Misericordia University atheism presentation transcript

Earlier today, I delivered a speech concerning atheism and the question ‘does God exist?’ to students studying intercultural communications at Misericordia University in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Below is a transcript of my talk. As always, feel free to leave comments below.

Thanks for having me today. I’m here to talk about atheism and my thoughts concerning the question ‘Does God exist?’ Individual topics I’ll mention in my presentation could be entire speeches on their own – I won’t give an exhaustive treatment to all of my sub-topics, but instead will give a brief overview of several items I am interested in discussing. I’ll take questions and explain more in the question and answer session following my presentation.

First, I’d like to tell you relevant information about myself as it relates to my presentation. I was raised in a religious Roman Catholic household and attended religious C.C.D (Catholic Childhood Development) classes from kindergarten through high school in addition to my public school education. I went to church quite regularly with my father and received Roman Catholic sacraments from baptism to confirmation.

I don’t recall questioning the religious belief I was raised with until later years of high school when I was challenged by some friends and eventually during my undergraduate education at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre. Philosophy classes and presentations I attended led me to deeply question my religious beliefs and ask myself whether there was good reason to maintain my religious beliefs. College was a great opportunity to question my own beliefs, even those outside of religion, as I was exposed to many new ideas and encouraged to think critically. Attending a Catholic college, too, allowed for many discussions about religious belief as there were Bible discussion groups, religious speakers, and a campus ministry office which held several events I attended.

Eventually, as you might guess, I found that the answer to ‘are my religious beliefs justified?’ was ‘no’ and declared myself an atheist – not only keeping this a private matter, but rather going public by joining and becoming an active member of a community organization I would later become the spokesperson and organizer of – the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society – having conversations about religion, actively writing on a blog, hosting a podcast, participating in public debates/discussions, and challenging several instances of government entanglement with religion.

I first came into the public spotlight when I challenged a nativity scene prominently placed on the lawn of the Luzerne County Courthouse in 2009 arguing for a more inclusive display and less focus on religion in government. I protested a school voucher rally in Harrisburg and was rebuked by a government official told to go back to my “community of privilege.” I worked alongside an organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group whose focus is opposing violations of separation of church and state and educating the public about non-theism, to get ‘God Bless America’ removed from Lackawanna County buses. I participated in a lawsuit to overturn legislation declaring 2012 ‘The Year of the Bible’ in Pennsylvania. I placed several banners, also with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in response to religious events and symbols on government property. I protested rallies and events including a National Day of Prayer rally calling for more government involvement with religion. I challenged prayer at Wilkes-Barre city council meetings and offered a secular invocation of my own.

As one atheist, I can’t claim to speak for everyone – I can only speak about my personal perspective. Knowing that a person is an atheist tells you only one thing about that person – that he or she lacks a belief in any gods – this is no guarantee of critical thinking skills or anything else like political affiliation, stance on particular social/political issues, or philosophical positions. The atheist, or most atheists according to my experience, does not say for certain that no gods exist or even make a positive claim that no gods exist, but rather just simply doesn’t believe any gods exist – likely because they don’t find good reason to believe. Maybe an atheist was raised in a non-religious household and wasn’t brought into religious belief by their caretakers or people in their community, but many atheists, like me, have a religious background.

The atheist has simply not been persuaded by arguments and reasons for religious belief provided by religious individuals. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most well-known public atheists today, puts himself as a six of seven on his seven point scale of religious belief in which seven is absolute certainty that god does not exist – very low probability but short of zero. What, though, do atheists believe?

Personally, one of my main motivations in life, how I find meaning in life (I’ll get to more about this later), is pursuing knowledge and learning through study, conversation, and challenging myself. I enjoy facing challenges, overcoming adversity, finding answers to questions, thinking about complicated topics, and learning new information. I’m curious – I ask questions, challenge information that is often taken for granted, and examine that which I’m confused about. I’m interested in discussion about all kinds of issues.

From my experience, there seems to be a lack of thoughtful discussion about matters of religious belief in our society. People perhaps avoid conversation because they want to preserve harmony or what some call ‘respect beliefs.’ Some view disagreement as disrespect. Some even think that disagreeing with people’s religious belief in whatever manner or even providing counter-arguments to religious belief is intolerant. Perhaps because people closely identify with their religious beliefs and cherish their religious traditions, they view people who openly question religion in a negative light and view such challenges as disrespectful – confusing questioning ideas or challenging ideas with attacks on a person.

