The ASH podcast

Old episodes of the Agnostic Salvation Hour can be found at: http://agnosticsalvation.podomatic.com/ and on iTunes. Feel free to subscribe!

Recovering from Religion

For more information about Darrel Ray's Recovering from Religion movement go to http://recoveringreligionists.com/Welcome.html

The following is a link to an article about RR prinited by the Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com/238/story/1249250.html

Agnostic Salvation Hour

For any of you here to inquire about the Agnostic Salvation Hour on http://www.freethoughtradion.com/ you can email me about the show (comments, suggestions, hate mail) at agnosticsalvation@yahoo.com.

Morality and the bible part one

Ultimately, every aspect of human behavior and morality (even empathy) can be (and have been) explained in purely physiological and psychological terms. Of course this does not mean that there is not a God, but absolutely and undeniably morality would exist with out one. Of course, Christians insist that this is false and that without an intimate knowledge of the holy bible and an abiding fear of the afterlife no human can be consistently and honestly moral. But what can be said of the fact that millions and millions of atheists behave “morally” and do good works without the benefit of a belief in a god and whose behavior can not be attributed to a fear of being eternally tortured by an all loving being? Theists insist that while saintly atheists do in fact exist, their behavior is none-the-less inconsistent with their world view; that they're behavior is in fact influenced by the teaching of Christ and the holy bible whether they know it or not. So...let us consider the possibility of this claim, that the bible is in fact the only true source of knowledge, truth and morality that we have. Is this true? Is the bible in fact our source of our morality? To test this claim, I'll pit our present moral axioms against the teachings and actions found within the bible and determine if we do in fact get our morality from this book.Genocide:According to international law, genocide is defined as: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.Now, to most people, there's nothing to disagree with as this definition and this concept is universal: attempting to destroy an entire culture is wrong regardless the motives. Seriously, who disagrees with this? Well, as it turns out, the god of the bible was not at all adverse to urging his followers to commit acts that would easily fit within the accepted definition of genocide; in fact, he himself on more than one occasion committed the act we know as genocide.In the biblical tale of the Great Flood we have the most famous incident of genocide in history. This atrocity was committed because God was angry with the humans he had created because they were guilty of some unspecified wickedness, and what is it that the god of Christianity does to people when he's angry...he brutally kills them. Of course in this instance he brutally killed what would have been millions of humans, and destroys dozens if not hundreds of cultures. Bizarrely, this act of genocide is held up by most Christians as a superb example of god's love, mercy and justice since the 99.99999% of humans who had displeased god somehow deserved the cruel and unusual punishment that they received (as did what would have been billions of animals) and god did after all opted to spare the tiny tiny faction of one percent of us who did not fill him with hatred and loathing. Sure, some people will argue that maybe god could have handled the situation a little differently and that drowning 20 to 30 millions humans and billions of animals isn't the solution to every problem; but fortunately when it was all over, god apparently figured this out and promised to never drowned everyone again.Sodom and Gomorrah: God's hatred for humanity returns when he decides to destroy the pretend cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Angered by the wicked behavior (read sexual immorality) of the residents of these proud cities, God can no longer suffer their existence and plans to destroy the cities outright. Fortunately, the prophet formerly known as Abram successfully negotiates god into agreeing to spare the few righteous men that might be found in the cities (women are given no such consideration). As a result, God sends two angels disguised as human males into Sodom to investigate the situation Christians claim that this demonstrates god's mercy but in truth merely serves as proof that their god is in fact not omniscient. The angels immediately run into the hero of this tale: the godly Lot. Lot urges the two strange men to spend the night at his house, and eventually they agree. Shortly after arriving at Lot's residence every male in the city, both young and old, show up and literally insist upon having sex with the strangers. Allow me to repeat, every male in the city (this including infants) show up at Lot's house and demanded to have sex with the newly arrived strangers. The authors of this tale make certain to clarify that it was in fact every male in the city (again regardless of age) who demanded to rape the men. This fact allows the authors to justify the slaughter of the children who were to perish in god's fiery wrath since after all they were just as guilty as everyone else. The fact that two year old boys demanding to rape someone is patently absurd seems to be given less consideration that the fact that god needed to seem justified in committing acts of infanticide. Anyway...Lot, being the good father that he was, tosses his two daughters to the crowd and urges the crowd to rape them rather than the two men that he had met just minutes prior. Ultimately, this incident is all the evidence that God needs and he decides to destroy the two cities post haste (Lot is allowed to flee his fiery wrath). Apparently Sodom was so evil that god felt justified in reneging on his promise to search Gomorrah for a righteous man and he destroyed it as well simply because of it's proximity to Sodom. The cities were destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone and sadly Lot's wife made the horrible mistake of looking back and was turned into a pillar of salt...this is a sin which for some reason failed to make the 10 commandments (Thou shalt not look as god doth commit genocide). Later in the tale, Lot's daughters (who had to be still dealing with the trauma of being offered up for rape by their father) they trick dad into getting them pregnant (?). Amazingly, these are the people god opted to save.The Amalekites: Next on the list for extermination were the Amalekites, whom God hated. Apparently as the Israelites were making their exodus from Egypt to the holy land, a band of Amalekites attacked a group of Israelis who happened to be lagging behind the main group. Naturally, god felt that genocide would be the only proper response. After a very lengthy series of military campaigns (one in which Moses was for some inexplicable reason obligated to hold his staff above his head) King David was eventually able to fulfill god's demand to and I quote “kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”. (1 Sam 15:2-3). Interestingly, King David became the King of the Israelites because his predecessor King Saul hesitated to enact god's will with a satisfactory level of brutality and he was thus relieved of his rank (which is unfair as he did “put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys”). Unfortunately for Saul, he foolishly opted to spare the Amalekite king and some of their healthier cattle and sheep, and this failure horribly grieved god who at the time had no taste for acts of mercy and was not about to make an exception here. Saul, for his failure to sacrifice every animal to god in a burnt offering (which god doth delight in) was removed from his position as King of Israel. Christians are of course content with God genocidal verdict as the Amalekites did, after all, attack the afore mentioned straggling Israelis; obviously no other solution was acceptable in this situation...all of their women and children had to be killed.The Mideans: The Israeli treatment of the Mideans was particularly sick and tragic, as it was the Mideans who took Moses in when he originally fled from Egypt. Moses, who left Egypt after he killed an Egyptian guard, lived amongst the Mideans for 40 years. It was there that he met his wife and raised his children and was treated as an equal by the Mideans. It was also there that he met the Midean volcano god Jahveh (Yahweh) and under it's direction he conspired to free the Hebrews from their enslavement within Egypt. During the Israeli sojourn amidst the Midians, god inflicts upon the Israelis a plague as punishment for their association with the sexually immoral Midanites. God then instructs Moses to take vengeance upon the Midianites for the plague which god himself inflicted upon the Israelis. Moses in response summons an army made up of 1000 warriors from each of the twelve tribes and they descend upon the unsuspecting Midianites. They fought against Midian and killed every adult male and this anger god greatly; but it was not the ruthlessness of their attacks that angered him. Yahweh was infuriated by the fact that there were Midian children and women who still lived. He then instructed Moses to give his generals a furious tongue lashing: "Have you allowed all the women to live?" Moses asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man”. (Numbers 31:15-18). One can not help but wonder how much worse was the eventual fate of the girls who were spared that day.Amazingly, later in the bible the Midians seem to have shook off their extermination and returned to further bedevil the Israelites in the book of Judges. There, under the leadership of Gideon, 300 Israelis slaughtered 120,000 enemy soldiers (which coincidentally is the estimated population of the entire region at the time), 15,000 of which were slaughtered personally by Gideon after they had surrendered. For some reason, to accomplish this slaughter, god required the Israelites to blow horns and smash pottery which seems to have been the source of god's destructive power.The City of Jericho: The destruction of the city of Jericho was probably the single most unjustifiable act of genocide in recorded human history, as god did not even bother to accuse the residents of Jericho of sexual immorality or a crime of any variety. The residents of Jericho had done nothing to the Israelites and were peacefully minding their own business behind the walls of their proud city. Jericho's sin was to have had the misfortune of having been in the path of the Israeli horde as it traveled toward it's promised land, and for that sin death was the only response. To accomplish this destruction, god instructed Joshua to: “March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams' horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in." For some reason blowing horns is again a prerequisite to genocide in the bible. Once the walls of Jericho went down, the Israelis poured in and “They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys”. The entire city was sacked and everything within destroyed or killed. As was typically the case, the servants of the Lord showed no mercy and the Lord was pleased.The flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, the Midians, Jericho; these are just some of the example of genocide committed at the insistence of the god of the bible. Thankfully our modern attitudes towards genocide do not come from this book, and this is just one example of a justification for evil found in the bible. Most Christians desperately seek to justify the slaughter of entire cultures by claiming that the victims were somehow deserving of their fate, even (if not particularly) their women and children; this while at the same time abhorring genocide themselves. In fact, despite their hesitance to admit that their god was in fact wrong to order these barbaric attacks, I dare say that you could not find more than a handful of Christians among western culture who themselves would agree that genocide is even just occasionally acceptable. No...now days, with the exception of the most truly demented of their numbers, western Christians would be as vigorously opposed to genocide as any other sociological category; none-the-less, it cannot and must not be claimed that this attitude can be found anywhere within the bible and without exception Christians who do rightfully oppose genocide do so despite of what the bible has to say on the topic. Sadly, both the Christians and particularly the Jews would become very intimately familiar with religiously justified persecution and violence in later centuries.Let's take the matter a little further shall we. Let examine one of these actions in light of the Roman Catholic doctrine of a just war. Well respected and considered a moral imperative by many (theists and non-theists alike) the Just War Doctrine defines the conditions under which a war can rightfully be declare and prosecuted. Now according to this doctrine (and according to the Wikipedia entry of the Just War Doctrine), an entity (normally a state but for our purposes and god) must meet the following conditions before taking belligerent action:I. Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.II. Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.III. Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.IV. Right intention. Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.V. Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.VI. Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.VII. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.Now before comparing these criteria against god's actions, we are going to assume that god meets criterion 3 and 4. In other words, we'll assume that god is a legitimate authority and possessed a rightful intention. Now, with the remaining 5 criteria, let's examine whether god met the current Christian notion of a just war when causing the Great Flood.The Great Flood:I. Just Cause. The principle of just cause clearly indicates that hostile action cannot be justified by the desire to punish people who have done wrong, which was clearly god's motivation for having committed this act. Many Christians will argue that it was not god's desire to inflict harm or to punish, but rather he sought to correct an error that he had made when he created us. The humans (and apparently the animals as well) that god had created were wicked and god was really hoping for non-wicked humans when he made us; the flood was merely god's method of eliminating this embarrassing error. While one cannot argue with the fact that a god who created the universe and everything contained within would certainly have the prerogative to undo what he had done; one can certainly argue with the method he opted to use to carry out this act when one considers the options he had at his disposal. The fact that god opted to drowned hundreds of millions of humans and animals when he could have eliminated them in a pain and terror free manner serves as a pretty clear indication as to god's true intentions. The act was intended to punish the objects of his failed design, and thus god has failed to meet this particular criteria when he opted to make use of an unnecessary level of brutality as no amount of brutality was even necessary to carry out his desire to eliminate life on the planet. In addition to having failed to meet the criteria regarding the motive for resorting to mass acts of violence, god also failed to abide by the mandate that violent intervention be necessary to protect innocent life. Clearly this was not the case as not only were no innocent lives at risk if god failed to take this action, he undeniably killed countless children who are universally considered to be innocent (and no telling how many pregnant women were killed in the flood).II. Comparative justice. The principle of comparative justice mandates that the injustice being suffered by the party contemplating the use of violence must outweigh the the harm that one must inflict to put an end to said injustice. Again, god comes nowhere near meeting this standard as he personally was not being harmed or affected in any manner by the actions of the humans and animals he opted to brutally kill.V. Probability of Success. Hostile action cannot be taken unless the violence has a realistic probability of success. A nation cannot even opt to defend itself from an invading force unless there is a legitimate chance that such actions are not in vain. While one would assume that an all-powerful god would be successful in any endeavor it undertook, god none-the-less laments after the flood waters had receded that his efforts had in fact failed; and that humanity (the few of us that remained) was still wicked, and inherently so. Interestingly, two paragraphs after admitting this, god reaffirms that he made man in his own image. One does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce what this implies about god's nature. Ultimately, god's purpose for this act was, in addition to causing pain and suffering, the elimination of human wickedness; an omniscient god would have been that his efforts would met with failure. Just another criteria god has failed to meet.VI. Last Resort. As the name of the principle implies, hostile action must be avoided until all legitimate efforts to avoid violence have been exhausted. As god is described as having made no attempts to resolve the situation peacefully, one must concluded that god failed to meet this criteria as well. Now one might ask just what is it that god could have done to resolve the matter peacefully? Now being omnipotent and omniscient, one should assume that god did in fact have some methods at his disposal. Being neither omnipotent nor omniscient myself, I can personally think of at least one thing he could have done: instead of slaying all living breathing creatures right off the bat, god could have made an effort to communicate to us his expectations. Instead, humanity was left to ponder just what it had done to deserve it's fate as the species disappeared beneath a planet consuming flood. There is no indication made within the bible that god made any effort to educate our ancestors as to his expectations; nor is there any reason to believe that the victims of this cruel act had any reason to believe that they somehow deserved their fate.VII. Proportionality. I personally cannot find any significant difference between this principle and principle number 2. The comments I made there apply equally here.You'll find, I sure, that none of the afore discussed acts of genocide fare any better under the Just War Doctrine than did the Great Flood as each are completely unjustifiable in light of todays accepted attitudes on genocide and the justification for acts of violence.

