timeimmortal

You know, I am constantly amused by the way that atheists just seem to land on my doorstep. I realize that I tend to be pretty vocal in my criticisms of that particular philosophical conjecture/quasi-religion, but nevertheless I am still amused and the intermittent train of individuals who feel the need to stop in and say something.

I mean, really: if I am just a deluded theist, why not leave me to my delusions? Of what profit is it to debate with me, when the subject of debate is something that any atheist will state doesn’t even exist (i.e. a deity)? Why do atheists waste so much breath on the denial of this God in whom they most certainly do not believe, and whose existence they very readily deny. Why deny it at all? If, as Joel asserts, religious folks are akin to schizophrenics claiming that the dogs are talking to them, why bother to tell us that the dog’s voice isn’t real? Arguably, we can’t help it (being deluded) and probably won’t listen anyhow (being mentally ill).

For whatever reason, though, the poor dears feel the need to comment. Providing illustration to this observation, Nicholas had something else he wanted to add regarding my last response to him.

Let’s keep it simple: the old technology of signposts. We come to a fork in the road. One way leads to Edmonton, the other to Calgary. The signpost says right for Calgary. (And let’s also suppose that no local yobs are in the habit of turning signposts round.) Is it right for Calgary because the signpost says so? Or does the signpost point right because that’s the way to Calgary?

That, of course, is what Plato was getting at in your least favourite of the dialogues, Euthyphro. Is (for example) feeding the hungry good only because one or more gods are alleged to have said so, or are there reasons why feeding the hungry is good? If there are reasons, then we don’t need any gods as a basis for our moral choices. Note that this argument says nothing about the existence of one or many gods. It just says that the alleged guidance of one or more gods cannot be a moral basis for moral choices.

Moreover, the god YHWH was, in my opinion, according to the alleged records of its moral guidance, frequently grossly immoral. And many of the recorded sayings of Jesus are, in my opinion, also misleading moral guidance. Joseph Hoffman, for example, puts all that much better than I can. See http://www.spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/hoffmann_lettinggoofjesus.htm.

Nicholas demonstrates a very careless inattention, given his invocation of the tired Euthyphro argument. It was a good argument back in its day, when the dominant religion of the day was polytheistic and the notion of the love of the gods for what is “moral” was substantially more subjective given that different gods in the Greek Pantheon loved different things, often in ways which were contradictory. Euthyphro is more or less irrelevant in a monotheistic framework in which the internal contradictions of the Pantheon, on which the dilemma is so focused and dependent, simply do not exist.

Moreover, Nicholas is careless, O Reader, because he evidently didn’t bother to check and see if I’d had anything to say about Euthyphro buried in the archives. As it turns out, I’ve had a fair bit to say about the subject (see here and here, especially — moreover, see this and this by author Theodore Beale), and can confidently say that I’m not particularly worried at its implications to both my faith and my worldview.

The central question of the Euthyphro dilemma is, of course, Morality: is X moral because the gods love/command it, or to the gods love/command X because it is moral? Socrates had a field day with this. And to be fair, it kind of works within the context of the Pantheon (although, as Theodore Beale demonstrates at the above links, it can also be assailed and discredited purely from within that context), given that someone like Hera would be apt to love — and view as moral — different things than someone like Hades would. That’s fine.

Within the Christian context, however, the solution to the dilemma is a bit simpler: “yes.” Is something moral because God loves/commands it? Certainly. Does God love/command something because it is moral? Definitely. This works, principally, because God is the creator of all things (unlike, if memory serves, the various members of the Pantheon) — as the sole author of the whole of the Universe, God has created morality itself, and separated what is moral from what is not. This is both built into the fabric of creation and recorded as instructions, because humanity — empowered with free will — has need of both formal and natural revelation in coming to terms with, and in fostering its understanding of, God’s plan. That is why when we are taught, in the Bible, that marriage is the moral context for the use of the gift of sexuality, natural law and evidence from the world bear that conclusion out. There is a unity between what is taught and what is seen. God has both called us to moral living and made all the Universe in such a way that the living which He calls us to is moral.

To answer Nicholas more directly, however:

• Calgary is to the right.
• It is good to feed the hungry.

