Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: Never too late to blaspheme

"Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29). Eternal sin. Like having to register as a sex offender or being declared mentally incompetent, there is no exist from this one. JYou can be forgiven the others, but not this one. You can be forgiven your murders, your hate, your meanness. All forgivable. But denying the existence of an invisible spirit, not.

Aw, geez. All cults have a central tenet. Why must you pick on the Christians so much?

For fundies, this type of biblical interpretation represents the community association rules for their heavenly gated community.

As I understand it, when the ancient Jews changed the gender of the trinity from female to male, they were stuck with a conundrum. The original was maiden, mother, and crone, but when they went male they added descent, so they had son, father, and ... what, grandfather? This would imply an unending line of descent, which would diminish the importance of the son and father, as they would just be generic roles. Deciding to make the characters have specific identies gave them Son and Father. For the third, they made a left turn, going neither forward nor reverse, but sideways, orthogonally, into a different dimension, coming up with the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost.

As a consequence, there has always been the problem of a mission statement for Number Three. What would his job description be? There never has been a good answer, not even a piss-poor one. The best they could do is babble about One Equals Three and Three Equals One. Just babble.

It was pure genius to cook up an actual role for #3 to play: keeping count of those who deny him, making his little list, and stamping the afterworld visas of the blasphemers with REJECTED.

Nancy: Because, living in a "Christian country" (as we are repeatedly told), this is the dominant theme. The US is quite a free country, for most of us (too bad we don't like the same freedom for others) so I can say this. In a Muslim country I couldn't. But I don't live in a Muslim country.

The main problem I'd have with answering this challenge is that it plays into the anti-atheist viewpoint that atheism is a rejection of religion, and more particularly, of their specific religion. It continues to place their God (or Holy Spirit) at the center of the discussion, and portrays atheism as a rebellion against him/it.

I won't say that phrase because it simply isn't relevant to my life. It's like saying, "I reject the Publisher's Clearinghouse prize," when the prize patrol hasn't come to my house, when I never even sent a postcard back. It's like saying I deny Zeus.

Or that I deny setting fires. Even if one were to accept that denial, it would still subtly hint that fires had been set; that the thing I was denying had happened. So I won't deny their Holy Spirit, because it would give that supposed entity more credibility.

It's a trap, Revere!

caia: You make very excellent points. On reflection I have to agree with you.

I agree with caia as well, but only to a point. I think you're really missing the point in some ways. Yes, to say "I deny the Holy Spirit" is to play in their sandbox, so to speak - but if you are to have any kind of impact on them at all, you have to "seek them where they are", so to speak. The point is not to make a point about yourself or atheism, the point is to make a point about *their God*.

They believe that you must never deny the Holy Spirit - but not only have you just done this (if you made such a video), you did it voluntarily and of your own free will, and were cheerful doing it. Everything good that happens in your life past that is pretty much a slap in the face of their religion - after all, they believe that you are completely lost and that God has forsaken you - and that all good things come from God...

You can be completely secure in your atheism, not believe their is a God, a Jesus, or a Holy Spirit, and you can *still* participate in this and have an effect. It's not for you - it's for *them*.

Revere, hon, you took me way too literally. I was totally joking.

Nancy, I am sure if Revere lived in a Muslim country he would pick on the Muslim faith. Since he lives in Christian country he is more conversant in Christian foibles. Any religion that fights holy wars, burns witches, has holy inquisitions, pens Irish women up in involuntary slavery in Magdalene Sisters Asylum, refuses to let women use birth control, deems that an abortion to save the life of a woman is forbidden, advocates stoning gays, etc deserves criticism.

But you say, not all Christians are like that. No, but they still have moving mother's day sermons, neglecting to inform the children with abusive mothers that THEIR mothers are not saints - and so the child thinks they must be the evil one. They tell you prayer works, and then it fails, leaving you to wonder if you child died because you didn't pray or believe right. And largely they tell you that God the Good will send lots and lots of people to eternal torture - something neither George Bush nor Sadaam Hussein could manage - their torturees eventually get the release of death. Not so with God's tortured souls.

Right on Revere - I too deny the Holy Spirit, the divinity of Jesus, perhaps even the existence of Jesus and the existence of any powerful god who would dare call him or herself good. The evidence is right before our eyes. No good god exists.

Nancy: Apologies. Religion is one of those topics where one doesn't take obvious irony for granted. Sometimes what you think (must be) a joke, isn't. And, as in your case, the reverse. Maybe someday people will look back on this and laugh. I hope so. Because it's really quite hilarious.