I believe that people should be concerned with holding belief that is both true (corresponding with reality) and justified (having good reason/argument). The Bible even, in some points, specifically in 1 Peter 3:15, instructs people to, if asked, give “the reason for the belief in your heart” to “prepare a defense and do so with gentleness and respect.” As an atheist, I am very much in favor of this attitude. Discussions and disagreement can and should be had in a respectful manner – discussing ideas vigorously rather than attacking people. In challenging our beliefs, especially our cherished beliefs, we can only learn and progress. If it is the case that arguments can serve to lead us away from particular beliefs, we are better for that – for having beliefs which are justified and true should be a primary concern in our intellectual lives and much more important than possible temporary discomfort.

Some think there is no such thing as truth, truth varies from person to person, or that holding truth is impossible. Some believe that it is just fine to believe something because a belief makes one feel good, because a belief is held by many people, because a belief is handed down through a respected tradition, or even solely because of faith – steadfast belief without evidence, sometimes contrary to evidence. I believe that we, even though we may be limited with our current state of limited knowledge, can talk about truth and collectively work toward reaching it.

A misconception atheists face is that we are closed-minded – unwilling to change beliefs and unwilling to engage with arguments from religious believers. I am willing to change any and all of my beliefs provided good enough reason and argument is presented. I seek to find lapses in my own reasoning and reasoning presented by others should something seem suspicious. If a convincing argument for any gods or the Christian god comes forth, I will be better for encountering that because I will have more justified true beliefs and fewer false unjustified beliefs.

Even if we happen to not change our minds on issues, we’re also, I would think, generally better off for encountering people with whom we disagree provided something is learned. Justified true beliefs, after all, should be able to withstand objections.

Sometimes religious believers, rather than giving reasons for belief in god, say that it’s just simply wiser to believe God exists because the risk of not believing is just too big (punishment in Hell for eternity or separation from God for eternity) while the believer has nothing to lose through believing God exists and everything to gain. This formulation is better known as Pascal’s Wager. Believing something is true, though, shouldn’t be based on rewards and consequences of belief – that doesn’t seem at all genuine to me and certainly isn’t based on good reasoning. Wouldn’t God know if people believed just because they didn’t want to go to Hell? Should this sort of belief be rewarded or even desirable? I think not. Anyway, why privilege the Christian god? What about thousands of other gods and religious traditions? Surely the Christian, for instance, isn’t worried about the consequences of disbelief in regards to other proposed gods.

Why be so public about my atheism and openly challenge religious beliefs? Am I strident or militant for doing so as some perceive? We cannot doubt that our beliefs inform our actions and some of our actions have the ability to harm others – we live in societies in which our actions can have impact on others. Of course not all religious beliefs or beliefs derived from religion are harmful, but many can be.

Religious belief leads parents to refuse medical treatment for their children leading children to die rather than receive simple vaccinations or medicines. Religious belief inspires a great deal of divisiveness leading to violence, shunning, and discrimination. Atheists fear that going public about their thoughts on religion — especially in highly religious areas like the American South, the Bible belt — may lead to job termination, financial distress, political suicide in that people would not vote for an atheist, and suspicion.

Religious people, too, will not trust individuals of a different religious worldview and even isolate themselves from entire communities of other religious people. Some religious people believe, for instance, that atheists lack morality or otherwise have no reason to be good people – likely because these religious individuals think that morality comes from religion and without religion people are simply without a moral compass.

Thinking about complicated moral questions often seems difficult. Should we focus on the needs and wants of society at large rather than needs and wants of specific groups of people? Should we focus primarily on the consequences of implementing certain actions or policies rather than the process – do the ends justify the means? Should morality be something of universal consideration or should certain practices vary from culture to culture?

Although we can face difficulty in considering ethical dilemmas or determining right and wrong, I think most people – even though, of course, there are people who take advantage of others or break just laws – have a general sense of right and wrong which is a product of cultural influence, self-reflection, and an understanding that other humans have similar wants and needs. After all, we humans are social animals – beings that work together in social situations, cooperate in a larger society, and benefit from interaction with others. Through cooperation, rather than violence and war, we realize that by working together we can improve ourselves, the world around us, and make a lasting impact.

Why, as an atheist, should I be a good, ethical person treating others with kindness and respect? I would imagine that religious individuals would provide similar answers although there may be some differences in opinion about the source of morality. Perhaps we want to treat others with kindness and respect because this is the way we want others to treat us – we want to model the behavior we want to see in others. Perhaps we take personal pleasure in treating others well and would be wracked with guilt, rightly so, should we treat others poorly – a blend of a self-interested motivation and a yearning to treat others well. Perhaps we feel an inner obligation to help others because we have the resources and time to do so.