I trust the Reader notes what is going on? Nicholas is trying to sidetrack the discussion with dodges and pseudo-justifications, and in fact these are irrelevant. It is good to feed the hungry, plain and simple. Yes, Jesus commanded it, and obviously He did so because it was good. But equally, God (one in being with Christ in the Trinity) made humanity to be a social animal that values community and the well-being of members of the community; it is within our nature to care about the well-being of others. And so, both from within and without, what is moral is to feed the hungry.

As to the morality of God, I am not going to engage Nicholas in any substantive fashion, because we will end up talking past each other. I will agree that in the Old Testament there are a lot of times where we — merely human — might look askance at the recorded acts and commands of God and wonder at their correctness. Equally, however, we must remember that God does not see things as we do, and that if there is any truth to the “alleged records of its moral guidance” then there is also no chance at all that we mere humans will have any hope of comprehending the ways and means of the Almighty. Personally, I’m thankful for that, O Reader. For if God saw humanity as we humans tend to see it, I submit that He’d send us all into the pit of Hell with nary a second thought.

God is love, as Pope Benedict XVI recently reminded us in his encyclical Deus caritas est. And that is the first category we must employ when looking at the actions of God in Scripture. We may not be able to understand a particular action as one of love, of course, but whose shortcoming is that? God’s? Or ours?

Nicholas is, of course, welcome to dismiss as questionable the moral teachings of Jesus. Curiously, though, he simply states this as a matter of fact, providing no examples. I suspect that is because it is hard to argue that there exists any superior moral standpoint to “love your enemies.”

Finally, while the Hoffman article was interesting, it was also uncompelling (as, I have found, are most things that argue from the perspective of Jesus not being a historical figure). The fact that people doubt that Jesus was real doesn’t come as any surprise to me, given that a quarter of Britons think Churchill was a myth. I’d be willing to bet that over on this side of the Pond, more than a few people share that same thinking. And that should be instructive to us: large swathes of our society have relegated to the category of mythical a man whose accomplishments and shortcomings are well-documented, and who walked this Earth a mere sixty or so years ago. That people are weak-minded enough to similarly doubt the factual existence of historical figures that lived a thousand years ago, or two thousand, comes as no surprise, and is in fact to be expected.

Joel writes in again with some additional commentary. While I usually excerpt messages in their entirety, I’m going to respond to this one in a more “interlinear” fashion, as it covers several points in brief, and I feel these would be best responded to “in the moment.”

Here’s sort of my point.

I’m not a car guy. If you tell me technical things about your car, I probably don’t care and don’t udnerstand. Mileage, sure, but cam shafts? Nope.

This is a fair enough standpoint for as far as it goes, but there are certain limitations to it as well. I too, O Reader, am not a “car guy” — as long as the car gets up and runs, I’m not all that interested in the technical details of what is under the hood. On the flip side, I am a “computer guy” — I’m obsessive about the ins and outs of computers. I am also a “camera guy” — I’m obsessive about the inner workings of all manner of digital imaging devices, cameras first and foremost. I love Photography.

The astute Reader will note that, in keeping with my interests and areas of expertise, I often discuss computers and cameras on this site. The Reader will also note that I never discuss cars on this site. That is because I do not wish to be caught up in an obvious attempt to exceed my “academic authority”; I don’t want to discuss things I have not made at least some attempt to become familiar with at a level above “basic.”

Reciprocally, if I enter into a discussion about something on another person’s website, I take pains to become familiar with the issue at hand at a higher level than “passing familiarity” — I try to learn at least a few “technical things” before I begin to comment on a subject.

It would, I think, be more than a little boorish and arrogant to enter into a higher-level discussion at The Car Blog without first taking pains to become somewhat familiar with the inner workings of an automobile, or at least the ins and outs of the auto industry. Similarly, it is more than a little boorish and arrogant to enter into a higher-level discussion of religion on a blog that is open about its religious foundation if one is not prepared to discuss, in detail, the distinctions between different Religions or denominations thereof. Especially when the discussion is, in part, about the validity of a religious conjecture and its application to everyday life.

Bitching about Fords because one’s Chevolet blew a gasket is meaningless, silly, and irrational. Bitching about religion without bothering to engage or acknowledge the substantial differences in “technical details” between religions or religious denominations is likewise meaningless, silly, and irrational.

