Jed Hughett's Chrestomathy

Opposing Islam

jedhughett — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:34:57 +0000

The insanity that is Islam can not be effectively opposed by Christianity but it can be very effectively opposed and even diminished by reason, that is, by a secular humanist’s opposition. This is because Christianity and Islam share certain fundamental beliefs and attributes and it is these defining elements that must be attacked if Islam is to be put in it’s place. Christiandom can not do this because if it did every effective argument it made could be turned back on Christianity.

An open and frontal intellectual attack on the beliefs of Islam is needed. It needs to be asked why anyone should accept the belief that women should be relegated to second class citizenship and it needs to be ask with contempt for such ideas and the underlying beliefs which supported them. The question is always simple. Is this belief true? Why should anyone believe (X)? With X representing whatever the religious teaching is. This method of attack is simple but powerful opposition to all ideas and beliefs which offered tradition or faith as justification for acceptance. Any belief resting solely on tradition or faith for validation was going to fall. Islamic leaders defend the disgraceful treatment of women by claiming it is Allah’s will as revealed in the Koran they need to be told that the Koran is a crock and that no one should care what the Koran or Allah says. It’s treatment of women should cost the religion of Islam all respect among honest intellectuals.

The defenders of Islam will assert that it’s beliefs deserved just as much respect as the beliefs of other religions. This is true. If one religion has to face questions about the truth or falsity of it’s teaching then all religions had to face the same inquisition. If a scientific, humanistic world view of man and the universe became dominate world wide it would put an end to many of the conflicts between nations and groups created, nurtured and fueled by false and deadly beliefs concerning man and his place in the scheme of things.

6,000 Year Old Earth

jedhughett — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:05:26 +0000

There are people, lots of people as a matter of fact, who believe the earth is only six thousand years old. In spite of all evidence to the contrary they hold firm because the six thousand years is derived from computations based on the Bible. And they approach the evidence not in a scientific manner but with the purpose of explaining the facts in a way that is consistent with their belief in a young earth. That which they can not explain away is attributed their rather tricky and deceitful God. He made things to appear to be much older than they are. Believing the Bible, God’s own word, is a true test of faith of the evidence tells you otherwise.

Certainty and the Simple Mind

jedhughett — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:31:06 +0000

It is fascinating how simple minded individuals will pull out the same ol’ claims without verifying them. Like the claim that the old testament foretold Jesus. Any intellectually honest person who reads the old testament in an honest way will be led to one conclusion. The so called prophecies fit only when stretched by the imagination and forced to fit by faith. If you really want to understand the Bible read it like any other book, with an open and critical mind and not with preconceived beliefs. Don’t follow a Sunday school Bible Study course, which is nothing more than someone trying to tell the “student” what things mean. Get you a good translation and a good dictionary and go through it like any other book. You don’t need help reading or studying any other book do you? When you come to the claimed prophecies ask yourself, honestly, is there anything that proves it is speaking of Jesus? To an intellectually honest, free thinking skeptical reader the answer will be no. Can the imagination stretch it to fit, sure. to one who wants to believe it. To one who has already made up their mind, absolutely. But that is not an honest inquiry, and that is not objective thinking.

What Christianity and Islam Have In Common

jedhughett — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:24:19 +0000

A recent news item about a local protestant church distributing anti catholic pamphlets prompts me to write. I am old enough to remember when protestant attacks against Catholicism were common, back before President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, was elected president. I had wrongly assumed that anti-Catholicism had died out and been replaced by fear, suspicion, and general animosity towards Islam. Apparently some groups have enough hostility for both. Mankind has dozens of distinctly different religions and hundreds of variations of faith but there is one belief that they all have in common. They all believe they are the one that is really true and the others are therefore false To those who will object by saying that they don’t claim the others are false let me say yes you do. We all know that two contrary or contradictory beliefs cannot both be true. If one religion is true then contrary and contradictory beliefs of the others cannot be true.

