun and games..
And so Gad was really proud of his pet human, Abraham who was literally ready to do anything for Gad, and he approached Abraham again: “Hey Abraham. You’ve done a pretty good job! Only a few people are as loyal and shitty fathers as you to be ready to offer your own son, therefore I promise to make your family grow and grow so you will father nations!” Abraham thought to himself that the reward Gad promised seemed awfully familiar, but decided not to complain to the mighty smiter, and just return to his carriers with his son, who was shaken and probably mentally scarred forever. Ah, the things you do for Gad!
When Abraham returned to his village, he was told that his siblings had expanded their families.

The Beeble: 21 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

One day Gad was drunk and lonely, so he visited Sarah, as he had said he would. Nine months later she gave Abraham a son whom they called Isaac. When Isaac was 8 days old, Abraham took a knife and cut off the poor boys foreskin, as Gad had commanded. When the day came when Isaac no longer needed to be breastfed, Abraham held a big party to celebrate that he no longer had to share Sarah’s breasts with anyone.
During the party Sarah saw Ishmael, the son of her handmaiden Hagar, mocking. This was more than Sarah was about to take and she grabbed her husband and said: “You have to throw out this servant girl and her son! I won’t have him challenge my son’s claim as your heir!” “But dear Sarah” Abraham answered in distress, “You were the one who told me I should have a son with her. You even gave her as a wife to me, so she is my wife and he is my son.” Then Gad intervened: “Don’t worry about the lad or his servant girl mother. I’ll take care of them. Your great legacy will come through your son Isaac, but I’ll also give a nation to the other lad so he doesn’t feel too overlooked.”
The next morning Abraham gave Hagar and Ishmael some bread and a bottle of water and sent them on their way.

“Hold on. Gad not only overlooked or even just approved, but actually commanded a father to send away his son and the boys mother? Just because he liked the other boy better and the other boy was made with his help? And where is that poor woman to go? She’s a servant girl who was dismissed, only with a piece of bread and a bottle of water.” “Well, The Lord promised to look after her and her boy” “But doesn’t it still condone or even urge som rather strange and irresponsible behavior?” “Since when did you kids get so morally aware? Just listen up..”

Hagar wandered off into the wilderness with her son, and when the water bottle was empty she hurled the child under one of the shrubs.

“She did WHAT? Gad sure picked his chosen ones to be people with a really strange sense of morals! Sorry, continue..”

Hagar didn’t want to see her son die so she walked as far away as a bowshot and sat down and wept loudly. Gad heard the voice of the boy, but couldn’t be bothered so he sent an angel down. The angel asked Hagar: “What’s up girl? Why are you crying? Go fetch the boy again. Gad want’s to make a entire nation for him.” So Gad opened Hagar’s eyes, which had apparently been closed the entire time, explaining why she hadn’t seen the well right in front of her. They drank and were well. The boy grew up to be a great archer and his mother found him a nice wife from Egypt.

Abimelech and Phichol, the chief captain of his army, spoke with Abraham: “We have seen that Gad is rather fond of you, so will you promise not to lie to me again or in other ways cheat me?” Abraham agreed to that but answered: “Your men took away a well!” Abimelech seemed confused: “How does one go about taking a well away? Never mind. I’m sorry, but this is the first I hear of this.” Abraham gave Abimelech some sheep and oxen, as a sign of good faith, and set aside 7 lambs. “What are you doing that for?” asked Abimelech. “Their yours, but they are also witnesses that I dig a well here.” Abimelech looked confused. “Whatever man.. Good luck with it” With those words Abimelech gave his captain, Phichol a look, and the two men stood up and left. Abraham stayed a long time in the Philistine’s land in this part that he called Beer-Sheba, because they had drunk beer and watched the sheep.

The Beeble: 20 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

Abraham felt the wanderlust descent upon him and he traveled south to the land of Gerar. As they had done it in Egypt, Abraham and Sarah agreed to present themselves as siblings and not husband and wife, so that the locals would not kill Abraham to get Sarah. Abimelech, the king of Gerar, heard about Sarah and sent for her. But as soon as he went to sleep the first night thereafter, The Lord visited him in his dreams: “You are a dead man walking!” said Gad in an ominous tone. “The woman you have just taken in is already the wife of another man. You’ve been bad…” Abimelech, who had heard rumors of this angry and destructive deity, immediately grasped the gravity of the situation. He mumbled in his sleep: “Lord! I did not know! The man said that she was his sister, and she confirmed. How could i know? Can’t we work this out? Please don’t destroy my nation as you destroyed the last nation. I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman!” “I know.” answered Gad, “For I made sure that you wouldn’t touch her! It was me who magically made you flaccid!”

