Essay

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I wrote this back in January, and was going over some bookmarks, and recalled it.  Thought some might enjoy it.

---------------

Jan 19, 2011

A christian and an atheist are both riding a train, when in a horrific accident, the car is derailed, killing them both.

Oddly enough, they were the only two fatalities.

Even more oddly, the christian was partly right, and not only is there a god, but there appears to be an afterlife, too.

But both were surprised at what it turned out to be like.

A simple room, tastefully decorated with comfy chairs and couches around the room, with current magazines on the end tables, covering a wide range of reading material.

But oddly, no bibles, no quorans, no book of mormon. In fact? No "holy" books of any sort in the room.

There was one door at the end, closed.

Both men looked about, and at first a bit nervous, sat down to wait.

Neither felt the least bit uncomfortable, hungry, thirsty or in the slightest discomfort; both were wearing the clothes they died in, only without any tears, or blemishes.

After a time, an older gentleman came into the room, and sat down at the desk, near the door. The desk faced the rest of the room, where the couches and other stuff were.

Both men jumped to their feet expectantly.

Older man: "I have just a few questions, and we can get you both all sorted out."

The christian then immediately fell to his knees in an attitude of slave-like obescience. The atheist remained standing, and looked a bit sorry for the christian's obvious groveling.

Older man, to the christian: "Now, now, there's no need for any of that. It is unbecoming for a sentient being to grovel like that. Stand up man. Are you not self-aware?"

Whereupon the christian sheepishly gets to his feet, looking somewhat abashed. "sorry" he mumbles.

Older man: "No harm done, really. Now on to the questions."

Both the other men responded with "okay"

Older man: "Question one. Is there a god?"

Christian--butting in before the question was finished, "Certainly!" and grinned like an idiot.

Atheist, after a pause, "Probably not, although I must admit the odds are looking a bit better than I'd previously thought."

Older man, looking to each: "Good."

Older man: "Next question. Is there an afterlife."

Christian--again, butting in before the question was finished, "Certainly!" still grinning like an idiot.

Atheist, "well, it certainly appears that something like that is going on, doesn't it?"

Older man: "maybe. Next question. Is the bible a valid source of information?"

Ever the buttinsky, the christian once more spouts "Absolutely! One-hundred-percent flawless, perfect in every way!" And stands there with this big stupid grin on his face.

Older man, now turns to the christian: "Really. What makes you say that?"

Christian, somewhat taken aback at the older man's less than jovial attitude, "well, the Bible itself says so!"

Older man, "does it, now. Do you not find that strange?"

Christian, "what do you mean,'strange'?"

Older man, "do you not find it odd, that the only place in your world, that claims the bible is accurate, is the bible itself? And there is nothing corroborating that claim, in any way?"

Christian, "Well! There are miracles! Real miracles!"

Older man, "Really? Did you witness these, yourself?"

Christian, now confused, "Well, no... but my sister's cousin's aunt said >she< did."

Older man makes a note in his papers, in front of him. "Indeed" he says, and turns to the atheist who had remained quiet through all this. "What do you think?"

Atheist, "me? I've never witnessed any miracles, if that's your question. And although I've read the bible several times myself, I always found it to be a highly ambiguous set of conflicting ideas."

Christian interrupting, "It is not! You just don't understand it!"

Older man, to christian, "Now, now, let him speak-- you've given your opinion already."

Atheist, "What I meant, is that the bible seems to say one thing in one section, then take it back in another, then in still another, it says things that go against either of the first two. It seems too confused to have been written by a divine being. At least, not by one with any intelligence."

Older man, "I see. So you think that a book written by a real god, would be, what?"

Atheist, "I would expect a real god to use plain and clear language, not the confused mess that constitutes the Bible. I mean, what is more plain than 'try not to kill anyone today'? Why couldn't the bible simply have said that?"

Older man, "If you recall, it did strongly imply that very message, among many other things, of course."

Atheist, "Well, true, but why permit all the unnecessary junk? It just clouds the issue of it's divine origins."