What is deniable is their gross interpretation of the Holy Spirit and that truly is No Big Deal.

The churches are loosing people, faster than most really see. They need to come up with creative ways to further entrap their members.

No apologies necessary, Revere. ;)

I remember when the Holy Spirit was the Holy Ghost. Those were the days. We prayed for the conversion of England. That one didn't work, either. The Holy Spirit is like Arial in the Tempest: bring him on when the plot gets unfeasibly daft, even by Biblical standards.

Pentecost? Papal elections? Transubstantiation? All made possible by the Holy Ghost. Funny how God doesn't do PAs now human have invented cameras.

Atheist thought is sometimes so pathetically two dimensional. The esistence of God, the Holy Spirit, or anything else is unlikely to be affected by human belief or lack thereof. One can logically say they see no scientific evidence of the existence of the Holy Spirit but that is not the same thing as saying definitively that the Holy Spirit does not exist. It is rather like Descartes denying the dog feels pain because he cannot understand the subtlety of it.

carl:

I posted about that in my blog earlier - you can't prove a negative. There isn't any evidence for god not existing - not any hard evidence, anyway. Nor is there any evidence for God existing. You just kind of have to make up your own mind.

I get just as annoyed at atheists trying to convert me as I do with Christians trying to convert me.

carl, Russell: Back to my favorite example. Suppose I told you there was an invisible, undetactable, invisible elf in my wristwatch that rules everything in the Universe. Can you prove He doesn't exist? Definitively? Big Deal.

oh revere, that's the science mind within you, "if you can't see it then it doesn't exist".

Does a rock believe in god? No.

Non-belief is not a philosphical position, it does not require evidence. It's the baseline.

Lea: Not in the least. Science deals with many things we can't see: electrons, quarks, gravity, the interior of stars. The Holy Spirit? I don't think so.

revere:

No... you can't. But you can't prove that he does either. And at that point it's just a matter of deciding what you choose to believe.

I wouldn't have a problem with people who would decide that there was an elf living in your wristwatch running the universe. I'd think they were a little batty because it was extremely unlikely, but on the flip side I could not dismiss it out of hand and say "there is definitely no elf living in your wristwatch running the universe". I could say "The probability is that the elf in your wristwatch doesn't exist", or I could say "I am reasonably convinced that the elf in your wristwatch doesn't exist", but could I say for sure that it doesn't? No.

And even moreso, could I say that there is evidence right in front of our eyes saying that there is no elf in your wristwatch? No.

It all comes down to what you are prepared to believe.

I'm going to rephrase that second-to-last sentence.

"And even moreso, could I say that there is evidence right in front of our eyes saying that there is an invisible, undetectable elf in your wristwatch? No."

Obviously, the evidence that there is no elf in your wristwatch is self-evident if you don't specify that it's invisible and undetectable.

Russell: The question is what warrants your belief, not what you are prepared to believe. Your position is not only a radical skepticism masquerading as faith, but almost solipsistic. Scientists believe there is a real world that doesn't depend on our beliefs about it. We try to find out how it works.

Of course, but not everyone is a scientist and as you just stated in your own way, science is in many ways distinct from belief. I'm just stating that you can't say with absolute certainty that something does *not* exist, when you have no evidence that points to its nonexistence.

Russel, at the risk of starting yet another athiest vs agnostic grudge match, I would say that an element of uncertainty is implicit in any statement. Can I be sure that I'm not a brain in a jar being fed inputs designed to convince me of an utterly false world? Nope, no I can't. No-one can. So does that mean that no person can ever make a statement of certainty ever again?

It would make conversation difficult.

So when your most rabid atheist says "there is no god" - of course there is an element of uncertainty in even this absolute statement. That's a necessity of human language. You can't append "...but I could be convinced otherwise in the right circumstances" to every statement of certainty. It should be obvious. It's a necessary element of human awareness.

So when an atheist says "I don't believe in god", and then an agnostic says "I don't beleive in god, but I could be convinced otherwise in the right circumstances", they are saying exactly the same thing. One is just being pedantic.

At: Do you want to go out tomorrow?

Ag: You can't be sure there will be a tomorrow!

At: True, but assuming there is, do you want to go out?

Ag: What if the planet turns to marshmallow tomorrow?

At: Well that's not very likely, is it?

Ag: We don't know how likely it is! We don't have enough data to judge! We don't have any data at all!!!

At: Well ok, assuming the world doesn't turn into a marshmallow, do you want to go out?

Ag: No ...but I could be convinced otherwise in the right circumstances.

Russell: I would ask, what can you say with absolute certainty? If the answer is "nothing," than what have you said? And are you absolutely certain of it?

