timeimmortal

The Book of Numbers immediately follows the Book of Leviticus in the canon of Scripture, and in a way could be considered an extension of Leviticus. Almost all of Leviticus is comprised of Moses giving the law to the people, and Numbers consists in large part of Moses giving yet more ordinances for the people to observe. And much like Leviticus, the subject matter covered in each successive chapter of Numbers shifts and changes according to no discernable pattern, covering issues pertaining to all aspects of life.

A while ago, Brant Pitre pointed out a series of vows detailed in Numbers 30, which pertain to different categories of women within the population.

Numbers 30 begins with a discussion of vows which can be taken by an unmarried woman:

[3] Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house, in her youth,
[4] and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[5] But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

Here, the vow hinges on the matter of whether the father of the woman hears the vow; unless he objects, his consent is implied and assumed, and every pledge the woman has made is binding on her in the eyes of the Lord. It should also be noted that the father is only afforded a limited window of response; if he has an objection to any vow made by his daughter, he must respond and object to it within the same day it comes to his attention.

Moving a bit further into Numbers 30, though, we come upon vows which can be taken by married women:

[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
[7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

Two things have shifted here. First, the scope of the woman’s utterance has been expanded — whereas the young, unmarried woman’s vows were what were binding, the married woman’s vows and careless utterances are both binding, if her husband does not object. And that is the second thing which has changed: it is not the role of her father to object any longer; her husband must do so. The terms of his objection, and its consequences, remain the same.

It is probable that the reason that young, unmarried women are not bound by careless utterances, whereas married women are bound thusly, is intended by the author and the Spirit to denote the shift in maturity between the young woman still living with her family and the older woman who has entered into marriage.

A third category of vows is found as we continue reading Numbers 30. In this case, the vows are those which can be taken my a widowed or divorced woman:

[9] But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.
[10] And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
[11] and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
[12] But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.

This ordinance confirms the perpetuity of a woman’s vows; if her husband had previously consented to a vow she had made, then that consent — and, by extension, the vow — extends past the time when the husband has died or sought a divorce. The vow is binding on the woman in the eyes of the Lord. Only her husband may overturn the vow, and then only within a limited time period; if the vow was allowed to stand until such time as the husband passed away or left, then the vow would remain binding, in the Lord, even after the departure of the husband.

In other words, the vow would be perpetual.

Now, the Reader should note that in all these cases, the vows are of a general nature. Fortunately, reading still further in Numbers 30, we are given some context regarding the types of vow each category of woman might make.

[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
[14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
[15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.

Here we see all the previous ordinances given context; these vows concern, principally, a woman’s oath to “afflict herself”, whether as an unmarried woman, a married woman, or a widow. Citing Jacob Milgrom, a preeminent Torah scholar, Brant Pitre notes that the idea of self-affliction “was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussion three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.”

And notice something else, O Reader. Numbers 30:15 is the odd note on which the giving of these vow-related ordinances ends, and it provides a final measure of permanence to the vows. All through the ordinances pertaining to the vows in Numbers 30, it is noted that the responsible man — the woman’s father or husband, depending on circumstance — has only a day in which to object to the vow. If he does not, the Lord considers the vow binding, and in his silence the responsible man gives his assent to the vow made by the woman to “afflict herself.”

Numbers 30:13-14 does technically give the responsible male the option of wiping away a previously-made vow, or at least would seem so to do. However, Numbers 30:15 sounds the final note on the matter, by noting that if the husband of a woman should compel her to abandon a previously made vow which, according to the law, became binding in the eyes of the Lord, he shall bear her iniquity. The sin of breaking a vow with the Lord, in other words, would fall not on the woman, but on the man who compelled the breakage.

And as Pitre notes, “Matthew’s Gospel tells us: Joseph was a “righteous man” (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence — and her words “How can this be, since I know not man?” in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34) — and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.”

A common objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity that I have heard, although not recently, is simple disbelief that a Jewish woman living 2,000 years ago would have been able to remain celibate even in a marriage; what husband would allow it? And yet, the idea of a consecrated virgin was not alien to the ancient world (both in Hebrew religious tradition and in several pagan Religions as well). Moreover, in the New Testament, Paul offers several teachings on the matter of celibacy and abstinence (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 4) — clearly, even over two millennia ago, there was ample room in religious traditions for women to elect to remain virginal all their days, and for husbands to accept that reality.