origins of morality

To most theists, Christians in particular, the notion that humanity could exist under the aegis of a moral code that did not originate in their god is utterly inconceivable. Without a code of behavior defined by their god, by what means could we possess a moral standard; how could concepts of good or evil possible be known to any of us in a universe that is void a higher power? Of course, this attitude exists under two very false assumptions: A) That a code of morality requires an objective predefined source; and B) A god can be trusted to develop a code of behavior that has our (not his) interests at heart. Now, in case A, they have a point...not necessarily a good point, but a point none-the-less...where does morality come from if not a god? We'll in a sense, our morality does have an objectiveness to it; that being the human condition...we're all human, we all share a a large number of things in common and a basic realization that in order to achieve even our most minimal desires we have play by the rules that will get us there. Now, if we could achieve our goals by killing, robbing and raping everyone we come across, then perhaps that's how we'll behave; but of course a species that incessantly preys upon itself can only go so far in a Darwinian sense. In truth, there is within the majority of the members of our species an intrinsic abhorrence of chaos, wanton violence and what we would call anti-social behavior in general. The Christians assert that this innate avoidance of disorder and selfishness could only come from god; but they make this claim despite the obvious fact that this innate “mortality” can and does come about via evolutionary mechanisms. Again, a species that preys upon itself has a greatly reduced chance to survive as a whole and a species that can act collaboratively and act in unison to meet it's goals and overcome its challenges; a species that can do this increases it's odds of surviving exponentially. This is achieved to a large extent via our emotions, which are nothing more than bio-chemical reactions to certain stimuli. Love, pride, jealousy, remorse, fear even altruism and empathy combined with our natural maternal and paternal instincts are again nothing but bio-chemical responses to stimuli which at one time or the other had and still have an effect upon our our survivability as individuals and as a species. This is a biological fact, our emotional urges are physical rather than spiritual in nature; now, maybe a god gave us these urges (along with virtually every other mammal on the planet), but the existence of a god is not necessary to explain why we have them; however what is easy to see is just how maternal and paternal instincts as well as our emotions can be and are the foundations upon which our morality is based. Maternal and paternal instincts can lead one to have what would otherwise be an irrational attachment and concern for another members of one's species (specifically one's child). Fear of death and injury can lead one to form partnerships with others who share their circumstance and characteristics;with the understanding that existing in unison with one's clan or tribe can greatly increase both their and their child's chances of survival. Individual acts of altruism and heroism can lead to the strengthening of the species as a whole in manners which should be obvious to us all. Guilt can make us hesitant to do harm to fellow members of our species even when we would benefit as an individual but the species would suffer as a whole. I could go on. These are all, known bio-chemical realities and while one may insist upon attributing their existence to a god; god is a none-the-less unnecessary inclusion as their existence can be explained without a single mention of a first cause (i.e. a god). Now, precisely how these emotions actually developed is and will remain a mystery as there is no means by which the circumstance behind their origin can be recreated; however science can tell us just how they could have developed. Each of these bio-chemical reactions drove our forbearers to exist in unison in a world where death and dismemberment was a day to day reality; aided by our intellect humanity slowly evolved a code of what is considered acceptable behavior...a code which appears to have at it's heart the survival of our particular individual sociological groups (from family to village to nation to species). In truth, our behavior is probably effected as much by our intellect as our emotions. Virtually every conscious creature on the planet shares with us to varying degrees the same emotions that we feel (even altruism studies have shown); however none of these other species can be said to have as elaborate sense of morality as does ours. Most of the other inhabitants of the planet seem to base their actions largely upon instinctive responses to stimuli (although it's wholly inaccurate to think that cognition plays no role in their behavior); whereas, our behavior seems to be effected as much by our intellect as any other factor...why is this? Even as emotional responses played a key role in our survival as a species (particularly early on); they are at the same time limiting when they control us. One of the factors that can be said to separate humans from the animals is our ability to overcome our emotions. For good or bad we can elevate ourselves above the base emotions that we share with nearly each of our fellow mammal brothers and sisters. It's the ability to, in a sense, define our response to a situation rather than to allow the situation to define us. It is true that among multi-celled organisms on this planet, humanity has achieved supremacy. This supremacy is the direct result of the intellectual capabilities that our brain provides us, which is in turn the direct result of eons of evolution. The more complicated and capable the brain of a species is, the more complicated and extravagant it's desires become. Lower species seek only to consume, reproduce and survive, that's all they know and that's all the care about. The more complicated the brain, the more complicated the desires. A dog will seek to consume and reproduce, but will also seek to develop emotional bonds with others; sometimes they are very deep bonds. Dogs will also seek to be entertained. Humans whose brains are far more developed than a dog's will also seek these things, but will also have other intellectual pursuits when given the chance. Humans will attempt to answer questions that a dog could never even conceive of and to seek knowledge that a dog would have no interest in. Maslow does an excellent job of describing what drives the average human (individual and society) and under what circumstances a human will elevate what he perceives he has need of. Morality is the behavior that we perceive can place humanity in a position where it can pursue those needs, whether real or perceived. To one extent, whether morality affects our survivability as a species or not is somewhat irrelevant, but rather it's a consequence of our development as a species. Morality is the consensus as to what will and will not make our existence here on earth as close to pleasant as possible. We know that we don't like to be killed, so we make rules against it; we know that we don't like to be tortured so we make rules against it; we know that we don't like to be enslaved so we make rules against it. Selfishly we know that while the rules prohibit us from acting upon our every whim (if said whims involve doing harm to others) they also protect us from being the target of the whims of others; however, sometimes we selfishly protect only whose who share our characteristics (e.g. race, religion, gender, economic status, nationality) and sometimes we make the enlightened decision to protect everyone equally. Sadly, sometimes we have no say in the matter as our code of morality can be hijacked by dictatorships, religious beliefs and occasionally a constitution based law systems. Of course, some people may not care about protecting others but will at the same time understand that living within the bounds of the moral consensus is their best chance of living a happy and fulfilling life as the punishment associated with refusing will often exceed the reward. Intellect or cognition is essentially the ability to recognize the relationship between cause an effect, and while sociopaths may lack the ability to care about the impact their actions have upon others they none-the-less understand that indiscriminate acts of violence will eventually have consequence that even a sociopath would likely prefer to avoid. As a consequence a sociopath will likely curb his behavior to reflect, at least publicly, his compliance with the social mores of his particular culture. Now, some people will correctly point out that a secular based moral consensus is not consistent with anything other than the current perceptions and attitudes of society, but at the same time somethings will never change. Humans do not like being killed, tortured, disrespected, robbed...etc.; and to that extent our morality will possess a certain degree of consistency as it will likely reflect these truths. Now in a perfect world we would all be able to live our lives according to how we each see fit, and if the theist's notion that we all have an innate knowledge of right and wrong given to us by a god were true this might be a possibility. Clearly this is not the case as the majority of our urges do not fit the traditional Christian notion of righteousness. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins, they each stems from our innate tendency to offend the god of Abraham; our internal tendency to fall short of what their god demands of us. There is literally zero evidence that we have a natural knowledge of how the god of Christianity wishes us to behave or that this knowledge somehow exists in our subconscious. As is usually the case with theists, in the absence of a precises explanation as to how something could exist (in this case morality) the assumption is always that god did it. Humans have always had a need to explain the inexplicable, and in the absence of a coherent alternative explanation it can be understood why god has always been the default. From “where do babies come from” to “what is lightening” humans have never been content to admit that they just didn't know the answer. In the past god has been the answer to every question, up until the point that a plausible alternative explanation has come to light. Now, as science continues to find an explanation for everything, god is found to be no longer needed to explain anything; and in a sense, the second Darwin explained the origins of species, god died. Well, at the very least, with Darwin god's existence became superfluous.Anyway, back to morality. As well all know, frequently while in the pursuit of one's desires an individuals actions (whether intentional or not) may come to interfere with another's ability to live their life in peace. A moral consensus must be developed in such situations to determine who's “rights” would take precedence. Also, there are times when a consensus must be developed when it becomes clear (or at least perceived) that a behavior which once seemed acceptable turns out to have consequences that were not originally considered. For example, violent movies. Originally, many people thought that what goes on in the privacy of one's home is nobody else's business; but what if it turns out that allowing children to watch violent movies makes them more prone towards violence when they grow up? In such a situation, a consensus could develop that such media should be strictly limited to adults or banned all together. The same thing could also happen even if in reality these forms of media had no real effect on a person's disposition towards violence at all. Sometimes a moral consensus is based on nothing more than perception.Ultimately, there are countless things that effect a communities morality; primary among these factors is where the community as a whole lies within Maslow's hierarchy. Essentially the more evolved a species' intellect is, the greater the desire of each member of the species will be to exist in an orderly and peaceful environment...and the greater it's intellect the more likely it is to figure out how to accomplish this. Morality which is the means towards that end is naught but our understanding of how we wish to live and how best to achieve that goal. Morality has nothing to do with intrinsic goods and evils. Our intellect is the result of our evolution and our morality is the result of our intellect in combination with the previously mentioned autonomous bio-chemical reactions (Freud does an excellent job of explaining this relationship in his concept of the personality (Id, ego and super-ego) which he himself based upon the Platonic concept of the soul (intellect, spirit and appetite)). If somewhere in this universe there is a species with a greater intellect than our own (not too hard to imagine) then it may have developed a better understanding of how to exist in peace and harmony; and thus one could argue that they were morally superior to ourselves. Whether that species exists or not...who knows. Of course we don't consciously make decisions based on whether or not it fits the Darwinian definition of survivability. In fact, for good or bad, I believe that the evolution of our intellect has allowed our species to move to the point where each of our actions are no longer carefully balanced instinctive and emotional responses. I differ from the majority of evolutionist in that I do not assume that every aspect of our morality is a direct result of Darwinian causality. I believe that while evolution has lead us to our current level of intellectual development; we now make decisions that go beyond the mere survival of our species. We are often inspired to act in manners that are not directed solely by our urges to gather food and reproduce. For good or bad, human intellect has risen above the meager concerns of our pre-human ancestors; in a sense we motivate ourselves. While our actions are none-the-less the result of strict determinism, the factors that influence our actions are so elaborate and incalculable and so specific to each individual that we do in fact have de facto free will. We make decisions based upon our flawed understanding of how they will benefit us and our loved ones. However, merely because our behavior seems to be influenced at times by factors no longer directly connected to evolutionary mechanics it does not mean that that those mechanics are no longer present. Evolution is always a work in progress, and never could it be said that a species has completed it's evolution. It is just a series of beneficial accidents that currently can be neither predicted nor controlled. Furthermore, evolution is not a process that leads to our “perfection” as a species; evolution is a process that is driven by our ability to sexual propagate and to the extent that our intellect enhances this likelihood we can expect our intellect to continue to evolve. Should our intellect eventually become a detriment to this process (as in some regards it appears to be) our intellect will then begin to recede and our sense of sense of morality would be effected as a result.Our present level of intellect gives us the ability to strive towards the reality we perceive as best suiting our needs, but it is not necessarily sufficient to accomplish this reality. Our efforts are still limited by many things, not the least of which are the limits of our intellect. Superstitions (religion, faith) and emotions (hatred, racism, love, fear) still control many of our decisions and cloud our perceptions of reality. Environment (both political and physical), and access to resources (food,water, fuel) also play a significant roles in our abilities to exist as we would choose. What we value is not intrinsic but rather subjective and based upon our needs both real and perceived. Obviously a man who is locked in a cell may be less concerned about his right to vote than his own physical freedom. Once freed that same man may willing re-enter that same cell if it means he'll have access to food and water if otherwise he did not. Our values are as much based upon our circumstances in this world as any other factor. But again since we all have things in common, we should expect to all have a certain number of similar values. Again, most of us a fear of death, no sane person like pain, etc. Those realities are going to influence the moral consensus of all societies to one extent or the other.