Personally, I tend to lean toward what is referred to as virtue ethics – an ethical framework by which we aspire to make decisions and live our lives based on certain values we hold dear rather than referring to duties or rules. Act how the virtuous person would act in a situation says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in its article on virtue ethics. Virtues such as tolerance, compassion, humility, fairness, kindness, loyalty, moderation, and many others guide by day-to-day life.

Indeed, there is some good within religion. Religion can provide some good ideas about morality, advice about how to live life, and even good social networks and community services. People are often inspired by religious beliefs to do good in the world. However, all of the good that comes from religion, I would maintain, can be had without religion. Religion, too, as I mentioned, can warp moral priorities and lead to harm.

Another misconception about atheists is that they are uninspired individuals who find no meaning in life. This misconception likely comes from the religious conclusion that without God, life is pointless because the purpose of life on earth is to serve god and fulfill some divine, externally imposed will. While it might be the case that some atheists maintain that life itself or the world itself is without meaning, many atheists, find meaning in life through a process of self-creation – determining what in this life makes it worth living – what motivates, what leads one to wake up in the morning, what breaks the monotony of the usual day-to-day grind, what is a valuable use of time, and what is worth our efforts.

For the atheist, finding meaning in life comes with a great deal of freedom. Although some – both religious and non-religious – may encounter pressure from society-at-large and from specific individuals about what is meaningful or which goals should be pursued, individuals can ultimately decide for themselves how they can find meaning in life and what they should strive for. Rather than saying meaning is simply what God or a religious tradition declares or desires, the atheist can determine his or her own meaning and live life accordingly.

A common question I get is ‘What if you’re wrong about God? What if you die and go to Heaven to see God only to be denied eternal paradise. What would you say?’ I would respond similarly to the philosopher Bertrand Russell and say, “Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence.” Should I be punished for eternity or denied an eternal paradise simply because I lacked belief in a god, using the brain that I was born with to arrive at a conclusion that I found no good reason to hold religious belief? Could an all-loving being really punish someone for being thoughtful and honest? I just haven’t found good reasons to believe God exists.

With that, I’d like to move on to a new topic that I was asked to address – the question of ‘Does God exist?’ As I mentioned, an atheist is simply one who lacks belief in any gods. I am an atheist because I find no good reason to believe any gods exist. I have not been persuaded by arguments put forth by religious believers. In fact, I find the arguments to be severely lacking – many of them not even pointing to a specific god or leading one to a specific religious tradition. It is a wide gap, for instance, between the assertion that the universe was created by a supernatural being to Jesus died on the cross for our sins; God disapproves of same-sex marriage; and God is both the father, son, and holy spirit who is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being who is a disembodied mind outside of space and time who created the universe just for us.

I find that many reasons people give for believing in gods are based on a lack of understanding about the world – that people often, rather than simply saying ‘I do not know,’ jump from ‘this seems complex and I do not understand it’ to ‘God must be responsible’ – what philosopher Dr. David Kyle Johnson calls the ‘mystery therefore magic’ fallacy. Indeed, there are many things about this world we do not fully understand.

Just because we don’t understand something or have an answer to why or how something works does not mean that we should jump to the conclusion that God exists. After all, throughout human history, there were many phenomena we did not understand including earthquakes, diseases, lightning, and mental illnesses. While there are still gaps in our understanding, we now understand much more about the world than we did in past generations – we no longer believe that earthquakes, for instance, are punishments from God. We have understanding about tectonic plates and can predict when earthquakes are likely to occur through using machines and making observations – there is simply no need to invoke god to explain this.

Perhaps in time we will know much more about phenomena which currently puzzle us such as the nature of consciousness, the origin of the universe, and quantum events and later have answers to questions which currently lead some to believe God exists. As human knowledge increases, though, it seems that gods are often only present in the gaps of understanding; over time explanations involving god fall by the wayside. Rather than assuming God is responsible in the gaps of our knowledge, I find the more fitting explanation to be ‘I don’t know.’ Simply because one has no explanation for something does not mean that one is justified in believing God exists.

Concerning the creation or existence of the universe, religious individuals argue that since everything we know exists has a cause, the universe itself must have a cause. This line of argumentation usually appears in cosmological arguments or arguments from contingency. They say that this cause must be an uncaused cause – a personal god outside of time and space lest there be an infinite chain of causation which religious individuals would also argue is impossible. Religious individuals will point to buildings, human inventions, and much more to give examples of that which we know has and needs a cause.

The problem with this reasoning, though, is that while we have experience with buildings having builders and can understand the process by which buildings are built, we don’t have experience with the process of the universe beginning to exist or coming into existence. We can’t justly reason from one area of life in which we have experience and understand to another area of life in which we don’t have experience and don’t understand. Perhaps the principles we apply to our everyday lives here on earth simply don’t apply to the realms of the really, really large – universes and the really, really small – quantum events.