If Judaism is right and the messiah is yet to come then obviously the Christian who believes Jesus was the promised messiah is simply wrong. If the teachings of Islam are true then Mohammad was the fifth and last great leader sent by the one true living God who had previously sent Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus and not one of these men, including Jesus, was divine. If so then Jesus was not the Son of God and was not resurrected following his execution. These are beliefs held by Muslims in general. If these things are true then it is obvious that what a Christian believes cannot true. Being a Christian may mean different things to different people but an essential element is a belief that certain teachings of Christianity are true. Such as the belief that Jesus was the Son of God and that he was resurrected. Now this is either true or it is not true, there is no third possibility. If what Christianity teaches is true then the contrary and contradictory teachings of other religions cannot be true.

Narrow it down. If what the Sunni Muslim believes is real then what the Shiite Muslim believes is not true. If what the Roman Catholic Christian believes is true then what the Protestant Christian believes is not true. If what the Calvinist believes is true then what the Arminianist believes cannot be true.

Broaden it. If what the Hindu believe about the origin of the world is true then the account given in Genesis and shared by the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim is not true.

The common belief held by all religions is that each believes that it has and teaches the truth and that other religions do not teach the truth. Each religion claims it’s truth and by doing so each necessarily proclaims the other religions untrue or false. So this is the one single belief held in common by every religion and every denomination of every religion. Each looks at the world and says, “I am right therefore you must be wrong.” None can prove that theirs is the one true religion or that the others are untrue because the concepts of evidence and proof do not apply. Science, logic and rules of evidence do not come into play when we talk of religion and most people live their lives believing what they were taught as children. Even a snake handling worshiper can consider himself or herself lucky to have been born into the one single village on the face of the earth where the real truth is taught.

These great differences of opinion on such a vital issue are not and should not be a problem in this great country of ours, a country in which religious freedom is protected and each person is at liberty to believe what they wish and practice their beliefs as they wish without discrimination. Religious freedom is guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment and people with vastly contrary beliefs live in peace because no one gets to decide such beliefs for others. It is for this reason that government should not establish a religion because establishing a religion would mean that the government has decided which religion is the true one. It is because of this that our forefathers established the principle of separation of church and state.

To those who like to make an issue of the fact that the constitution does not use the specific phrase “separation of church and state” let me ask you something. What do you think it means to prohibit the government from establishing a church? What do you think it means to prohibit the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. In other words, what do you believe the educated and enlightened drafters of the constitution were trying to do with the First Amendment? They certainly knew what it meant to have an established religion. Europe was full of established religions and closer to home, eight of the original thirteen colonies had officially established religions of various Christian denominations and all thirteen had laws explicitly grounded on religious beliefs. By adopting the First Amendment in 1791 the newly formed United States of America explicitly move from the status qua and the past into a more peaceful future by codifying that supreme virtue of the enlightenment, tolerance.

When they prohibited the establishment of a religion the founders meant that the new government itself did not and could not have a religion. It cannot be Christian, nor Jewish, nor Islamic, etc.

By guaranteeing to everyone the right to freely exercise their different religious beliefs the founders forbade the government from prohibiting any religion’s beliefs or practices.

Taken together these constitutional guarantees require separation of church and state. A separation so complete that Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” was and is an appropriate metaphor. To all those who oppose the separation of church and state and want to see their own religious principles written into law because they are the majority let me ask you this. What about where and when you are not the majority? Things change. What if the majority was Muslin? One of the problems of our world today is the lack of such separation in most Islamic countries. Can anyone doubt that the world would be a better and more peaceful world if Islam would become more like the United States by embracing the principles laid out in the First Amendment and establish a wall of separation between religion and the governments of the Islamic nations?

With Faith All Things Are Possible (to believe)

jedhughett — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:47:53 +0000

There is truly no limit to what faith can do, or lead to, or allow. Faith has no limits for it allows one to believe what ever they wish to believe. You want to believe that you will never actually die? No problem. Want to believe that dying for your cause guarantees instant paradise? No problem. Want to believe there is another realm of existence that is unseen and unknown? No problem. Want to believe that some people are authorities on the unknowable other realm? No problem. Want to believe that God stands behind you and supports your efforts to? No problem. Faith allows people to believe all of these things and much more.

