ToddHDow Studios

Category: philosophy

  • Should atheists have children?

    Update: Sep 1 2011

    I just realized that I never included a disclaimer on this post before I put it live. That would explain some of the nasty comments that were provided on this blog.

    This essay was originally submitted as an undergrad paper when I was at the University of Toronto. It was a thought experiment and I was asked to answer the question, “Should Athiests have children?” This was my response. That being said, I would never consider imposing this on anyone in real life. It was a thought experiment. Nothing more.

    I do still stand by my original logic on this topic, but I would never impose this on others or expect it to be applied in society.

    In fact, out of all of the comments to this story, I am disappointed that nobody highlighted the main logic flaw with my argument (one that I knew when I wrote it, but realized that it could not be avoided). The flaw was that this same argument (of a purposeless existence) could easily be applied from the athiestic’s perspective towards a religious observer. The problem with this debate is that objective proof cannot be provided either way, which means that this debate will continue, with neither side able to completely substantiate their claims.

    Regardless, for those that I have offended… relax. I’m not taking your babies away from you.

    And, just an FYI that my creative juices are flowing again. I should have some new and original content on this site shortly.

    Stay tuned!

    Todd

    In the next few posts, I will be asking the following question: Is it morally or ethically responsible for an atheist to bring children into the world, since that atheist subscribes to a worldview that is negative.

    I will argue that the atheist is being morally and ethically irresponsible by bringing a child into the world since that same atheist subscribes to a worldview that lacks meaning, which I will argue is a terrible form of punishment. Thus, an atheist, by having children, is acting inappropriately by exposing children to not only the dangers of the world in which we live, but also with inadequate responses in the form of healthy worldviews that can be used to cope with these worldly dangers.

    First, I will outline what it means to be an atheist, providing examples from Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche. Next I will discuss the negative aspects of the atheistic worldview, thus pointing out the reasons that atheists are being reckless in bringing children into this reality in spite of their negative worldview. Third, I will explain what moral and ethical obligations an atheist has in the world. Finally, I will highlight the contradiction posed by the question of creating life in a meaningless existence. My paper will hinge upon adequately addressing the question of whether or not a life described by atheism is worth living.

    Both Bertrand Russell and C.S. Lewis subscribed to similar definitions of atheism:

    • “An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not.” – Bertrand Russell, What Is An Agnostic? pg 577
    • “Some people believe that nothing exists except Nature; I call these people Naturalists. Others think that, besides Nature, there exists something else: I call them Supernaturalists.” – C.S. Lewis, Miracles, New York, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1947, restored 1996, pg 5-6

    Atheism claims that God, as divine creator, is a myth and that the natural world can be completely explained through natural means. Whether or not we, as humans, can comprehend the science behind those natural means is debatable, but regardless, atheists claim that God is not required in our existence.Russell, as an atheist, suggests that the world is generally bad. Russell argues that since, in his opinion, the world is lacking in justice, God must not exist.

    • “Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue: ‘The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance,’ You would say: ‘Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment’; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say: ‘Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against a deity and not in favour of one.’” – Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian, pg 591.

    To Russell, God is an invention created by those that need God as a safety net: “Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people’s desire for a belief in God.” [Russell, Christian, pg 591] As with other social critiques of religion, God exists solely to placate the practitioner into feeling comfort that justice will be served in a future life for perceived injustices that are experienced in this life. Using the concept of God, argues the atheist, is too convenience, especially considering the lack of scientific evidence to explain the existence of God. I counter that the scientific evidence is all around us to explain the existence of God.

    Next post: C. S. Lewis to the rescue. Defense of the Christian worldview.

    Todd Dow

  • Christian Malfunctions?

    If you call yourself a Christian, do you think that you live the life that Christ calls you to live?

    This is a tough question to answer. There are many ways in which we interpret Christ’s calling in our life.

    Miroslav Volf, writing in October’s issue of Christianity Today, suggests that many Christian believers forget the message of the Bible, even us they attempt to carry out what they see is the calling of scripture. Volf’s article, entitled “Christian Malfunctions”, offers an interesting challenge to modern Christians. Are you willing to walk the narrow path and follow Jesus?