Perhaps the universe itself doesn’t have a cause in the same way we see a building needing a cause or explanation for its existence. Personally, if asked questions about the universe and areas in which I don’t understand, I’ll say ‘I don’t know’ rather than assuming a god caused the universe to exist. Either way, even if the universe has a cause or was created, I don’t find this to point to any specific god or creator.

Some religious believers will pose what they call fine-tuning arguments pointing to certain constants in the universe such as gravity, expansion of the universe, and electromagnetic forces arguing that if certain rates or constants were changed ever so slightly life as we know it would not exist. Such fine-tuning, they say, points to intelligent design and more precisely a creator god. This argument, though, fails to properly account for randomness and understand probability. Sure, one particular assortment of particles in the universe that allows for life to exist is extraordinarily rare considering all possible configurations. However, given enough time and chances of situations which can be life-permitting, life existing somewhere in the universe at some time – given how big the universe is – doesn’t seem so rare at all.

It’s possible too that life can exist in other states than that which we intimately know. Surely our carbon-based life and physical constants here on this side of this galaxy can’t be the only possible life-permitting configuration. How can we possibly definitively say it’s the only possible one? Chance, rather than God, is a better explanation for why the universe is the way it is. Another problem with the fine-tuning argument, too, like cosmological and contingency arguments, is that it doesn’t lead to a specific creator. It’s a big jump from ‘the universe is finely tuned for existence’ to ‘The Christian god is responsible.’

Next, some religious individuals will appeal to religious experiences as a means to justify their religious belief – because some seemingly extraordinary circumstances happened in their lives they believe God exists. For instance, a mother may say that her son was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was given six months to live, but because her son lived past the six months God must have intervened and performed a miracle. Maybe a person attributes divine intervention to her recovery from alcohol or drug abuse. Maybe a person claims to have received a vision in which God appeared and offered some advice.

One problem with such stories about religious experiences is that people around the world of different religious traditions tell similar stories yet come to different conclusions about religious beliefs. The Christian and the Hindu, of course, can’t both be right in that Jesus and Shiva intervened to save them from death, but they could both be wrong. Additionally, religious experiences can very often be better explained by other means which do not include supernatural explanations. Diseases go into remission. Doctors can be mistaken about diagnoses. People recover from drug abuse through a good deal of personal effort, changing behaviors, counseling, and social support. Even if we lack an explanation, as I explained previously, we should not jump to conclusions about God existing and instead should more humbly say ‘I don’t know.’

I find that the most powerful objection to belief in God lies in what is known as the problem of evil or the problem of natural suffering. The evidence of such an egregious amount of suffering in nature is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god. This is introduced quite well in dialogue from the movie “The Masque of the Red Death” starring actor Vincent Price who says, “Can you look around this world and believe in the goodness of a god who rules it? Famine, pestilence, war, disease, and death – they rule this world. If a god of love and life ever did exist he is long since dead.” The ancient philosopher Epicurus also said, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from where did evil come? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Should we expect so much suffering which occurs through natural causes if a god or love and life created the universe? Would we expect a predatory food chain in which animals are devoured by other animals as a means of sustenance? Would we expect stillbirths, infants dying shortly after birth due to particular diseases, people being born with chronic illnesses which make life incredibly difficult? Would we expect tsunamis which ravage humans and devastate populations of animals?

In response to the problem of natural suffering, religious individuals have offered several responses which I find incredibly inadequate. Perhaps God didn’t intend suffering, some say, but because of human disobedience or sin the world is of a ‘fallen nature.’ I find it difficult to believe that God would change the laws of physics and the structure of the earth so that natural disasters and diseases would exist – would such a loving being allow or introduce calamity in the world because of human action? Punish future generations of people because of the actions of few? Introduce a predatory food chain in nature because of human behavior?

Perhaps God has some unknown mysterious reasons for allowing such natural suffering? Maybe God has some sort of cosmic plan in which he allows suffering for a higher purpose we just can’t understand? For all we know, the religious can say, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti which killed about 100,000 people can seem horrible to us, but it’s actually not so bad because it’s part of God’s plan and since God is good, there must be some really good reason for allowing such devastation but we just don’t understand the mind of God. I would think, though, that an all-powerful and all-knowing God can achieve some significant ends to a cosmic plan without such grievous suffering here on Earth.

