Supervillains and Religion

It is, without doubt, because I am a nerd that I often find comic book parallels for theistic and apologetic arguments. I'm going to address one of them today.

The problem of evil was first (as far as we know) articulated by Epicurus around three hundred years before the Common Era. It's a rather simple argument and, while it doesn't disprove the existence of any gods, it rather handily disproves the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god. That's what Epicurus wanted to do, after all; he simply thought the gods (plural) were removed and uninterested in humanity.

It goes like this:

There is evil in the world.

Does God not want to prevent that evil? Then he is not benevolent.

Is God unable to prevent that evil? Then he is not omnipotent.

If he is both benevolent and omnipotent, then why is there evil?

That's sort of the David Hume version. There exist numerous responses to this, all of which fail to understand the meaning of the words "omnipotent" or "benevolent." I'm going to address one that fails on the latter.

Saint Irenaeus and others have said that evil is a necessary part of spiritual growth. After all, if we had no hardship to endure, we would have nothing to build our characters. There is no courage without fear, for instance. On some level, this misunderstands the nature of omnipotence; simply because we cannot conceive of something does not mean that it could not be so. Indeed, if God is omnipotent, exactly the opposite. He must be able to accomplish the logically impossible, or there are limits to his power.

However, setting that aside, let's grant the premise that evil must exist for spiritual growth. Is it worth it? Is that moral?

Zoom is an enemy of the Flash in DC Comics, who, like many well-constructed villains, follows a different moral code. He thinks he does what he does for the greater good, while the rest of us view his actions as obviously and horribly evil. He attempted to murder the Flash's pregnant wife, and succeeded in causing a miscarriage of their twin children. He has been responsible for numerous tragedies in the lives of many heroes, all with the goal of making better heroes. The element of personal tragedy that marks so many heroes, Zoom reasons, is what makes them sympathetic to the suffering of others. This is why they risk so much to help people. Thus, inflicting evil on an individual builds his or her character.

Sound familiar? Strange, isn't it, how a defense of God's motivations so easily translates into the motivations of a supervillain. That's not a benevolent god, that's a sociopath.

Let's Get Angry

Story here.

I read about this about a year ago. While this example is particularly horrific, it's nothing all that new - some horrible cult (this one happens to count a very low percentage of the world's population among its members, so the rest of the world is calling it a "cult" as well, instead of a respectable institution) murders a child for its religious beliefs.

Usually you see this with faith healing types. Medicine and treatment are withheld, the kid dies, the parents say, "Not our fault!" and the rest of the world says, "Yes it is!" and to jail they go.

Frequently, those same parents will try to claim religious freedom in their defense. Of course, as noted by Judge Vincent Howard in just such a case, "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct."

Here, however, we see a court playing into the delusions of the murderers.

A Maryland woman involved with a group described as a religious cult pleaded guilty in the starvation death of her son, but insisted that the charges be dropped when he is resurrected.

Bold mine. That's her plea agreement. They agreed to that.

Let's think about the message that sends to anyone watching - it's not okay to kill your child in God's name if you're wrong, but if your beliefs turn out to be right then we'll accommodate you.

The problem with that is simple. There's are some people on this planet who are absolutely convinced, 100%, that they are right. I call them "everyone." This does absolutely nothing to deter such murders in the future. If anything, from the perspective of the people who really, truly believe that it's really going to work this time, this is a stamp of approval.

Do you really believe what you say you believe? Then what are you worried about? Starve your child to death if he doesn't say "amen" before or after a meal. God wants you to, and the courts will back you up. But only if you really think you're right. Only if you believe with all your heart. Only if you know for sure that God's on your side.

Also, if it turns out that your neighbor's dog really did make you go on a killing spree, we'll set you free and arrest the dog. So, you know, make sure that dog's telling the truth.

What really happened here is likely one of two scenarios:

1) The prosecutors agreed to throw this clause in because they thought they'd get something useful out of the bargain. They figure no harm, no foul, and this way more bad people go to jail. To some extent, they're right. We do want all of the people responsible thrown in jail for as long as possible, but I don't know that we can call legitimizing a claim like this "no harm."

2) The prosecutors feared that they might lose their conviction on the grounds of religious belief. After all, it's difficult to prove that resurrection will never happen. A lot of the people in the jury probably believe it happened at least once. Isn't the defendant entitled to her belief that it was going to happen to her? The answer, of course, is "Yes, but she's not entitled to act on it." It's the difference between thinking dozens of people deserve to die and actually killing them. But they feared a stupid jury, and decided to compromise, setting a disturbing example for the future, so they could sidestep that possibility.

Good thing we don't rely on court decisions for precedent or anything.

Grasping For Meaning

Thomas Aquinas suggested that a proof for God's existence was the absurdity of infinite regression. Everything has a cause, but at some point there had to be a first cause. His way out of this was to assign that first cause the name "God".

Atheists have since contended that this only dodges the question. Even if we agree to call the first cause "God" we have failed to demonstrate any characteristics of that first cause. We can't even know if it's intelligent. To try to draw any conclusions from this assertion is impossible.

Similarly, theists will claim that the universe cannot exist eternally (for various unconvincing reasons) and so it requires a point of Creation. That point of Creation must have been enacted by a Creator, who is God and who is eternal. But the question then goes, "If the universe cannot be eternal, why can God?" Again, we have failed to demonstrate anything by the assertion, and we have failed to provide any evidence for the assertion.

The illusion of meaning, or purpose, is something taken very seriously by the religious. An argument that atheists hear time and again is that God must exist, because otherwise we would all be simply biological machines and everything we do would be ultimately meaningless and without purpose. They, of course, assume that life is not meaningless and without purpose as a foregone conclusion. Atheists respond to this by suggesting that the religious try to enjoy life for what it is, rather than for what they wish it to be. I think we can do better.

To suggest, somehow, that the existence of God solves the problem of purpose is deflecting the question. If we are unable to imbue meaning in our own lives (which, I would argue, we are), what makes us think God can? What makes It the final arbiter of purpose? The universe, if "Created", would simply be a grand experiment, or play, or argument. Its Creator, though having authored something of extraordinary magnitude, is without intrinsic value. To put it plainly, God is as empty as we are. To suggest that It is somehow able to imbue meaning and purpose into anything is to stop the infinite regression at an arbitrary spot, because the alternative hurts our heads (or, in this case, hearts).

God, if It exists, is a lonely, solitary, empty entity playing with Its own illusions. There is no other way to view a being like that. Theists must be so depressed and anxious, trying to search for approval and validation from something that never gives direct answers. I'm glad I'm an atheist so I can kiss a girl, eat a steak, laugh at jokes, and appreciate life for what it is.

Someone's Been Reading My Diary

Free Speech

Something's going on. To be honest, I don't really have the energy right now to give you the brief version and analysis that I normally do, but I can provide the links you need to read. This looks fairly important.

This is the first article. Selected line: "The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid."

This is what happened after the first article. Selected line: "The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent."

Here's the follow-up article. Selected line: "If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone."

I rather like this guy.

I Have Not Abandoned This Blog

I promise.

Updates will just be slow for a while as I adjust to compensate for this new job. Not to mention that my brain is busy learning a great deal of new stuff and has no time or energy left to think up new ways to argue against theism.

If I was a normal person, this is the point where I'd take the "Who cares?" perspective on the whole question.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, I am too stubborn for that.

I'll be back. So help me God.

Storm

A beat poem by Tim Minchin.