Saturday, June 29, 2013

DOMA, Homosexual Marriage & The Bible

I previously wrote a note in which I described what seems to be common idea among Christian conservative circles. The idea I criticized deals specifically with a form of superstition, founded in fear, that centers on thoughts that society could be endangering itself, or rather that God may seek to punish the US, by allowing homosexuals to marry or, heaven it would seem forbids, to have children under their care. 

To a large degree this superstition is founded on the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Christian conservative view is such that these cities doomed themselves because of individuals who committed homosexual acts. 

However, like many stories in the Bible, there are alternate interpretations. One such perspective can be gained by taking a different, but probably a more correct, approach to the Sodom and Gomorrah tale. By looking at the story in this light, it becomes evident that, by not showing humanity and understanding, Christian conservatives are likely guilty of a greater sin, at least according to traditional Semitic views. By seeking to reduce taxes on the wealthy in order to deny or reduce federal assistance to the poor, the elderly, the sick and disabled, and by seeking to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens, so-called Christian conservative views within these circles are by far a greater insult. 

Michael Coogan, a Lecturer on Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School, Director of Publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum, and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Stonehill College, authored an interesting book on sex in the Bible -- God & Sex: What the Bible Really Says. I highly recommend the book, and if you find the passage below interesting, you can find it at Amazon at the following address:

"Sodom and Sodomy

Another supposed example of male homoeroticism in biblical narrative, often cited by modern opponents of homosexuality, is the story of Sodom, a proverbially wicked city. The precise location of Sodom and its sister city, Gomorrah, is unknown, but the biblical writers locate it in the region just east of the Dead Sea.

That region is the lowest on the landmass of the earth, more than 1,200 feet below sea level. Its geological situation and its elevation combine to make it desolate and barren. Temperatures in the summer can reach as high as 120 degrees, and whiffs of sulfer fill the air. How had this region become so forbidding? For the biblical writers, it must have been a divine punishment, for natural disasters, as well as disease and ultimately even death, were understood as inflicted by God. The story of Sodom's destruction is another example of etiology, a narrative explanation of the origin of a custom, social reality, or, as here, a geographical feature.

Sodom was where Abraham's nephew Lot had moved, when it was still "well watered, like Yahweh's garden, like the land of Egypt," while Abraham himself had stayed west of the Jordan River in the land of Canaan. But, the narrator informs us, "the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against Yahweh." So great were their unspecified sins that, we are told a few chapters later, there was an "outcry"--a persistent complaint to Yahweh--and he decided to investigate. After his meal with Abraham during which he promised the birth of a son to Sarah, Yahweh informed Abraham that he was going to destroy the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin is grave." In an almost comical bargaining session, Abraham extracts from Yahweh the promise not to kill any innocent persons living in Sodom. Then Yahweh's messengers (his "angels") proceed to Sodom to carry out their mission.

What was so grave a sin that would cause Yahweh to transform this fertile region into a barren landscape? As it continues, the narrative apparently gives a clue. The divine messengers are taken in by Abraham's nephew Lot, who shows them hospitality. After a banquet,
"before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all of them. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us, so that we may know them.'" 

This is not just a wish to become better acquainted with the strangers in town, but, using a familiar euphamism, to "know" them. Was sodomy the sin of Sodom? So it would seem. But wait--Lot then offers the townsfolk his daughters.
"Look--I have two daughters who have not known a man. I will send them out to you. Do to them whatever is good in your eyes, but do not do anything to these men, for they came under the shelter of my roof."

As far as Lot was aware, then, the men of Sodom were not homosexuals, to use modern terminology: they would have been just as happy with Lot's virgin daughters as with his male guests [allow me to interject: according to tradition, it is not evident that angels had a sex at all, notwithstanding some silly controversy on the topic despite their mythological nature]. 

In the end, the divine messengers saved the day, blinding the citizens of Sodom, and the next day the city was destroyed, along with Gomorrah and its neighbors. Lot and his family, however, were saved, in fulfillment of the divine promise not to kill any good people in the city. (Lot's unnamed wife did not survive for long--she was turned into a pillar of salt for having disobeyed the angels' arbitrary command not to look back.) The implication, then, is that Lot had demonstrated his righteousness by his proper treatment of his visitors; offering his daughters to the mob was morally acceptable in such circumstances.

But what precisely was the sin of Sodom that provoked Yahweh to destroy it? The earliest interpretations of the Bible, chronologically and culturally closest to the times of the biblical writers, are found in the Bible itself. One such interpretation is found in a first-century BCE Jewish work known as the Wisdom of Solomon. Referring to the inhabitants of Sodom, its anonymous author says they "refused to receive strangers who came to them... and made their guests their slaves." For this ancient writer, one sin of the citizens of Sodom was an appalling violation of a fundamental social principle of antiquity, hospitality: they wanted to rape strangers in town. Now rape, as feminists have convincingly argued, is a crime of violence rather than one of sex: that is, rape is a violent form of dominance that uses sex, not an inappropriately violent expression of libido. So, the attempt to rape Lot's visitors is an example of Sodom's immorality, because they wanted to violate hospitality with violence against strangers in town.

We find a reprise of the story of Sodom in the horrible narrative of the rape of the Levite's concubine, which has aptly been called a "text of terror." Set in the time of the judges, at the end of the second millennium BCE, "when there was no king in Israel," the story begins with the marriage between an unnamed Levite who lived in the hills of Ephraim in central Israel and his secondary wife, also unnamed, who was from Bethlehem in Judah, a few miles south of Jerusalem. But she left her husband and returned to her father's house. After four months, her husband went to get her back, accompanied by a servant and a couple of donkeys. When he got to Bethlehem, his father-in-law greeted him warmly--perhaps there was hope for this marriage after all. For several days they partied together, and even though the Levite was ready to go back home, his father-in-law kept insisting that they stay another night. Finally, on the fifth day, after more partying, the Levite, his wife, and his servant started out toward his home, some twenty-five miles to the north. But it was late in the day, and as they approached Jerusalem, the servant suggested that they spend the night there. The Levite refused, because Jerusalem was "a foreign city"--it would remain Canaanite until David captured it--and said that they should go a couple of miles farther north, to the Israelite city of Gibeah.

When they arrived in Gibeah, the trio started to camp out in the town square; their fellow Israelites showed no hospitality. But there was another Ephraimite in Gibeah, an old man who, returning from work in the field, saw them in the square and invited them into his house. Then, while they were relaxing over dinner,
"the men of the city, worthless men, surrounded the house, banging on the door. They said to the old man whose house it was, 'Send out the man who came to your house so that we may know him.' But the man whose house it was went out to them and said to them, 'No, my brothers! Do not act wickedly toward this man who came to my house, and do not do this folly! Here are my virgin daughter and his wife: I will send them out. You may rape them, and do what is good in your eyes--but to the man who came to my house, do not do this deed of folly.'"

As at Sodom, there are strangers in town. As at Sodom, they are taken in by a resident alien. As at Sodom, the men of the city surround the house where the guests are staying and demand that the Levite be sent out "so that we may know him." As at Sodom, the host appeals to the principle of hospitality. As at Sodom, the host offers two women as substitutes--in this case, his virgin daughter and the Levite's wife. Now, however, no angels come to the rescue.
"The men were unwilling to listen to him, so the Levite grabbed his wife and sent her out to them. They knew her, and they abused her all night, until morning. And as dawn began to break, they let her go. So, in the early morning, the woman went and fell at the entrance of the house of the man where her lord was, until it was fully light."