If a human had the ability to end gratuitous natural suffering by putting an end to a deadly disease or preventing a natural disaster and could do so with ease yet she opted to just stand by and do nothing, we would rightly be outraged and would not accept a response from the person such as, ‘Well, I could stop this, but I’m not going to’ or ‘There may be good reasons for suffering to continue, but you just can’t understand the reasons I have for letting it continue.’ We would start to question the moral character of this person and rightly come to the conclusion that she was not good-hearted even if we had previous assumptions that she was morally upstanding.

Why, then, if we would consider the person in this scenario to be of problematic moral character would we not think the same about a supposed God? Shouldn’t we, instead of saying God may have a reason for permitting natural suffering, reconsider the all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving nature of God? Shouldn’t we have higher standards for God – expecting more of such a being, expecting not to live in a world with so much natural calamity which could easily be done away with by an all-powerful and all-knowing being?

Some argue that without hardship and challenge humans wouldn’t feel compassion, grow, or live a fulfilled life. Humans, though, can face hardship and challenge without such grievous suffering in life – we don’t need earthquakes, deadly diseases, and the like to be fulfilled individuals. In fact, such natural suffering takes life away from individuals who otherwise could use their time here on earth to help others.

Thanks for your attention. I’d like to move on to the question and answer period.

 

Responding to criticism of church/state lawsuits

Protesting 2014 Circle the Square With Prayer event recognizing the government-sanctioned National Day of Prayer (front of sign)
Protesting 2014 Circle the Square With Prayer event recognizing the government-sanctioned National Day of Prayer (front of sign)

Brief thoughts concerning criticism of church/state lawsuits…

I was recently involved in a discussion with a humanist who portrayed lawsuits that organizations advocating for the separation of government and religion file as heavy-handed and antagonistic toward religious individuals. I’ll explain that lawsuits are often filed as a last resort and that religious individuals should not feel attacked.

I have worked alongside various legal teams on numerous church/state separation issues in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area. In each situation, they did not immediately file a lawsuit, but rather first sought to discover facts about an issue, speak with government officials, and work toward a resolution without need for a lawsuit. Many situations were resolved without legal action as government officials acknowledged a problem and made amends so that future violations would not happen. Lawsuits are filed as a final option when other means are exhausted.

My activism for the separation of religion and government largely began in 2009 when I challenged a prominent nativity scene featured on a county courthouse lawn. I worked alongside the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State who corresponded with county officials to address this religious display which, rather than being inclusive, prominently featured a Christian viewpoint. The nativity and other decorations including a non-prominently placed menorah were removed and later replaced with a more inclusive display.

During this process, I received a good deal of vitriol from religious individuals. Although I was interviewed in various media outlets including television news and newspapers offering my desire for government neutrality on matters of religion, people were outraged claiming that their rights were being violated – unwilling to depart from a narrative of Christians being ‘under attack’ which was voiced by religious individuals including pastors in the area.421499_10150513069124327_502483225_n

Although there was no lawsuit in the case of the nativity scene and no need for legal action [because county officials remedied the issue by placing a more inclusive display], people falsely spread the lie that legal action occurred and one county official even claimed that since the county couldn’t afford a court challenge the nativity scene was initially removed although, again, no court challenge was necessary. Perhaps he was simply saving face, pandering, rather than admitting a violation had occurred…

Lawsuits are filed as a result of government entanglement with religion only when government officials refuse to remedy a violation following input from various organizations. Advocating for government neutrality on matters of religion isn’t attacking or antagonizing religious individuals, but is instead a stance looking for fairness. At the end of the day, some religious individuals will continue to frame lawsuits as persecution of religious individuals, but this simply isn’t the case. Religious believers can practice religion, but we secularists simply want governments out of that equation.

Overpasses for America anti-immigration rally experience

Republican Chairwoman and rally organizer Mary Ann Benitez with EAAC Director. Keystone United/Keystone Skinheads founder and Republican Committeeman Steve Smith - Photo: whiteadvocate.org
Republican Chairwoman and rally organizer Mary Ann Benitez with EAAC Director. Keystone United/Keystone Skinheads founder and Republican Committeeman Steve Smith – Photo: whiteadvocate.org

Today, I attended a rally dubbed Overpasses for America to challenge beliefs of anti-immigration protesters. I offer my recap of the event.

Earlier this year, members of a local group — the European American Action Coalition (EAAC) an “organization that advocates on behalf of white Americans” — participated in a rally they called “Anti-illegal Alien Invasion Rally” organized by Mary Ann Benitez (Lackawanna County Republican Committee Chairwomen for the 112th district) and attended by Steve Smith (Luzerne County Republican Committee member, director of the EAAC, and co-founder/former member of Keystone United/Keystone State Skinheads which features recent pictures of Smith on its website along with pictures advocating for violence/containing violent imagery reading ‘Kill your local drug dealer,’ ‘Smash the reds‘ and ‘Good night left side‘).