    Volf suggests that we lack strength in our faith in two ways. These are idleness of faith and oppressiveness of faith. Consider:

    Idleness of faith: We simply sit back, comforted in the message that Christianity gives us. This leads to laziness and a passive sense of satisfaction. We don’t proactively live out our lives as Christians. Rather than providing a good Christian example to our peers, we succumb to the “lure of temptation” where we cave to secular temptations like money, sex and power. As well, we become idle in our faith through acceptance of the systems we live in, most notably the capitalist free market system that demands survival of the fittest and the never ending pursuit of profit. And finally, Volf suggests that we fall into complacency in faith through the numbing effects that it can have on us, as suggested by Karl Marx in his famous statement, religion is the “opiate of the people”.

    Oppressiveness of faith: Volf argues that faith is used to abuse others. “Thin faith” is used to focus on religious issues, but at the expense of ignoring the methods that Christianity calls for, namely, gentle persuasion. All too often, violence is used to convince. This leads to oppression, which history has repeatedly shown us in numerous religions.
    Volf offers the following suggestion: “We need to build and strengthen mature communities of vision and character who celebrate faith as a way of life as they gather before God for worship and who, sent by God, live it out as they scatter to pursue various tasks in the world.”
    If only we could really follow this advice… In today’s society, is it really that easy to turn the other cheek and to offer peaceful alternatives to conflict, even in the face of great danger? This certainly is a tall order, but what other choice do we have? By violently defending our faith, aren’t we providing a terrible witness to those that we are trying to convince?

    I think the contradictory nature of fighting for Christ is definitely a great Christian Malfunction.

    Todd Dow

  • The offensiveness of Sam Harris

    This is likely to be the first of many posts in which I will criticize the atheistic worldview provided by Sam Harris. Harris is the author of two recent books:

    Letter to a Christian Nation and End Of Faith

    In a recent article in Newsweek, A Dissent: The Case Against Faith, Harris offers some interesting insights into Christianity.

    He mocks the faith of Christian believers by questioning some of the prophecy offered in the Bible. He calls it embarrassing. And he refers to the Christianity of his targets as nihilistic. Although he doesn’t cite any specific ministers in his article, I am sure that he can find some examples of Christian representatives that could back up his opinion. But that’s about as far as I think he could go with that… I think he would be hard pressed to find many Christians that loathe their current lives and that are just sitting waiting to die. In fact, I see plenty of activity coming from Christian Churches to help people live a better life in the here and now. That certainly goes against Harris’ claim, which he makes sound like a generalization, that Christians can hardly wait for the end times. Harris argues, “It should be clear that this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically.” Last time I checked, there are numerous Christian individuals, congregations and organizations that are dedicating their time to doing just what Harris says Christians aren’t doing… namely, helping the poor, the sick and the downtrodden. This equalization of the economic masses doesn’t necessarily follow the typical capitalistic ethic, but it does not sound like the actions of a nihilistic end-of-world fanatic to me.

    Harris goes on to argue that “religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.” He then uses the example of stem cell research to back up his claim. His argument is frightening. In a nutshell, Harris diminishes the value of the beginning of human life, suggesting that early embryonic development does not necessarily constitute human life. His oversimplification of this debate is astounding. He criticizes Bush’s decision to veto stem cell research as a simple faith-based decision not to jeopardize the life of these early “souls”. Yet, Harris doesn’t feel the need to address the larger issue at all.

    The bigger picture around this whole debate is around the value of human life in general and where one should draw the line when considering medical advances. One recent discussion I read (sorry… the source isn’t readily available to me, but I’m sure a quick google search would provide plenty of hits) tries to debate when a human fetus begins to feel pain and thus, which abortive techniques to use to minimize the suffering of a human fetus. Crazy… In this argument, there’s a clear recognition that a fetus does feel pain at some point, and that scientifically, it is important to determine the boundary around which that pain development occurs. Yet, no absolute method currently exists to identify when exactly a fetus does experience pain. Similarly, some have argued that a fetus can be aborted up until the point in time when it could be viable outside of the womb. That particular point in time is different for each fetus as well.