That Joel is opting for an approach which I have just finished describing as meaningless, silly, and irrational is somewhat disappointing, especially because Joel himself seems to be a nice enough guy as far as correspondence goes. One hates to speak in generalities, but this sort of presumptive arrogance — the assumption that one can freely and openly pronounce all manner of things about religion while at the same time refusing to engage such technical details as, say, the differences between the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ari schools of Islamic theology — is something one has come to expect from atheists.

In some contexts, I might care about the distinctions between Mormons and Catholics and so on. For example, if we were debating how best to alter relationships between governments and various christian denominations, the centralized power of the catholic church versus the more decentralized authority of protestants (if I’m getting that
right) might be relevant.

But in the context of this discussion (who proseletyzes and who doesn’t) the various denominations are virtually identical. You all believe in a supernatural sky-god and his divine son. Whether christ rose bodily or only in spirit are not particularly relevant (as an
example).

This is, O Reader, exactly what I’m getting at — the second paragraph, in particular, drips with all manner of presumptive arrogance that describes absolutely nothing about the reality of the situation.

To his credit, Joel does note a key difference between most flavours of Protestantism and Catholicism — Catholic teaching flows through a centralized office of doctrine, whereas Protestant teaching tends not to have any such central doctrinal body.

But any credibility that suggestion might have leant to his argument is all but destroyed by the paragraph following it (to quote XKCD: “while the author’s wildly swerving train of thought did at one point flirt with coherence, this brief encounter was more likely a chance event…”).

It would be enough to simply laugh off as inconsequential any argument that attempts to framework an objection to religion by beginning with the observation that “the various denominations are virtually identical” (despite the fact that in my previous response to Joel, I pointed out how seemingly minor differences between some Christian denominations are, in fact, rather large gulfs of difference when considered in light of what Christ actually taught. Add in even a brief consideration of religious denominations from other, non-Christian religions, and the absurdity of Joel’s claim becomes readily apparent.

As to specific beliefs, as I have pointed out, these are the most important thing at issue in the discussion of who proselytizes, because virtually every Western philosophy proselytizes (including, as I have noted, atheism). Several Eastern philosophies do likewise. And when everyone proselytizes, the issue of who does it becomes less relevant than the issue of what each evangelist is offering — in terms of philosophy, teaching, and doctrine — to those he or she is attempting to convert.

I don’t believe in a “sky god,” for example; I believe in a God who transcends the physical limitations of our empirical Universe. Nor do I believe God is wholly “invisible” any more than I am invisible. That I do not always see God no more means He is invisible than it means that I am invisible because some farmer in Africa cannot see me with his own eyes. If I cannot see God, it is because I lack the capacity to see Him, not because He cannot be seen.

And here Joel again demonstrates the fundamental illogic at the center of his argument, for already he has made an assumption that is incorrect. Were I a Hindu attempting to win a friend over to my faith, I would not regale him or her with tales of a solitary sky god. Hinduism is a polytheistic faith (or, perhaps more accurately, a henotheistic faith); my discussion with my friend would center primarily on the supremacy of Ishvara, but would also verge into discussions of Brahma and Vishnu, and perhaps even into talk of Shiva, the destroyer. We would talk about Dharma, Samsara, Karma, and Moshka.

And even if we only talked about Ishvara and his primacy as God, above other deities, we would still not be talking about a “sky god,” because Ishvara is, alternatively, interpreted as being without a fixed realm of any kind, or as incorporating all creation into his realm (Hinduism, then, also flirts with pantheism and panentheism at times).

Moreover, were a Muslim attempting to evangelize me, he or she would run into a major brick wall by insisting that God is unary and solitary (that is, arguing that there is no God but Allah, and that the Christian Trinity is actually a form of polytheism — that’s something which is specifically stated in the Koran). Muslims say “God is One” while Christians say “God is One but also Three.” It’s not the same thing, despite the fact that from the outside it all looks like monotheism.

To say nothing of the fact that were I not a Christian, my evangelism would have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or the notion that He died and rose from the dead, except perhaps in the sense that I would be attempting to refute that claim.

To briefly summarize, then: we’re not a third of the way through Joel’s one sentence, and already there are gaping holes in the logic.

Continuing on, Joel is right: I do believe in God’s divine Son, Christ Jesus, who died and rose again. Joel seems to dismiss as a minor issue the debate as to whether Christ rose literally or only in spirit, and in so doing betrays his ignorance yet again. For as St. Paul reminds us, if Christ did not literally rise from the grave then the Christian faith is meaningless, and Christians are fools who are to be most pitied. Victory over death in spirit alone is no victory at all.

