The lunch thief

There are very few things which are both demoralizing and inspiring at the same time, and even fewer things which are both to such a degree that I have to write about it. It's hard to reread Mormon lessons, complete with those sickening example stories, and remember that I -- I, of all people -- found them moving enough that they invoked tears.

It's demoralizing to realize how screwed up my brain was then, and yet so inspiring to see how screwed up my brain isn't in comparison.

If you're Mormon, or if you're recently liberated, you'll recognize this one. It's a parable of sorts, by Gordon B. Hinckley, from the November 2001 issue of the Ensign:

Some years ago, President Gordon B. Hinckley told "something of a parable" about "a one room school house in the mountains of Virginia where the boys were so rough no teacher had been able to handle them.

"Then one day an inexperienced young teacher applied. He was told that every teacher had received an awful beating, but the teacher accepted the risk. The first day of school the teacher asked the boys to establish their own rules and the penalty for breaking the rules. The class came up with 10 rules, which were written on the blackboard. Then the teacher asked, 'What shall we do with one who breaks the rules?'

"'Beat him across the back ten times without his coat on,' came the response.

"A day or so later, the lunch of a big student, named Tom, was stolen. The thief was located—a little hungry fellow, about ten years old.

"As Little Jim came up to take his licking, he pleaded to keep his coat on. 'Take your coat off,' the teacher said. 'You helped make the rules!'

"The boy took off the coat. He had no shirt and revealed a bony little crippled body. As the teacher hesitated with the rod, Big Tom jumped to his feet and volunteered to take the boy’s licking.

"'Very well, there is a certain law that one can become a substitute for another. Are you all agreed?' the teacher asked.

"After five strokes across Tom’s back, the rod broke. The class was sobbing. Little Jim had reached up and caught Tom with both arms around his neck. 'Tom, I’m sorry that I stole your lunch, but I was awful hungry. Tom, I will love you till I die for taking my licking for me! Yes, I will love you forever!'"

One of the things I've noticed about myself now that I'm an ex-Mormon is that, when I'm stuck reading or hearing a story like this and it gets to the "The class was sobbing" part, I have a strong visceral reaction against it. It's a story aimed exclusively to invoke emotion, which Mormons will in turn interpret as "the spirit." It's a story that, among many others and for seventeen years, controlled me and manipulated me.

I remember getting weepy to this story once. But now I see it as an even more poignant parable about Christianity, Mormonism, and the Atonement.

This is not a story about a strong, capable, and compassionate man sparing a weaker man from punishment. This is a story about what happens when an incompetent organization makes absolute, non-negotiable, back-ass-ward rules. This is a story about a colossal failure at constructing a competent judicial system.

Let's consider the basics of this story:

1. We begin with general disorder. Anarchy.


2. The teacher establishes a judicial system wherein every individual must follow the established rules.


3. An extreme, unjust, and gratuitous punishment is prescribed for breaking the rules.


4. A kid breaks the rule, therefore is subject to punishment.


5. Everyone realizes that the judicial system they've created is HORRIFICALLY UNJUST, and that the punishment is far too extreme for the crime.


6. Instead of fixing the judicial system, which the whole class unanimously agreed was flawed, the teacher instead says, "fuck you, little kid; the status quo is more important than ethics."


7. Oh, but wait, the teacher actually can change the rules, but, rather than lessen the punishment, he instead decides to add a "other people can take your punishment for you" rule.

The moral of this story for me, as an ex-Mormon, is not that Tom (and by proxy, Jesus) is a hero. Rather, it is that the teacher (and by proxy, God) is a despicable, anti-human monster who doesn't deserve the paycheck and authority the school is giving him.

I can't believe I used to find this story inspirational. Let me rewrite the ending to this disgusting parable, just because I like happy endings:

"The boy took off the coat. He had no shirt and revealed a bony little crippled body. As the teacher hesitated with the rod, Big Tom jumped to his feet and volunteered to take the boy’s licking.

"'Very well, there is a certain law that one can become a substitute for another. Are you all agreed?' the teacher asked.

"'Hell no!' said one student in the back of the room. 'Let's make the punishment a little less severe, or at least vary it depending on how bad the crime is. Also, God damn, Tom; you're a freaking masochist! This kid stole your lunch, and you're just gonna jump up to get beaten, too?'

"The teacher wavered for a moment. 'No,' he said, finally, 'I approve of the ridiculously harsh punishment. I want to beat people with this rod. Detention is for the weak.'

"There was a stunned silence. Even Big Tom, who seemed to have a thing for harsh punishment, gave pause.

