"...don't have enough faith to..."

There's a "statement" that a certain subset of theists seem to adore and you've probably heard it from a few notable pundits as well. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is such an idiotic thing to say or write. I've never fully understand what this is even suppose to accomplish beyond making it's proponent look like a complete moron. It never seems to cross their mind that the expression is a blatant contradiction. If you have even a little faith then by definition you can't be an atheist. I have heard a few dumb-asses try to justify this drivel by claiming that those who use this mean faith in the sense of trust. Of course, these inane apologists never bother looking at the statement in the context it was expressed. I have yet to come across an example where the individual(s) did not clearly use "faith" in a religious sense.

Basically, if you see or hear this sentence from someone it is safe to assume they are idiots. They don't have a clue what atheism actually is or what the fuck they are talking about. Just to make sure there can be no confusion about this conclusion:

"A" is the Latin prefix for none or without
"Theism" is a religious belief system
"A" + "Theism" = atheism or a lack of any religious based beliefs

Not only is there no faith required, it is required that there be no faith to meet the definition.

Fear of "Religious Education"?

Celia Walden's "Why are we so afraid of teaching Religious Education properly to children?" is rather poorly thought out and very misleading. The title itself conveys a number of the problems contained within the piece. To start with "religious education" as a term is rather amorphous and subjective. Walden never even attempts to narrow the scope of the phrase. She also includes the word "properly" in that title that is equally problematic. It doesn't take long to realize that she herself has a rather narrow understanding and perception of the subject she so pathetically blathers on about.

Personally, I see no reason to be afraid to teach about religion within the appropriate context. Teaching what the major world religions have believed over time and how those beliefs have effected history and society is quite reasonable. This means the teaching "about" not the teaching "of" religion. Promoting a particular faith or attacking a specific faith or even the lack of faith should not be allowed under any circumstances within the confines of public education. Mixing "religious education" into History, Philosophy, or Sociology classes, among others, is not only appropriate it is favorable, assuming it is approached in the manner I referenced above.

Schaeffer is NOT and atheist

Looks like a question I posed about Frank Schaeffer, "Will the Interview Translate" (March 30, 2014), has now been answered. No. Frank has once again slipped into bizarro world. Somehow he seems to think it's possible to be a theist and an atheist simultaneously. It isn't. By definition you cannot be both at the same time. You also cannot have a square circle. It defies the very definition not to mention reality.

Schaeffer has never had a particularly good grasp on reality. His previous book, Patience with God, made it quite clear that he knows nothing about atheists. Coming across various pieces on his new book and even a short piece he himself wrote didn't really surprise me. It is still sad and disappointing that someone who speaks as well as he does in interviews is so inconsistent and, put bluntly, so bat-shit crazy when it comes to writing.

A few of the pieces on Scaeffer's most recent decent into idiocy:

"Atheist or believer? Frank Schaeffer is a bit of both" Religious News Service

"Meet the atheist ... who believes in God" CNN Belief Blog

One of the dumbest questions, ever

"Does Atheism Require Faith?" is the title of recent American Spectator blog post by R.J. Moeller. I, to be honest, don't expect much from an ideological and factually challenged rag like the American Spectator but this one was particularly ludicrous. The title alone gives you a pretty good idea about the level of idiocy involved. So, lets deconstruct it it a bit.

"theism" - a religious based belief system
+
"a" - a  prefix meaning none or without
=
a lack of a religious based belief system

How many belief systems rely almost entirely on faith? How does lacking one type of belief system tell you much about what an individual or group may or may not actually believe in? Moeller's title is as vacuous as the content of the rest of the piece. The blog is essentially a review of "the latest effort from radio show host and best-selling author Dennis Prager’s virtual 'Prager University'" during which "Dr. Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, is the instructor for the new 'God or Atheism' course and in it presents a case for why belief in a Higher Power is not as irrational as many in the academic world and entertainment industry would have us believe. Professor Kreeft opens his argument by citing the first 'way' in Thomas Aquinas’ 'Five Ways' to prove God’s existence — The Argument from Motion."

I suppose you could claim that this post is a bargain since you get 3 dumb-asses for the price of one. If you are not familiar with Prager feel free to look him up but keep your expectations very low. He is as stupid as he is narrow minded and deceitful. I have also never understood why so many are so impressed with Aquinas. Even for his own time Aquinas' thinking was grossly flawed and rather easily refuted. In the end, this blog drags out a number of old fallacies and apologetics that have been routinely trounced.