SmellyTerror:

Makes sense, however, in my perspective, which may be different than yours, it is important to me not to let go of the possibility. Sometimes it just comes down to what you want to label yourself as.

Personally, I choose agnostic over atheist because, in my mind, I prefer to advertise my openmindedness about it. Atheists may have the same openmindedness and may not, but they choose not to advertise it.

No grudge match, I'm just one of those people who are very precise in use of language. It tends to annoy others ;-)

Forget the blasphemy challenge. I want to see YouTube videos of people ambling around church parking lots during Sunday services and placing pro-rational "tracts" on people's windshields. I'm not talking about in-your-face "God doesn't exist, get used to it, ya fuckin' hayseed!" stuff, but something genuinely useful and even seductive. Stuff that simply asks readers not to trust Pastor Blowhard out of the gate, to consider that science is not in fact a natural adversary of a moral or spiritual or introspective life, that evolution is not a tool created for the express purpose for battering Jesus into submission, but simply one more aspect of how nature works, with or without our approval.

Use easy-to-follow diagrams featuring smiling cartoon characters. Give lists of common myths about evolution, scientists, and human sexuality and brief explanations of why these are wrong. Print URLs to be used as resources (this is more likely to work than book titles). Even people like Russell Miller might be helped out of the primordial darkness, philosophically if not in any measurable way.

I wouldn't bother with even mentioning the word "atheist," though. Not at first. All this will do is rile the flock. You wouldn't try to get a Klansman to change his views by using the n-word, and to fundopaths, the a-word summons forth imagery just as loathsome.

Has this ever been tried? I'd be more than happy to help out, starting with a big-ass church off North Electric Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia.

revere:

I can say with something approaching absolute certainty (there are no exceptions that I know of) that if I jump off the I-110 HOV lane transition to the 105, I will land on the pavement below at a high rate of speed, and cease to be, become no more, pine for the fjords, become an ex-Russell.

My point being, I'm comfortable considering gravity, the sun, etc., as an absolute certainty, even though there is a vanishing probability that that could cease at some time in the future. Because I can see it with my own eyes, and experience it myself.

But when it comes to the holy spirit, to me, no one can possibly know. As you mentioned above, it's an entirely different animal. You can't prove it exists... and conversely, you can't prove it doesn't.

I'm sorry if I came off as meaning that about *everything* - I mostly mean the things in the spiritual plane that are just a matter of belief.

kemibe:

I wholeheartedly support that. I'd love to see the reaction of the churchgoers.

Sadly, I think it would probably make the national news, you would probably be arrested for trespassing, and legislators would be scrambling to pass ineffective and dangerous laws.

Russel: Ah! But then, if agnostics are seen to be "just like atheists, but with an element of uncertainty", well doesn't that imply that atheists are necessarily certain?

Ultimately the beef atheists have with agnostics (in general) is that (common usage) agnosticism implies that atheists are dogmatists - are certain where certainty is impossible. This form of agnosticism, this implied but false distinction, just serves to reinforce a negative stereotype of atheists.

Imagine I started calling myself a Goodjew. I'm just like a normal Jew, except that *I'm* not greedy and I don't eat babies. Now I'm not saying that Jews are necessarily greedy baby-eaters, but, let me stress that again, I DON'T eat babies. I'm a Goodjew.

Do you see how the growth of a Goodjew movement would be harmful to Jews? By creating a false distinction, the alternate movement - in effect - makes claims about the original.

It's not harmless. The perception by many that atheism is an irrational faith is one that makes our lives that much more difficult. So if there is no functional difference between the two camps, then surely atheists have a valid complaint...?

...and Russel, again, can you be sure you're not a brain in a jar who is inside a simulation? This claim stands up exactly as well to enquiry as the claim god exists. You can neither prove nor disprove this claim.

So unless you have some point of distinction that makes god more likely than brain-in-a-jar (?), then surely you must now be agnostic about everything...

SmellyTerror:

Let me reverse this on you a bit. I concede that there are reasonable atheists. Would you also agree that there exist unreasonable atheists?

I have met a few. These are the types of atheists that insist that god does not exist, *can* not exist, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. I even met one once, who, when I mentioned in passing that I had converted to Christianity (I deconverted a few years later) said "sorry to hear that" and never spoke to me again.

I call myself an agnostic to separate myself from those kinds of atheists. And they *do* exist.

So, would you at least allow for the possibility that those atheists are doing more damage to the name of "atheist" than agnostics are? I have yet to meat an unreasonable agnostic, because by the very nature of the word "agnostic", I'm not even sure how it's possible.