Notably, this is not a Canaanite city, like Sodom, but Gibeah, an Israelite town, whose inhabitants are as bad as those of Sodom, the literary parallel implies. And, as at Sodom, homoeroticism is not the essential element of the story. In fact, like the citizens of Sodom, those of Gibeah are rapists, willing to rape women as well as men, with brutal disregard for the principle of hospitality.

That principle was a central component of Israelites' covenantal obligation to each other--to love the neighbor, the fellow Israelite. The men of Gibeah had violated that core principle, which explains the Levite's reaction:
"In the morning her lord got up and opened the doors of the house, preparing to continue his journey. There was his secondary wife, fallen at the entrance to the house, her hands on the threshold. He said to her: 'Get up! We are going!' But there was no response. So he put her on his donkey and proceeded to go to his own place. When he got to his house, he took a knife, grabbed his wife, and cut her, limb from limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her to all the territory of Israel."

There followed a war of retribution by the tribes of Israel against Gibeah, and ultimately against the entire tribe of Benjamin to whose territory Gibeah belonged, because some of its members had committed "folly in Israel." 

We must pause to consider the fate of this poor woman. Why did she leave her husband? The text says that "she was promiscuous"; ancient and modern translators have softened this to "she became angry with him." Is there a backstory? As often in the Bible, we are not told. Perhaps the charge of infidelity is a male narrator's anticipatory justification for what her husband did. In any case, this is patriarchalism at its worst: a helpless woman sent out to be gang-raped in order to uphold the principle of hospitality toward a male guest. And while it is risky to read our sensibilities into a text from another culture, here perhaps we are justified in thinking that the story was as horrible for its ancient readers as it is for us, both because of the result, the punishment of the perpetrators, and because of the poignant picture of the victim, who somehow managed to get back ot the house where her husband found her lying, "her hands on the threshold."

The interpretation of the sin of Sodom as inhospitality is also implied in the words attributed to Jesus. In the context of giving instructions to his inner circle, the Twelve, about their itinerant ministry, he concludes:
"When you come to a city and they welcome you, eat what is set before you, and cure the sick there, and say to them, 'God's kingdom has come near to you.' But when you come to a city and they do not welcome you, go out to its squares and say, 'Even the dust of your city that sticks to us, we wipe from our feet in protest against you. But know that God's kingdom has come near.' I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that city."

As in Genesis and in Judges, the issue is inhospitality, which will be punished more severely than Sodom was for the same offense.

So, the attempted rape of Lot's visitors is an example of what displeased Yahweh about Sodom. But mistreating strangers was not the only sin of Sodom. According to the early sixth-century BCE prophet Ezekiel, addressing Jerusalem: "This was the sin of Sodom, your sister: pride! She and her daughter[-cities] had abundance of bread and undisturbed tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy. They haughtily committed abomination before me; and so I removed them when I saw it." Justice was most owed to those on the margins of society--the poor, widows and orphans, and strangers. Sodom had failed, in other words, to provide for these least powerful persons. This was the reason for the "outcry," a word that elsewhere in the Bible refers to pleas for divine help for those treated unjustly. And this was the reason for the divine punishment--the destruction both of Sodom in the past, and, according to Ezekiel, of Jerusalem in the near future.

Throughout the Bible, Sodom is a frequently used byword for Israel. The prophets repeatedly compare their Israelite audiences to the inhabitants of Sodom, as did the author of Judges 19 implicitly. Thus Isaiah, addressing his audience in Jerusalem in the late eighth century BCE, proclaims:
"Hear Yahweh's word, you leaders of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our god, you people of Gomorrah!... Refrain from evil, learn to do good: Seek justice, aid the oppressed, give justice to the orphan, plead the widow's case." 

Informed by these ancient interpretations, we can now define the "grave sin" of Sodom: it was social injustice ...

Sodom & Gomorrah: The Root of Evangelical Disdain for Gay Marriage


I am writing this note because there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding among liberals and progressives concerning the disdain for gay marriage within religious right wing orthodoxy. Most liberals seem to consider the debate in simple terms, whether gay people should be treated as equals before the law. These liberals seem to think of the religious right as merely using the Bible as justification to treat gay people differently - I should be counted among these liberals, in fact. I and others can then simply point to the fact that the Bible and other religious texts have historically been used to treat people differently or, in fact, have been used to treat people badly - that the Bible was used as justification for keeping slaves, for treating women differently (in essence as property), and for corporal or even capital punishment. These same texts are used to treat people badly even today. Many students who examine the role of religion in history will come to a similar understanding. However, on the other hand, many of the liberal and progressive thinkers who sought to overturn these injustices were also religious, so it is difficult to say that the religion itself is to blame. In this way, one could say that the prevailing beliefs about morality within the society were not simply reflective of religious orthodoxy, but were rather a reflection of the society itself. Feelings about morality and ethical treatment of people have, indeed, changed over time and society has moved away from traditional orthodox views about sin and punishment. I, as a secular humanist, feel that on the whole society has become more peaceful and moral as a result of this trend.

Yet, among religious conservatives, this idea that society has improved by supplanting old concepts of morality with new goals of equality and a higher degree of personal freedom is an extremely negative one. In the same way that the fundamentalist Jew or Muslim sees progressive attitudes as heresy, Christian conservatives often view historical trends toward progressiveness as a slow moral decay. They, like fundamentalists from other faiths, view any departure from what they feel is the right path specifically ordained by their deity as a deliberate disobedience of God's commands. Moreover, and this is the most important point to make, they feel that a society that deliberately leaves this path is courting disaster - that God will severely punish the society in some way. While God will continue to bless and reward the society that keeps His commands. 

As crazy as it might sound to those who do not share this view of history, among Christian, Jewish, and Islamic communities this attitude is a prevailing notion. To them, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not a simple mythological tale, but an actual historic event that stands as a clear warning to any society that would dare disobey God's commands. This superstitious idea that natural disasters, tumultuous wars, disease, and other trials are punishment for offending God is a strong one among the Abrahamic religions; so much so that modern disasters are often seen by the members of these faiths as contemporary examples of God's wrath and punishment. As an example, to many Christians, the destruction of New Orleans as a result of hurricane Katrina was directly due to debaucherous behavior among its inhabitants; meanwhile many Muslims interpreted it as punishment for what is seen as Western persecutorial wars against Islam. The natural disasters that befell Haiti were seen by these Christian conservatives as punishment for their turning away from God. Other natural disasters are commonly seen in the same superstitious light. 

Warfare in history is seen by the Abrahamic religions in much the same way; as evidenced by much of their religious texts. The victorious had God on their side, it would seem to the victors. Nevermind that during battles both sides probably felt a deity was on their side and nevermind that the result was more likely due to superior tactics, strategy, technology, logistics, or manpower. Indeed, this superstitious attitude has historically influenced Christian, Jewish, and Islamic views toward the 'other.'

To many Christians, these superstitious views work their way into their understanding of history. To them, Greece and Rome fell in influence due to what is seen as a moral decadence. Moreover, they see the rise of the US as emblematic of God's bestowal of blessings upon the nation. They commonly view the prominence of the USA, in both economic and political terms, as clear evidence of God's favorable attitude toward the nation. To them, the idea that the US was founded on Christian ideals is very important, because they see the preeminance of the US as a consequence of the nation's faithful adherence to God's commandments. 