Secular Times Needed

jedhughett — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:34:06 +0000

Everywhere faith is glorified. Newspapers have special sections devoted to faith and faith based institutions. Politicians are unanimous in proclaiming themselves grounded in deep and abiding faith. And the Pope is runs around proclaiming that there is no conflict between reason and faith. It is fair to say that faith allows a person to believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Our leaders openly seek to be guided by faith, clinging to their beliefs rather than seeking knowledge. This can not go on.

To the Pope and to many others reason and faith, that is to say knowledge and belief, should go hand in hand. But in the real world where there are thousands of variants of faith there are conflicts not only between the various faiths but also between many faith based beliefs and knowledge grounded in reason, logic and science. For example, there are people who honestly believe that the world is only a few thousand years old. Their faith tells them this and they believe it. Is it true? Is it knowledge? Reason, logic and science tell us it is not true. Anyone who looks at the factual evidence with intellectual honesty will tell you it is silly to believe the world in only a few thousand years of age.

Anyone looking at the evidence with an honest open mind will know that our world has existed for billions of years. This we can identify as knowledge, distinguishing it from belief. Still, people of faith continue to believe that the world is only a few thousand years old because it is consistent with their faith Such beliefs should not be confused with knowledge.

This example of a faith based belief demonstrates and defines the difference between beliefs accepted on faith and actual knowledge grounded in reason, science and logic. Faith allows you to believe whatever you want. Reason demands proof. Now ask yourself this. In the realm of politics and world affairs do you want your leaders making decisions based on faith or on knowledge?

The Big Bang vs. The Big Poof Theory

jedhughett — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:40:05 +0000

I see frequent items on science versus creation but they never hit the most fundamental issue. Creationism of all variants start with the assumption that that there was a time when matter, i.e., mass and energy, did not exist and was brought into existence by God. And that God is something outside of and apart from the realm of science and physics. Creationism posits a realm not accessible to man’s senses, a realm that is not of the natural but which is supernatural. This starting point is not a scientific view. Science deals with the evidence perceived of the natural world and the universe beyond. Science studies and investigate the reality we experience and there is certainly no scientific evidence that the universe was created by something which preceded it. If one believes in creation theory they do so because of faith not because scientific evidence compels such conclusion.

Science tells us the matter and energy can not be destroyed or created, only transformed. Creationism is unscientific starting at it’s very roots because the creationist believe there was a time when material reality did not exist, a time when all that existed was an immaterial spiritual but all powerful being best known as God and that God brought the material world, the world of energy and matter that we know, into being. While there are different creation stories with different religions the Jews, Christians and Muslims all look to the book of Genesis where we are told God said let there be and there was. In other words, there was nothing then POOF, there it was. Something from nothing. This is not science but is best describe as magic.

Science, and common sense really, tells us that something can not come from nothing, it can’t happen. Science tells us that matter and energy are eternal, without beginning or end. Matter and energy can not be destroyed or created, only transformed. Existence simply is and to ask why there is something rather than nothing makes no sense.

Please don’t make the mistake of confusing the Big Bang theory with the Big Poof theory. The Big Bang theory does not purport to explain the origin of existence but only of it’s current configuration. Big Bang does not claim that something came from nothing. It claims that the stuff of the universe was once incredibly dense and compact then exploded and has been moving outward ever since.

Intellegent Design

jedhughett — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:11:39 +0000

Intelligent Design

To those who believe existence is so marvelous as to require an intelligent designer and creator I ask you to consider this. Isn’t your intelligent, designing creator even more marvelous than his creation? Does he not then require a creator of even greater ability? If you say no then why not? You conceive of a creator who is over and above the natural physical universe we see and experience, one who has the immeasurable intelligence, ability and power needed to conceive, design and create this marvelously complex physical universe. Surely such a powerful being could not have just happened by accident. Think about it. Before you give the standard answer which is that God has no beginning or end, that he simply exists, always has and always will, ask yourself one more question. Why are you able to accept the notion that your non-material but all powerful god had no beginning but are unable to believe that the physical world has no beginning or end? That existence exists and always has. Think about it.