For the record, the answer is a resounding no. Not only does it not require faith by definition it cannot. If you have "faith", at least as it is commonly used, you are not an atheist.

Reconcile a Red Flag

According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary:

"reconcile

verb (reconciled, reconciling)
1 a. (usually reconcile one person with another or one person and another) to put them on friendly terms again, especially after a quarrel;
(b) (be reconciled) said of two or more people: to be on friendly terms again.
2. (usually reconcile one thing with another) to bring two or more different aims, points of view, etc into agreement; to harmonize them.
3. (usually be reconciled to something or reconcile oneself to something) to agree to accept an unwelcome fact or situation patiently.
Derivatives

reconcilability noun.

reconcilable adjective.

reconcilably adverb.

reconcilement noun.

reconciler noun.

reconciliation noun.

reconciliatory adjective.

[14c: from Latin reconciliare.]"

Why am I concerned with this definition? I hear over and over references to reconciling religion and/or God with a variety of other institutions and ideas. Probably the most common are reconciling religion (or God) with science and feminism. I have also heard similar scenarios with modernity, democracy, and secularism.

Over and over a number of individuals go on about how to make such reconciliations. None ever seem to question that it should be done. Why does it never raise any red flags that if religion and God need to be reconciled with so many aspects of contemporary society then perhaps there is something wrong with religion and God. Why assume it is Religion and God that must be preserved?

Misused and Abused: Natural

The term "natural" has been modified and expanded over the course of a century or so. Because of this progression in the number of potential uses and variations it is not always easy to spot when the term is being intentionally misuses or when it is simply a poor choice of wording. To get an idea of just how diverse the term has become I've copied the definition from Chambers 21st Century Dictionary,
"natural
adjective
1. normal; unsurprising; 2. instinctive; not learnt; 3. born in one; innate a natural talent; 4. being such because of inborn qualities Christian is a natural communicator; 5. said of manner, etc: simple, easy and direct; not artificial; 6. said of looks: not, or apparently not, improved on artificially; 7. relating to nature, or to parts of the physical world not made or altered by man natural sciences areas of natural beauty; 8. following the normal course of nature died a natural death; 9. said of materials, products, etc: derived from plants and animals as opposed to man-made natural fibres; 10. wild; uncultivated or uncivilized; 11. related to one by blood one’s natural parents; 12. euphemistic see illegitimate his natural son; 13. music not sharp or flat.
noun
1. colloquial someone with an inborn feel for something She’s a natural when it comes to acting; 2. a person or thing that is the obvious choice for something; 3. someone or something that is assured of success; a certainty; 4. music (a) a sign (♮) indicating a note that is not to be played sharp or flat; (b) such a note.
Derivative
naturalness noun a natural state or quality; being natural.
[14c: from Latin naturalis from natura nature.]"

So, depending on context and intent there are any number of correct ways that the word can be used. There are still plenty of blatantly wrong ways to employ the term. One of the most common and irritating ones I routinely come across is its misuse as a synonym for "good" (as in morally good). There is nothing in the above definition that places a moral value on Natural. Being natural does not describe something in terms of moral values. Anything natural can be good, bad, both, or neutral. Unnatural often gets a similar treatment and is just as irksome.

If You Have to Talk Yourself into It....

While reading Sarah O'Leary's "12 Reasons Why God is Nice" I got the distinct impression that she wasn't really writing something for others to think about. It sounded more like an attempt to convince herself of things she feels she should and/or wants to believe. In any case, her rationalizations are as naive as they are ridiculous. Nearly all of her twelve "reasons" outright conflict with the most basic definition of God. This is, of course, without establishing whether she accepts the Bible as having any authority or not. If O'Leary accepts the Bible even on symbolic terms her reasons become even more tortured but I'll set that aside.

Sticking with the basic definition that God is the supreme being who is perfect, all-powerful, and the creator of all things all but a few of her 12 reasons fall apart after only the slightest scrutiny.

1.God is NICE, 4.God loves everyone, 5.God doesn't get angry, or hold grudges, 11.God is a huge fan of kindness, compassion and generosity
In each of these O'Leary relies predominantly on the assumption that God has emotional states. How can that be the case when emotions are most certainly flawed. In order for God to experience emotions such a being would have to be flawed and therefore by definition not be God. It can not occur otherwise and still be an emotion. Human emotions are largely understood and experienced in comparison with other known emotion so you cannot have a perfect emotion. Her #1 is also interesting since it seems to imply that there can be no connection between God and hate. Where does hate come from? Wouldn't this suggest that God is not the source of all things?