As a result of having this view, anything they perceive as a departure from God's commands, they consequently believe will surely result in either a decline of American influence and power or a wholesale destruction of the American society writ large. These Christian conservatives commonly view, as an example, legalization of abortion and contraception as symptomatic of the moral decay in American society. They see the prevalence of cohabitation and sex outside of marriage in similar negative terms; to the point that many view STDs as punishment for sexual depravity. They often further believe that euthenasia and what they perceive as a pervasive disrespect toward life stands as further evidence of this decay. Therefore, when the nation then discusses legalization of gay marriage, this is not simply a discussion of whether or not people should be treated equally regardless of their sexual preference, but is rather a further example of what they perceive is the moral degeneration of American society. They genuinely fear that this trend toward 'turpitude' will result in the downfall of the nation. 

It is very difficult for me to stay focused at this point in my note. My compulsion is to show that this view of history is a faulty one. I desire to provide historical and modern examples of societies that are not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic yet which are equally or nearly equally 'blessed' in terms of political or economic prosperity. I also feel that I could cast the decline or destruction of ancient societies in a different light by providing myriad other factors for their decline or destruction not related to their adherence to any particular dogma. I further feel compelled to show how our scientific understanding of nature necessarily lends itself to disbelieving any form of superstitious feelings toward divine reward and punishment - for example that the natural forces that brought about hurricane Katrina would have been present regardless of the behavior of the inhabitants of New Orleans; or that equally calamitous events befall those who are 'innocent' of wrongdoing - such as the number of innocent children who contract disease or who are met with similar trials. Similarly, I feel like I could point out all of the good that has come about as a result of our progressive attitudes and scientific understanding of nature. 

Lastly, I could easily point out how modern Christians cherry pick which rules and punishments they submit to; as an example, it would be difficult to find a Christian sect who felt that the inhabitants of the eastern coast of the US were courting disaster by eating shellfish or that anyone who dared wear clothing made of both cotton and polyester was guilty of anything other than commiting perhaps a fashion faux pas. Yet, somehow, many of these Christians feel it's only a matter of time before the 'debauched' Californians get swept out to sea or are met with the 'big one.' 

Unfortunately, none of these appeals to the intellect and emotions of fundamentalist Christians would likely change their minds. Traditions and superstitions are extremely durable. To those who hold these superstitions, they must fight against the legalization of gay marriage so that their society might avert calamity and continue to be blessed. As strange as this seems to me and to other scientifically or liberally minded people, this is at the root of the Christian evangelical disdain for gay marriage - it comes down to a superstitious fear of punishment and the selfish desire for reward. 

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Evolution, the Religious Argument, aka Intelligent Design - by Eudaemon

If I may paraphrase the religious argument as pertains to evolution, and exhibit the silliness in a rather succinct manner:

Religions have resorted to subterfuge, obfuscation, and occasionally violence in order to defend theology when faced with scientific theories that threaten theological tenets; and only when faced with arguments that could not be reasonably opposed did they begrudgingly offer some ground. Indeed, religion, as ironic as it is, acts like an organism struggling for survival against a harsh environment of rationalism and a seemingly predatorial biological foe - science.

The theological argument for acceptance of evolution as a concept relies upon the religious adherents' continued belief in a God. Therefore, when science has offered evidence that suggested the biblical mythology to be in error, religion has merely changed its arguments. In ceding ground and changing arguments, again an irony, religion has evolved. Biblical stories became allegorical rather than literal. So long as the religious-minded believers could continue to believe that whatever mechanism was at play in the evolution of life, that God was surely behind the scenes turning the wheels and cogs, then not all would be lost. This, then, changes the argument in order to maintain that there was a cosmic purpose for the creation and evolution of life. It is therefore upon this bedrock of "purpose" that the entire religious house of cards stands. Mankind refuses to believe that his hallowed position in the universe which is itself a malignant and arrogant premise that he is the epitome or apex of God's creative powers and that all of the universe was created for his own delight. He is king! And the earth and all other elements of creation were created for him and the earth or the universe was his domain. But is this arrogant belief even tenable?

The church decried Copernicus and subsequent scientists for threatening mankind's central position in the universe. Geologists and archeologists likewise were ridiculed for daring to say that there was evidence that the earth had slowly evolved over vast periods of time - perhaps millions of years (or billions). Then biologists and archeologists similarly began to show how life had evolved over time. Then along came Darwin, who had the gall to imply that the mechanism for this gradual change was purely algorithmic, economic, and natural. Imagine, now not only was mankind's preeminent position threatened, but even God's was...how dare he! But that was not the end, it was only the beginning. The numerous implications took some time to set in. But so long as religion could maintain that there was this purpose behind it all...maybe religious dogmas could accept some of evolutionary theory so long as those thoughts never, ever implied that there was no purpose or a God behind it all.

So here we have purpose. The ever important question - why? Does it need to be answered? Why is there water on earth? - God put it there to nourish us. Why is there a sun? - God put it there to provide a source of heat and light and to nourish the plants. Why is there a moon? - Because God put it there to light the night sky. Why are there plants and animals? - God put them there to feed and nourish us. Really? Is it more likely that this “purpose” concept is simply turning cause and effect upside down? Isn't this a form of childish thinking? Isn't, then, science a more mature way of looking at things?

The sun? It shines because of a sustained fusion reaction. The water? It exists on earth because the earth attracted water molecules (abundant in space) over time, the earth's gravitational pull was enough to hold onto it, and the temperatures were right to keep the molecules together. The plants and animals? They exist because they evolved over time from more simple forms through a process of natural selection and genetic variation. Humans? We exist because we descended from apes in the same way that every other species of life was created - through natural/sexual selection and genetic variation. That life slowly adapted to its environment gave us the illusion that our environment was created for us, when, in fact, we were adapted to it. God and purpose are therefore simply illusions, figments of our imagination.
Excerpt from Theory of Moral Sentiments - John Locke

Of Moral Philosophy, Chapter III, Of those Systems which make Virtue consist in Benevolence

[In this text, as in other texts from Locke, one can see how Locke may have influenced the ideas of Utilitarianism...which promotes the idea that the greatest common good ought to be the ultimate goal of society.]

The system which makes virtue consist in benevolence, though I think not so ancient as all of those which I have already given an account of, is, however, of very great antiquity. It seems to have been the doctrine of the greater part of those philosophers who, about and after the age of Augustus, called themselves Eclecticks, who pretended to follow chiefly the opinions of Plato and Pythagoras, and who, upon that account, are commonly known by the name of the later Platonists.

In the divine nature, according to these authors, benevolence or love was the sole principle of action, and directed the exertion of all the other attributes. The wisdom of the Deity was employed in finding out the means for bringing about those ends which his goodness suggested, as his infinite power was exerted to execute them. Benevolence, however, was still the supreme and governing attribute, to which the others were subservient, and from which the whole excellency, or the whole morality, if I may be allowed such an expression, of the divine operations, was ultimately derived. The whole perfection and virtue of the human mind consisted in some resemblance or participation of the divine perfections, and, consequently, in being filled with the same principle of benevolence and love which influenced all the actions of the Deity. The actions of men which flowed from this motive were alone truly praiseworthy, or could claim any merit in the sight of the Deity. It was by actions of charity and love only that we could imitate, as became us, the conduct of God, that we could express our humble and devout admiration of his infinite perfections, that by fostering in oru own minds the same divine principle, we could bring our own affections to a greater resemblance with his holy attributes, and thereby become more proper objects of his love and esteem; till at last we arrived at that immediate converse and communication with the Diety to which it was the great object of this philosophy to raise us.