“So Gad made sure that Abimelech did not sin, but all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did not get that help?” “A good powerful deity never misses the chance to show his might by some good wholesome destruction. But after that Gad didn’t need any more drama right away, so he helped poor Abimelech a little. We may all be created equal, but we aren’t all treated equal by Gad. There’s a life-lesson for you kids.”

Gad continued in his most fear inspiring voice: “The husband of the woman is a protege – eh, I mean prophet – of mine and you WILL return his wife to him! If he’s happy and prays for you, I will spare you. But if he doesn’t I will kill you. You, your family, and all that is yours!”
Abimelech woke up early and gathered his household to tell the frightening story. He sent for Abraham and when the two men stood face to face Abimelech asked in a whimpering voice: “Why have you done this to me? What have I ever done to you? It is not fair..” Abraham just shrugged and said: “You know. I gotta look out for number one. I thought you people would kill me to get my wife if you knew we were married.” Abimelech looked shocked. “What kind of barbarians do you think we are? I’m very sorry you thought you had to lie. Very sorry indeed.” Abraham corrected him: “But I didn’t lie, really. She is also my sister.” When Abraham saw disgust in the face of Abimelech he quickly added: “Only on my father’s side. Not my mother’s. We are not full siblings.”
After an awkward silence, Abimelech took sheep, oxen, male- and female slaves and gave them to Abraham along with his wife, Sarah. “I am very sorry about this misunderstanding, my dear Abraham. You may stay in my land as long as you want.”
Abraham prayed for Abimelech and The Lord healed the king and all his servants and they could again bear children. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Gad had closed up the wombs of the entire house of Abimelech because of the whole wife snatching business. But he healed them all again, because Gad is kind.

The Beeble: 19 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

Gad had decided not to join his two angels on the trip to Sodom anyways and so the two angels reached the city without The Lord. Lot saw them approach and hurriedly greeted them and urged them to come into his house. “Please do come in. You can have a nice foot bath, some bread and you can spend the night so you’re fresh and ready for a new day tomorrow.” After much polite urging, the angels agreed to spend the night at Lot’s place. But before they could lay down to rest, they heard noises outside the house. Rumor had spread that two good looking fellows had come to that house and all the men, old and young, from Sodom and the surrounding area had gathered around the house and was now calling out to Lot: “Lot! We know you have some guests in there! Two young men! Bring them out so that we may know them!” Though Lot knew what they meant he asked: “Pray tell me good men of Sodom, what do you mean by know them?” The voice answered back: “We mean copulate with them. All night long, baby!” Lot, whom took much pride in being a good host walked out of the door and answered the men of Sodom: “No please don’t do that. They are my guests. But I have two daughters. If you want to gang-rape someone, you can gang-rape my daughters, but please don’t hurt these men who are my guests.”

“I don’t even know what to say.. That is terrible! Are the angels going to smite Lot now? Please tell me they do..” “Oh, no. He’s being a good host, and also a good and moral man for protecting men by sacrificing women. That’s how Gad like it. Don’t worry, nothing’s gonna happen. Just listen.”

The men og Sodom got impatient and the man who had spoken before yelled at Lot: “Who do you think you are to judge who we can or cannot rape? Now we’re going to make it even worse for you than for your two guests!” They pressed in on Lot, but before they could overwhelm him, the angels quickly opened the door, pulled him in, and closed the door behind him. They used their magic powers to strike blind, all the men around the house, and after a while the men of Sodom gave up trying to find the door.
When all was quiet again, the angels spoke to Lot: “Dude, this place sucks! You should gather your things and your family and get out of here. We are going to tear this place apart!” Lot tried to convince his sons in law to come, but they thought he was joking and would not listen. So he gathered his wife and his two daughters, and made ready to leave the city. When the angels saw that Lot was ready to leave they gave him instructions on what to do: “Run for your life! Run and don’t look back. And keep running. Don’t stop on the plains. You have to keep going all the way to the mountains, to be safe.” Lot, who was no fan of the mountains, asked the angels: “Oh.. ehm.. Could you maybe just tone down the death and destruction a little so that I could just run to this small village that lies a way out that direction? I mean, it’s a small village and there’s no need for you to also destroy that one, is there?” One of the angels looked at the other in annoyance. “Aw.. Gad said we could destroy everything here! I wanna go crazy! I deserve to cut loose.” “Yes, yes, but Lot is right. It’s just a very small village. We’ll have plenty of fun even without destroying that one too. Lot, you just go ahead and run to that little village you’re talking about. We won’t destroy it.”

