REPLY #43a TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
This is the first of a four-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.
You forgot the last -- and most important -- half of my statement, which
was "...and does not take those individuals to task for what they say". Your
out-of-context complaint attempts to change the entire meaning of my point.
(R) Excuse me for misunderstanding. You're telling me I'm not actually
responsible for the beliefs, words, and actions of Jimmy Swaggert, Jerry
Falwell, and the like, as long as I don't agree/approve. Thank you. I don't
agree or approve....and neither do the vast majority of religious
(MB) I would hope that this would be the case, but I'm rather skeptical. After
all, where is the mainstream religious literature that criticizes such
individuals? Where are the mainstream religious leaders who openly challenge
Falwell, et al? Why do their TV shows constitute such a large percentage of
religious programming? Why do their comments become front-page headlines and
have so much influence?
I think there is very good reason to be skeptical about any claim that the
"vast majority" of religious believers oppose these individuals and their
If somebody asks me what I think about any of the things you mentioned, I
will condemn them in no uncertain terms. If nobody condemns such things, then
they are given implicit support.
(R) And I would condemn such things also, just as I would argue (and have)
with those who hold narrow religious views. So tell me again why I bear
responsibility for those narrow views.
(MB) If you actively oppose such views, you bear no responsibility for them. If
one says or does nothing to oppose them, that implies at least a tacit
acceptance of them. In other words, if one is not a part of the solution, he is
a part of the problem.
(R) And explain to me once more why the ridiculous, intolerant, prejudiced, and
stupid claim that all religious believers bear a "mantle of responsibility" for
the beliefs and actions of a few should be seen as anything but unfair, bigoted,
(MB) Because you haven't, as yet, successfully explained why it's wrong. You
also continually distort my argument on this case. It's not *all* religious
believers who bear the responsibility, it is only those who do not oppose the
actions that are being criticized. If the majority actively opposed the
Falwellian nutcases, they wouldn't be more than another lunatic fringe group
holed up outside of Waco.
Don't you want your own beliefs to be free from nonsense and black clouds?
Should religious beliefs be exempt from the same standards as any other
(R) My beliefs are already free of fog and nonsense. All beliefs should be
held to the same standards.
(MB) You've done nothing, as of yet, to dispel any appreciable amount of the fog
which accompanies your beliefs. Until there is the first shred of evidence
presented to support the idea of God's existence, such a proposition can be
nothing more than fog.
As to whether or not you hold all beliefs to the same standards, this simply
isn't true unless you are restricting yourself to religious beliefs only.
Nobody who demands proof before belief for one proposition while blindly
accepting another on faith alone can claim that he holds all beliefs to the same
(R) Yes, I say your criticisms apply to only a few religious
(MB) You keep saying it, but haven't yet demonstrated it without distorting the
actual criticisms being made.
(R) No, you won't find a church which teaches God is a personal preference
because He is not.
(MB) If that is so, why should anybody believe it and what compelling evidence
is there that would lead others to the same conclusion?
(R) Yes, you will find many congregations which are completely tolerant of the
religious beliefs of others, ref. Unitarians, Central Christian, and many
(MB) Of course, none of these are members of the major mainstream sects that you
have often touted as encompassing "the vast majority" of believers. I thought
you opposed the idea that the beliefs of the minority reflect the general views
of the majority? Or will you embrace such a concept when the beliefs are
What's the difference? If God is not a "personal preference", then he is a
fact...and we've already covered that ground.
(R) We most certainly have covered it, over and over. I'd think you'd have
got it by now, but here goes again:
(MB) The reason we have covered it over and over is because I'm still waiting
for a real answer to the question. Maybe I'll get one this time. Let's see...
(R) The existence of God is not a fact, because there is no conclusive evidence
which proves He exists. The non-existence of God is also not a fact, because
there is no conclusive evidence which proves He does not.
(MB) This, however, provides no basis for justifying a belief in God any more
than such an argument justifies belief in unicorns, fairies, or anything else
for which there is no conclusive proof of non-existence. This is why the burden
of proof rests with the positive existential claim and why the negative is the
more logical and reasonable position until that burden of proof has been met.
To argue otherwise is to say that any belief, no matter how ludicrous, can be
justified solely on the basis of an inability to disprove it conclusively. Such
an argument threatens to trivialize any belief into meaninglessness.
(R) The only personal preference involved is the choice of whether or not
believe in Him. Obviously, the two positions are mutually exclusive, that is,
if one is true, the other is not.
(MB) Actually, there are four possible positions here:
1) God exists and you
believe in him.
2) God exists, but
you do not believe in him.
3) God does not
exist, but you still believe in him.
4) God does not exist
and you do not believe in him.
Because you can choose your personal preference of believing in him whether or
not God actually exists, your choice actually has nothing to do with answering
the real question of whether or not God exists. That question can only be
resolved by evidence. Most believers, as you have done here, presuppose that
God exists, and consider only the first two possibilities for personal
preferences whereas the other two possibilities must be given equal weight and
consideration in the absence of conclusive evidence.