This system, as it was much esteemed by many ancient fathers of the Christian church, so, after the reformation, it was adopted by several divines of the most eminent piety and learning, and of the most amiable manners...

That virtue consists in benevolence, is a notion supported by many appearances in human natuer. It has been observed already, that proper benevolence is the most graceful and agreeable of all the affections; that it is recommended to us by a double sympathy; that as its tendency is necessarily beneficient, it is the proper object of gratitude and reward; and that, upon all these accounts, it appears to our natural sentiments to possess a merit superior to any other. It has been observed too, that even the weaknesses of benevolence are not very disagreeable to us, whereas those of every other passion are always extremely disgusting. Who does not abhor excessive malice, excessive selfishness, or excessive resentment? But the most excessive indulgence, even of partial friendship, is not so offensive. It is the benevolent passions only which can exert themselves without any regard or attention to propriety, and yet retain something about them which is engaging. There is something pleasing even in mere instinctive good will, which goes on to good offices without once reflecting, whether, by this conduct, it is the proper object either of blame or approbation. It is not so with the other passions. The moment they are deserted, the moment they are unaccompanied by the sense of propriety, they cease to be agreeable.

[I am omitting some text where Locke simply expounds on some of these arguments concerning other passions]

Since benevolence, therefore, was the only motive which could bestow upon any action the character of virtue, the greater the benevolence which was evidenced by any action, the greater the praise which must belong to it.
Those actions which aimed at the happiness of the great community, as they demonstrated a more enlarged benevolence than those which aimed only at that of a smaller system, so were they, likewise, proportionally the more virtuous. The most virtuous of all affections, therefore, was that which embraced as its objects the happiness of all intelligent beings. [Personal note: in the modern age, we would extend this virtue as being in its greatest form to those who embrace the preservation of all life on earth as a goal] The least virtuous, on the contrary, of those to which the character of virtue could in any respect belong, was that which aimed no further than at the happiness of an individual, such as a son, a brother, a friend [or of the self].

In directing all our actions to promote the greatest possible good, in submitting all inferior affections to the desire of the general happiness of mankind, in regarding one's self but as one of the many, whose prosperity was to be pursued no further than it was consistent with, or conducive to, that of the whole, consisted the perfection of virtue.

Self-love was a principle which could never be virtuous in any degree or in any direction. [Personal note: individualists and objectivists would find this statement abhorrent and incorrect in the greatest degree] It was vicious whenever it obstructed the general good. When it had no other effect than to make the individual take care of his own happiness, it was merely innocent, and though it deserved no praise, neither ought it to incur any blame. Those benevolent actions which were performed, notwithstanding some strong motive from self-interest, were the more virtuous upon that account. They demonstrated the strength and vigour of the benevolent principle. [Personal note: in fact, what this is implying is that the greatest virtues apply when a person's actions benefit him/herself in addition to the community at large.] [Personal note: to a degree I would submit that the Epicureans were probably closer to a healthier point of view concerning the need to satisfy the self - a degree of balance, therefore is probably more desirable, in my view.]

[I am omitting those general arguments that seek to further establish the desire to build the esteem of a Diety through benevolent actions. The text below, which is Locke's final paragraph in this chapter, is what I can only assume helped to influence Utilitarianism as a philosophical thread for those who came after him.]

That system which places virtue in utility, coincides too with that which makes it consist in propriety. According to this system, all those qualities of the mind which are agreeable or advantageous, either to the person himself or to others, are approved of as virtuous, and the contrary disapproved of as vicious. But the agreeableness or utility of any affection depends upon the degree which it is allowed to subsist in. Every affection is useful, when it is confined to a certain degree of moderation; and every affection is disadvantageous when it exceeds the proper bounds. According to this system, therefore, virtue consists not in any one affection, but in the proper degree of all the affections. The only difference between it and that which I have been endeavouring to establish, is, that it makes utility, and not sympathy, or the correspondent affection of the spectator, the natural and original measure of this proper degree.
Excerpt from an essay by Martin Gardner - Seems appropriate with the Doomsday prophets coming out of the woodwork again...

'For the son of man shall come in the glory
of his Father, with his angels, and then he
shall reward every man according to his
works. Verily I say unto you. There be
some standing here, which shall not taste
of death till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom' - Matthew 16; 27,28

The statement of Jesus quoted above from Matthew, and repeated in similar words by Mark (8.38, 9:1) and Luke (9:26,27) is for Bible fundamentalists one of the most troublesome of all New Testament passages.

It is possible, of course, that Jesus never spoke those sentences, but all scholars agree that the first-century Christians expected the Second Coming in their lifetimes. In Matthew 24, after describing dramatic signs of his imminent return, such as the falling of stars and the darkening of the moon and sun, Jesus added: Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled."

Until about 1933 Seventh-Day Adventists had a clever way of rationalizing this prophecy. They argued that the spectacular meteor shower of 1833 was the falling of the stars, and that there was a mysterious darkening of the sun and moon in the US in 1870. Jesus meant that a future generation witnessing these celestial events would be the one to experience the Second Coming.

For almost a hundred years Adventist preachers and writers of books assured the world that Jesus would return within the lifetimes of some who had seen the great meteor shower of 1833. After 1933 passed, the curch gradually abandoned this interpretation of Christ's words. Few of today's faithful are even aware that their church once trumpeted such a view. Although Adventists still believe Jesus will return very soon, they no longer set conditions for an approximate date.

How do they explain the statements of Jesus quoted in the epigraph? Following the lead of Saint Augustine and other early Christian commentators, they take the promise to refer to Christ's Transfiguration. Ellen White, the prophetess who with her husband founded Seventh-Day Adventism, said it this way in her life of Christ, The Desire of Ages: "The Savior's promise to the disciples was now fulfilled. Upon the mount the future kingdom of glory was represented in minature..."

Hundreds of adventist sects since the time of Jesus, starting witht he Montanists of the second century, have all interpreted Christ's prophetic statements about his return to refer to THEIR generation. Apocolyptic excitement surged as the year 1000 approached. Similar excitement is now gathering momentum as the year 2000 draws near. Expectation of the Second Coming is not confined to adventist sects. Fundamentalists in mainstream Protestant denominations are increasingly stressing the imminence of Jesus' return. Babtist Billy Graham, for example, regularly warns of the approaching battle of Armageddon and the appearance of the Anti-Christ. He likes to emphasize the Bible's assertion that the Second Coming will occur after the gospel is preached to all nations. This could not take place, Graham insists, until the rise of radio and television.

Preacher Jerry Falwell is so convinced that he will soon be raptured--caught up in the air to meet the return of Jesus--that he once said he has no plans for a burial plot. Austin Miles, who once worked for Pat Robertson, reveals in his book Don't Call Me Brother (1989) that Pat once seriously considered plans to televise the Lord's appearance in the skies! Today's top native drumbeater for a soon Second Coming is Hal Lindsey. His many books on the topic, starting with The Late Great Planet Earth, have sold by the millions.

For the past two thousand years individuals and sects have been setting dates for the Second Coming. When the Lord fails to show, there is often no recognition of total failure. Instead, errors are found in the calculations and new dates set. In New Harmony, Indiana, an adventist sect called the Rappites was established by George Rapp. When he became ill he said that were he not absolutely certain the Lord intended him and his flock to witness the return of Jesus, he would think this was his last hour. So saying, he died.