Sayest the christian

Sayest the Christians: But you do claim that there is no such thing as moral truth, do you not?What i mean by this is that the holocust was wrong regardless of whether any of us agree or not. You reject universal objective truth. Do you not?

Sayest I:I believe that there are things that are true. One thing that is true is that most people (regardless their religious allegiance) do not wish to live in an environment where people are allowed to harm one another without consequence (in fact the few people who do want such a thing tend to be religious extremists). Most of us wish to live in an environment where we will be allowed to live peaceful with the freedom to live as we would please, with the understanding that there are necessary limits to this freedom. People don't wish to live in chaos and do understand that actions have consequences. While I do reject universal truths in terms of morality (morality cannot be found under a microscope), I can honestly claim that the Holocaust was wrong. Now, of course the Germany and Austria in which these crimes occurred were heavily Christian at the time. I personally can see no historical evidence that moral absolutes (if they exists) have ever honestly had any impact upon our behavior as a species. I reject the holocaust for the same reason that I oppose the genocide inflicted upon the Mideanites and the inhabitants of Jericho (read the OT if you are wondering about these references); a world in which such behavior is permitted is a very dangerous world for all it's inhabitants (that would include me).

Sayest the Christian:This is basically true; but i would add, that while some people don't want to be harmed personally and might practice acts of charity, i doubt that most people generally care about those outside their immediate family and chosen freinds, though they might like to make others think so for the sake of appearences.There are violent people who use religion as a banner of truimph.There has also been many people in history that have used atheism and naturalism as a banner of truimph and as an excuse for evil. In fact, in a world where people do not believe in the truth of moral values, there is more then enough fertile grounds for the growth of inhuman ignorance. I suggest you read history, and then you will not make such biased misrepresentations.

Sayest I:While I don’t agree that all instances of charity or kindness are for premeditated Darwinian purposes, there is some truth to the claim that people will act for the sake of appearances. Evolutionists make this claim routinely and view this tendency as a key aspect of sexual selection. There are benefits to appearing to being a good, kind, moral person, which exist both within a Darwinian point of view and a theistic point of view.While I agree that there have been atheists who have committed acts of “evil”, I can think of few (none actually) who have done so in the name of atheism; history is filled with atrocities committed in the name of a god.Sayest the Christian:No you cannot claim that the holocaust is evil. You can merely say that you personally dislike that kind of behavior. The holocaust, in a world without objective moral truth, is taboo; nothing more.

Sayest I:Yes I can. Again, the permission of such behavior has consequences for us all. A world in which such disregard for human life was considered the norm or acceptable would not be a world in which I would choose to live. Such a world would be chaotic and extremely dangerous to us all. Ultimately, my morality is a selfish one; as I for my own selfish reasons do not wish to live in a world where cruelty and hatred are considered acceptable. One never knows when one will be the victim of such cruelty and hatred.

Sayest the Christian:The world in which you wish to believe in, human beings have no more objective value then an slug has; so you cannot expect people to treat your existence with any more respect then they choose to.

Sayest I:True I selfishly attach value to the species to which I am a member, so in a sense you are correct...so what? You are correct that I “cannot expect people to treat (my) existence with any more respect then they choose to”. I’m not sure what that statement proves, as it’s true whether there is a god or not. Ultimately I can say this: history provides us with little evidence that religion improves our existence on this tiny rock, orbiting a tiny star, drifting along with the whole of the Milky Way, inside our ever expanding universe. At best, religion has the opiate effect as described to us by Marx; perhaps it allows us to endure with the hope that we are somehow special while existing inside a universe that cares for absolutely nothing. Ironically, if humanity is to find salvation from the likely inevitable death that awaits our species it will not be a god providing it, but rather the very science that most theist now accuse of villainies. I will say this: if I could be convinced that religion is in fact of value to our species; that we are better off with it than without it, then I would stand aside and allow our species to enjoy the bliss of its ignorance. However, I have not been convince of this and in fact have been convinced of very much the opposite and I believe that as is typically the case that bliss does not come with ignorance. With ignorance comes: fear, hatred, superstition and suffering; not bliss. Ultimately, human life has the value we give it, and I value my life and the lives of those that I love and care for and thus it can be said that I am a humanist.

