via Right Wing Watch

You see, the italicised of. Or you may want to change the typeface, the colour, or style in some other way. I posted about this on Twitter and, as usual, about four million kind souls replied with their solutions.

So, how is it done? I chose to go with the brilliantly powerful custom fields. I also use these to display different header images for ILT, and alternative background images and colours on this site.

Step one: on your edit post page, just create a new custom field like so:

Then open your single.php in your themes [wp-content/themes/your_theme] folder, and find where it outputs the title of the post, and replace with something like:


<h2><a href="<?php the_permalink() ?>" title="<?php the_title_attribute() ?>">
<?php
$altitle = (get_post_meta($post->ID, "custom_title", true));
if($altitle !="") echo $altitle;
else the_title_attribute() ?>
</a></h2>

Perhaps this could be improved. Anyone? This solution works for me because it enables me to style post titles per post.

If you’d like a plugin solution, then check out Kari’s Title Style from the WordPress plugin directory. I’m using it on this site.

________________
Special thanks to @essenmitsosse and the myriad others who replied to my original tweet.

Afterthought: I wonder how you could get my above hack to work in Thematic?

Another fundamental problem with prayer is that its perceived efficacy is so selective. I have a cold; I pray to god for a solution, a cure. My cold dries up, my head clears, my throat is no longer rasping. Of course god answered my prayer, and cured my cold. Does god, who is obviously pretty busy keeping every subatomic particle on course and in motion, not have better things to do? When it comes to priorities it seems as though god would do well to take an elementary course in GTD. Perhaps he needs to draw up a list of, say, common ailments and diseases and rank them by seriousness. Let’s put brain cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s near the top of the list. That same list might trail with, say, the common cold, bruises, scratches, sprained ankles, and broken finger nails.

I have spoken to a great number of people whose faith is mostly founded on a single answered prayer. Can you believe it? Doesn’t that smack of arrogance? Think about it for a moment: god answered your prayer for a new job, a new car, relief from mild arthritis, or asthma. Now, what about that baby born blind, or with missing or deformed limbs? How about the pregnant mother who has AIDS, the rape victim who pleas with god for it to stop? Terribly sorry, but god is busy helping Joe with his CV, and up to his eyes wrangling for the Yankees to win the World Series.

Come on! Let’s stop kidding ourselves with this abject nonsense. Another blatant contradiction: those same people, those who claim that prayers — most importantly their prayers — are answered, also claim that suffering exists as a result of our god-given free will. God does not intervene to end pointless suffering and evil because that would contradict the notion of free will. I wish they’d just make up their minds. Do we have free will, or don’t we? Does god intervene in human affairs or doesn’t he? If he doesn’t, then he doesn’t answer prayers; indeed, he cannot do so without contradicting himself. If he does intervene, then why does he do it so half-heartedly? Why doesn’t he just put a little more effort into his game, and put an end to pointless and unnecessary suffering?

Consider this: god doesn’t answer prayers because god does not exist. This logical solution is without contradiction. Perhaps it’s not quite so consoling, but then where is the consolation for the 5-year old victim of sexual abuse who, incidentally, is raped by a celibate Catholic priest? Ersatz consolation is a pretty weak foundation on which to build one’s entire world view. So, let’s simply stop confessing belief in this nonsense, let’s stop perpetuating these juvenile, arrogant, and pernicious superstitions.

Undoubtedly, some will be offended by the above words, and by the tone in which they’re penned. But that’s not my intention. I only hope and pray (you see, I have a sense of humour too) that you — if you’re a believer — will take a look at your religious convictions, not through the obscuring veil of faith, but whilst standing on the shoulders of reason and common sense.

________________
Image credit.

The End of Reason

The End of Faith

I shall quote the entire first paragraph of the prologue because it sets the theme and tone for the entire book:

A university student arrives home & informs his parents that, after reading a popular atheist’s book, he has renounced his family’s faith. His mother, particularly, is shattered by the news. The father struggles to engage his son in dialogue, but to no avail. The deepening grief causes them to distance themselves from their son. When the game of silence does not work, the mother is plunged further into depression & despair. The grandparents become involved, watching in anguish as the beliefs that have been held dear in the family for generations crumble. Before long, this family that was once close & peaceable is now broken & hostile. Abusive words between mother & son are exchanged with increasing frequency & intensity, & the siblings blame their brother’s new strident atheism for the rift in the family. After one long night of arguing with her son, pleading unsuccessfully with him to reconsider his position, the mother takes an overdose of prescription medication & ends her life, unable to accept what she interprets to be the destruction of her family.

