"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge... is the only guardian of true liberty."
James Madison

Which Jesus is More Absurd

David Henson doesn't seem to be offended by the recent Saturday Night Live sketch that lampoons Tarantino's tendency to resort to over-the-top violence by making a Tarantino Jesus film in which the "Good Shepherd" goes on a blood thirsty rampage. I feel I should give him credit for at least seeing the humor in it. However, his piece on Patheos, "DJesus Uncrossed: Tarantino, Driscoll and the Violent Remaking of Jesus in America", makes it pretty clear that he is just as delusional about Jesus as any other theist.

He seems to think there is only one Jesus in scripture and that he is the hippy-like version that so many prefer. I admit that if people are going to follow "Jesus" I prefer they follow the peaceful variation. With that said, there are multiple versions of the Jesus persona in the scriptures and not all of them are that nice. There are passages where Jesus commands his followers to do some pretty horrendous things including committing mass murder (Luke 19:27).

Buddhism and the God Concept

Even though Justin Whitaker seems to have reached some similar conclusions about Buddhism he also seems to have fallen prey to a number of misconceptions and stereotypes. The very title of his post poses the question "Would a Buddhist Affirm that belief in God is a Delusion?", apparently as a rhetorical device. Part of his conclusion and the reason a number of other American Buddhists agree that God is a delusion is premised on a variety of logical errors and misattributions.

He starts by pointing out that, "I have come across several reasons to think of God as a delusion. The first is the fact that believers in God seem very confused about God, or, at least, consistently unable to agree about what He (or, for fun, she) is like or wants humanity to do." So what? If this is one of the standards to judge something delusional then we are all delusion about a vast number of things. We all lack understanding and consensus on numerous topics.

Whitaker is both a Buddhist and an atheist. He sees no contradiction and since there is nothing indicating his views on such metaphysical Buddhist concepts as dharma and nirvana I see not direct contradictions, either. That said, he does not seem to grasp that there is more than one version of the God concept. He goes on to mention, "Buddhism might best be described as non-theistic in the Western sense, as it has no creator God. The Gods (devas) of Brahmanism (proto-Hinduism) do find their way into early Buddhism and have remained there ever since." While it is true that Buddhism does not officially recognize a personal God many of its beliefs are dependent on various supernatural elements that fit easily into more abstract ways of viexing God. If you didn't pick up on those few sentences do contain a contradiction. Traditional Buddhism does have a creator God, albeit in a round about way, in Brahma. Hinduism is not as polytheistic as many assume. All the Hindu gods are believed to be incarnation. They trace back to three gods and then those three are in turn seen as incarnations of Brahma.

Basically, Buddhism can be perceived as "non-theistic" or even "atheistic" from only the most narrow interpretation possible. As I have previously noted ("How Atheistic is Buddhism?" December 31, 2011), Buddhism is just as prone to supernatural/metaphysical nonsense as any other faith. That Whitaker and a decent portion of American Buddhists are themselves non-theists or atheists does not necessarily mean that the religion is itself amenable to disbelief in the God concept. I would have no problem with that being the case but it is not an accurate evaluation.

*"It's such an easy one, that one; it gets you out of all sorts of holes. In fact that leads on to this rather interesting thought. If you invoke the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being, the standard idea of God, absolutely anything follows, and correlatively nothing counts as counter-evidence against the existence of a God. We're all familiar with Karl Popper's dictum that if a theory or claim purports to explain everyhting, and nothing counts as inconsistent with the claim, then it's empty: it explains nothing and does no work."
*Responding to a popular theistic dodge, "God moves in mysterious ways."
A.C. Grayling
"A.C. Grayling on Atheism"
Philosophy Bites: 25 Philosophers on 25 Intriguing Subjects

Atheists Are Not the Closed-Minded Ones

A recent post by Bob Seidensticker, "Atheists: What Would It Take to Change Your Mind?", is well worth reading but I do feel compelled to point out that there really isn't much in it that should surprise an atheist, or non-theist. I also consider the questions he poses at the end to now be foregone conclusions. Theologians and apologists have been making bogus claims about atheists being closed-minded and issuing disingenuous challenges over "proof" for centuries. We have always, as a whole, answered back without their ever attempting to meet their own standards or challenges. So, the notion that we need to routinely answer such charges is a matter of double standards and hypocrisy on their part. Personally, I have no problem with reiterating what is acceptable as proof and certainly have no problem with re-assessing what I believe and why. I think we should all do precisely that.

I have actually written a few posts on what I would consider decent proof for the existence of God.
"Proof of God: Scenario1" (February 25, 2012)
"Proof of God: Scenario 2" (March 12, 2012)
"Proof of God: Scenario 3" (March 24, 2012)

And, of course, a number of atheists far more eloquent than I have also written on this topic. Off the top of my head I recall reading similar things from Greta Christina and Richard Dawkins.