And were I, a Catholic, attempting to evangelize someone, the literal nature of Christ’s resurrection would be a very big issue indeed, if in fact it came up as a subject for debate. One cannot deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and be a Christian…not, that is, if one is honest with oneself.

*shrug* again, my basic point was, and remains, Christians run the U.S., as a rule, if there’s a crossing of church and state, it involves some flavor of christianity. My atheism may hold all religions in much the same light (at least in that I believe they are
all equally delusional), but its Christianity that most often causes problems here. On a global scale, certainly, in this timeframe, radical Islam is a much bigger threat.

As I have before, O Reader, I observe that in a nation where over 70% of the population is Christian, it should come as no surprise that Christians should have a high level of participation in an elected, ostensibly “representative” government. That’s not to say that Christians “run” America, however…at least, not in the sinister, “implication of looming Christian theocracy” sense of the term that Joel’s statement would seem to be implying.

If one went to Sweden and complained that white people “run Sweden,” or that one’s objection to white people in government was in any way based on the fact that the majority of Swedish politicians were white, one would rightly be derided as a laughingstock. Sweden is a Caucasian nation — it is really only to be expected that its government would have a lot of white people in it.

Similarly, it is meaningless to complain about the quantity of Christians in government in a nation where most people are Christian, unless one is openly advocating that only persons of a secular bent should be allowed to govern a nation. In a nation like the U.S., which prides itself upon its representative democracy, such a notion is unthinkable.

I do, though, believe that all religions should be treated equally. In the U.S., for example, I don’t believe that schools should have Hannukah celebrations but not Xmas ones, etc.

That’s about as open-minded as anyone could be asked to be; personally, I do see value in people learning about the traditions of other religions. I would agree that all religions should be treated equally, for the most part — I disagree, obviously, that all religions are equal. And for the record, I include atheism in the previous sentence when I say “religion,” because it is as much a metaphysical conjecture as is my own Catholicism.

Sorry if this email seems random, its something of an unfortunate and scattered day here.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that. I will pray that Joel will find the strength to move past the pitfalls and confusion of today, and I encourage the good Reader to do the same.

Joel writes in again (twice!) to follow up on my previous response to him. I observe that the host for the communication was at atc.army.mil — the Aberdeen Test Center. Very interesting; the last atheist-in-uniform I tangled with was a fellow who went by the handle of Cartese. His arguments were that theists should, at best, be declared mentally unfit to vote/drive/own property…in his worst moments, he advocated for the open slaughter of the religious.

Joel seems substantially more moderate, which is good. Still, it has been my observation that debates with atheists can very quickly become ugly affairs; time will tell if this discussion goes down that all-too-familiar road.

At any rate, here is the first of two responses Joel sent in:

I appreciate your response to my email.

Apparently, given your reply, I didn’t make something clear.

I can only intelligently speak about atheism in the U.S.. Were I to speak about atheism in China or the Middle East, I would surely be a fool since I have never lived in eithr region, nor spoken with any atheists from those areas. Hence my points 1 & 2.

I suspect that atheists in various areas focus their efforts on the dominant Religion. But, again, I can only speak about atheism in the U.S.

Next, I consider Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses to be christian sects. They believe in Jesus and the Bible. Christian. I’m not sure there’s any meaningful distinctions here. God, Jesus, Bible.

Hence point #3.

I don’t know actual statistics, however if you know that Muslims proseletyze more than Christians, I’ll concede the point.

If I am myopic, I am at least honest about it. I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that my email made it clear I was only speaking about the U.S.. If that wasn’t clear, then I apologize.

Joel is quite welcome, of course, O Reader. And in turn, both for remaining reasonable into the second round and for the chance to discuss topics that I haven’t directly engaged in a while, I’d like to offer my thanks in turn to Joel. This is good…this is really good.

When religion is at issue, I think it is — or should be — necessary for any would-be commentator to keep firmly in mind the global picture, because religion transcends regional boundaries; Catholicism is represented on every continent and in almost every country on Earth, for example. So, for the most part, is Islam. So, for the most part, is atheism, and one would hope that it would be apparent that philosophical conjectures of every flavour are far larger things than the raw limits of a national boundary.