The Catholic Church, following Augustine, long ago moved the Second Coming far into the future at some unspecified date. Liberal Protestants have tended to take the Second Coming as little more than a metaphor for the gradual establishment of peace and justice on earth. Julia Ward Howe, a Unitarian minister, had this interpretation in mind when she began her famous Battle Hymn of the Republic with "Mind eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord..." Protestant fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe that Jesus described actual historical events that would precede his literal return to earth to banish Satan and judge the quick and the dead. They also find it unthinkable that the Lord could have blundered about the time of his Second Coming.

[personal note: I'm omitting the remainder of the text. But one gets the point that Gardner is making. And so we now have yet another divined date come and gone...]
Excerpt from Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them) by Ehrman

Jesus' Teaching in Mark

In many ways the teaching of Jesus in Mark is summarized in the first words he speaks: "The time has been fulfilled; the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15).

Anyone familiar with ancient Judaism can recognize the apocalyptic nature of this message. Jewish apocalypticism was a worldview that came into existence about a century and a half before Jesus' birth and was widely held among Jews in his day. The Greek word apocalypsis means a "revealing" or an "unveiling." Scholars have called this view apocalyptic because its proponents believed that God had revealed or unveiled to them the heavenly secrets that could make sense of the realities they were experiencing - many of them nasty and ugly - here on earth. One of the questions apocalypticists were intent on answering was why there was so much pain and suffering in the world, especially among the people of God. It might make sense that wicked people suffer: they are simply getting their due. But why do the righteous suffer? In fact, why do the righteous suffer more than the wicked, at the hands of the wicked? Why does God allow that?

Jewish apocalypticists believed that God had revealed to them the secrets that made sense of it all. There are cosmic forces in the world aligned against God and his people, powers like the Devil and his demons. These forces are in control of the world and the political powers that run it. For some mysterious reason God has allowed these forces to thrive in the present evil age. But a new age is coming in which God would overthrow the forces of evil and bring in a good kingdom, a kingdom of God, in which there will be no more pain, misery, or suffering. God will rule supreme, and the Devil and his demons, along with all the other nasty powers causing such suffering (hurricanes, earthquakes, famine, disease, war), will be done away with.

Jesus' teaching in Mark is apocalyptic: "The time has been fulfilled" implies that this current evil age, seen on a time line, is almost over. The end is almost within sight. "The Kingdom of God is near" means that God will soon intervene in this age and overthrow its wicked powers and the kingdoms they support, such as Rome, and establish his own kingdom, a kingdom of truth, peace, and justice. "Repent and believe the good news" means that people need to prepare for this coming kingdom by changing their lives, beginning to align themselves with the forces of good instead of the forces of evil, and by accepting Jesus' teaching that it was soon to happen.

For Mark's Jesus, this kingdom is soon to come. As he tells his disciples at one point, "Truly I tell you, some of those standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God having come in power" (Mark 9:1); later he tells them, after describing the cosmic upheavals that would transpire at the end of the age, "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place" (Mark 13:30).

[Personal note: I am omitting some text.]

But since Jesus is the one who will bring the kingdom, for Mark the kingdom is already being manifest in the earthly life and ministry of Jesus in an anticipatory way. In the kingdom there will be no demons, so Jesus casts out demons; in the kingdom there will be no disease, and so Jesus heals the sick; in the kingdom there will be no more death, and so Jesus raises the dead. The kingdom of God could already be seen in Jesus' own ministry and that of his followers (6:7 - 13). That is the point of many of Jesus' parables in Mark: the kingdom has a small, even hidden, appearance in the activities of Jesus, but it will appear in a big way at the end. It is like a small mustard seed that when put in the ground becomes an enormous shrub (4:30 - 32). Most of Jesus' listeners rejected his message, but a judgement day was coming, and God's kingdom would arrive in power, and then this world will be remade (Mark 13).

[Personal note: I am omitting more text.]

Jesus' Teaching in John

Things are quite different in the Gospel of John. In Mark, Jesus teaches principally about God and the coming kingdom, hardly ever talking directly about himself, except to say that he must go to Jerusalem to be executed, whereas in John, that is practically all that Jesus talks about: who he is, where he has come from, where he is going, and how he is the one who can provide eternal life.

Jesus does not preach about the future kingdom of God in John. The emphasis is on his own identity, as seen in the "I am" sayings. He is the one who can bring life-giving sustenance ("I am the bread of life" 6:35); he is the one who brings enlightenment ("I am the light of the world" 9:5); he is the only way to God ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me" 14:6). Belief in Jesus is the way to have eternal salvation: "whoever believes in him may have eternal life" (3:36). He in fact is equal with God: "I and the Father are one" (10:30). His Jewish listeners appear to have known full well what he was saying: they immediately pick up stones to execute him for blasphemy.

In one place in John, Jesus claims the name of God for himself, saying to his Jewish interlocutors, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). Abraham, who lived 1,800 years earlier, was the father of the Jews, and Jesus is claiming to have existed before him. But he is claiming more than that. He is referring to a passage in the Hebrew scriptures where God appears to Moses at the burning bush and commissions him to go to Pharoah and seek the release of his people. Moses asks God what God's name is, so that he can inform his fellow Israelites which divinity has sent him. God replies, "I Am Who I Am...say to the Israelites, 'I am has sent me to you' (Exodus 3:14). So when Jesus says "I Am," in John 8:58, he is claiming the divine name for himself. Here again his Jewish hearers had no trouble understanding his meaning. Once more, out come the stones.

The difference between Mark and John is not only that Jesus speaks about himself in John and identifies himself as divine but also that Jesus does not teach what he teaches in Mark, about the coming kingdom of God. The idea that there would be a future kingdom on earth in which God would rule supreme and all the forces of evil would be destroyed is no part of Jesus' proclamation in John. Instead he teaches that people need to have eternal life, in heaven above, by achieving a heavenly birth (3:3 - 5). That's what the "kingdom of God" means to John, the very few times it occurs: it means life in heaven, above, with God - not a new heaven and new earth down here below. Faith in Jesus is what gives eternal life. Those who believe in Jesus will live with God forever; those who do not will be condemned (3:36).

For many historical critics it makes sense that John, the Gospel that was written last, no longer speaks about the imminent appearance on earth of the Son of Man to sit in judgement on the earth, to usher in the utopian kingdom. In Mark, Jesus predicts that the end will come right away, during his own generation, while his disciples are still alive (Mark 9:1; 13:30). By the time John was written, probably from 90 to 95 CE, that earlier generation had died out and most if not all the disciples were already dead. That is, they died before the coming of the kingdom. What does one do with a teaching about an eternal kingdom here on earth if it never comes? One reinterprets the teaching. The way John reinterprets it is by altering the basic conceptualization.

An apocalyptic worldview like that found in Mark involves a kind of historical dualism in which there is the present evil age and the future kingdom of God. This age, and the age to come: they can be drawn almost like a time line, horizontally across the page. The Gospel of John rotates the horizontal dualism of apocalyptic thinking so that it becomes a vertical dualism. It is no longer a dualism of this age on earth and the one that has yet to come, also on earth; instead, it is dualism of life down here and the life above. We are down here, God is above. Jesus as God's Word comes down from above, precisely so we can ourselves experience a birth "from above" (the literal meaning of John 3:3 - not that "you must be born a second time," but that "you must be born from above"). When we experience this new birth by believing in Christ, the one who comes from above, then we, too, will have eternal life (John 3:16). And when we die, we will then ascend to the heavenly realm to live with God (John 14:1 - 6).