Sayest the Christian:There are clues that point toward theism. For instance; All healthy minded people experience a capacity for guilt, which is activated when we are given reason to believe that something about our behavior is immoral. Though it is true that one can be deceived about right and wrong, we all have a basic understanding of it. We universally agree and take for granted that there is such a thing as right, wrong, honor and virtue. Thus the mere fact that we have a moral conscience would suggest that there is such a thing as an objective wrong despite a universal disagreement about what that might be. It seems a rather bizzare coincidence that among the other senses we have a sense of guilt which, like the others, coincides with an objective reality, more specifically with that aspect of reality concerning our "free choices". It seems to me that we have a "sixth sense". Its called a moral conscience".

Sayest I:The existence of a moral conscience can be and has been explained in completely evolutionist terms. Obviously, if we were each sociopaths (i.e. unrestrained in our willingness to inflict harm and death upon our fellow humans) that would undeniably have a tremendous and negative impact upon our survivability as a species. The fact that 90% of us have an innate urge not to inflict harm upon our neighbors can not only be explained in Darwinian terms, but can best be explained in Darwinian terms. Certainly you can admit that a species that co-exists peacefully and works collaboratively has a better chance of survival than a species that indiscriminately preys upon itself. Guilt would be just one of the mechanisms through which this reality is accomplished. But what precisely is guilt? You have claimed that quote: “It seems a rather bizarre coincidence that among the other senses we have a sense of guilt which, like the others, coincides with an objective reality, more specifically with that aspect of reality concerning our "free choices". It seems to me that we have a "sixth sense". Its called a "moral conscience".” End quote. You are correct, as most most humans do in fact feel quilt when they believe that they have harmed another. How is it that we feel this and just how is it that we know just what it is we should feel guilty about? Well in Essence guilt is nothing more than a variety of empathy which as defined by the Merriam-Wester online dictionary is: “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner”. Guilt is the sorrow we feel when others suffer because of our actions. But as you point out, how is it that our feelings of guilt always seem to correspond with our knowledge of right and wrong? The answer is almost laughably simple. We know when to feel guilty because we know what harms us personally. In other words, I know that I do not like being punched in the face; because of this knowledge I rightfully assume that others have the same attitudes and experiences when being punched in the face. Were I to punch someone in the face I am able to empathize with the victim of said punch (i.e. I can identify with the pain the victim has experienced when it was punched) and for that I feel a certain degree of sorrow. To one degree or the other, I would share in the suffering of the victim regardless as to whether I threw the punch or not (this is empathy); however this sorrow is amplified by the fact that I personally inflicted the pain upon the unfortunate victim. This amplified sense of sorrow is precisely what guilt is, and it can range anywhere from a mild sense of melancholy to a life long sense of anguish. As you can see, there's nothing magical about how it is we know what to feel guilty about. We know when to feel guilt because we have an understanding of just how our actions would effect others because we know how those same actions would effect ourselves. Essentially guilt is empathy plus personal responsibility. Now, a better question than why it is we feel guilt would be: why do we feel empathy? There is still much to be learned about empathy about what it is and why it is. The scientific consensus appears to be that it is an autonomic bio-chemical response and that it is an essential component to social discourse and interaction (most autistics would tell you (if they can) that it is extremely difficult to become socially integrated when you are completely oblivious to the concerns and feelings of others). How exactly it resulted from evolution, is and will always remain a mystery; but why it evolved should be obvious to each of us. The most fundamental benefits of empathy are made clear in the following example: you see a fellow human dangling from a cliff; your empathy for the plight of the dangling human leads you to rush over and pull him to safety, and in doing so you have just saved the life of a human who may later go on and propagate sexually (thus increasing the survivability of the species). Furthermore, by having saved a fellow human, you become viewed as a hero and more desirable to members of the opposite sex and thus increase your chances of propagating sexually yourself. Empathy has a direct effect upon a species' survivability and an effect upon an individual's social status which can directly improve his (usually it is the male) chance of passing on his genes. Let's look at another possible event where multiple emotions are at play: you happen upon a fellow human who is being attacked by a bear; because of empathy you have a strong desire to save the man from his gruesome fate; fear on the other hand makes you hesitant to risk the same fate to save another human; on this occasion you flee for safety and while you feel guilt for your inaction you are still very much alive yourself. In this situation, fear trumps empathy and as a result only one human is eliminated from the genetic pool whereas had you rushed in to play the hero likely two genetic agents would have been eliminated.A willingness to act for the betterment for one’s entire culture or species cannot help but to have improved our chances of surviving, and these facts remain relevant even today. Of course, not all of our “urges” conform to the accepted Christian notion of morality. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins (or however many there are now), they each stem from our innate tendency to “sin”; our internal tendency to fall short of what your god demands of us. Any claim that we have a “sixth sense” leading us to do good must be then countered by the notion the we also have (in the eye's of most Christians) a “seventh sense” leading us to do evil.

Sayest the Christian:The fact is, most of the freedoms we enjoy is based on a belief in transcendental ethics. If people avoid wrong, they avoid it because they believe that their behavior is truly wrong and thus they cannot stand to be wrong. The atheist is the same, accept they hold these ethical beliefs irrationally.

Sayest I:To the uneducated, such an inference may seem the case, but a modest understanding of the truths of evolution quickly and easily provide an alternative the theist’s favorite explanation for everything: “god did it”. There’s nothing irrational about the knowledge that one’s greatest hope to live a happy and peaceful life is to live in a happy and peaceful world.

Sayest the Christian:When they are forced to see the irrationality of it, rather then accept the inference of Gods existence, they choose to disbelieve in moral truth altogether. Now imagine a world where people no longer infer those values on people; such is the danger of promoting naturalism; and even more foolish is such an endeavor when we have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view. I find it quite disturbing that people would want to promote it. Perhaps they believe naturalism provides certain freedoms that they would not have in a strictly moral climate?