"'In fact,' said the student in the back of the room, 'what if we each donated a little of our lunch to help Little Jim out, since he's far too young to get a job?'

"'Yeah,' the class agreed, 'let's help out the less fortunate, create a fair justice system, and beat the shit out of this amoral teacher.'"

Ahhhh... I like that ending better.

EveryStudent Rebuttal, Part III

(This is the third of six posts about this stupid article that's being advertised to me on Facebook)

Reason 3

The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence." ~ Dinesh "Hitler was an Atheist" D'Souza

This is not convincing to an Atheist at all. But, before I rip apart the ridiculous logic of this "reason," I'd like to address D'Souza's quote directly.

The way D'Souza presents it, it almost seems like we humans were just dabbling in this little mind game we invented called Mathematics, and then looked around us and went, "Holy crap! The world operates exactly as it does in math!" This would be amazing, of course, if our little mind game was, say, Monopoly, instead: "Holy crap! Milton-Bradley just invented this game and, as I look around, the universe is following the rulebook, too! If I drop a ball off my roof, it naturally goes clockwise, unless it lands on the 'go to jail' space!"

Please. If the universe were different, mathematics would be different. Math is based on the universe, not the other way around. The universe isn't "obeying rules"; it's simply displaying consistency, and we misleadingly call these consistencies "rules" or "laws."

Now, why are things consistent in the universe, rather than inconsistent? I dunno. You don't know, either. What makes you think a consistent universe is odd? Have you seen any inconsistent universes?

Also, we can imagine a universe "in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence," but we can also imagine a universe that was invented by a sentient wad of spaghetti, people who can fly and see through walls, and machines that can travel through time. What the hell kind of logic is that?

1. I can imagine stuff that's different from the way things are now.
2. ???
3. Therefore, what I imagined is obviously the natural order of things.
4. Therefore, the way things are now isn't the natural order of things.
5. Therefore... God?

Ultimately, the entire logic of this "reason" is something like:

1. I don't know what caused X
2. Therefore, God caused X

Substitute X for "the Big Bang," "the laws of Physics," "the first cell," etc. In fact, most religious people take it even farther than that, substituting X for mundane things with obvious natural explanations: "my car to start," "this obviously self-induced feeling of contentment," "a church member to coincidentally give me money that I needed, after I'd only been mentioning it every Sunday for a month or two, now," "me to actually get a passing grade on a test," etc.

In fact, this logic can actually be used accurately if we substitute X for "you to be such a colossal moron when it comes to basic critical thinking and logic."

First Cause argument, moron style

There's a blog I follow that always gives me a minor chuckle. It frequently gives me a major chuckle, too, and occasionally (like right now) gives me some fodder to blog about.

(Many of the comics I use in my posts (like this one) come from LOL God, too, by the way)

Anyway, one of the more recent posts has erupted in conversation, and one guy linked to what he said was "Logic, reason and sound science."

Yeah, no, it's neither of those three. It's actually just a rehashing of the First Cause argument, which I'd like to destroy right now. If you follow the link, you'll find it's a little hard to read, what with the awful grammar and all, so I'll summarize it:

1. The universe exists.


2. Existent stuff cannot come from nothing.


3. The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning (see cosmology Big Bang).


4. The universe could not have come from nothing, therefore there must have been something it came from. Let's call that something "God."

The problem with this argument is simple. He has not demonstrated that the Old Testament God exists (though he thinks he has, seeing as how he starts quoting the Bible after this "proof"), but has instead attached the label of "God" to something else, effectively changing the meaning of the word. Let's use the same argument against him, shall we?

1. This blog exists, and has articles written in it.


2. Written articles cannot come from nothing


3. The presence of written articles means someone/something must have written them. Let's call that someone/something "God."

Now, behold! I am the one who wrote the articles in this blog. I am "God"! Now that I've attached the label "God" to myself, the unestablished traits of "author of the Bible," "creator of the universe," "omnipotent," and "omniscient" are now all transferred to me, without needing to be independently verified! Bow before me, give up your independence and beg me for everything, thank me for everything, and BURN IN HELL, YOU SIN-ENCRUSTED PIECES OF FILTH!!!!!11

... oh, and I love you. Apparently.

EveryStudent.com rebuttal, part II

(This is the second of six posts about this stupid article that's being advertised to me on Facebook)

Reason 2

The universe had a start - what caused it?

"The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter."

I dunno. Any idea how we could find out?

