From: "Roland"
Subject: Re: I disagree with you

Do you really want to risk that there is not a God?

If I had a nickel for every time someone wrote to me trying to use some variation on Pascal’s Wager, I’d be rich. If I had another nickel for every time it was a poor and unsophisticated version of Pascal’s Wager, I’d be filthy rich. It’s as if these people have never in their lives dealt with any serious apologetics that took into account even the most basic and obvious rebuttals to their religious claims.

Come to think of it, I suppose that that is exactly the case. Based upon my experiences with them, I really do get the impression that they never before have been challenged to provide substantive arguments and serious support for what they assert. This is a pity, because it virtually ensures that what they write will remain superficial, facile, and ultimately uninteresting. It’s not just that they will fail to convert anyone, but they’ll actually fail to get anyone to take them seriously.

It is obvious to me that you are either in denial or are ignorant to science. If you believe not in something then you believe something to be not. It is that simple. It doesn't matter how many ways you try to disguise it or refute it. If you 'believe' that something is not true (disbelief), then that is your philosophy. Any rational person would agree, as science defines, that to not believe in something, to have a disbelief is to believe that not to be true. When someone makes a statement, "I believe there is a God" and you refute that belief by stating, "I do not believe", then you [do] believe the original statement [God's existence] to be false. You do not believe the person saying it is lying, you just believe that to not be true.

I’d be eager to learn just what “science” has to do with all of this, but Roland never responded on that point so I guess it will just have to remain a mystery. As far as I know, though, science doesn’t “define” the nature of belief. Perhaps Roland is using a special science text that he wrote himself.

As for Roland’s little discourse on the nature of belief, it’s so awful that I suspect that the sum total of knowledge and understanding in the universe has actually been diminished because of him writing it. Furthermore, I fear that you the reader may actually be dumber now for having read it. I’m sorry to have to inflict that upon you, but if I have to suffer through this sort of thing then why shouldn’t you?

Not believing that a proposition is true isn’t the same as believing that that proposition is false. You might, for example, simply not know enough in order to come to any conclusion one way or the other. That is in fact very often the case with claims about the existence of “God.” The term “God” is so vague and is defined in so many different ways that it actually makes much more sense to withhold affirmation or denial of the proposition “God exists” until the person speaking actually explains what they mean by “God” in the first place.

With that single, simple example, Roland’s explanation is revealed as worthless. If I do not accept the truth of the proposition “God exists,” it doesn’t automatically mean that I affirm the contrary proposition “God does not exist” and I do not deny the truth of the original “God exists.” Fundamentalists would like people to believe that this is the case, but it’s an abuse of both language and logic to work things in the manner that they do.

You cannot redefine language to suit your definition of words and their meanings. Correction, you can do that but that will only render your opinion worthless. [Oral sex is not sex. - Slick Willy] [The First Amendment of the US Constitution speaks of the separation of Church and State - ACLU (Anit Christian Liberal Usurps)] These are their [stated] beliefs. This does not prove this is their actual beliefs, just stated ones. In reality, both of these are false.

I think that we all have a good idea about Roland’s politics now. President Clinton’s ideas about sex have been lampooned widely and at first glance there is something odd about the claim that oral sex isn’t sex... but in reality, that opinion seems to be shared by a lot of people. It’s easy to argue that they are wrong, but with such a widespread misunderstanding it’s harder to argue that it’s a willful redefinition done to suit one’s needs. It’s awfully “convenient” for a lot of people, but when a false definition gets circulated a great deal, in many cases one has to start wondering if it’s become an honest error.

Where the ACLU is concerned, Roland is simply repeating an old prejudice common to many conservative and evangelical Christians. Because the ACLU fights on behalf of religious minorities who object when Christianity is imposed upon them in some fashion, it’s only natural that those who support the imposition of Christianity on others will get annoyed and begin attacking the ACLU.

Characterizing the group as “anti-Christian” like Roland does, however, is a serious error because the ACLU has often defended the rights of Christians. Sometimes those Christians are victims of over-zealous government officials who interpret the principle of the separation of church and state incorrectly. Sometimes those Christians are victims of other Christians who are trying to impose one idea about Christianity and faith upon people who have different ideas about the same things.

Roland is correct that the ACLU, like many Christians, non-Christians, secularists, and religionists that there is a constitutional principle that requires separating church and state. Roland is not correct, however, in saying that this is a “false” belief. There are many conservative and evangelicals Christians who share this mistake with Roland, but just because an error become common doesn’t mean that it stops being an error. Just as oral sex really is sex no matter how many people fail to understand that, the First Amendment separates church and state no matter how many Christians fail to understand it.

Obviously the first one is ridiculous. The First Amendment states the government should not dictate a religion for the people. It does not stay religion cannot be in government. Great Britain dictated religion to the people. This is why the First Amendment stated the government could no longer do that. It did not say that they were atheists or that the government was absent of religion. Religion can be found in all areas of the government. It just does not dictate which one. It does however, unlucky for you, state that there is a higher being.

It is true that the government cannot “dictate a religion for the people,” but if “religion” is “in the government,” -be some particular religion. If a particular religion is in the government rather than other religions, then the government is endorsing and supporting a particular religion over others. This is unacceptable.

People like Roland often pretend that there can be “religion” in the government where “religion” is some sort of generic, non-specific faith — but that’s naive at best, disingenuous at worst. There can’t be a “generic religion” that covers all religious beliefs; that’s just not possible.

Furthermore, it’s always obvious that when people like Roland favor more religion in government, they are never advocating any genuinely “generic” ideas — they are always advocating their own conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist religious ideas. Coincidence? Hardly. They want a government that specifically endorses and support their religion because in their theology, no government that isn’t connected to their religion can be legitimate.

That’s actually kind of sad and I have pity for such people. It must be difficult to go through life with a religion that requires agreement from everyone else and the government before you are completely satisfied.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...