So atheism destroys families, driving mothers to suicide. I guess if the son had arrived home to tell of his conversion to Islam, then that dysfunctional and intolerant family might well have reacted in much the same way. Moreover, I hadn’t realised that familial love hinges on acceptance of Christ. In this respect, Zacharias shoots himself in the foot (he makes a habit of it, in fact; so that by the end of the book he has neither ammunition, nor feet on which to stand). Midway through, Zacharias recounts an Indian parable, the moral of which is that the love of a mother is so powerful that no betrayal can thwart it. Perhaps by page 71, he’d forgotten his own prologue and the words of Matthew 10:34–37.

The question of evil
Undoubtedly the most deeply lodged thorn in the theist’s side is the co-existence of an infinitely wise & benevolent god and evil. This question is insoluble, without resorting to theological semantics, logical fallacy, and downright dishonesty. Zacharias justifies their non-contradictory coexistence, resolving the paradox thus: god has the power to resurrect; we don’t. If that were not such an immoral proposition, it would be laughable. I can induce a heart attack in my neighbour, so long as I then revive her. If she lives, then all is forgiven, and the initial violent act is, not only justified but, morally permissible.

I do not claim that the existence of evil demonstrates the non-existence of a god. I’m not the one who is required to explain the contradiction. That’s a question for believers. Like a (delinquent?) father he simply sits back for millions (thousands if you’re a Creationist) of years, watching the carnage until circa 30 AD, when he sends his Son (himself, or one-third of the Trinity) to redeem us by way of a token ‘sacrifice’. Yet another 2,000 years of thumb-twiddling, and suffering and ‘evil’ still exist. Either he is incompetent, a poor time-keeper, or he just doesn’t give a damn; or, the contradiction is resolved by striking out either evil or god.

And here’s a taste of the benevolent Christian god from Deuteronomy chapter 28:

[15] However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: [16] You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country. [17] Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed. [18] The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. [19] You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.

Or how about Isaiah 47:7

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Or, genocide aside (Judges 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chronicles 13:15–20), let’s look to god for some objective moral guidance on, say, rape. Atheists & theists alike reasonably conclude that rape is wrong. We do not simply conclude that it is wrong owing to some divine commandment. Besides the physical and psychological harm, we are aware that it is ultimately damaging to the fabric of society. So what does the Christian god have to say about rape, its victims and its perpetrators? Please turn to Deuteronomy chapter 22:

[23] If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, [24] you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

[25] But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. [26] Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, [27] for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

[28] If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, [29] he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

If that is not enough to convince Zacharias and other Christians that their god is an incompetent when it comes to the simplest notions of morality, then they will be forced into a pick-’n-mix theology that only goes to demonstrate subjective choices on questions of morality — or, put another way: that we employ our own (subjective) independent moral judgements. Christians cannot have it both ways: they would surely condemn any human who holds to the view of rape outlined in the Bible; so why should god (especially since he claims absolute moral authority) not be subject to the same condemnation? In Deuteronomy not only does god condemn the rape victim to marry her rapist; but, if, during that violent and perverse ordeal, she fails to scream, then she is executed.

I think it is plainly evident that the Christian god, as revealed through the Bible, is most definitely not infinitely wise, and neither is he moral, even by his own contradictory standards. The loving Father, the god who epitomises love, or a delinquent reprobate who is not fit to judge a church fête jam-making contest, let alone the fate of the universe and its inhabitants.

Evidence

The problem with evidence is that it is very much limited to the moment and creates the demand for more evidence. — page 75

What’s he really getting at here? He appears to be undermining the scientific method. Is he really suggesting that evidence is unimportant? That evidence demands more evidence is not a bad thing. And what about his ‘evidence’ for God’s existence. He falls into the trap that snares so many theists: on the one hand they appeal to evidence, to science and the scientific method, and even to the Second Law of Thermodynamics but, when it comes to contrary evidence, the method by which that evidence is gathered, and the evidence itself, is ridiculed. In fact, many are offended by demands for evidence, suggesting instead that faith (believing because I say so) is enough. But then how are we to differentiate between the myriad professed faiths? Then we are expected to turn to evidence — for Christ’s resurrection, for miracles, the efficacy of prayer, etc. The only evidence permitted, however, is evidence that supports his worldview.