(R) However, it is impossible for us to determine which one is correct, and our
choice of whether to believe in God or not is a purely personal
(MB) We can, by use of logic, determine which of the four possible positions is
most reasonable. Since the positive existential claim for God has no evidence
to support it (as you acknowledge), the negative becomes more logical. If it is
more logical to conclude that God does not exist, the most reasonable personal
preference is not to believe in him.
(R) Let us compare this with the theory of evolution. It is argued by some that
it's "only a theory" and can't be proven true or false. While this is
technically true (only in mathematics can something be proved absolutely) there
is never-the-less a huge body of evidence which strongly indicates the theory of
evolution is valid. For all practical purposes it can be considered a fact.
Now, I can still make a personal choice not to believe in evolution, but
that doesn't alter the facts. Similarly, our personal preferences doesn't
change whether or not God exists. Whichever is true is a fact and our personal
beliefs doesn't change it.
(MB) Exactly correct. You have helped me prove my point. Facts are what really
matters. Since personal preferences do not change the facts and since things
are either true or false without regard for what we choose to believe, personal
preferences mean nothing and provide no support for any other claim.
(R) When you insist God is either a fact or a personal preference, you are
presenting an invalid choice and are completely wrong.
(MB) Nope, since personal preferences have nothing whatsoever to do with actual
facts -- as we have just agreed in the previous paragraph. So, now we can
safely discard the "personal preference" bit and get back to real arguments
about whether or not God exists, right?
So long as those "beliefs" are only about minor things -- like whether
grape juice or wine should be used for communion. Is there a "loving, tolerant"
Christian church which will host a convention of atheists or Satanists or would
allow a religious service to be celebrated by any group that does not worship
God? What about the "right to different beliefs" of those people?
(R) And you're the person who whined because somebody said a simple blessing
at a farewell luncheon you attended?
(MB) First of all, I didn't "whine". Second, if you remember correctly (if you
don't, read my "Public Prayer" essay to refresh your memory), my point was not
about tolerance, it was about forcing one's views upon all others in attendance.
In fact, my solution (observing a moment of silence where one could pray,
meditate, contemplate, or do nothing at all as he sees fit) is certainly more
tolerant than forcing one particular religious ceremony upon everybody else
without consideration for other beliefs.
(R) Yet you condemn every religious person on Earth because most would prefer
not to have the adherents of rival religions hold services in their place of
(MB) These are the same religious persons who preach that "all beliefs are
equal" and who crow about how "tolerant" their own views are? Why should such
individuals have any problem with adherents of "rival" religions? Or, is it
just that they really don't practice what they preach and that they do consider
their own beliefs to be "better" than all others?
How can you continue to berate me for being "biased" and "prejudiced" when
you yourself continually validate my points in the course of attempted
rebuttals? For example, you like to say how only "a small minority" of
believers behave as I depict, yet right here you agree with me that most
believers are not tolerant of other beliefs.
(R) If that's the case, I condemn you because you don't hold Bible-study classes
in your house every Tuesday.
(MB) Do I not engage in Bible study right here on my web site within the debates
on the subject of religion and other topics where appropriate? Or, does "Bible
study" mean to you what it means to most Christians -- reading carefully
selected excerpts from a small subset of the Bible and being indoctrinated into
their "meaning" by the study guide they are using? Unfortunately, most
Christians don't have the faintest idea what's actually written in their Bibles.
(R) Just because I'm not willing to have Satanists come to my church and do what
ever it is they like to do doesn't mean I don't recognize the rights of others
to their own beliefs.
(MB) Recognizing their rights and beliefs doesn't mean that you are practicing
any tolerance of them or that you consider them to be the equal of your own. I
guess we can now dispense with any claims to the contrary about this, as well?
Why would I attend a church service when I don't believe in the religion
that is being practiced in that church?
(R) I mentioned Central as an example of a tolerant church. In case you don't
believe me, please take in a service and see for yourself.
(MB) I can't imagine going to Las Vegas to attend a church service -- unless, of
course, the deity being worshipped therein would help me make a few more passes
at the Craps table.
Seriously, though, here's another example of a tiny minority sect whose
beliefs are being held up as being the general beliefs of the overall majority.
But, if that was the case, there would be no need to refer only to small sects
to support one's claims. You could hold up the majority itself to do so. But,
that can't be done, can it?
I'm already aware of the diversity of beliefs out there. That should be
abundantly clear by now. BTW, you've got it backwards, it's "Unitarian
Universalist". They are one of the Christian sects that, among other things,
does not believe in the divinity of Christ.
(R) Unitarians are remarkable for their tolerance. Belief in God isn't even
required for membership. So, here's a church which *does* host
(MB) Another small minority sect, of course. Believe it or not, I was actually
married by a Universalist minister (strange things happen due to Army paperwork
requirements at times) -- that's one reason why I know something about them.
The circumstances inspired me to do a bit of research.