SmellyTerror: I've often wondered if I was a brain in a jar inside a simulation. It would explain quite a bit.

I've no way of knowing. But it doesn't change anything fundamentally even if it's true, so I don't pay the possibility much mind.

I call those people "assholes". They may also be atheists, or male, or white, or diabetic, or blue-eyed (curse those evil blue-eyes!), or any of a million million identifiers.

I see a lot of stupid crap perpetrated almost entirely by men. Does that mean I can stop calling myself a man, to distance myself from those idiots? No. It might be satisfying, but it'd be pure prevarication.

...and yeah, I've met some very agressive, irrational agnostics. But then, I am pretty annoying.

SmellyTerror: Then you wouldn't have much choice but to call yourself a woman, and somehow I doubt that would work out. :-)

They may be assholes, but they color my view of atheists, because I've met many more of them than I have the more reasonable variety. Usually, in my perspective, the more reasonable variety call themselves "agnostics".

But this is just in my experience.

I've heard the distinction "hard atheists" versus "soft atheists" before. I'd be reasonably comfortable saying I was a "soft atheist" if push came to shove.

Russel: Well agnosticism came about by coining a new word. So to stop being male maybe I can be an emale? Just like a male, only NOT a violent wife-beating thug.
:)

Again, though, you see the problem with implications regarding those who do not chose to re-label themselves?

Personally, instead of all the reasonable people arguing over what to call themselves, I think we should just rename the dogmatic idiot atheists. Call it "as-bad-as-ism" or something.

Anyway, the push-comes-to-shove line means that I can now claim to have converted an agnostic to the One True Lack-of-Faith. I'm off to gloat.

(Sorry for thread-jacking, Reveres. I'll shut up now)).

Umm... what's a fundopath???

"wouldn't bother with even mentioning the word "atheist," though. Not at first. All this will do is rile the flock. You wouldn't try to get a Klansman to change his views by using the n-word, and to fundopaths, the a-word summons forth imagery just as loathsome."

Typo? Couldn't find it online and my dictionary is mia.

Smelly: No thread-jacking involved. This is what the Comments are for. Your discussion with Russell has been civil and interesting (both of you).

Ummm....If atheists who are dogmatic and annoying are to be re-labeled "assholes", then why not just re-label the really dogmatic annoying religious types "assholes" and leave *their* beliefs out of it? There's a genuine distinction between denying and not knowing, just as there's a genuine distinction between dogmatic religious literalism and thoughtful use of spiritual traditions.

Incidentally, practicing Jews were unlikely to come up with a Trinity [one of the earlier comments], given a rather defining tendency to ascribe "one-ness" to God.

caia: Playing to the thiests game?. You refuse to say "that phrase" becasue it would be just like saying some other irrelevant, stupid phrase. Except that you went ahead and said the other irrelevant, stupid phrase, but were careful to not say the original. So the two phrases are different in your mind, it seems.

I am guessing that you (or rather, the many people I see that say they would say "it" if it mattered, but refuse to say "it" anyway) either (a) secretly in your heart of hearts harbor a fear that maybe, just maybe the thiests are right, or (b) you are nervious about how people will see you if they knew you were an athiest, or (c) you are polite to the point of trying to avoid confrontation even with the most irrational, stupid beliefs of others. I am in camp (b), hoping to someday get to option (d), living in a world where being an athiest isn't seriously frowned upon by everyone I know. Where are you?

So I think the opposite is true. Refusing to say the phrase plays into their hands exactly. Saying as if it stupid, irrational, and meaningless makes it clear that one group of people, thiests, are deeply troubled by stupid, irrational, and meaningless phrases, while the other group (athiests) treat those phrases exactly correctly.

benhakana: The difference that is important here, I think, is that it is a major fundamental, inseparable part of Christianity (and similar stuff for many other religions) that that you cannot be Christian without believing in the power of the holy spirit. There is no similar tenet for athiests. This "deny the holy spirit challenge" pretty much goes to the core of christianity, not the fringe -- I remember repeating holy spirit nonsense every Sunday my whole life, for example. You can be an athiest, however, after previously denying the power of science. Or after previously believing in a god or gods. Or any other nonsense. Athiests won't claim, no matter what you do or what you have done, that you will be eternally damned in the afterlife and will not be taken up when Our Lord Jesus comes again. Or, well, they will, but they will be joking.

KW, I was recently at a Blockbuster Video faced with a store clerk who was trying to convert me to the Blockbuster Online service. When I said, "I have a confession to make. I belong to Netflix," a priggish customer at the next register said, "Aren't you supposed to save your confessions for church?"