Possible Objection #2: could the vows referred to have been temporary in nature? Nothing in the text of Numbers 30 specifically states that they are perpetual.

Response to Objection #2: As Pitre notes, one cannot deny “that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows…First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father’s house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense…Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a permanent vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary’s case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: “How shall this be, since I know not man” (Luke 1:34; present tense).”

At any rate, as the Reader can see, we are verging into New Testament territory here. Coming up next we will take a closer look at Mary, especially as related to us by Luke, and also at Joseph.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

But don’t take my word for it, O Reader. Rehmat says so, so it must be true!

US$5 million film depict Islamic view of Jesus, son of Virgin Mary - A great prophet of Allah, speaking parables and moving through soft light and angelic chants among a group of zealot and conspiring Jews (Pharisees). The narrative are borrowed from the Gospel of St. Barnabas, which was not cannonized as part of Christian Bible, The New Testament (NT). However, NT, do contain five books of Jewish Bible, The Old Testament (OT).

Got that? The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy — which also comprise the Jewish Torah) are a part of the New Testament.

The stupid makes me laugh sometimes.

At least Shaukat, the blogger at RehmatPedia, is at least admitting that the Koran is based on false, erroneous texts (like the Barnabas “gospel”)! Still, does anyone else get creeped out at the fact that such a hateful Islamist bigot as Shaukat has nevertheless managed to secure employment at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Facility?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Update: Apocalypse: Shaukat responds!

Talmudic hacker, Ken, has questioned my statement that five books of Jewish Bible (OT) are part of Christian Bible.

The Old Testament (OT) has 39 books and the New Testament (NT) has 27. (There are 66 books in the entire Bible). Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the five books of OT, which were incorporated into NT – to show that Christianity is another extension of Judaism. However, the great majority of present-day Jewish population of world (13.5 million) don’t follow the OT – but Talmud, which was written by Rabbis over one century after the Crucification – and contains Jewish hatred toward Jesus’ his mother and rest of Christians:

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the “uncensored” text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, “Mary the hairdresser,” had sex with many men.

It’s hard to believe the guy who blogs at RehmatPedia is the same age as my wife, isn’t it? Based on the information he gives here concerning his date of birth, he should be on the order of 24 years old…nearly 25. Reading him, one would think he’s about ten years younger.

And he works in a nuclear power plant.

Anyhow, I love how in his attempt to clarify his blatant error, he has only reinforced it. Perhaps he has never actually opened the Bible to see the order of books in it, but were he to do so he would observe that the five books of the Torah — the Pentateuche — are the first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament.

The books of the New Testament begin with the four Gospels, proceed through various epistles and letters, and end with the apocalyptic texts of Peter, John, Jude, and Revelation.

Notice how he contradicts himself? He begins by asserting that there are 39 books in the Old Testament (there are actually 47, but nevermind that just right now), but then in the following sentence claims that the Pentateuche are “the five books” (in English, the use of “the” in that context is meant to suggest exclusivity) of the Old Testament.

So which is it, Shaukat? Thirty-nine? Forty-seven? Five?

Even more confusingly, he then goes on to assert that the sole five books of the New Testament, according to him, were then “incorporated into the [New Testament]“. So after narrowing the Old Testament down to five books, Shaukat then tells us that those five books were included in the New Testament canon.

So why even mention the Old Testament? Apparently, it’s empty!

Of course, Shaukat’s anti-Jewish sentiments are well known (how confusing, in light of his recent apparent conversion to said religion!), and bear no commenting on. But isn’t it lamentable, O Reader, how incorrect this young man in Ontario is about something which is so easily verifiable? And he works at a nuclear power plant?

My advice: if you live in Pickering, move. Based on what we learned from Chernobyl, it would be best to put at least 100 km between yourself and the plant.

Nicholas writes in with a response to…well, to what I assume is this article.

It is an interesting discourse, to be sure.

I agree with you that atheism is a philosophical position that cannot be proved beyond all possible doubt. But it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that all the gods so far postulated do not measure up to any reasonable standard of what a god should offer. Almost all of humankind has accordingly rejected Thor and Zeus and Baal and countless others.