Smith writes at EAAC’s website whiteadvocate.org where he admitted to pleading guilty to simple assault and ethnic intimidation which resulted in a 2003 arrest, defended racial profiling, written about America becoming a “third world country” if an amnesty law for immigrants is enacted, “the problem of violent crime within the black community” (a focus of many posts), “the problems that multiculturalism tends to bring,” an “anti-white agenda,” diversity “turn[ing] once prosperous and safe cities into crime-ridden cesspools,” the prediction of whites being a minority in the United States “catastrophic to our country and well-being,” and stated “diversity is not a strength.”

More recently, on October 18, members of EAAC including Steve Smith, members of the American Freedom Party (known for their “Diversity = White Genocide” banners) attended another rally — again organized by Mary Ann Benitez — which I had approached with intentions to have conversation and challenge anti-immigration arguments.

Photo of overpass ralliers
Photo of overpass ralliers

Personally, I don’t identify as a liberal, Democrat, or progressive and am not a supporter of President Obama (much to the surprise of one rally attendee who raised his voice when speaking with me saying something along the lines of ‘You voted for Obama twice and would vote for him again if you had the chance!’), but do support an easing of immigration laws so that American citizenship could be more easily attained and a providing of amnesty for immigrants who currently live in the United States…and so I found myself at odds with this rally and many of its attendees.

Rather than villifying immigrants and immigration, a more humanistic approach can be taken by which people are integrated into a community and afforded legal protection and rights to do so.

Approaching the rally held on a Lackawanna County overpass, I saw signs and banners reading ‘Impeach Obama,’ ‘Obama lies,’ ‘No amnesty,’ ‘Secure our borders,’ ‘Save America,’ and ‘Save the USA.’ Following distribution of my business card when I was greeted by a rally attendee (which was accompanied by mutterings of ‘he’s that atheist’ or something to that effect and what seemed to be a ridicule of church/state separation which later was followed with ‘the constitution says nothing about separation of church and state), I spoke with several individuals.

Below, I shall outline the common assertions and arguments I heard and offer my responses.

Children of illegal immigrants aren’t citizens – they are just de-facto citizens and it shouldn’t be that way/people are breaking the law by entering into the country illegally.

According to United States law, individuals born in the United States are United States citizens regardless of parents’ citizenship status. There is no continuum within the construct of citizenship; either someone is a citizen or is not a citizen. If there is a problem with the fact that people enter the country illegally (and no problem with people entering the country legally), why not make the entering process easier and allow more people to be citizens and/or significantly reduce laws so that people are not here illegally?

Some will want to enter the United States for very good reasons including but not limited to events occurring in one’s home country including political persecution, lack of employment opportunities, a subpar standard of living, a want to flee threats of violence and pursue refuge, and a desire to ‘start a new life’ by moving to a new country. Many immigrants want to be law-abiding citizens who benefit the United States but are unable to do so under current policies.

Violent imagery on Keystone United's tumblr page - http://keystoneunited.tumblr.com/page/5
Violent imagery on Keystone United’s tumblr page – http://keystoneunited.tumblr.com/page/5

Illegal immigrants harm America by ruining our way of life – bringing diseases into public schools through unvaccinated children, committing crimes, dealing drugs…

To the best of my knowledge, it is the case that children (regardless of parents’ citizenship status) must be vaccinated in order to enter the public school system – so much so that anti-vaccination groups oppose laws which require children to be vaccinated in order to be accepted into public schools.

Indeed, as is the case throughout populations, regardless of citizenship status, crime and drug dealing occurs; the potential to commit crimes, too, exists within humans. Why particularly focus on [potential] crimes committed by immigrants at the exclusion of crimes committed by United States citizens? If individuals are violent — regardless of citizenship status — there shall be legal consequences when law officials justly intervene.

America should deal with its problems first and thus close the borders completely – allowing no new citizens.

This line of reasoning is question-begging; in an effort to argue that immigration is a problem/immigration should be banned, it is assumed that immigration is a problem (and presumably that this should be dealt with first). Might also problems in America be reduced, anyway, due to contributions from immigrants…? It is possible to both deal with problems and allow new citizens. New citizens, by the way, are being born each day yet I see no opposition to childbirth in any and all circumstances at this rally. Why a focus on immigration and not childbirth? After all, when a child is born a new citizen exists amidst a country with problems.

President Obama is to blame for current problems of [illegal] immigration.