This is not a proof for God. This is simply one of many problems scientists are still working on, and it just so happens that if we discovered there was a God, this problem would have an answer.

You say God started the Big Bang. I'll say I dunno what caused it. Pastafarians will say the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise His Noodliness) caused it. How do we know what actually happened?

With science, that's how. And we're still working on it. If you've got anything constructive to add to the discussion -- just asserting the existence of a Magic Man in the Sky doesn't count -- please, go right ahead. We'd love to know what started the Big Bang. We'd love to know where the universe came from. We'd love to know if there are other universes. We'd love to know everything.

Is that all God is to you? a bookmark in the Book of Unanswered Questions?

Yes, you can disprove God.

You all know how the conversation typically goes:

Atheist: "I'm an Atheist."
Theist: "Whaaaaaa...? How can you possibly think God doesn't exist?"
Atheist: "Well, I don't think there's any substantial evidence to demonstrate there is one."
Theist: "Well, you can't prove there isn't a God. Aren't you afraid of Hell?"
Atheist: "Of course I'm not afraid of Hell; I don't think it exists, either."
Theist: "You're not omniscient. You can't know for certain that God/Hell doesn't exist!"
Atheist (with dejected sigh): "Yes, you're right, I can't say for certain that God doesn't exist... I just think it's highly improbable."
Theist: "Would you gamble your eternal soul on that 50/50 probability?"
Atheist: "... Hey, I've got Biology to study for. Could we pick this up some other time?"

Well, as wrong as the Theist obviously is in that conversation, the Atheist was actually wrong about something, too: You can disprove God.

In order to demonstrate this the best, I'll need to use two different gods. The first god is an invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, trans-dimensional god who doesn't interact with the known universe whatsoever (beyond possibly starting the Big Bang). The second god is also invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, and trans-dimensional... but it also fairly frequently answers prayers that are offered to it, frequently performs miracles, and sends us to eternal punishment or eternal reward based on our actions. Also, whenever there's a lightning storm, and earthquake, or a huge wildfire, that's the second god punishing the wicked.

We all know that it's impossible to test for or verify the existence of God 1. If God 1 exists, we'd have no way of knowing, and if it didn't exist, we'd have no way of proving it didn't. Also, as far as gods go, God 1 is pretty irrelevant to our daily lives; it doesn't ask to be worshiped, it doesn't condemn us or reward us for our actions, and it isn't even responsible for anything beyond putting the laws of physics in place and making a small point of energy go Poof... possibly. We're not sure.

God 2 is a very different god. It actively does stuff in the universe. If God 2 performed a miracle by making bread turn green, we could test it. If God 2 made a believer's car start when the battery was dead, we can investigate it. If God 2 answered prayer or performed miracles at all, we'd be able to conduct science and prove it existed.

But, most importantly, we can conduct science to demonstrate that God 2 isn't the cause of all his supposed actions.

If I gave you a paper towel and claimed that it, by virtue of being a paper towel, could stop bullets that were fired from an AK-47, I've done more than just say, "This paper towel exists." I've said, "This bullet-stopping paper towel exists." When we test my claim, by covering an expensive porcelain vase with that paper towel and opening fire, we discover that it cannot be a bullet-stopping paper towel that doesn't stop bullets, because it cannot logically stop bullets and not stop bullets at the same time.

From that experiment, we learn that the bullet-stopping paper towel doesn't exist. We now have strong evidence to suggest that what I claimed was a bullet-stopping paper towel is actually either (1) a regular, non-bullet-stopping paper towel, or (2) a defective bullet-stopping paper towel. Either way, the most important quality -- it's bullet-stopping-ness -- does not exist on that paper towel.

Likewise with God 2. If all its miracles are demonstrably naturally caused (and therefore not miracles), all its prayer answering is indistinguishable from a placebo, wishful thinking, or confirmation bias, all its wicked-punishing earthquakes, lightning storms, and wildfires are of demonstrably natural cause, the "bread turned green" miracle is demonstrated to be bread mold, and the "starting battery" miracle, upon closer inspection, was caused by a considerate grandmother who replaced the miraclee's battery that morning -- If all that was demonstrated to be not caused by a non-natural entity, then we're in the same situation as the "AK-47 paper towel" example.

By conducting science, we demonstrate that God 2 cannot exist. It must either be (1) just God 1 and we all mistakenly thought it was more than that, (2) actually God , who's just like God 2 except it likes to screw with people who attempt to study it, or (3) nonexistent.

Only the Deist God cannot be disproven. If your God does anything at all, He/She/It can be tested for. And, odds being what they are, your God likely won't stand up to scrutiny.