If people honestly read the Torah, they are bound to conclude that YHWH is a depressingly human fantasy of a depressingly human god, if anything a nastier tyrant than Stalin. And if they actually read the gospels, they will note that Jesus’s recorded remarks do not contain anything that marks him out as decisively superior to other prophets, or to previous philosophers. (For example, in the Crito dialogue, Plato attributes to Socrates the stance that we should not return evil for evil.)

I’m going to interject at this point, simply because what follows is a shift of topic. Formulating a coherent response is not something I’ll struggle with either way, but it occurs to me that it will be easier for the good Reader if I respond to each charge at the moment it is made, rather than in a large final summation.

First, I observe that with what could be called depressing truth to form, Nicholas assertion that “all the gods so far postulated do not measure up to any reasonable standard of what a god should offer” is not followed up with arguments from evidence or reason in support of it. It may well be that no deity postulated until this point in history satisfies even a reasonable standard of what a god should offer, but Nicholas in no way details any examples of any supposed inadequecies of any particular deity.

Of course, the whole issue of a “reasonable standard” seems laughable to me — precisely what would constitute a reasonable standard for a deity to uphold? Who defines what that standard should be? Indeed, where in the human-deity hierarchy does humanity fall relative to God? Are we even in a position to demand that God conform his actions to what our definition of a “resonable standard” is? It smacks of hubris, and one cannot help but conjure in mind the image of a loinclothed man armed only with a spear criticizing as “destructively inadequate” the quantum torpedos of the USS Enterprise (NCC 1701-E).

It only follows that humanity is in any position to hold God to a “reasonable standard” if, in fact, humanity is “above” or “equal to” God. Of course, if humanity is “above” or “equal to” God, then humanity likewise has no need of God, but that’s beside the point. If, in fact, God is “above” humanity, however, then humanity is in no position to demand God behave according to any human standard since, by definition, the human standard is the inadequate one, and the ways of God superior to it. That’s not to say that we can’t complain, but if we do complain it must be understood that we will be doing so with all the reason and rationalism of a six-year old denied the right to begin watching a fourth hour of television by its parents.

Fundamentally, when I read Nicholas‘ statements above, I am left with the impression that Nicholas is bitter and/or upset with religion in general — his statement equating the Judeo-Christian God with Stalin certainly points to this. Likewise, his dismissal of Jesus’ teachings as nothing new illustrates, I think, a conscious desire to reject something about Christianity. Not that this comes as a surprise, of course. Atheism tends, as a rule, to adopt as its own the prevailing morality of the culture in which the atheist(s) in question reside, minus whatever proscribed activity the atheist(s) desire(s) to engage in (which usually is something to do with sex). I’ve heard all manner of arguments in this direction, from the sort that bemoan the fact that 25-year-old virgins still exist (Hans Machel) to those which argue that marital fidelity is a biological inclination that we need to rise above (Richard Dawkins).

Yes, others may have articulated similar sentiments to those that Christ spoke of, and perhaps that should be clue for us that some truths are universal. But equally, just because truths were articulated by other philosophers independently of Jesus does not mean that the teachings themselves were fully understood (if at all understood) apart from Christ.

Regarding the explicit statement that Plato attributed something akin to the Golden Rule to Socrates well in advance of Jesus’ life and death, I and others have observed that “[t]his is another sample of Thomas’ second objection at work. It boils down to saying the natural law is knowable to all, so we don’t need to believe that the natural law comes from God. The sleight of hand comes in when “God” is confused with “Religion“. So the atheist routinely speaks as though Christians believe that nobody had ever heard that murder or theft or adulter were bad until Moses “revealed” this and imagines it a great coup to announce that, in fact, people have always known such things are wrong. Apparently, the people who say these things have never read the story of Cain and Abel. If they had, they would know that this was no news flash to ancient Israel. Nor was it a news flash to Paul, whose entire arraignment of the pagans in Romans 1 makes it clear that the natural law is knowable by everybody and that the failure of the pagans (who never heard of the Ten Commandments) to obey the natural law was blameworthy. In fact, no educated believer says the Ten Commandments revealed the natural law. Rather, the point of the Ten Commandments is that they make clear to Israel who is the author of the natural law which humanity has known for time immemorial. It makes clear that the natural law is not a mere artifact of wind and weather which can be ignored when it inconveniences us, but an iron fact of our being put there by the author of our being.