Two million deportations during President Obama’s administration don’t fit well with this claim.

At the end of the day, there wasn’t only disagreement with Democratic politics and encouragement for immigration laws to be strengthened, but a great deal of fearmongering and negative attitudes about immigrants on display at this rally. Rather than my alternative to ease immigration laws so that illegal immigration would not be a problem (my response to the tautological ‘illegal immigration is illegal’ refrain), rally attendees I spoke with advocated for border closure and spoke negatively about immigrants – talking about all of the negatives they believe which result from illegal immigration while largely neglecting the positives.

I hope that rally attendees will reconsider their views about immigration — instead advocating for an easing of immigration laws so that more people may become legal citizens/illegal immigration would not be a problem and jettisoning the beliefs that immigrants pose a particular danger to the ‘American way of life’ — and comment on my piece. I’d be happy to engage more with rally attendees…this time not on an overpass sidewalk in the pouring rain (which wasn’t a good situation for audio/video recording) with vehicles passing.

As always, leave your comments below.

Update: There have been several attendees from the rally weighing in below. Feel free to read those comments.

Selective action and prayer’s incompatibility with free will

"Prayers to Heaven Balloon Launch"
“Prayers to Heaven Balloon Launch”

I discuss the incompatibility of prayer with free will and difficulties Christians face in arguing for God’s selective action.

Last month, in a piece titled ‘Prayer and the false cause fallacy,’ I argued against common reasoning Christians provide to argue for the efficacy of prayer – that because an event happens following a prayer we can be justified in believing prayer was responsible. I briefly hinted at the incompatibility of prayer and free will in the light of moral evil — harmful actions humans inflict upon other humans — and shall now expand on my reasoning in this post.

Atheists often object to Christian claims about the efficacy of prayer as follows – ‘Why doesn’t God intervene to stop mass murderers – perhaps even slightly, without notice — by altering humans’ thoughts? Since this does not happen, and God is supposed to be an all-loving, all-knowing being who can effortlessly stop heinous acts, we can be justified in disbelief of God.’

A typical Christian response is such that if God intervened in human affairs [at least to stop mass murderers] free will would be infringed upon. Free will is of utmost importance — trumping all other concerns — and may not be infringed upon lest we be agents unable to exercise meaningful choice thus God does not intervene.

For purposes of this post, I shall take this argument for granted and demonstrate that even if we accept this line of reasoning, Christians face significant difficulties if they contend that prayer has efficacy in situations involving a group of individuals.

Suppose a Christian prays for, like in this example, someone to love them – that Jane prays for Bob, despite his leaving Jane following relationship difficulties, to reenter into a relationship with her. The mechanism by which success was achieved is often unstated by the Christian, but the result is often emphasized. Might God have bestowed a boon upon Jane – instilling her with special knowledge and advice? Might God have intervened upon Bob – causing him to enter into a relationship with Jane?

In either case, and likely every case by which a Christian would describe the transformative nature of prayer, free will is compromised. Before the prayer there existed a state in which Bob, exercising his free will, decided not to remain in a relationship with Jane…but suddenly after the prayer Bob entered into a relationship with Jane. Free will would be infringed upon in this case because an already determined choice had been altered in some way because of God’s supposed interference.

If the Christian maintains that prayer instead led Bob and Jane to meet somewhere, for instance, and ultimately rekindled a romance there would still have to be a ‘divine rearranging’ of events by which Bob and Jane had met; God in some way had to have changed decisions of Bob and Jane so that they met. If the Christian would maintain that Bob and Jane met by accident, for instance, without the intervention of God, it is not, then, the case that God had intervened to begin with (and thus efficacy of prayer can’t be argued for in this case).

"Prayer Wall"
“Prayer Wall”

What about ‘financial blessings’ such as these? Surely if someone receives a check in the mail because of prayer/God’s intervention it is the case that God had influenced the actions of people so that a check would arrive. If the Christian maintains that the check arrived without influence from God, efficacy for prayer could not, then, be argued for.

Even other mundane requests such as help for passing an examination would involve, at the very least, God intervening in human affairs although free will might not be infringed upon in all cases (perhaps it could be argued that others may be placed at a disadvantage and thus were not able to actualize their choices which would have — absent prayer — have yielded a higher test result in a curved grade situation)?.

The Christian, then, next faces an atheistic objection concerning natural evil — why would God not intervene to stop deadly natural disasters, birth defects, etc — while maintaining that God intervenes in some areas in life but not in others. How could an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God intervene to help someone pass an examination but not intervene to stop hundreds dying because of a tsunami?