A few of the above also share a few aspects in common with the next set I found to be inter-related.
2.God doesn't want us to feel threatened by Him, 6. God wants us to find peace, and be happy, 7. God doesn't like people who act like they are closer to Him than the rest of us
These all depend on the idea that God wants or doesn't want us to feel certain ways or  to behave in specific ways. The biggest problem with this formulation comes from the notion of "want." If we as humans want something what does that really mean? Either we lack something or we do not have enough of something. If you have that something then you don't want it. More to the point you can't really want it if you already have it since that would be a contradiction of terms. If God is both perfect and the source of all things what can God possibly want? Nothing.

Again, the above leads into the next point which regards free will. God doesn't have to want anything because everything that is, is a direct result of God. This is also true of our behaviors. If God exists there can be no free will since that would negate God's perfection. God is all knowing and therefore would know what was, is, and will be. God cannot lack any knowledge and still remain perfect. Similarly, as the source of all things God would also be the author of all our ideas and behaviors which means the following are pretty much null and void.
3. God isn't a control freak, 8. God is the only one wearing a watch that matters, 9. God doesn't keep a score.
I should probably clarify #9. Without free will there is no morality which means we really can't be held responsible in any meaningful way. Any ideas about a final judgement with preceding punishments or rewards is moot.

Only two of her reasons cannot be completely refuted by definition.
10. God isn't relaxing in Heaven, He's everywhere, 12. God never leaves us
Even if you are a believer the last two standing are not all that impressive considering how vague and superficial they are. It seems somewhat redundant and unnecessary. To my way of thinking it is the equivalent of simply stating that existence exists. Yes, it does. And? Where is this train of thought going? You have to take the statement further otherwise what is the point of making it.

O'Leary concludes with,
"I believe God lives in our human-to-human connections. The God that is in us is the love that feeds us.
Yes, I'm certain, God is Nice."
It is a pleasant enough sentiment but where does she want to go with it? It really does seem to be a sort of motivational letter to herself.

Talk about Illusions

Why do so many religious bloggers and theologians have such difficulty with definitions and the application of definitions? Eitan Press' July 5th post, "Lose Your Illusions and Find Infinity: A Jewish Mystical Take on Atheism and God " is so absurd it is comical. It seems that he doesn't like any of the standard definitions for "God" but can't come up with a coherent one himself. So what does he do? Rather than consider that the concept is by it's nature bullshit he creates a series of fallacious dodges.

It starts at the end of the second paragraph paragraph and dribbles into the third with, "So what do I mean when I say 'God'? I can't tell you, because its not something I can put into words. The word 'water' doesn't make you wet, but you know what it's referring to. This is not the case with the word 'God.'"This bit of nonsense set the tone wonderfully. His example is about as inappropriate and misleading as you can get. Of course we know what water is. Water is all around us. We need it to live and we can quantify it quite easily. For the record, the substance designated by the term "water" does make us wet. God on the other hand doesn't seem to be anywhere or not in a way that matters to those who prefer reality over illusion. Had a cup of God recently? It gets even loopier.

Two paragraphs later he opens with this gem, "God is beyond any concept. God is beyond even the concept of beyond." What the fuck?I don't think he gets the concept of "concept." According to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary a concept is a, "a notion; an abstract or general idea." So if god is not an idea how do we think or talk about God? For that matter how can God have any connection to reality if it does not even count as an idea. Try thinking about anything you know to exist in reality that cannot also be thought of in terms of an idea(s).

Press never seems to consider that if what he is writing has any validity then his writing about it is futile and meaningless. It is a bit of a contradiction. It certainly never dawns on him that perhaps he can't come up with an adequate description or set of terms because there is literally nothing there to attach them to. This seems to be a fairly common approach among many contemporary theologians. Either you constantly introduce slightly altered and highly abstract definitions of God or you claim there can be no true definition for God. They do it without ever acknowledging that once something becomes too abstract it loses any and all practical meaning. Not only the word "God" but also the concept of God becomes worthless.

This piece goes on longer but never gets anymore coherent or insightful. The only illusion apparent is his own. As for "taking on atheism", I don't get any sense that he has ever actually paid attention to any atheists. He clearly has no idea what our objections to the God concept actually are let alone thought about them for ven a matter of a few minutes.