No longer is the kingdom coming to earth. The kingdom is in heaven. And we can get there by believing in the one who came from there to teach us the way. This is a very different teaching from what you find in Mark.

[Personal note: If you enjoy this sort of commentary and analysis of the Bible, I encourage you to pick up the book from Amazon.

My own personal point of view, as most people who know me would easily guess, is that both John and Mark have it wrong. Indeed, the Jewish apocalyptic tradition (according to the gospels, believed by Jesus and John the Babtist), the Christian apocalyptic tradition (continued by a good number of Christian sects), the Muslim apocalyptic tradition (none more so than the Shia traditions still believed by the Iranian government), and any other 'end of the world' prophecies and storytelling, in my point of view, is nothing but a delusion created by an ignorant, mentally troubled mind. John is only trying to reconcile the fact that Jesus did not come as he had promised. At root, as described by Bart D. Ehrman in Jesus Interrupted, these beliefs are derived from an inherent inability to explain away the suffering that exists in the world.

Many alternate reasons could easily exist - such as God is not all powerful or that God is not entirely benevolent. The simplest and, in my point of view, the most likely reason is that God simply does not exist. What evil we perceive in the world exists due to natural forces (such as disease, earthquakes and tornadoes) or due to the problems that occur in social relations with others (mostly a struggle to meet cultural expectations while gratifying one's needs and desires).]
Excerpt from "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" - by Bertrand Russel

To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error.
If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don't is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone...[I'm omitting some text]

...If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.

A good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country in France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them...[I'm omitting more text]
Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and [scientists] are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self-esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all others. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the really important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. [omitting more]

Other passions besides self-esteem are common sources of error; of these perhaps the most important is fear. Fear sometimes operates directly, by inventing rumors of disaster in war-time, or by imagining objects of terror, such as ghosts; sometimes it operates indirectly, by creating belief in something comforting, such as the elixir of life, or heaven for ourselves and hell for our enemies [personal note: I'm thinking of Hawking's latest statement when I read this]. Fear has many forms -- fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the herd, and that vague generalized fear that comes to those who conceal from themselves their more specific terrors. Until you have admitted your own fears to yourself, and have guarded yourself by a difficult effort of will against their mythmaking power, you cannot hope to think truly about many matters of great importance, especially those with which religious beliefs are concerned. Fear is the main source of superstition and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth as in the endeavor after a worthy manner of life.

There are two ways of avoiding fear: one is by persuading ourselves that we are immune from disaster, and the other is by the practice of sheer courage. The latter is difficult, and to everybody becomes impossible at a certain point. The former has therefore always been more popular. Primitive magic has the purpose of securing safety, either by injuring enemies, or by protecting oneself by talismans, spell, or incantations. Without any essential change, belief in such ways of avoiding danger survived throughout the many centuries of Babylonian civilization, spread from Babylon throughout the empire of Alexander, and was acquired by the Romans in the course of their absorption of Hellenistic culture. From the Romans it descended to medieval Christendom and Islam. Science has now lessened the belief in magic, but many people place more faith in mascots than they are willing to avow, and sorcery, while condemned by the Church, is still officially a possible sin. [personal note: I'm thinking of the 'blessed' objects sold by the Catholic church...]
[omitting more text]

Under the influence of great fear, almost everybody becomes superstitious. The sailors who threw Jonah overboard imagined his presence to be the cause of the storm which threatened to wreck their ship. In a similar spirit the Japanese, at the time of the Tokyo earthquake took to massacring Koreans and Liberals. When the Romans won victories in the Punic wars, the Carthaginians became persuaded that their misfortunes were due to a certain laxity which had crept into the worship of Moloch. Moloch liked having children sacrificed to him, and preferred them aristocratic; but the noble familes of Carthage had adopted the practice of surreptitiously substituting plebeian children for their own offspring. This, it was thought, had displeased the god, and at the worst moments even the most aristocratic children were duly consumed by fire. Strange to say, the Romans were victorious in spite of this democratic reform ont eh part of their enemies. [personal note: in my research, I found that the Carthaginians had developed a sort of statue that emulated hands lifted upwards (holding the offering of babies or animals). The babies would roll down the arms into a fire. In a small way, one could say that the Jews of the Old Testament had reformed this rite by making offerings to their god that were strictly animals - the story of Abraham offering his son as a sacrifice as a poetic invention to remind the Jews that human sacrifice was not necessary to appease their god.]

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. So it was in the French Revolution, when dread of foreign armies produced the reign of terror. And it is to be feared that the Nazis, as defeat draws nearer, will increase the intensity of their campaign for exterminating Jews. [personal note: this statement was very prophetic] Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious beliefs as seem to justify cruelty. Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of great fear. [personal note: the same statement can be made about other great passions. The passions draw the mind away from logical, well-reasoned actions. I am now thinking of the silly justifications for torturing prisoners to aid in the 'war on terror'.] And for this reason poltroons are more prone to cruelty than brave men, and are also more prone to superstition. When I say this, I am thinking of men who are brave in all respects, not only in facing death. Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. Obloquy is, to most men, more painful than death; that is one reason why, in times of collective excitement, so few men venture to dissent from the prevailing opinion. [omitting the rest of the text]
Excerpt from Autobiography of Charles Darwin

During these two years [October 1836 to January 1939] I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle, I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e., 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,--is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeard to me utterly incredible.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,--and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,--that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as teh usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;--by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. [personal note: what exactly makes Christianity more true than other religions?]

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dremas of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner that all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.
Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of the bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants, and the argument there given was never, as far as I can see, been answered. [Personal note: the primary argument, at least of a beneficient artificer, lies in the fact that untold misery exists in the animal kingdom. We as humans are not alone in the injustice of Providence over the whole of creation. This, Darwin rebuts below.]

But passing over the endless beautiful adaptations which we everywhere meet with, it may be asked how can the generally beneficient arrangement of the world be accounted for? Some writers indeed are so much impressed with the amount of suffering in the world, that they doubt, if we look to all sentient beings, whether there is more of misery or of happiness; whether the world as a whole is a good or bad one. According to my judgement happiness decidedly prevails, though this would be very difficult to prove. [Personal note: one wonders then if Darwin perhaps recounted the events of his life and of others he knew and realized that the vast majority of people would recognize either an equal amount of good and bad or that the events of human life are dominated by bad ones.] If the truth of this conclusion be granted, it harmonizes well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree, they would neglect to propogate their kind; but we have no reason to believ ethat this has ever, or at least often occured. [Personal note: if one recounted the events of all creatures since the dawn of creation, one would realize that the vast numbers of species have gone extinct for a variety of reasons. This, one should conclude, provides proof that the environment, if one is to attribute human qualities to nature, conspires against the vast majority of beings.] Some other considerations, moreover, lead to the belief that all sentient beings have been formed so as to enjoy, as a general rule, happiness. [Personal note: This is true only so far as one should admit that happiness is derived from events which give pleasure and sadness from events which give pain. Thus 'enjoyment' is simply a measure of a positive feedback mechanism within the brain.]