“It doesn’t seem very well thought out, this death and destruction, if the lives of all the villagers in a nearby village are either saved or forfeited, based on how long Lot is willing to run?” “Well.. Gad is omniscient, so he probably knew that Lot would complain and that the angels would oblige him. He’s a sly one, that big guy in the sky.”

Lot and his family raced to the nearby village of Zoar, and The Lord rained fire and brimstone down upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot’s wife, however, had not thought it such an important instruction not to look back, so she turned her head to see the fireworks, and was abruptly turned into a pillar of salt, of all things. To this day, we still don’t know what see saw in that last instance of her life, but the angels obviously had something to hide.
Abraham saw the destruction from afar and thought: “Good riddance. Now they are really flaming homosexuals” and he laughed an evil laugh as he walk back to his house.
Lot and his two daughters had reached Zoar, but it still felt a bit too close to the chaotic destruction, and Lot decided to go up into the mountains after all. They found a nice cozy cave, where they could wait it out. When they were outside earshot from Lot, the older daughter said to the younger: “Listen up, sis. Our father is old, and up here there are no other men to get us pregnant. As we barely escaped that gang-raping, I see no other way than to ride that old goat of a man to make some babies..” Her younger sister gasped. “But we need to be smart about it. He would never knowingly copulate with us. We need to get him drunk enough to make him pass out and then ride him while he sleeps.” So one night they got Lot terribly drunk, and after he had passed out, the eldest daughter rode him till he got her pregnant. The next night they did it again, but this time it was the youngest’ turn. Thus, the two daughters of Lot got pregnant with their fathers seed. The eldest daughter gave birth to a son, who was named Moab, and the younger had the son Benammi.
Gad looked down at all this and thought to himself: “I’m not too sure if these were the right people to spare from the destruction of those cities, but at least they’re giving me one hell of a show!”

AiG: Is Christianity a virus?

If you have been involved in the Divine Discussion, or just interested in religion for a while, chances are that you know about AnswersInGenesis.org. It is a very well funded organization with a number of writers, resources and even a museum. Every once in a great while I enjoy going to their website to see what they are up to, and today I stumbled upon a “letter from Ken” (Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis) that I would like to briefly discuss here.

The article is titled: Is Christianity a “Virus”?
and it can be found here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/27/christianity-virus#fnList_1_1

There are several things here that I find very interesting, and I will go through them in turn.
First there is the notion that Christianity, or rather all religion, can be seen as a virus. Of course not a biological virus, but a cultural one. There are several aspects of this. For instance, some may argue that if religion has come about via our evolution, then it must be good for us or advantageous in some way, but that is simply not true. It may be that religion is only good for more religion, just like a virus. Some parasites can indeed be helpful, such as the bacterial flora in our guts, and in the case of religion, good things can also be said about harboring this parasite. You may find support in hard times, you may find ways to calm yourself if dying of old age or illness or you may find comfort in thinking your loved ones have gone to meet their maker. But, on the other hand much more can be said about the detrimental effects of harboring this cultural virus, this highly contagious meme. I could dedicate an entire post to the “evils of religion” but the weighing of pro’s and con’s is besides the point here. What I want to state here is simply that the way religion proliferates in a society can indeed be described as a virus, with people being more or less prone to “infection”.