The worldview of the Christian is simple enough. God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing. But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.

Let’s take those three claims one at a time:

The worldview of the Christian is simple enough.

Granted. Minus the trappings of theological exegesis, the Christian worldview is indeed simple enough, and might be summed up in the words of John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

and John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Second statement:

God has put enough into this world to make faith in him a most reasonable thing.

Remember that Zacharias is writing about the Christian god. The millions of other gods are simply delusions. So, the triune god of Father, Son, & Holy Ghost (‘ratified’ at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) has put enough into this world that 1.5 billion Muslims would find it a most reasonable thing to believe in the Christian god. The co-equal, co-eternal elements of the Trinity have without contradiction, sown the seeds of reasonable evidence so that one billion Hindus find the three-in-one but one god a reasonable thing. They reasonably accept Jesus into their hearts, and are born again in the Lord.

But he has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.

So how do the four billion non-Christians live? I do not believe in the existence of Yahweh, yet I’m doing fine, thank you. Zacharias rather makes it sound like a juvenile game of hide and seek. The fact is, the majority of humans on this planet do not find belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost a reasonable thing. By reductio ad absurdum — reducing life to a choice between the Trinity and sheer reason — Zacharias is making a fool of himself.

It’s convenient for Zacharias to speak of Christians as a homogeneous group of believers. The facts belie presumptions of homogeneity. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, innumerable sects and denominations vied for ascendancy. Even within the early Christian Church, disparate factions promulgated mutually exclusive doctrines and interpretations of Scripture. The ascendant interpretations and exegeses owed little to their ‘truthfulness’ or inner consistency, but to political decree, and to the burning of books (along with their heretics).

Surely after 2,000 years of infighting, burning of heretics (and their books), schisms, wars, Crusades, Inquisitions; and theological debate over the Sacraments, the Eucharist, baptism, the nature of the Godhead, the relationship between faith and works, the creation, Biblical prophecy, the historicity of the Exodus, the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, consubstantiation, Hell, and redemption — surely a consensus has been reached? Not a chance. Instead Christianity is splintered into an estimated 38,000 denominations, many expounding mutually exclusive doctrine. Some of the differences are minor; others are major and fundamental. We have the re-branded Creationists, the Intelligent Design (argument from ignorance) brigade whose aim is to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. Another group of Christians eschew methodological supernaturalism in favour of scientific materialism up to a point, and a natural evolution initiated and guided by god. So, then, is belief really such a reasonable thing? Or rather does belief demand the suspension of reason and reasonableness in favour of faith in what I can only describe as a theological lottery.

Are non-Christians moral?
Zacharias claims that only his version of god, the Christian god, is in a position to lay down the moral law. Poor Zacharias would be a ship without a rudder, afloat in a sea of moral subjectivity were it not for his Christian god. Would Zacharias be a recidivist criminal without his Christian morality? The above excerpt from Deuteronomy perfectly sums up the Christian conception of morality: do as you’re told, or I’ll beat you with a stick. Not only will I beat you with a stick in this life, but in the life to come. I’ll beat you for all eternity in the unquenchable fires of Hell (Mark 9:43). In light of this rather unpleasant reality, Zacharias’ moral superiority, extolled from the ramparts of castle ‘Holier-than-thou’, doesn’t sound quite so appealing. Perhaps he’d rather just quote 1 John 4, and gloss over the unsavoury bits.

It appears the best he can do is:

Given a starting point of primordial slime, one is forced to live apart from a moral law, with no meaning, no real understanding of love, and no hope. — page 79

And there I was thinking that everyone had the capacity for love. Shucks! It’s only Zacharias and his Born Again Christian cohorts.

However, Zacharias threatens to get philosophical:

— Objective moral values exist only if God exists.
— Objective moral values do exist.
— Therefore God exists.

An examination of these premises & their validity presents a very strong argument for the existence of God.

Perhaps such a cheap shot is worthy of an equally cheap shot in return. Let’s see how sound Zacharias’ philosophy is. To test the logic and consistency of his argument, let’s substitute objective moral values with something else:

— Transformers 2, the movie exists only if God exists.
— Transformers 2, the movie does exist.
— Therefore God exists.