    So the question becomes: at what point does a collection of cells become a human being. I don’t know about you, but I learned fairly early on that new life occurs when an egg is fertilized. I remember in elementary school watching a plant grow out of a small bean tucked against a glass with wet paper towel keeping it pressed against the glass. elementary school. Call me crazy, but would it have been ignorant or, to use Harris’ word, “embarrassing” to look at that sprouting bean and say it wasn’t a plant?
    Would it be any less trivial to look at a newly fetus and say it wasn’t a person? Tell me Sam, at what point does a person not become a person? And how does that differ from a seed that has been germinated? The signs of new life are there, regardless of the current form.

    Or maybe I’ve misunderstood… maybe it isn’t about this argument at all. Maybe it’s simply a utilitarian argument: we’ll use the weak for the betterment of society as a whole. In that case, how do you measure the worth of a newly germinated person, a fetus, a baby, a young child, a handicapped person, etc. against the worth of someone else in need of medical assistance? Are you suggesting that the murder of a few is worthwhile for the benefit of the many? In that case, would you be willing to sacrifice your life for “donate your body to science day” today so that the rest of society could benefit from the medical research that *might* result from your body? You’ve already told us that
    Where do you draw the line, Mr Harris? And, who decides the worthy and the unworthy in this decision? I’m listening for your enlightened response, Mr Harris. Where is your “genuine wisdom and compassion” that you complain that religious dogmatism lacks?

    The most curious part to me is the broad brush that Harris uses to paint Christianity. He generalizes, yet again, by arguing that Christians “safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history”. Yes, the Christian faith does look forward to the coming age of the Kingdom of God. But that doesn’t mean that we all look forward to fighting in the name of Jesus. Yes, some, maybe even many, Christians look to violence to solve their problems, but violence is far from the core message that Jesus offers in the New Testament. A better critique would be to suggest that Christians, in warfare, are going against Jesus’ expectations and that perhaps warfare should be reconsidered as an appropriate Christian response.

    I find it as repulsive as Harris does that religion should lead to violence. But doing away with religion entirely will not get rid of the violence. If anything, trying to focus on the core message of Jesus (peace and love) would be a more appropriate response.

    Consider Harris’ closing statement: “In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy.”

    I agree with the increasingly destructive technology, but I do not agree with the solution offered. I think that religious faith can be an important tool for reconciliation and peace. Consider the work of Jimmy Carter, the Mennonite Church, Christian Peacemakers, etc. in trying to make a difference even in the face of great danger.

    In any event… I’m sure I’ll have more to say later. I think I’ve said enough for one night. Don’t take my word for this though. Do read Sam Harris. And I’m sure you’ll come to the same conclusions I’ve drawn. His arguments are shallow, lacking in compassion and short on wisdom.

    Todd Dow

    Additional links pertaining to this entry:

    Pro Sam Harris: The Atheist Manifestos I: Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

    Con Sam Harris: Letters: Morality and AIDS, Turkey and the EU, America’s vote

    And I’m sure there are plenty of others… these are just two examples.

  • Interfaith Dialogue?

    Yes, this is a crazy suggestion, especially in today’s heated theological climate. But, it’s an important and valid idea, especially when we consider the line of reasoning. Consider this…

    David Warren, a writer for the Ottawa Citizen, provided some comments last week pertaining to the current conflict between the Catholic Church and Islam. As we’re all aware, Pope Benedict’s speech at Regensburg a little while ago hasn’t been sitting too well with many Muslims. Well… it sounds like a group of Muslim leaders have provided a coherent, civil and well-timed response that accepts the Pope’s clarifications to his original comments. And, those same Muslim leaders also “applauded his call for dialogue”. As with the Christian calling for peace, these Muslim leaders cited some scripture of their own in defense of the pacifist messages of their respective religions:

    Christianity – Mark 12:29-31: “‘The most important one’, answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

    Islam – Surah 2:256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    Warren argues that both Christianity and Islam are religions of love, which hits the nail right on the head. Neither religion has, at its heart, hatred or evil intentions. Both religions only want what is best for its participants. Thus, it is important to keep focused on the path to peace and love that both of these religions hold as their fundamental principles.

    I urge you to consider the impact of this radical idea of love… Is it more effective to approach someone who differs in opinion from you with love or hatred? If you are defending Christianity which has a message of love at its core, can you represent it well without showing love? Are you acting out the life that you have been called to live as a Christian if you disregard the loving embrace that Jesus has met us with? I think not! In fact, wouldn’t it be counter-productive to represent a religion of love by waving a banner of violence? That sounds a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

    In my human weakness, I find it difficult to show love for my fellow man on a daily basis. I sometimes trip and fall. But, I remind myself of the great commandment and Jesus’ direction to us all: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

    If only more people reminded themselves of this simple rule… Life would be so much more peaceful.