Though the use of such a negatively loaded term as a virus gives the entire proposition a rather aggressive glow, it is still a neutral observation that religion spreads in the much same way and that both good and bad can come from it. What Ken Ham chooses to do with this is to use it as a lay-up for a rant on how atheists are trying to marginalize christians and how good God fearing people should prepare their children with a mental plate armor against the onslaught of reason and evidence against God that they will experience through life, lest they may shed the belief in God along with Santa Claus. He never addresses the quotes he supplies, but in stead goes directly to the incitation of the masses. It is interesting to see how Mr. Ham goes directly for the tactics used to incite the “Muhammed drawing crisis” by a few muslim men. These men, as you may remember, spread the word in the muslim world, that an obscure newspaper in a Scandinavian country had published derogative drawings and pictures of the prophet Muhammed. This was done for the sole purpose of stirring up feelings of indignation within the muslim community to prompt action against the infidels. Mr. Ham is attempting the exact same thing here, by trying to stir up the Christian community through indignation that some people compare their beloved religion with such a foul thing as a virus.

On a side note, how did the vira and bacteria and other single celled organisms on this planet get through the Great Flood? Did Noah also collect samples of the common cold, TB and AIDS? How did they live through all that death and destruction? How indeed..

Mr. Ham calls this “propaganda attack” on Christianity a sobering reminder that it is important to, not only prepare the children to be thick skinned and thick skulled and unwavering in their faith, but also to make more children! Remember, the best army is the one you breed yourself. And of course the real disease of the world is the sin of man – what a lovely picture of the world he wants to paint for the little ones.

I must admit to share one “crime” with Ken Ham; I to have now posted a disorganized rant, without any potential to move the discussion in either direction, but with the sole purpose of venting some frustration about “the enemy”, so to speak. I hope you will forgive my weakness.

Please comment and follow. And do read The Beeble, if you have time for it so you can follow as a new chapter is released daily.

The Beeble: 18 Genesis

The Beeble
By Eric Monk

One day, when Abraham was just sitting in the entrance of his tent enjoying the weather, The Lord appeared to him again, this time in earthly form. Abraham saw three men drawing close and knew one of them was Gad.

“Who are the other two?” “Don’t think about that. It’s just angels or something.. The story doesn’t mention that” “But why is Gad suddenly in human form now, when he otherwise never comes in human form?” “.. Just listen..”

“Gad! So nice to see you! Please, stay for a while. I’ll fetch water and get a foot bath ready, and get bread” Abraham greeted with large mannerisms guiding Gad towards the huddle of tents. Gad looked at Abraham and answered: “I’m super hungry! If you could cure my munchies I would be pleased.” Abraham quickly scuffled off to get the things he had promised and Gad turned to his companions: “See? I can get him to do anything. He’s so gullible.”
Meanwhile, Abraham had Sarah make som freshly baked bread and had a young servant prepare some tender calf for the visitors. The Lord and his companions came up next to Abraham and Gad asked: “Where is your wife, Sarah?” “She’s there, in the tent, baking bread for you, lord. Gad smiled and said: “Ha! She’s a good woman! Don’t worry – I haven’t forgotten that I promised for her to bear you a son soon.” Sarah, who heard Gad say this, started laughing, as she was well past a child-bearing age: “Really? In my age? You must be kidding..” Gad asked: “Why is she laughing? Is anything too difficult for the divine being? I’ll fix that lazy uterus and those lost small soldier, so you two will have a son!” “I didn’t laugh”, Sarah said, but Gad looked irritated at her and sneered: “Yes you did..”
The three visitors finished their meal, stood up and walked out of the tent. They stated they were going to Sodom and Gomorrah. “Those two cities are super sinful!” Gad said, with a serious face “At least so I’ve heard and I will go and see for myself and if it is true I will annihilate them”

“Isn’t Gad omniscient? Why does he have to go and check for himself?” “Well.. He might just use it as an excuse to visit the ‘Sin City’ of the time. He’s The Lord – He’s allowed!”

Abraham showed them in the general direction and waited for Gad’s two companions to be on their way, before he asked Gad: “What if there are, let’s say, 50 good men in the city? Will you also kill them?” Gad thought for a while. “No, then I’ll spare the city..” Abraham, sensing a hole here, continued: “It’s not for me to be questioning The Lord.. But.. What if there are 45? Will you slay them all just because they are five short of the 50?” Gad looked uncomfortable as he answered: “No.. Then I’ll also spare them..” Abraham continued like this, down to 10 people, after which Gad exclaimed: “I REALLY have to go know, if I even want the slightest chance of getting some death and destruction done today!” And Gad left to catch up to his companions on their way to Sodom.