Christians who argue that God intervenes in some circumstances — whether infringing upon free will or not — but not in others face tremendous difficulties in explaining why God would act in some situations [often quite mundane] and not in others [involving gratuitous suffering]. Saying God doesn’t intervene because he wants to preserve free will yet maintaining prayer worked in some situations in which free will was infringed upon places Christians in an even deeper morass.

For more of my thoughts on the problem of evil, see this category.

As always, feel free to comment below.

 

A request to die with dignity

Death vocalist Chuck Schuldiner on album cover Vivus!
Death vocalist Chuck Schuldiner on album cover Vivus! Photo: Relapse Records/ deathband.bandcamp.com

“A request to die with dignity. Is that too much to ask?” – Death, ‘Suicide Machine’

Many of my readers know that I am a fan of the metal group Death. Many of Death’s songs, much to my liking, have philosophical themes which lead listeners to ponder deep questions about human existence.

The songs ‘Suicide Machine‘ and ‘Pull the Plug‘ deal with themes of suicide — particularly assisted suicide/euthanasia — and appear to show support for people with terminal illnesses who, instead of “prolong[ing] the pain,” want to end their lives prematurely.

Vocalist Chuck Schuldiner sang, “A request to die with dignity. Is that too much to ask?,” “In death they now seek tranquility,” “Extending agony they must be blind,” and “Pull the plug let me pass away/Pull the plug don’t want to live this way” making what appears to be a compelling case for supporting euthanasia.

Newlywed Brittany Maynard, aged 29, has recently appeared in various media outlets announcing to the world that she has been diagnosed with brain cancer and has only six months to live. Rather than dying of natural causes and suffering from the brain cancer, Maynard has elected to end her life via physician-assisted suicide in an area where doing so is legal. Maynard has said, “I don’t want to die. But I am dying. Death with dignity is the phrase I’m comfortable using. I am choosing to go in a way that is with less suffering and less pain.”

Religious traditions concerned with a seemingly non-negotiable dignity of life (see here for one example from a Catholic perspective) typically oppose assisted suicide on grounds that because human life has some natural dignity [endowed by God] it should not be willfully ended under any circumstances. Catholics — using this line of thought — will generally also oppose the death penalty, abortion, and murder (although theories of just war and ideas on self defense can seemingly allow for some wiggle room with this idea of natural dignity).

A Catholic perspective arguing against euthanasia runs contrary to [non-Catholic] perspectives on personal liberties and individual autonomy which generally empower individuals to make decisions about their lives absent unjustified harm to oneself and/or others.

In the case of euthanasia, it especially seems to matter that the choice to end one’s life is informed and reasonable lest — as opponents of euthanasia would argue — undue harm is inflicted and self-destructive actions are taken. Is Maynard’s situation one in which harm and self-destructive actions are warranted?

This undated photo provided by the Maynard family shows Brittany Maynard. Maynard Family/AP Photo
This undated photo provided by the Maynard family shows Brittany Maynard. Maynard Family/AP Photo

Surely, not all reasons people have for ending their lives are informed. Mental health professionals rightly pathologize suicidal thoughts coupled with intent, means, and a plan. In the case of a terminal illness, much different than pathological plans for suicide, the case to end one’s life is compelling – there exists a chronic condition which ultimately will end one’s life and an individual wants to avoid a high level of pain. Maynard’s decision is an informed one backed with good reasons made in a right state of mind.

Perhaps this dignity of life Catholics speak of can be preserved through an early ending of life absent a high level of pain caused by brain cancer. Is there much dignity — or really any level of human flourishing — in dying a very painful death in which natural bodily functions may not function in a proper way? Ought Maynard — on a moral and legal level — to be empowered to end her life should she desire and the circumstances warrant it in a society in which we are generally granted personal autonomy and individual liberty?

While individual Catholics or other individuals may oppose euthanasia and not want to end their lives early if diagnosed with a terminal illness, I don’t believe this sentiment should be binding on all within a pluralistic society. Rather than prolonging the pain, individuals ought to have an ability to opt-out — to end their lives early given a diagnosis of a terminal disease — and make choices about their own lives without interference from governmental officials or imposition of Catholic teachings unless, of course, they desire Catholic teachings and interference from government.

We can both value life and support an individual’s moral and/or legal right to make informed decisions about their lives — euthanasia included — especially in cases of ending one’s life prematurely in the case of terminal illness. My valuing of life extends others bodily autonomy and personal liberties by which they can make informed decisions.

As always, feel free to comment below. This piece, designed to be no longer than 800 words, will not fully cover a vast topic such as euthanasia, but hopefully will inspire some self-reflection and discussion.