Older man, "So you think that the evidence for the existence of god was less than convincing?"

Atheist, "Yes, exactly that: the reasons to believe in a god are simply not there. And look at the description of the Bible's god: jealous, revengeful, delighting at burnt offerings, needing blood before forgiving, torturing people in hell. That god is not worthy to be a god."

Older man, "Okay. What about other non-biblical reasons to believe in a god? Do you think there are any others?"

Atheist, "Not really. At one time, when humans were ignorant about things, like lightning, belief in gods and such may have helped then cope with the stress of simply living. But this is the 21st century, and we know what causes lightning-- in fact? We know how to avoid it; it's as if we've tamed it. But no, I see no real reason to believe in a god, in the universe at large."

Older man, "So you are certain there is none, then?"

Atheist, "Certain? Hardly-- this very room I'm in makes me pause, but certain? No. Good enough to live my life as if there were none? Yeah-- I just tried to be the best human I knew how. What else can be asked of a mortal, anyway?"

Older man, "What else, indeed. Okay. The questioning is over. You are both wrong, and you are both right. There is a god, but he is an incredibly rational and logical being, and does not suffer fools lightly. The bible is an intelligence test, deliberately created to be irrational and illogical. Anyone who believes it's real, is deemed unworthy, and will be sent back to earth, to try again."

"By the same token, the evidence against >all< deities, anywhere is unambiguous. Anyone who is certain that there are no gods or god-like beings, anywhere, anywhen? Are also deemed unworthy, and will be sent back to earth, to try again."

"The real test of rationality, is this: in the absence of information and hard facts, re: god? The only logical and rational conclusion you can make, is to not make any conclusion at all."

Older man, to the christian: "You have failed. You will be sent back, to try again."

Older man, to the atheist: "you passed. You may go through the door, and meet with god, who will be interested to see what you think of his latest project. Good job."

[Griffin NoName]

An enjoyable read. Kept me guessing!

[pieces o nine]

I enjoyed that, Bob.  Thanks for posting it.   

[Aggie]

Interesting take, an atheist creating God by superlating his own attributes and resulting in an all-powerful, all-knowing guy in the sky who has planted false evidence to test our faith rationality.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My mom claims that she had experienced miracles herself, that she has been healed, and so on. Considering that I have no access to her medical records it's hard for me to validate if a strong placebo effect took place or not, or the seriousness of the condition in remission, but she is convinced that god healed her, and that is proof enough for her. IMO the definition of a miracle is on it's reading (as a miracle). Same applies to serendipity and synchronicity which can be read as divine intervention (and we all have heard those stories or even experienced them ourselves).

It's hard to appeal to rationality when by all accounts we are more emotional than rational.

[Opsa]

That was fun to read, but I wondered if an atheist would say a line like "That god is not worthy to be a god." If he doesn't believe in a god, why would he judge what's worthy of a god?

[Aggie]

That's a fairly standard atheist/agnostic line of thinking in the broad strokes (I've leaned on the similar assertion that "a god who would condemn to hell someone who does their human best to live a good life is not worthy of worship" in the past).  There's a significant slice of the atheist population who IMHO rejects the Abrahamic god largely on the descriptions portrayed in the Bible (summarized nicely in that passage of the essay).   Since those descriptions do not pass the sniff test on what a logically satisfying God should be, it becomes easy to reject the whole idea.  

Of course, one could alternatively conclude that the descriptions are merely personal accounts of an individual's understanding of God, passed down through the ages via several languages in oral traditions and hand-copied manuscripts, subject to embellishment, narrative overlays, mis-translation and politically-motivated tampering by humanity, and therefore not suitable for drawing conclusions on the nature of the Divine without some serious personal study to re-interpret the underlying significance to one's own time, place and circumstances (and reference to other sources).  This approach does not seem to have broad appeal, alas*.