(R) Then it's agreed, your statement about fanatics has nothing to do with the
point currently under discussion. I fail to understand why you brought it
(MB) The point under discussion at the time *was* "fanatics". This was because
you brought up Nazis, KKK, Marxists, terrorists and all sorts of other groups in
the midst of a previous discussion concerning the devotion of religious
believers to their causes.
My essay is already honest and bias-free. The fact that you disagree with what I
say does not change that.
(R) Let's quote directly from your essay on religion again, shall
(MB) Please do. It will help prove my point.
(R) "Organized religion seems more interested in controlling the lives of those
who follow it than in anything else."
(MB) How is this statement dishonest or biased? You have not provided any
examples of an organized religion that does not have rules for the flock or
which does not put any sort of demands upon the behavior of its adherents.
(R) "All religions have rules for how you should live your life and few have
much, if any, tolerance for anything outside of those rules."
(MB) How is this statement dishonest or biased? Consider that you have admitted
to it yourself.
(R) "They (religions) also rely on the power of fear and blind faith to keep the
flock in order. In this respect, organized religion is little different from
(MB) How is this statement dishonest or biased? What religions do not rely on
such things in order to maintain the discipline of their adherents?
(R) "Religion's main purpose seems to be to give people something upon which to
base their opinions when they don't have (or don't care about) the
(MB) How is this statement dishonest or biased? You admit to it when you claim
that belief in God (which you admit is unsupported by any evidence) gives
meaning to your life and satisfies your intellectual needs.
(R) Each of these comments definitely applies to some brands of religion and to
some religious believers. They also, most definitely, do not apply to
(MB) OK, to which religions do those statements not apply, and why?
(R) But where in these statements is this latter fact indicated? You say
"organized religion," and "all religions," and more simply "religion," followed
statements which are nothing more than your own opinion about what is wrong with
(MB) Statements which you have often agreed with and have never been able to
deny for anything more than trivial, carefully-selected, and non-representative
instances. Unpleasant truths are still truths. If all you can carp about is
that they don't apply to 100% of people, your case is weak indeed. Once again,
I challenge you to dispute the substance of the statements and not solely their
scope. To do otherwise is to agree that they are true, while engaging in
irrelevant nitpicking at their edges.
(R) This is among the most biased writing I have ever seen. I also strongly
question its honesty -- its intellectual honesty if nothing else.
(MB) If you are as well read and educated as you have claimed, then you have
most certainly read works which are truly biased. "Mein Kampf" comes
immediately to mind. To put my essay alongside such works in any respect
certainly indicates that you are reacting out of pure emotion instead of from
intellect. If you wish to challenge my honesty -- intellectual or otherwise --
you are going to have to come up with some valid facts in support of your
arguments or in refutation of mine. Righteous indignation ain't gonna cut it.
(R) I can say all Frenchmen are rude. Or all Scotsmen are stingy. Or all
Swedes are dumb. Or all Germans are sadists. (Please note these are merely
used as examples and I do *not* believe them. Indeed, I have significant
amounts of French, Scotch, and German ancestry.) (No Swedish, though.) (But my
wife does.) My saying these things does not make them true. Neither are they
unbiased or honest.
(MB) If scope is your primary concern, then one can easily disprove that all
Frenchmen are rude by finding a single polite one. However, does that mean that
the behavior of the others has suddenly become acceptable or that it should be
no cause for concern or criticism? Or, even, that the rude behavior has
suddenly ceased to exist? Would it be "biased" or "dishonest" to criticize the
rude behavior, or even to portray it as being a general characteristic of that
population? This is where substance must overrule scope. Ignoring the problem
itself for the sake of worrying about how many people are being described is one
of the hallmarks of Political Correctness -- a practice which solves nothing.
I would rather that you give me some reason to believe that such things as
"souls" - eternal or otherwise -- actually exist. Something that doesn't exist
cannot affect me no matter what I choose to believe in. The fact that you can
express any worries at all indicates that you have some reason to think that
such things as souls actually exist. What evidence supports this
(R) Believe me when I tell you I would love to be able to "prove" you have a
soul. Regrettably, I cannot.
(MB) Indeed. If such a thing could be proven -- or even strongly suggested --
it might go a long way towards answering the God question. As it is, however,
it's just another popular fairy tale.
(R) All I can say is that it is reasonable to believe that human beings have
souls, because there is no evidence to the contrary.
(MB) Same song, second verse. Would you also say that it is reasonable to
believe that human beings have three long, invisible, immaterial, undetectable
horns sticking out from the base of their necks solely because there is no
evidence to the contrary? If you are simply going to brush this example off as
being "silly", what is it that prevents the idea of a "soul" from being equally
(R) You are absolutely correct to say if you do not have a soul, it won't affect
you no matter what you believe....but if you do, you will certainly be affected
regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
(MB) In other words, you are suffering from the "Pascal's Wager Syndrome" in
which you choose to believe something solely on the basis of fear of what might
conceivably happen if you don't believe it. Entire books have been written on
the illogic involved in that sort of thinking.