    Todd Dow

    Reference material for this article:

    David Warren’s article: Now We’re Talking

    Pope Benedict XVI’s Speech at Regensburg

    Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI from leading Muslim Scholars and Leaders

  • Who are we?

    I’ve been thinking about how to begin this dialogue with you for a few days now… How to organize the topics, how to know when I”m done with one topic and when to move on to the next. Instead of worrying and planning, I think I’d be better off just diving in and seeing where things end up. After all, that’s the nature of a good conversation, isn’t it?

    So where do we start? I think it’s important to understand who we are and what we want before we can plan where we’re going. Otherwise, we are more likely to end up running around in circles, constantly changing direction based on our changing priorities.

    So, the question for today becomes, who are we?

    For me, it’s quite clear that I’m a Christian. But what does that mean? The word Christian means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To some, it means that annoying neighbour Ned Flanders from The Simpsons. To others, Christians are the ones responsible for all of the terrible things that happened in The Crusades. To others, the U.S. government and George Bush’s famous Crusades remark are associated with Christianity. Unfortunately, none of these associations (well, maybe my friends would say that I’m a little bit annoyingly Flander-esque) sit well with me. In fact, I have serious misgivings about the violence of the Crusades and I am definitely opposed to George W and his Crusader mentality to world politics.

    Then the question becomes: As a Christian, what do I stand for? I stand for peace. I stand for respect. I stand for forgiveness. I stand for reconciliation and healing. I stand for improving our lot in life.

    We have a choice in life. We can be optimists or we can be pessimists. To borrow from William James, we can be “sick souls” or we can be “healthy-minded”. To the sick soul, there’s no point getting excited about things because the negative far outweighs the good. In fact, the sick soul will argue that pessimism is good in that it sets our expectations low enough that we will never be disappointed. Healthy-minded souls, on the other hand, feel that there is good in the world. They feel that the bad is absorbed by the good. To some, evil is simply an absence of good. To others, evil is necessary to remind us of what good is. Without the two, we would have no way to identify good and evil actions.

    We can choose to be negative or we can choose to be positive. Ever heard the statement, “be careful what you wish for”? Well… this is one of those times where you need to be careful what you wish for. If you set your expectations low, you’ll probably meet your goals. But, will your goals be worth striving for at that point? If you set your expectations high, you might get some disappointments. But, you’ll probably make a bigger difference than you would have with a pessimistic attitude.

    I recently came across an interesting article that outlines what it means to be an Evangelical Christian. Many in the media have portrayed Evangelicals in a negative light. Fortunately, Evangelical is not a bad word. In fact, I’m happy to be an Evangelical. As Michael Davenport, the author of the article in question, points out, Evangelicals approach their faith in a manner that allows them to “participate creatively in modern society”. To Davenport, Evangelicals are reaching out to their peers, trying to share the good news of Jesus. In addition to the good news of Jesus’ death, which offers us salvation for our sins, this good news also outlines a way of life that benefits all of mankind. Just think of how much better the world would be if we all adopted the advice that Jesus gives us concerning how to live our lives. The world would be a much better place indeed if we followed his greatest commandment:

    “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” – Matthew 22:37-39

    Evangelical is a word to describe an approach to faith, as opposed to describing a specific denomination. Davenport identifies four key features to the Evangelical approach. They are:

    • acceptance of the authority of Scripture over all other documents and traditions;
    • affirmation that, suddenly or gradually, individuals are transformed (“reborn”) into believers;
    • belief that Jesus’ death and resurrection were historical facts, necessary for our new life; and
    • commitment to prayer, discipleship, and faithful service to wider humanity.

    Over the next few posts, I’m going to work through these four features. What do these features really mean to me? How do they influence my behaviour? What do they tell me about how I should be living? Most importantly, will embracing these four features bring me closer to God? I’m going to hazard a guess and say you betcha!

    Until next time, my prayer is that God will continue to show you the greatness that he has created in you.

    In Him,

    Todd Dow