Being ignorant of this elementary fact makes the author ignorant of another elementary fact, that Jesus’s Golden Rule was, in fact, often *not* understood in even the most rudimentary of societies long before it was enunciated by Jesus. That’s because the Golden Rule requires grace in order to be understood, much less lived. Judaism articulated the basic norm that all pagan societies, at their best, could attain: love your neighbor, hate your enemy. It’s the norm we still basically live by today. Jesus’ Golden rule implied love for enemies because it included enemies in the term “neighbor”. It remains, apart from grace, an impossible and (for the worldly) ridiculous standard. The notion that anybody — especially an atheist — would aspire to it is a classic example of the way in which atheists live off Christian capital.”

I agree with you also, Ken, that we all believe many things that we cannot prove. For example, I believe that I have free will to make choices, and even to act on a whim. But I cannot disprove the assertion that an entity with a complete understanding of human psychology could forecast my every choice, including what I thought was a whim.

Gods with all of the attributes frequently claimed for gods, cannot exist. For example, if I am right that I have free will, there cannot be any omniscient god. If on the other hand I am wrong, there cannot be any just god, if it punishes my predictable mistakes.

This is a curious thing for Nicholas to believe, given his atheistic stance. For really, it is only by first invoking a sense of telos that humanity can postulate that it has a will, especially one that is free. Fundamentally, and from a purely empirical standpoint, a human being is just a fleshy outer shell wrapped around a bundle of opportunistic chemical reactions that are partly random and partly a response to outside stimuli. There is no free will in that — these words that I am typing right now are a testament to nothing more than a churning electrochemical reaction taking place within my brain, and series of signals being transmitted through my nervous system. Indeed, my very theism is nothing more than either an expression of something within my genes (and therefore meaningless, and certainly no indicator that I am possessed of a will of any sort) or the result of a response to either a chemical/hormonal reaction within my body or an external stimuli (and therefore, again, meaningless).

Another problem with atheists, I find, is that they tend to be more fundamentalist in their conception of who God must be than even the most rigid, fanatical fundamentalist theists are. Note the sudden transition to strict either/or thinking in Nicholas‘ writing, O Reader — this was a predictable shift on his part. Now, to be fair, historical theology has given him some ammunition to work with, in postulating on the omnipotence of God. But as others have pointed out, “omnipotence” is not the best word to describe the nature and scope of God’s knowledge and power. Better terms would be “volipotence” and “voliscience“.

“The concept of voliscience describes a Creator who knows whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to the extent that the concept of time is even relevant to such a being. Not only does this concept not limit God, but it has the additional benefit of being far more Biblically accurate than the traditional concept of an omniscient God. In fact, if one thinks about the matter for more than five seconds, one quickly realizes that the concept of voliscience is far less limiting than the use of the concept of omniscience has historically proven to be. One might also consider the concept of volipotence to be of some benefit in better conceiving a rationally sound and Scripturally precise nature of the Biblical God, but it’s probably less necessary since the key stumbling point for most Christians and atheists alike here is not related directly to omnipotence per se, but rather their inability to distinguish between the capacity of omnipotence and the action of omniderigence.

The fact that there is no possible logical conflict between voliscience and volipotence only adds to the rational appeal of the concept in my opinion, although I regard the nominal theodictic conflict between omnipotence and omniscience to reflect thinking so shallow as to border on stupidity anyhow.”

Famously, the life cycle of the Ichneumonidae, and much else, such as the facts that almost all life forms on this planet produce more (often hugely more) offspring than survive to maturity, and the doomed young often die in terror and pain, prove that there is no benign and omnipotent god.

Given that the Bible — especially the New Testament — is full of examples of ways in which suffering and death are shaped into pathways by which God’s glory is revealed, and given that some of Jesus’ teachings even go so far as to point out the role that death and dying play in God’s plan for His creation, the charge that any incidences of suffering and/or death in nature somehow disprove the idea of a benign god is specious and inconsequential…as has been discussed on this site a goodly number of times. Nicholas in particular would do well to remember that he’s been “thwumped” on this issue before on this very site.

These facts are consistent with the existence of any number of cruel gods, including C S Lewis’s “cosmic sadist”. They are also consistent with gods who have only limited powers and bungle important things. I am not atheist about such gods, but I choose (I think!) not to believe they exist, because there is no positive evidence for their existence.