_{*that being said, it would not surprise me to learn that the proportion of atheists who do in-depth personal investigation is equal or greater than the proportion of Christians who do.  I've met both (seeker-atheists and liberal Christians).  Atheists often know the Bible better than believers.    The rabbinical tradition is reputedly a little more focused on this sort of thing, but I am ignorant of whether that extends to fundamentalist Jews or to the average Jewish layperson.}

[Griffin NoName]

............There's a significant slice of the atheist population who IMHO rejects the Abrahamic god largely on the descriptions portrayed in the Bible (summarized nicely in that passage of the essay).  

I've just watched a programme on how the bible hides an existing polythistic belief system in its selling of the monotheist culture. Apparently the clues are there that the Israelites did no believe in only one G-d. Furthermore they claim there is evidence for His having a wife too, and therefore the selling of monotheism caused the downgrading of women.

_{*that being said, it would not surprise me to learn that the proportion of atheists who do in-depth personal investigation is equal or greater than the proportion of Christians who do.  I've met both (seeker-atheists and liberal Christians).  Atheists often know the Bible better than believers.    The rabbinical tradition is reputedly a little more focused on this sort of thing, but I am ignorant of whether that extends to fundamentalist Jews or to the average Jewish layperson.}

Truly Orthodox Jewish communities take the view that life is for studying the bible* (apart from procreating). The community supports the males in order for them to devte their time to that.

*_{actually the Torah etc etc}

[Aggie]

I've just watched a programme on how the bible hides an existing polythistic belief system in its selling of the monotheist culture. Apparently the clues are there that the Israelites did no believe in only one G-d. Furthermore they claim there is evidence for His having a wife too, and therefore the selling of monotheism caused the downgrading of women.

IMHO it's not at all hidden in the Old Testament, as there is much reference to not worshipping other gods, of smashing other tribe's idols, destroying x, y or z because they were followers of god X, Y or Z, etc.  The presumption is that these are all weak or false gods, and that OURS is the real deal, which spins easily into a completely monotheistic viewpoint. 

_{I have this very odd impression from those writings that there were actually some sort of beings possessing advanced technology communicating with tribes in the area; G_d seems rather person-like (for good and ill) and directly demonstrative.  IMHO it wouldn't take technology much beyond what we currently possess to pull off the required special effects; extra-terrestrial beings or human time travellers (hypothetically speaking) would probably be able to manage it.  Why they'd be squabbling by proxy using the local tribespeople is beyond me. I don't see this throughout the Bible, mostly just in Moses's time.  I'm also not making a serious proposal here, just reporting some subjective impressions.}

The Qu'ran doesn't pussyfoot around it at all, and makes a direct rejection of the local brand of polytheism present at the time (and IMHO veiled sideswipes at the Trinity, although I'm ignorant of whether this was a widespread belief in the contemporary Christian community). A careful emphasis on and praise of Jesus's prophethood (as opposed to Godhood) is also made.

[Griffin NoName]

IMHO it's not at all hidden in the Old Testament, as there is much reference to not worshipping other gods, of smashing other tribe's idols, destroying x, y or z because they were followers of god X, Y or Z, etc.  The presumption is that these are all weak or false gods, and that OURS is the real deal, which spins easily into a completely monotheistic viewpoint.  

Possibly slightly at cross purposes here. The points made in the programme were to support the idea that the Israelites (ie. the jews) themselves were polytheistic and not monotheistic as purported by the commonly accepted reading of the bible.

_{I have this very odd impression from those writings that there were actually some sort of beings possessing advanced technology communicating with tribes in the area; G_d seems rather person-like (for good and ill) and directly demonstrative.  IMHO it wouldn't take technology much beyond what we currently possess to pull off the required special effects; extra-terrestrial beings or human time travellers (hypothetically speaking) would probably be able to manage it.}

Yes. Also some stuff can now be explained as mundane rather than miracles. Like the oil that lasted 8 days - though I cannot remember the explanation. Certainly lots of rain may not be due to dancing.