Sayest I:This is a completely different argument all together. Now, I’ve already briefly explained just how it is that morality could and did develop via Darwinian methods, but now you’re arguing that there are frightful consequences to “a world where people no longer infer those values on people”. Perhaps, but as you’ve already asserted these values are intrinsic and found in each of us given to us by God; so how could such a thing actually occur if your theory is correct? The claim that we have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view is true in much the same manner as the claim that we have no evidence as to the existence of the sun. In truth, what we have no evidence of is the existence of a god. Now, a god may very well exist, but I see no evidence of that fact. We naturalists promote naturalism for two reasons: A) it is in fact the truth and accepting that fact just makes sense; B) we’ve seen the “benefits” of religion and quite frankly we wish to have nothing more to do with it. We’ve seen the Jihads and crusades, the witch burnings and the hatred of knowledge that comes with a belief in a god and we’ve had enough. We believe (and evidence seems to confirm this) that a superior morality (i.e. a morality in which life is actually respected and treated with compassion) comes in the absence of a god. Mankind’s greatest hope lies not in our superstitions, but in science and knowledge. Again, the claim that evolution explains nothing is a claim made in ignorance. Evolution can and has explained everything that you have just suggested it does not; you just have to be willing to open your mind to the truth.

Sayest the Christian:Pointless debate to confuse the unwary. God is Truth. What is not Truth is a lie. Lies are from The Liar. Do not give The Liar a moment of your time. Do not engage The Liar in debate for he is very old and very clever and he wants your soul very much. All The Liar has to do is have you cast your eyes momentarily from The Truth. The Liar temps us to imagine a Truth without God. There is no Truth outside of Truth Himself. God is that Truth.

Sayest I:Initially I was taken back by the inanity of your comments, but then I realized that it allowed me the opportunity to segue to what I feel is the basis for most religious belief: I believe that it is to varying degree's a product of a mental disorder. Like your typical theist, a person with a personality disorder cannot recognize the condition in themselves (though they can see it in others) and are almost always incapable of admitting their condition; in fact, ironically the best indication that a person does not have a personality disorder would be for them to admit that they do. In the same manner, theists can determine if their beliefs are intellectual in nature or the result of a disorder if they can honestly admit that they might be wrong. Most theist are perfectly capable of understanding the absurdity of every competing faith but utterly unaware of the absurdity of their own. As a non-believer I personally have no problem honestly admitting that there might actually be a god. Now, as a theist ask yourself this question: Is it possible that my god does not exists; not that it doesn't exist but just that conceivably it might not? I suggest that if you honestly lack the ability to concede the possibility that there might not be a god, then you faith is the result of a disorder.

Sayest the Christian:exactly why do you find the Aquainian proofs invalid, do you know of something physical which is self creating? I would say that there simplicity is indicative of their truth.

Sayest I:Taking your predisposition to believe in a god out of the equation for a second: do you know of anything that isn't physical? As far as the origin of the universe is concerned, one of two things happens to be the case: A) The universe exists in and of itself or B) there exists or existed a non-physical entity that resides in some other reality than our own and has or had both the ability and desire to create our universe. Now, based upon our experiences and observations, both are completely impossible; however one of them had to have happened. If one denies one of these possibilities based upon the fact that it could not (to our knowledge) have happened; then they must affirm an equally impossible alternative. On the other hand, as an agnostic, I do neither. I confess that I don’t know and acknowledge that our universe could conceivably have a creator; however, it is worth noting that even if this creator exists he/she/it is almost certainly not the absurdly ridiculous god of the bible.

Sayest the Christian:What do you mean when you ask me to take my belief in a god out of the question for a second?Sayest I:I mean, that if you don't start with the assumption that a god exists, can you think of anything that is not physical.Sayest the Christian:Why yes i do, the first cause. As nothing physical can cause itself, that means that the first cause must necessarily be non-physical. As such, the existence of the physical is the proof of the non-physical.

Sayest I:There is at least one exception to your claim that nothing physical can cause itself; that of course being the universe itself. True, our experiences (apart from this one example) indicate that nothing physical can cause itself, but our experiences also indicate that everything that does exist is in fact physical. Based upon our experiences, the existence of a non-physical being is no less improbable than a universe that has just always existed. For the record, I'm not saying that you're wrong; I'm merely saying that your solution to the question “why do we exist” is just as impossible (to our knowledge) as that of the atheists.

Sayest the Christian: Everything requires a cause. unless you know of some reason that the universe should be different, it does too.

Sayest I:Ultimately, something exists without a cause, be that god or the universe. It is no more absurd to believe that the universe might exist without a cause, than it is to believe that a being (your god) could exist without a cause.

Sayest the Christian:Why do you feel the only other possibility is accurately described as a non-physical being in another dimension?1. dimension is a quality of physicality2. dimension is a quality of our universe.So this other dimension in which your non-physical being resides, is self creating?Already you violate causality in your premise.

Sayest I:First of all, by “some other dimension”, I meant to imply a reality separate from ours. I'm not sure that there is actually a word for that. Since a being responsible for the creation of our universe could not at the same time be from our universe, it would have to exist in a reality separate from our own; that is what I was attempting the describe with the word dimension. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but at the same time I'm not sure which word would have worked better. Ultimately, this first cause of yours would owe it's existence to itself which, which to all of our experiences, is as impossible as a universe doing the same. Let's not forget that likely since the early days of our species' we have sought an answer to every question, and that answer has always been god. Why does it rain: god. Why is there lightening: god. Where are there earthquakes: god. Where do babies come from: god. Rather than ever admit that they just didn't know the answer to the questions, our forefathers always responded with the universal default. Literally, god was the answer to every mystery and this is an attitude that exists very much unto this day. But as human knowledge has steadily advanced, science has replaced god as the answer to every question save one: why does anything exists as opposed to nothing? This is the last substantial question that remains unanswered by scientists. While we now know why it rains, what causes earthquakes and where babies come from; the origins of our universe is a question that continues to elude scientific explanation and our ancient urges to assign an ancient explanation remains firmly intact. Fortunately, as has always been the case, knowledge seekers have never been content to shrug their arms and walk away; and if there is ever to be discovered an answer to this last question, it will be found. At that point, god will have gone from being the answer to every question to an answer without a question; and thus we will be forced to wonder: why does god exist?