Much to my surprise (and secret delight), I turned to her and said, "No. I'm an atheist."

You'll get there. Just give it time.

kw: Ain't nobody going to "be eternally damned in the afterlife". Good golly, you have your way of approaching life and atheists have theirs.
Lighten up, and this is coming from someone who believes in God.

Lea -- sorry? Are you trying to say that no one will be damned? I think there is a bible, a popular book series (left behind), and a few million fundies that disagree with you. It seems to me that if you believe in the christian god and the bible, well, then you believe a whole bunch of people sure will be damned.

I'm not sure what "believes in God" but not in the afterlife means. Can you explain?

kw: Exactly, NO ONE will be dammed. How much plainer can I put it than that?
If you believe the bible is the word of god then there's nothing I can say that would convince you.

The bible was done by man, not Jesus Christ.
I am not into putting down JC, I agree with what he said, from His lips.
What I don't agree with is how his teachings were bastardized, grossly misrepresented and misinterpreted, and changed to suit the the church to further entrap people.

The bible was written in 60 A.D., long after JC died. Therefore the bible is clearly the word of unelightened men.
The church made JC divine and Jesus would be livid if he saw what the church did. The church has misguided humanity and their pursuit for spirituality. The church has committed the worst crime possible.

Get the latest video and book by National Geographic, The Gospel of Judas. Read what Mary Magdelene wrote, and the books of Thomas and Phillip. Then ask your god to lead you in the right direction, not the direction the church has told you to go in.

I do not follow conventional religions, nor "religions" at all.

The reveres and I are friends but we don't talk about religion much. It seems to me that the branch of Christianity which they revile is the fundamentalist/literalist Christianist stream which most of us on the religious left also don't have much time for. I'm an Anglo-Catholic theologian and the school of theology from which I spring (Karl Rahner's universalism is a legitimate and orthodox part of the Christian tradition, if one which isn't going to get any time on EWTN. We are a part of the systematic theological debate, but since CNN, the WaPo and the NYT only quote Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, you aren't going to know about it.

Yes, we are friends and we are not attacking Melanie or the many other religious people of good will and good heart. But we are no friends of religion itself.

Benhakana wrote: Ummm....If atheists who are dogmatic and annoying are to be re-labelled "assholes", then why not just re-label the really dogmatic annoying religious types "assholes" and leave *their* beliefs out of it? There's a genuine distinction between denying and not knowing, just as there's a genuine distinction between dogmatic religious literalism and thoughtful use of spiritual traditions.

(Some day I'll work out how to block-quote).

Who's leaving anyone's beliefs out? That's my point: atheists can be assholes, but they can also be, uh, non-assholes. Whether or not you're an asshole has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're an atheist. Those theists who are dogmatists, or literalists, or thoughtful spiritualists, or those who are nice and those who are nasty, well, they're all different kinds of theist, right? We can use words to further define them, but you can't say "No, I'm not a theist - I'm a biblical literalist". It doesn't make sense.

It'd be like me saying "no, I'm not a man. I'm nice." Nice is not a contradictory state. I can be nice and male at the same time. Sure it's a distinction, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm a man.

To take the other side of the point, that denying god is different to not knowing: What atheists like me are saying is that, sure, in logic that's a difference, but in reality, in the real world and in the way we must as humans use our language to make any sense, there is no difference at all. (And, of course, that the step of actively denying the existence of god is not a necessary part of atheism, but that's another argument).

...which is why we bring up these silly possibilities like orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns. These are things that, by their nature, you can never disprove, yet pretty much everyone is happy to say they 1. don't believe in them, and further, 2. they believe these things do not exist. Maybe no-one can be absolutely certain, but in the absence of any convincing reason to believe such a thing, people are generally willing to say they don't exist. Do agnostic parents eventually admit to their kids that Santa doesn't exist, or do they say they can't possibly form an opinion in the absence of any possible evidence?

Important bit: Follow the brain in a jar theory to its conclusion. You MAY BE a brain in a jar, and the reality around you may be utterly false. You are now in the position of not-knowing ANYTHING with absolute certainty. I would argue that this possibility is absolutely equal in credibility to the possibility of the existence of god from the standpoint of any test you could devise.

Given this proposal (and plenty of others), surely (?) agnostics must now be agnostic about everything but existence itself, as indeed must everyone else. Agnosticism becomes meaningless - unless it simply means "rational", but then 1. we already have a perfectly good word for that and 2. being rational does not prevent you from being an atheist.

Either way it is a false distinction.