Why they'd be squabbling by proxy using the local tribespeople is beyond me. I don't see this throughout the Bible, mostly just in Moses's time.  I'm also not making a serious proposal here, just reporting some subjective impressions.[/sub]

I think squabbling in the council of g-ds would be frowned on so it got farmed out. Moses was the recipient of the "Hey there's only one G-d, me, I am it, worship me only, ten commandments" stuff whereby the promised land became the Israelites if they towed the line so it makes sense that his time would reflect the squabbles. I suppose the bible was the propoganda. what puzzles me is why it caught on, if the Israelites went on as monotheist after being given the promised land, what made them change? What are the advantages of only one G-d ? It's easier to manage I suppose, not having to constantly prey to hordes of them. More convenient.

The Qu'ran doesn't pussyfoot around it at all, and makes a direct rejection of the local brand of polytheism present at the time (and IMHO veiled sideswipes at the Trinity, although I'm ignorant of whether this was a widespread belief in the contemporary Christian community). A careful emphasis on and praise of Jesus's prophethood (as opposed to Godhood) is also made.

Yes, it's the jews and christians that are at stake here. The muslims don't seem to have got drawn in. I don't understand how the one god theory caught on so effectively. I have a personal belief that all those other gods, who were lesser gods reporting to the chief god (ie.a council of gods) must have themselves been created by the One G-d and therefore really there was a single god with multiple personality disorder. Could that explain it?

[Aggie]

Possibly slightly at cross purposes here. The points made in the programme were to support the idea that the Israelites (ie. the jews) themselves were polytheistic and not monotheistic as purported by the commonly accepted reading of the bible.

If you look at the Golden Calf kerfuffle, it's fairly easy to read between the lines and see that they were used to/open to worshiping other gods.  I seem to recall also that G_d has to specify that he's the god of Abraham and not some other lout.   Kind of implies that other gods were about.  I would think that the other tribes mentioned were probably somewhat related and inter-married around the edges (I seem to remember something about not worshipping your wife's god, if it wasn't YHWH), so you probably have some crossover here and there. Of course, this is some of that putting thought into the Bible stuff.  It otherwise spins quite nicely into Always Monotheistic, because everybody decent in the book worships that same G_d.  

Yes, it's the jews and christians that are at stake here. The muslims don't seem to have got drawn in. I don't understand how the one god theory caught on so effectively. I have a personal belief that all those other gods, who were lesser gods reporting to the chief god (ie.a council of gods) must have themselves been created by the One G-d and therefore really there was a single god with multiple personality disorder. Could that explain it?

Ask the Hindus, I think that sounds about right. All a manifestation of the same attributeless god.  Material reality's a good enough apparition of God for me, personally, but it gets around the question of whose God is the best.  All the same God, just different faces.

[Swatopluk]

In the Hebrew original the holy ghost (Ruakh Jahweh)of the first verses of the OT is female and does not levitate but flutters (implying physical wings).
The Greek NT neutered the holy ghost (to pneuma) and the Latin Bible deliberately chose* the male form (spiritus).

There is a shift within the OT from Jahweh being just one god among others (each tribe/people has its own god or gods) over being the strongest god to being the only real 'god' (among mere demonic beings). It can be debated, whether the OT apart from the stories of creation** really makes the full step to make even the demons creations of Jahweh.
One problem the Hebrew priesthood always had was the attractivity of the other cults who used sacred prostitution. Sunday school usually skips the end of the story of Bileam and his ass. After failing to curse the Hebrew people he did not go home unpaid but counseled the king to lure the Hebrew men away through the uses of cult prostitutes. This turned out so be so successful that Josuah had to send in loyal troops with a 'no prisoners' order. Bileam and his counsel/teaching is mentioned several times later in the OT and even the NT as a prime negative example (of people being lured away from the true faith through (sexual) bait).

*iirc the topic was discussed by some of the Fathers of the Church.
**probably produced during the Babylonian captivity when the Hebrew people needed something to distinguish them form their masters in order not to lose their identity in the melting pot Babylon was.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... and the Latin Bible deliberately chose* the male form (spiritus).