I have long maintained, O Reader, that most strains of atheism are, at their core, built up around some manner of positivism, and certainly that has always been the case with Nicholas‘ atheism (as evidenced here). What is interesting is that he is willing to consider his personal opinions about the relative “cruelty” of the function of the natural world as evidence against the existence of the supernatural, and yet is unwilling to consider things like unexplained healings following in lockstep with prayers of intercession to the saints (Padre Pio in particular!) and other attested miracles as evidence in favour of the existence of the supernatural.

It’s not exactly a rational way of looking at the world, discarding the evidence one doesn’t like and improperly using as evidence that which is, on closer examination, not really evidence in support of one’s point at all. That things like predation, diseases, and often-lethal environmental pressures exist in the world tells us nothing about the intentions of any hypothetical creator; they merely tell us that within creation there are several extant hierarchies and concrete realities. Bigger animals and smaller animals exist, and some bigger animals eat some of the smaller ones. Different environmental forms exist, and sometimes environmental changes or events can have devastating results because — let’s be honest — any time there’s any sort of dynamism on a scale as large as the crust of a planet, there is bound to be the potential for a dramatic release of energy.

And to it all, we can honestly say: so what? Nature is designed by something way beyond human comprehension to begin with; should it be any kind of surprise, then, that we do not always understand the ways and means with which it operates?

You can call this sort of atheism a religion if you like, but it’s rather an eccentric use of the word. In the usual use, I think, religions always include elements of the supernatural, and of ritual. Even a stripped-down version of Buddhism includes mystical elements such as the denial of the self. And, as far as I know, all forms of modern Buddhism as actually practised include rituals. Tibetan lamaism includes all manner of weird spirits and deities.

This is mostly true, although it serves to note that many atheists — Sam Harris being perhaps one of the more prominent — draw upon Buddhism as an example of an “atheist” religion (Harris himself practices some “rituals” — including, but not limited to, meditation — of the Buddhist religion). And at any rate, certain forms of Taoism are almost completely free of supernatural concepts, unless one counts the concept of “peace” as supernatural.

As to whether the “denial of the self” can be counted as “mystical,” I leave up to the reader. Self-denial in various forms infuses many aspects of secular culture (dieting, for an easy example) without seeming to stray into the realm of mysticism, after all.

In contrast, I don’t admit to worshipping anything. I accept modus ponens because it works. I accept the evidence of randomised double-blind trials of drugs, because they have given us drugs which work. But I don’t sing hymns to modus ponens or the smallpox vaccine, or make them burnt offerings.

Employing a touch of Nicholas‘ logic in reverse, I observe that many drugs can and do produce all manner of rather horrifying side effects, including (in some cases) death. Clearly we can posit, then, non-benign (if not outright cruel) intent on the part of pharmaceutical researchers?

Yes, I’m being facetious.

Nicholas is correct in that he does not admit to worshipping anything, and indeed he probably does not ritualize even those things which he does worship. But my contention is that we all worship something — even sex or money — and this contention stands. When I posed a set of questions in the article I linked to at the beginning of this posting, Nicholas responded thusly:

1. What do I feel entitled to? The rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights.
2. Why? Because this convention is largely common sense, and has been incorporated into the law of the country I live in.
3. Why am I so angry/sad/bitter? What makes you think I am any of these?
4. If I had to, how would I define happiness? Aristotelian eudaimonia, laced with Epicurean pleasure in hugs, snow, and music.

I observe a sense that the law, and in particular human rights legislation, is sacrosanct. After all, the first question asked what Nicholas felt entitled to, and the fact that he answered it as he did is instructive.

If we honestly think about it, we as human beings are entitled to nothing, whether God exists or not. This is especially true if we assume God does not exist, because at that point all we can claim to be entitled to is what we can hold on to until someone stronger, faster, or otherwise “bigger” comes to take it away from us. Appeals to common sense hold little sway in face of the “cruel” laws by which nature operates…and equally, not everyone recognizes things held to be commonly sensible.

But Nicholas feels entitled to these human rights all the same. At the same time, he has in the past argued that an entire category of human beings — the unborn — do not necessarily deserve the same comprehensive protection of their human rights. But for Nicholas, his being protected by those and other legal conventions is sacrosanct. It is his entitlement.