To put it another way, consider: if one based one’s opinions about American Christians solely on one’s observations of Christians in the state of…say…Utah, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christianity in America. Similarly, if one based one’s opinions about global Christianity solely on one’s experience of American Christians, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christ’s followers world-wide. For example, one would probably have a very inaccurate picture of the expanse and teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority Christian religion world-wide and yet a minority in the U.S.

I submit that the same is true of atheism. Therefore, limiting one’s consideration and disucssion to the peculiarities of a philosophical conjecture such as atheism to those found only in one small region of the globe is indeed rather myopic, and perhaps even borders on willful ignorance. The atheism of Sam Harris (an American) is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Richard Dawkins (a Briton). And to be perfectly fair, the atheism of Richard Dawkins is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Michael Onfray (a Frenchman).

However, what is most interesting about what Joel has said, O Reader, is his demonstrated ignorance where even American Christianity is concerned, for there is a great deal more to being Christian than simply “God, Jesus, Bible.” While the various Christian demoninations disagree sharply on different points of doctrine and the source of justification in Christ (i.e. faith vs. Grace), anyone who professes to be a Christian must, at minimum, acknowledge the following:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That is the Nicene Creed, promulgated in 381 as a definitive articulation of what Christian faith is, at its very minimum. It is all well and good that Joel personally considers Jehovahs and Mormons to be “Christian sects,” but the truth is that they are not particularly Christian, despite the invocation of Christ. Specifically, Jehovahs deny the trinitarian unity of God and Jesus; they believe Jesus is a wholly separate entity from God. They further believe that Jesus also appeared, in the recorded text of the Bible, as the archangel Michael and as Abaddon (c.f Revelation 9:11).

Some might dismiss this as a minor difference, but since Jesus — in his own words — claimed “oneness” with God the Father, the fact that Jehovahs do not acknowledge the Trinity renders them effectively non-Christian, despite the fact that they recognize Christ*.

Mormons likewise dispute the Nicene Creed’s concept of the Trinity, and so render themselves non-Christian in the most honest and basic sense of the term. Obviously, there are a lot of disputes around this, and obviously most mainstream Christians recognize at least some kinship of faith between themselves and both Jehovahs and Mormons. At the end of the day, though, Jesus and his apostles both spoke plainly enough (c.f. John 10:30, 20:28) about the unity that existed between God the Father and God the Son.

As to who proselytizes the most, I don’t have concrete numbers. But then, I’m not sure that the raw numbers are the important factor for consideration; most Western (and some Eastern) religions, faiths, and philosophical conjectures have an evangelical aspect to them…even atheism. The question, then, is not simply about who proselytizes, but about what religion the one who proselytizes follows — i.e. what religion is being “sold” (to use a crude term for it).

When an atheist attempts to evangelize, he or she is obviously not “selling” the same “stuff” as a Christian would be during an evangelical enterprise. And neither of them are “selling” the same “stuff” as a Muslim would be during an act of evangelism. The act of evangelism is not the important consideration; the “stuff” being “sold” is. What is each person “selling” by their efforts? What are the tenets of their faith? These are the more important questions to ask, because not all faiths are the same. Atheism is not the same as Christianity, which in turn is not the same as Islam, which in turn is very different from Judaism or Hinduism.

It is not enough to simply consider that something is being preached, then; what must be considered is what is being preached. What is being preached by Christian evangelists? What is being preached by atheist evangelists? What is being preached by Muslim evangelists? Which denominations of each faith or philosophy are the most active in terms of their evangelical efforts?

Setting aside pseudo-Christian sects like Jehovahs and Mormons, I can’t put my finger on exactly which strain of American Christianity is most active in its evangelical efforts (my mind tends to drift toward thinking it’s either the Baptists or the non-denominational “free” Evangelicals, who are rooted primarily in Pentecostal teachings).

As a Catholic, I obviously have my disagreements with both Baptist and Pentecostal theology, and certainly I disagree with members of those churches who…say…oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. On the other hand, I agree strongly with them when they stand up in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, or when they oppose embryonic stem cell research.