First, not all atheists — and indeed not all philosophers — agree that objective moral values exist. Interestingly, even those who reject the existence of ultimate objective moral values (myself included) appear not to go on killing sprees (myself included); neither do they eat their own children. Perhaps the most reasonable and common-sense — and at the same time devastating — rebuttal to Zacharias’ preposterous philosophising is:

The proposition that morality is objective can have the same status for an atheist and a theist, as does the proposition that logic and mathematics are objective. On such a view, that an innocent person’s not suffering … is better than an innocent person’s suffering … is as objectively true as any truth of logic or mathematics. These are necessary truths, not invented by humankind or God. God can no more make that moral truth false than He can make it false that 2+2=4. [He] is plainly mistaken in simply declaring that ‘without God there is no absolute right or wrong’. Indeed, if morality and logic are objective, God cannot be needed for them to be so.
— Does God Exist: The Craig-Flew Debate, page 66.

Where’s Jesus?
One of the most conspicuous omissions in Zacharias’ book is Jesus. Not that he doesn’t mention him, though he is mostly relegated to two pages towards the end (pages 120 & 121), where he is differentiated from Muhammed, Krishna, Buddha, and Maharira by his claim to divinity. He’s being pretty selective here. Jesus is by no means the only man to have claimed he is a god. Even as devil’s advocate, I think I could make a stronger case for the carpenter’s son.

Zacharias concludes as he began, with a story. This time not a fictional account, but the true story of an 11-year old boy who, fighting against the odds, wins a funeral for his stillborn sister (perhaps saving the unfortunate unborn child from an eternity in Hell? I have no idea). Undoubtedly, that young lad demonstrates resolve and courage. So much so that Zacharias concludes:

I wish Sam Harris and those who write as he does would join me in celebrating such courage and values — and that we would have a better world as a result. — page 128

A final, last ditch tug on the old heart strings, arrogantly insinuating that only he and his Christian comrades could possibly understand this tale’s moral imperative. It is Zacharias’ parting shot, aimed directly again at his own feet. On page 48 he says of Sam Harris,

You see how he continually appeals to your emotions!

Answers
Zacharias writes, In atheism there are no ultimate answers. (page 41). Absolutely. Atheism doesn’t have all the answers. Transport me back to the Middle Ages and I’d have even fewer answers. Take me back to the time of the Ptolemaic dynasty (305–30 BC), and I’d believe the earth to be at the centre of the universe (a very small universe at that). However, there’s one thing we can always be sure of, and that’s that theists will always be on hand to plug the gaps in our knowledge; that is until science — that which has increased life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, cured devastating diseases, and described our awe-inspiring cosmos — comes along and plugs them with something a little more substantial, like common sense and reason.

__________
Notes:
All Bible quotations from the New International Version (NIV), though I prefer the King James Version (KJV).
All quotations from The End of Reason, are from the hardcover edition, 2008. ISBN 978–0-310–28251-8.
Header image detail from: The emperor Constantine burning the Arian books. Drawing on vellum, from MS CLXV, Biblioteca Capitolare, Vercelli, a compendium of canon law produced in Northern Italy ca. 825.

Purists might argue that the above is not a bona fide Mullet. Though I have no formal training in this field, I believe that the fringeless variation (I propose Mullet Sans) is in fact the archetypal Mullet, and that the with-fringe variations are a later, apocryphal addition.

Imagine the look on Howard Carter’s face when he discovered Tutankhamun’s tomb and glorious death mask. What will anthropologists and archaeologists make of the Mullet 1000 years hence? I’m sure they’ll be awe struck. They’ll probably bury all evidence in some underground vault, and label it simply ‘WTF’.

For those interested in further research, I suggest the wonderful Sexy People. Even if you have no interest in the Mullet, several minutes browsing that site will lift your spirits. It’s about perspective, and the calming reassurance that comes with thinking, thank god I don’t look like that guy.

A mullet is a unisex hair style that is short in the front and long in the back. — source: some idiot on Wikipedia.

Mullet: from the Latin verb mulletum, meaning to look silly. — source: Me.

Reference and further reading:
The Mullet: Hairstyle of the Gods — Barney Hoskyns, et al.

I have no interest in mechanical diggers. However, his obsession drove him to study, to remember, to learn; and transformed him from a shy, softly-spoken young man, into an impassioned and articulate savant. I recall very little of what he used to say about them, but it was his passion, the product of his obsession that was contagious, and it was that that left an indelible impression on me.

Just a thought.