EveryStudent.com rebuttal, part I

One of the joys about stating my Atheism openly on Facebook is getting all the "have you found Jesus?"esque ads. One of these ads, from EveryStudent.com, does more than just quote Bible verses, which I found especially inviting.

(A note to all you Christian Evangelists out there, if you're trying to convert an Atheist, Bible verses will get your reader navigating away from your page faster than you can say John 3:16. )

Anyway, the specific article that keeps getting advertised to me on Facebook is this one, provocatively titled "Six Reasons to Believe in God." Let's dive right in, shall we?

Reason 1

Preface

Thank you, Marilyn Adamson, for creating a clever loophole in this introduction. You say that "if a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away," and then proceed to make an analogy with moon landing deniers, and how no amount of evidence will convince them, either.

This is nice, except a smart Atheist will just stop reading because (and let me put it in red for emphasis):

Now, if I'm unconvinced by your evidence, you can just say, "Oh, you're a stubborn jackass who's rationalizing away the obvious truth." You aren't allowing for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your reasons actually aren't convincing.

Also, to address the last point you make, yes. If there was a God, I'd like to know him. I'd also like to ask a few hard questions of him, too, like "why are you such a despicable monster in Bible?" and "Why should I admire Abraham for following a patently immoral command like 'sacrifice your oldest son'?"

Part I -- The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Why this section is unconvincing to an Atheist can be summed up beautifully by the late Douglas Adams:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

But I'll spell it out, just to make the point even more clear. Life on Earth is the way it is because Earth is the way it is. Through natural selection and evolution, plants and animals that aren't the best suited for their environment die, leaving the best suited ones behind. If Earth were different, life would be different to compensate.

Anyway, let's address the Earth section in a little more detail.

Earth

You say:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

As an Astronomy enthusiast, I happen to know more about this than you evidently do. According to wikipedia, "as of January 2010, 429 extrasolar planets have been confirmed... most [of which] are giant planets thought to resemble Jupiter; however, substantial sampling bias exists since more massive planets are much easier to detect with current technology."

There are billions of galaxies. Each galaxy has billions of stars in it. Even if stars on average only have one planet orbiting them, that still leaves us with an amazing 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or one billion billion, or 1x10^18) planets... of which we've only confirmed 429.

One of those 429 planets is actually orbiting in the Goldilocks zone you're referring to. Using those odds, planets being the exact right distance from their respective stars to allow for liquid water are inevitable, and possibly quite frequent.

But alas, since we only have the technology to detect Jupiter-size planets right now, we don't really know how rare an Earth-sized planet in the Goldilocks zone is.

Water

All the special properties of water come directly from the way the water molecule is formed:



Because the two hydrogen atoms inevitably attach to the oxygen atom at one side, rather than at opposite sides, the water molecule has a slight positive charge at one end and a slight negative one at the other.

Water is the inevitable byproduct of the way atoms work, and since the "why do things work the way they work?" question is addressed later (in reason three), I'll just ignore this for now.

The Human Brain and The Eye

Yes, yes, the brain and the eye are complex. Evolution explains how complexity can come from simplicity. How does this fly in the face of an Atheistic worldview...?

Ohhhh, I see, you tacked your real point right at the end: "... evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter."

Well, you're absolutely right; we don't know. But we're working on it. By the way, are you aware that "living organisms from nonliving matter" has nothing to do with the complexity of the brain and the eye? Are you aware that all those interesting facts about the brain and the eye were totally irrelevant to the actual point you were making?

Actually, I jest. I know why you were explaining how complex the brain and the eye are; you're heavily implying the watchmaker argument, which can be rebutted in one sentence:

If it were by complexity -- and complexity alone -- that we knew the watch was designed, we wouldn't be able to tell it apart from the forest we found it in. We'd know the watch was designed because we're generally familiar with the concept of watchmaking, and have a slight understanding of how watches work.

Afterthoughts for Part I

You claimed that the complexity of our planet:

1. points to a deliberate Designer who created the universe.


2. points to a deliberate Designer who actively sustains it, even now.

I see how you attempted to explain the first claim... but what about the second? How did you suggest that this Designer is actively sustaining it?

I'm curious to know because, if a Designer is actively doing something in the universe... we can test for that. We can verify and demonstrate this Designer if He's/She's/It's actually doing stuff in the universe. And, consequently, if we discover that this Designer's actions are better explained by natural causes, we can demote Him/Her/It from Faith to Myth, like we did with Zeus after we learned what lightning actually is.