So I leave it here to the Reader: what, exactly, does Nicholas worship, even if not in a way that involves formal ritual?

Well, I see that Joel hasn’t linked to me since the last article he wrote, so I don’t know if he’s had anything more to say about my last response to him. And to be fair, I also don’t care; it’s nice to engage with people who come knocking on the door, but I’m not going to be bothered to go and chase them down once they depart the area. Joel is, of course, welcome to continue misrepresenting me in his impotent rage — in fact, I would expect no less.

There are just a couple loose ends I wanted to tie up for myself, O Reader, and some thoughts I wanted to collect in one place.

Firstly, Joel responded rather poorly when I suggested that in my view, atheism was a rather peculiar sort of Religion. In his reply, he suggested that the only reason I thought this was that atheism stated an opinion concerning God (or gods), and that because it said something about God it must necessarily be a religion.

Of course, this is an error I could have predicted Joel would make, given his insistence on seeing no particular differences between different religions or denominations thereof. Had he been a little more interested in scholarship in this regard, he would have known what I know, and would have been able to rattle off a good five examples of religious forms that involve no gods (singular or plural) at all. Taoism and Buddhism are perhaps the biggest examples (especially Buddhism, since atheists — Sam Harris, for example — do seem very fond of pointing it out as a deity-free religion), but other examples can be found in various forms of pantheism, panentheism, and Animism. It is quite possible to have a religion without also having a deity of any sort.

So obviously, O Reader, when I talk about atheism as a sort of odd, counter-intuitive quasi-religion, I am not specifically speaking of something which has an opinion on the existence of a deity. My categories are, as I explained, somewhat broader than that — I merely noted that atheism was a philosophical conjecture indefensible by any evidence or theorem (in other words, it has the same inherent weaknesses that my own religion does, if one employs only empirical categories). Atheism is not grounded in facts; it is a “belief” as surely as my own Catholic faith is a belief. Not that there’s any shame in that, of course — belief is an integral part of the human condition, and a key factor in (among other things) every relationship we are in, whether professional, friendly, or romantic. Things like love and trust are acts of faith.

And indeed, the question is not whether we believe, as the atheists would have it. The question is what we believe. We may not believe in God, and we may not believe in many gods. We may not believe that the Bible, the Koran, or the Torah contain the answers we are seeking after. But we may believe that science holds those answers (Joel seems to…). We may believe in reason. We may believe in rationalism. The point is: we all worship something, whether a transcendent divinity or our own wallet and/or genitals.

That is why truly, genuinely non-believing atheism (if it exists) can only, at most, be a temporary fad in the transition between Christianity and whatever belief system follows it down the way, whether that’s the same or another form of Christianity or some sort of paganism. Humanity can’t not believe; it’s in the very fabric of our being to worship. As I’ve noted, the only question is what we will worship. Will we worship what is true, or merely a simulacrum of the truth?

Grace read my responses to Joel over the weekend and noted that he — along with Nicholas, incidentally — seemed to be a very bitter person, and then one who was hurting. I can’t say I disupte the analysis, having read some of the personal entries on Joel’s blog; neither he nor Nicholas seem to be genuinely happy individuals. Moreover, there seems to exist in them a pervasive need in them to spread their unhappiness to others. This is, I have learned through bitter experience, a fairly common feature of atheists (or rather, of those atheists who care to speak up about their atheism) — they are not happy until all around them are unhappy.

And so, to both Joel and Nicholas, Grace and I pose the following questions:

1. What do you feel entitled to?
2. Why do you feel entitled in this way?
3. Why are you so angry/sad/bitter?
4. If you had to define happiness, what would it be to you?

Honestly, the more atheists write in to Time Immortal, the more I pray for them. And no, I don’t necessarily pray for their conversion (although I sometimes do). More often than not, I pray that God helps them with whatever it is that has saddened or embittered them, that they may find a way through it through His guidance, even if they couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge the guidance itself.

Such men as this are to be pitied.

Joel responded fairly quickly to my last post about him. He feels that I’ve missed the point. Interestingly, he doesn’t exactly do a great job of citing an example, preferring instead to approach it thusly:

He’s decided that I think all religions are the same.

Which is not wha