Had to.  To make the complete myth-story of the "virgin" thing work?  One of the god's had to have had a godly pen1s to impregnate the underage teen girl in a bit of godly fornication/adultery.

I've had this particular discussion with the extreme literalists before:  most agree that it was the holy spook that did the deed with the underage Mary.

I also pointed out that in her strictly patriarchal society?  She did not have the right to give permission to anyone to have had sex with her-- that was strictly her father's right, and after marriage, her husband's.

This was in answer to the claims that Mary gave the holy haunt permission to proceed; when in fact, that is the reverse of events-- Mary had already experienced being impregnated by a god, and the angels simply informed her of what happened.  

Since she was merely a mortal girl-child?  What could she do, but acquiesce to the inevitable.   Women had no power over their own bodies in her ancient society; women were simply property-- firstly of her father, then later of her husband.

Which is why widows were such a problem for them-- since they could not own anything, widows without living sons literally had nothing on which to live, unless other relatives fed, housed and clothed them.

Which also explains the old testament rules regarding widows of brothers in law:  if a woman's husband dies, and she has not had a son yet?  The rules state that the brother of the dead guy should get the widow with child, which will be, by way of  a convenient legal fiction, the son of the dead guy, who can inherit the property of the dead guy for his mother's sake.

Which also explains that verse where the guy refuses to have sex with the woman, but spills his sperm on the ground instead (withdrawing), and is later killed by bible-god.  Has nothing to do with m~sturb~ti~n at all, but everything to do with cultural responsibility to his brother's widow.  The guy did not want a son of his own, to be born as if he was his brother's get, as the rules would stipulate.  He was guilty of being selfish-- punishable by death, of course.

Death being the favorite method of bible-rule enforcement, naturally.

...........

I always wondered about that myself:  Thou Shalt Not Kill is plain enough-- don't kill each other.

But immediately after that verse, is a whole list of verses commanding people to kill each other for the most trivial of things (and some not so trivial).  

Clearly "thou shalt not kill" was highly conditional on the circumstances!  Many of which are so nebulous, that it would be quite simple to set someone up if you wanted to get them dead.

One wonders how the Israelites managed to survive at all... with so many excuses to murder each other written into their most holy book

I suppose Lewis Black explained it best:  "What we Jews are best at, is bullsh!t".  

On the third paw?   With so many easy routes to killing each other within the law?  You either learn how >not< to kill and how to get along-- or you are dead.

Hmmm.... a little too draconian for my taste, but that system does has a kind of merit to it:  learn to get along with your neighbor and his relatives, or he will kill your ~ss...

<snerk>

[Aggie]

Back then, lots of people used to get dead for lots of reasons, so I'm inclined to think that there needed to be heavy rules against murdering out of anger, but I would suspect there was a lower impact to a ritually-specified killing.

The overdone attitude of horror towards death these days is natural given the our emphasis on the individual, and modern medicine's removal of death-by-disease as a common part of life (particularly for children). This wasn't the case, until quite recently in human history. 

In nomadic tribes, prison was not an option.  Taken in a modern context, one could perhaps suggest exile as being more humane than a death sentence; at the time, being sent out from your tribe into the desert with no livestock would be very much a death sentence (either from starvation/thirst, animals or other tribes).  The options for punishment would have been limited - social shunning for minor crimes perhaps, or forfeit of property, but beyond that it'd be a beating or killing.  "Eye for an eye" could be looked at as a reasonably just and effective way of dissuading bad behaviour in a situation where you don't have much to lose except your eyes.  Utterly barbaric by today's standards, yes, but perhaps not totally inappropriate given the circumstances.  Of course, taking these kind of punishments out of their historical context and promoting them today just because they're written down in an old book is ridiculous.  Damned near every rule for living was (supposedly) dictated by God at the time.  Got mold problems in your house?  Don't you dare use modern methods, the correct method is specified by God in Leviticus 14:33-53.