And I have to say: though I disagree with them over the evolution issue, their proselytism is, on the whole, generally not a bad thing. Most of them are earnestly convinced, as I am, that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, who died and rose again for the salvation of all mankind from their sins. Take a look again at the Nicene Creed (above), O Reader: that’s what a Christian evangelist is attempting to bring into the lives of others. It’s not a bad thing to bring at all; it is not antithetical to reason, it is not dark or sinister — indeed, it is joyous news. A genuine Christian evangelist brings first and foremost this message to the unbeliever: “You are loved.”

Atheists the world over are, of course, welcome to dispute specific tenets of the various Christian faiths, and are encouraged to dispute the silly opposition some Christians have to the teaching of the theory of evolution in science classes. Indeed, atheists are even welcome to dispute the central thrust of the Christian evangelical message — they are welcome to deny that some transcendental divinity loves them, personally, as an individual.

But there is no inherent threat or danger in the Christian evangelical message; there is no subversion of reason, no need to abandon all other things that one knows, and no need to sacrifice one’s freedom (except perhaps in the sense that, if one’s conversion is true and motivates a change of heart, one might give up certain aspects of one’s lifestyle that one comes to realize are immoral — but even this is not a negative thing). And even when Christian evangelists focus on negatives — for example, the impending danger of eternal damnation — one cannot say that their hearts are not still in a good place; I wish Hell upon no man, nor on any woman, and no earnest Christian ever should. One can hardly fault Christians, then, for wanting to try and convince as many people as they can to turn away from something so horrible, even if it means that their evangelical rhetoric is not the most…palatable.

Now, I’ll grant that some Christian evangelists (a minority, thankfully) go astray from the above — Jack Chick fans are an easy example here. That is a pity, and such men and women do Christianity no credit. But it has to be observed, on the other hand, that most mainstream Christians look at such men and women and shake their heads; many also vocally denounce the errors such men and women make (I certainly do, as the long-time Reader will doubtless know).

What of Muslim evangelism? What is being “sold” therein? While moderate strains of Islam do exist, it has to be noted that the majority of Islamic schools, lobby groups, and evangelical ministries seem to be funded by either the Iranians (on the Shia side) or the Saudi Arabians (on the Sunni side). That in turn means that a goodly number of Muslim evangelical efforts are “selling” a more radicalized form of Islam that, while it may not be as vocal in opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, harbours substantially darker things beneath its surface — misogyny, violent rhetoric, the infidel/non-infidel hostile dichotomy, and the dar-al-Islam/dar-al-Harb conflict model view of the world. In many parts of the world, and America is not exempt, Muslim imams call for a new global caliphate and the subversion of all world governments under one Islamic order.

There is, then, something of an inherent threat in the main form of Muslim evangelism in the world today. And the peculiar myopia of atheism, as I have noted previously, is that atheists prefer to heap their opposition and condemnations upon benign Christianity while simultaneously ignoring (to the point of actively denying, as Joel did in his first letter, that other religions even engage in proseltyism to any meaningful extent) more malignant religions in their midst. I cannot be certain why this is; fear of seeming racist, perhaps? The only atheistic author I can think of who has devoted any meaningful amount of attention to the threat of Islam is Christopher Hitchens, and even then he goes somewhat astray by attempting to framework his objections to Christianity based on the transgressions and violence of Islam.

I got that Joel was speaking primarily about America in his first e-mail, and perhaps I was not clear enough in turn: that he limited himself thusly was one of problems. The other, of course, is that he seems to be sorely misinformed about both religious trends in America and in the world, and that he is woefully ignorant about what Christian faith constitutes.

I termed this “myopia,” and have pointed out why limiting one’s considerations to the extent that Joel has done is folly.

Speaking of myopia, I should post Joel’s second response:

OK, so here is actual myopia.

I simply assumed this blog was U.S. based. Which caused me to write my original email with that context in mind. ugh.

(note to self: try reading the FAQ before assuming facts not in evidence)

O Reader, this would hardly be the first time I’ve been mistaken for an American. I don’t know why American readers instinctively assume that this blog has a U.S. origin, but it does happen fairly often; curious indeed. At any rate, no harm done (and a good laugh was had).

I might suggest that the same principle — reading before assuming — would be a good habit for Joel to get in to regarding any further objections to religion he makes in which he attempts to argue from the principles of the religion being opposed. His dismissal of Christianity as being about “God, Jesus, Bible” demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance on his part. Fortunately, though, the remedy is easy enough.