Sayest the Christian:self causation is logically impossible, while a non-physical cause is the only possible first cause for the observable universe.

Sayest I:Again, to our experiences, self causation is no more impossible than is a non-physical existence. Clearly one of these two impossibilities must be true.

Sayest the Christian:I am interested in your reasoning for the assertion that if there is a god then it is not the god of the bible. why do you think that?

Sayest I:It's inconceivable to me that a being with the wisdom and power to create an entire universe could at the same time being the hate and rage filled, genocidal, hell-casting, jealous freak the bible describes him as. Seriously, out of respect for god (if it exists) I would never think so poorly of it to believe that the bible paints an accurate picture of it's character.

Prologue

As an agnostic, I have for years listened to several of my non-believing brethren engage theists in debate regarding the existence or non-existence of a god. In these debates, atheists of course take the position that there is not now nor has there ever been a god; and theists defend the opposite view. Now, to me, this is a waste of time and I very much wish that my fellow non-believers would cease their participation in these rhetorical displays as they are a trap. Truth of the matter is, that while a god very likely may not exist, this is a fact which cannot be verified. A skilled atheist can demonstrate that the existence of a god is not and was not necessary to explain our existence, but ultimately proof that one actually does not exist cannot be found (by definition one cannot disprove the existence of a non-physical entity that exists in a reality outside of our own). Again, being able to prove that the inclusion of a god is an unnecessary component in explaining our existence and that of our universe effects nothing; as the skilled theist will argue that while Occam's Razor is effective in cutting away the fat, its imprecise use can also lead one to inadvertently cut away the meat as well. They will argue to good effect that our knowledge of physicality grants us with no examples of matter creating itself (if one excludes the origin of the universe from consideration); furthermore, matter can not result in the creation of additional matter without being reduced itself in an amount equal to the resulting matter. Therefore, they would argue, for the universe to have come into existence it would require the involvement of an agent or force that is exempt from the laws of physicality. Of course, their particular god is assumed to be the afore mentioned agent or force. Now neither side can come to agreement as to whether or not this argument actually holds water, and ultimately it comes down to this: one of two things happens to be the case: A) The physical universe (or universes) either exists in and of itself or B) there exists or existed a non-physical entity that resides in some reality other than our own and has or had both the ability and desire to create our universe. Now, based upon our experiences and observations, both are completely impossible; however one of them had to have happened. If one denies one of these possibilities based upon the fact that it could not (to our knowledge) have occurred; then they must affirm an equally impossible alternative. Now is the truth of god's existence as simple as a flip of a coin? Of course not, but of these alternatives one is 100% true while the other is 100% false; and most likely that question is never to be answered, and of course if it is ever answered then it would be in the affirmative (i.e. a god does exist). Now, the problem is that in debates with theists, there is no such thing as a tie as they feel no need to prove god's existence and are content in assuming that in the absence of 100% proof to the contrary, a god does exists...again, specifically their god. In other words, to the theist, god exists because you cannot prove he does not. Literally, for some theists short of observable evidence of god's non-existence (impossible by definition) there is no method of argument that will convince them that a god does not exist and again to them our quote “failure” to prove that god does not exist is viewed as evidence for its existence. Sadly, the chattel that make up the substantial majority of their faiths see things the same way, and that in observing that the atheist was unable to prove to a 100% degree of certainty that god does not exist their faith is strengthened. Thus I argue, that we should not feel compelled to engage in such arguments in the future, but rather we should concentrate our efforts in proving that their specific god does not exist; a far easier task in my opinion. Obviously, no theists argues for the existence of a god that is not theirs and by arguing that the universe had to have a creator they of course assume that their god is this creator. But there is a substantial difference between being able to prove that the universe was created and that this creator is in fact the god of their particular faith. For too long, we non-believers have been debating the wrong side of this argument. Let them have their creator, we cannot convince them otherwise; but we can prove, in my opinion, that this creator is not their god. It is this very goal that I will dedicate my next several episodes to: proving that the god of Christianity is in fact a lie. Now, given the enormity of the efforts that have preceded mine, I must admit from the start that there is likely little original left to be said on the subject; none-the-less, I am going to go forward in the effort to give my take on the best arguments against Christianity.

Defense against a baseless charge

In the unlikely event that upon my death, I should awaken kneeling before a golden throne and accused of having failed to acknowledge the existence and eminence of the christ god, I have prepared this defense:God, I stand accused of having failed to recognize your existence or worship at your alter. This, is a charge that I do not deny but what I do deny is that this charge is or could have ever been a crime. If you were to ask if I fear being judged in the light of justice and perhaps mercy, my answer is unequivocally no. For while I have on occasion done wrong and I certainly have not done good on each occasion that opportunity did avail, I was none-the-less on the whole a good person. I have never sought to do harm or inflict suffering even on the rare occasions where justice did permit. It is not now nor has it ever been my nature to contribute to the suffering of mankind; as you know, I have spent a lifetime sheltering the weak from harm. This I can say with confidence: the world as a whole was better off because of my existence; if even just by the slightest of increments. I have regrets of course, but if I am to be judged by my merits and failures then I will happily accept the verdict that results. Unfortunately, if the bible makes just one thing clear, it is that the god depicted within is not a being prone towards kindness, justice, mercy or restraint; and thus it is that I have cause for fear. It is now my most earnest hope that this depiction is either in error or grossly exaggerated; but if it is not, then I now suffer the indignity of being judged by the one being to ever have had the privilege of existence that has ever truly been guilty of a crime. If I am to be condemned for the fact that I failed to recognize your existence, despite my earnest and ongoing efforts to do so; if I am to be condemned for honestly held beliefs and convictions, then I am to be sentenced to a painful eternity of contemplating the evil of your nature. Ultimately, my sin is to have failed to acknowledge the possibility that a being so great as to be able to create an entire universe from nothing and purely by will could even conceivably be the monster depicted in the bible. For this failure I would offer no apologies, even if it were possible to apologize for having failed to recognize the loathsomeness of your character. In the end, my fate will be more a reflection of your nature than my guilt.