Every one who believes, as I do, that all the corporeal and mental organs (excepting those which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to the possessor) of all beings have been developed through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, together with use or habit, will admit that these organs have been formed so that their possessors may compete successfully with other beings, and thus increase in number. Now an animal may be led to pursue that course of action which is most beneficial to the species by suffering, such as pain, hunger, thirst, and fear; or by pleasure, as in eating and drinking, and in the propogation of the species, &c.; or by both means combined, as in the search for food. But pain or suffering of any kind, if long continued, causes depression and lessens the power of action, yet is well adapted to make a creature guard itself against any great or sudden evil. Pleasurable sensations, on the other hand, may be long continued without any depressing effect; on the contrary, they stimulate the whole system to increased action. Hence it has come to pass that most or all sentient beings have been developed in such a manner, through natural seleciton, that pleasurable sensations serve as their habitual guides. We see this in the pleasure from exertion, even occasionally from great exertion of the body or mind,--in the pleasure of our daily meals, and especially in the pleasure derived from sociability, and from loving our families [personal note: though Darwin would not allow himself to stoop to base concepts, by suggestion one could admit that the pleasure of sex is included in this category.]. The sum of such pleasures as these, which are habitual or frequently recurrent, give, as I can hardly doubt, to most sentient beings, an excess of happiness over misery, although many occasionally suffer much. Such suffering is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action, but tends only to render each species as successful as possible in the battle for life with other species, in wonderfully complex and changing circumstances. [personal note: one should then note that all beings, then, seek pleasure and are driven therefore toward extending their own, and by default the species', survival.]

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by imagining tha tit serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection. [personal note: the variation argument explains the number of people born with physical or mental abnormalities, as well.]
At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.

Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of midn which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music. [personal note: researchers have found that there are positive feedback mechanisms in the brain that are excited by music and other things. Chemicals are released and receptors receive them when these events occur. Many of our personal feelings of euphoria and sublimity are caused by this chemical reaction within the brain. Naturally this reinforces our desire to have these events recur in our lives and are simply a further argument for natural selection.]

With repsect to immortality, nothing shows me [so clearly] how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consideration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun, and thus gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful. [personal note: the desire for something to be is not evidence for it to exist. One should think that even the desire to live forever is a by-product of natural selection and the desire to continue living - aka to survive.]

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with reason, and not with the feelings, impress me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of the Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the midn of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from the mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? [personal note: this concept of a first cause is, by default, a by-product of our conceptions of probability and determinism. Since, in fact, the multitude of events which eventually gave rise to us (even as individuals) seem so very unlikely, it gives as the illusion that things must have happened with the eventual goal in mind - that the universe must have been created so that we eventually came to be. The argument falls apart by its own design, since by default one admits that things did not have to occur the way they did. Chance, or at least an inconceivably large number of variables,indeed, has had the greatest role in the evolution of the universe.]

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.
Thoughts of God - by Mark Twain (excerpt from Fables of Man)

How often we are moved to admit the intelligence exhibited in both the designing and the execution of some of His works. Take the fly, for instance. The planning of the fly was an application of pure intelligence, morals not being concerned. Not one of us could have planned the fly, not one of us could have constructed him; and no one would have considered it wise to try, except under an assumed name. It is believed by some that the fly was introduced to meet a long-felt want. In the course of ages, for some reason or other, there have been millions of these persons, but out of this vast multitude there has not been one who has been willing to explain what the want was. At least satisfactorily. A few have explained that there was need of a creature to remove disease-breeding garbage; but these being then asked to explain what long-felt want the disease-breeding garbage was introduced to supply, they have not been willing to undertake the contract.

There is much inconsistency concerning the fly. In all ages he has not had a friend, there has never been a person in the earth who could have been persuaded to intervene between him and extermination; yet billions of persons have excused the Hand that made him - and this without a blush. Would they have excused a Man in the same circumstances, a man positively known to have invented the fly? On the contrary. For the credit of the race let us believe it would have been all day with that man. Would persons consider it just to reprobate in a child, with its underdeveloped morals, a scandal which they would overlook in a Pope?

When we reflect that the fly was as not invented for a pastime, but in the way of business; that he was not flung off in a heedless moment and with no object in view but to pass the time, but was the fruit of long and pains-taking labor and calculation, and with a definite and far-reaching, purpose in view; that his character and conduct were planned out with cold deliberation, that his career was foreseen and fore-ordered, and that there was no want which he could supply, we are hopelessly puzzled, we cannot understand the moral lapse that was able to render possible the conceiving and consummation of this squalid and malevolent creature.

Let us try to think the unthinkable: let us try to imagine a Man of a sort willing to invent the fly; that is to say, a man destitute of feeling; a man willing to wantonly torture and harass and persecute myriads of creatures who had never done him any harm and could not if they wanted to, and - the majority of them - poor dumb things not even aware of his existence. In a word, let us try to imagine a man with so singular and so lumbering a code of morals as this: that it is fair and right to send afflictions upon the just - upon the unoffending as well as upon the offending, without discrimination.

If we can imagine such a man, that is the man that could invent the fly, and send him out on his mission and furnish him his orders: "Depart into the uttermost corners of the earth, and diligently do your appointed work. Persecute the sick child; settle upon its eyes, its face, its hands, and gnaw and pester and sting; worry and fret and madden the worn and tired mother who watches by the child, and who humbly prays for mercy and relief with the pathetic faith of the deceived and the unteachable. Settle upon the soldier's festering wounds in the field and hospital and drive him frantic while he also prays, and betweentimes curses, with non to listen but you, Fly, who get all the petting and all the protection, without even praying for it. Harry and persecute the forlorn and forsaken wretch who is perishing of the plague, and in his terror and despair praying; bite, sting, feed upon his ulcers, dabble your feet in his rotten blood, gum them thick with plague-germs - feet cunningly designed and perfected for this function ages ago in the beginning - carry this freight to a hundred tables, among the just and the unjust. the high and the low, and walk over the food and gaum it with filth and death. Visit all; allow no man peace till he get it in the grave; visit and afflict the hard-worked and unoffending horse, mule, ox, ass, pester the patient cow, and all the kindly animals that labor without fair reward here and perish without hope of it hereafter; spare no creature, wild or tame; but wheresoever you find one, make his life a misery, treat him as the innocent deserve; and so please Me and increase My glory. Who made the fly.

We hear much about His patience and forbearance and long-suffering; we hear nothing about our own, which much exceeds it. We hear much about His mercy and kindness and goodness - in words - the words of His Book and of His pulpit - and the meek multitude is content with this evidence, such as it is, seeking no further; but whoso searcheth after a concreted sample of it will in time acquire fatigue. There being no instances of it. For what are gilded as mercies are not in any recorded case more than mere common justices, and due - due without thanks or compliment. To rescue without personal risk a cripple from a burning house is not a mercy, it is a mere commonplace duty; anybody would do it that could. And not by proxy, either - delegating the work but confiscating the credit for it. If men neglected "God's poor" and "God's stricken and helpless ones" as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself.

It is plain that there is one moral law for heaven and another for earth. The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow which we can relieve and do not do it, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin, then? If He is the Source of Morals He does - certainly nothing can be plainer than that, you will admit. Surely the Source of law cannot violate law and stand unsmirched; surely the judge upon the bench cannot forbid crime and then revel in it himself unreproached. Nevertheless we have this curious spectacle: daily the trained parrot in the pulpit gravely delivers himself of these ironies, which he has acquired at second-hand and adopted without examination, to a trained congregation which accepts them without examination, and neither the speaker nor the hearer laughs at himself. It does seem as if we ought to be humble when we are at a bench-show, and not put on airs of intellectual superiority there.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

David Hume - Of Miracles, Part II; from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.

Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy. The maxim, by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the objects, of which we have no experience, resembles those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations. But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in any ordinary degree; yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the same rule; but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily admits of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force. His auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient judgement to canvass his evidence: what judgement they have, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mysterious subjects: or if they were ever so willing to employ it, passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence: and his impudence overpowers their credulity.

Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection; but addressing itself entirely to the fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers, and subdues their understanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom attains. But what a Tully or a Demosthenes could scarcely effect over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, every itinerant or stationary teacher can perform over the generality of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching such gross and vulgar passions.

The many instances of forged miracles, and prophesies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events. For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?

Thirdly. It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature.

It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages. You must surely have seen instances enough of that frailty. You have yourself heard many such marvellous relations started, which, being treated with scorn by all the wise and judicious, have at last been abandoned even by the vulgar. Be assured, that those renowned lies, which have spread and flourished to such a monstrous height, arose from like beginnings; but being sown in a more proper soil, shot up at last into prodigies almost equal to those which they relate.

It was a wise policy in that false prophet, Alexander, who though now forgotten, was once so famous, to lay the first scene of his impostures in Paphlagonia, where, as Lucian tells us, the people were extremely ignorant and stupid, and ready to swallow even the grossest delusion. People at a distance, who are weak enough to think the matter at all worth enquiry, have no opportunity of receiving better information. The stories come magnified to them by a hundred circumstances. Fools are industrious in propagating the imposture; while the wise and learned are contented, in general, to deride its absurdity, without informing themselves of the particular facts, by which it may be distinctly refuted. And thus the impostor above mentioned was enabled to proceed, from his ignorant Paphlagonians, to the enlisting of votaries, even among the Grecian philosophers, and men of the most eminent rank and distinction in Rome: nay, could engage the attention of that sage emperor Marcus Aurelius; so far as to make him trust the success of a military expedition to his delusive prophesies.

The advantages are so great, of starting an imposture among an ignorant people, that, even though the delusion should be too gross to impose on the generality of them (which, though seldom, is sometimes the case) it has a much better chance for succeeding in remote countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and knowledge. The most ignorant and barbarous of these barbarians carry the report abroad. None of their countrymen have a large correspondence, or sufficient credit and authority to contradict and beat down the delusion. Men's inclination to the marvellous has full opportunity to display itself. And thus a story, which is universally exploded in the place where it was first started, shall pass for certain at a thousand miles distance. But had Alexander fixed his residence at Athens, the philosophers of that renowned mart of learning had immediately spread, throughout the whole Roman empire, their sense of the matter; which, being supported by so great authority, and displayed by all the force of reason and eloquence, had entirely opened the eyes of mankind. It is true; Lucian, passing by chance through Paphlagonia, had an opportunity of performing this good office. But, though much to be wished, it does not always happen, that every Alexander meets with a Lucian, ready to expose and detect his impostures.

I may add as a fourth reason, which diminishes the authority of prodigies, that there is no testimony for any, even those which have not been expressly detected, that is not opposed by an infinite number of witnesses; so that not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but the testimony destroys itself. To make this the better understood, let us consider, that, in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of this prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other. According to this method of reasoning, when we believe any miracle of Mahomet or his successors, we have for our warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians: And on the other hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, all of the authors and witnesses, Grecian, Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any miracle in their particular religion; I say, we are to regard their testimony in the same light as if they had mentioned that Mahometan miracle, and had in express terms contradicted it, with the same certainty as they have for the miracle they relate. This argument may appear over subtile and refined; but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes, that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against any one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed.

One of the best attested miracles of all profane history, is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot; in obedience to a vision of the god Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to the Emperor, for these miraculous cures. The story may be seen in that fine historian; where every circumstance seems to add weight to the testimony, and might be displayed at large with all the force of argument and eloquence, if any one were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that exploded and idolatrous superstition. The gravity, solidity, age, and probity of so great an emperor, who, through the whole course of his life, conversed in a familiar manner with his friends and courtiers, and never affected those extraordinary airs of divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius. The historian, a cotemporary writer, noted for candour and veracity, and withal, the greatest and most penetrating genius, perhaps, of all antiquity; and so free from any tendency to credulity, that he even lies under the contrary imputation, of atheism and profaneness: The persons, from whose authority he related the miracle, of established character for judgement and veracity, as we may well presume; eye-witnesses of the fact, and confirming their testimony, after the Flavian family was despoiled of the empire, and could no longer give any reward, as the price of a lie. Utrumque, qui interfuere, nunc quoque memorant, postauam nullum mendacio pretium. To which if we add the public nature of the facts, as related, it will appear, that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so gross and so palpable a falsehood.

There is also a memorable story related by Cardinal de Retz, which may well deserve our consideration. When that intriguing politician fled into Spain, to avoid the persecution of his enemies, he passed through Saragossa, the capital of Arragon, where he was shewn, in the cathedral, a man, who had served seven years as a door-keeper, and was well known to every body in town, that had ever paid his devotions at that church. He had been seen, for so long a time, wanting a leg; but recovered that limb by the rubbing of holy oil upon the stump; and the cardinal assures us that he saw him with two legs. This miracle was vouched by all the canons of the church; and the whole company in town were appealed to for a confirmation of the fact; whom the cardinal found, by their zealous devotion, to be thorough believers of the miracle. Here the relater was also a cotemporary to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and libertine character, as well as of great genius; the miracle of so singular a nature as could scarcely admit of a counterfeit, and the witnesses very numerous, and all of them, in a manner, spectators of the fact, to which they gave their testimony. And what adds mightily to the force of the evidence, and may double our surprise on this occasion, is, that the cardinal himself, who relates the story, seems not to give any credit to it, and consequently cannot be suspected of any concurrence in the holy fraud. He considered justly, that it was not requisite, in order to reject a fact of this nature, to be able accurately to disprove the testimony, and to trace its falsehood, through all the circumstances of knavery and credulity which produced it. He knew, that, as this was commonly altogether impossible at any small distance of time and place; so was it extremely difficult, even where one was immediately present, by reason of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a great part of mankind. He therefore concluded, like a just reasoner, that such an evidence carried falsehood upon the very face of it, and that a miracle, supported by any human testimony, was more properly a subject of derision than of argument.

There surely never was a greater number of miracles ascribed to one person, than those, which were lately said to have been wrought in France upon the tomb of Abb(c) Pris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the people were so long deluded. The curing of the sick, giving hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blid, were every where talked of as the usual effects of that holy sepulchre. But what is more extraordinary; many of the miracles were immediately proved upon the spot, before judges of unquestioned integrity, attested by witnesses of credit and distinction, in a learned age, and on the most eminent theatre that is now in the world. Nor is this all: a relation of them was published and dispersed every where; nor were the Jesuits, though a learned body, supported by a civil magistrate, and determined enemies to those opinions, in whose favour the miracles were said to have been wrought, ever able distinctly to refute or detect them. Where shall we find such a number of circumstances, agreeing to the corroboration of one fact? And what have we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses, but the absolute impossibility or miraculous nature of the events, which they relate? And this surely, in the eyes of all reasonable people, will alone be regarded as a sufficient refutation.

Is the consequence just, because some human testimony has the utmost force and authority in some cases, when it relates the battle of Philippi or Pharsalia for instnace; that therefore all kinds of testimony must, in all cases, have equal force and authority? Suppose that the Caesarean and Pompeian factions had, each of them, claimed the victory in these battles, and that the historians of each party had uniformly ascribed the advantage to their own side; how could mankind, at this distance, have been able to determine between them? The contrariety is equally strong between the miracles related by Herodotus or Plutarch, and those delivered by Mariana, Bede, or any monkish historian.

[Consider, then, the stories of the Old Testament, which relate the "miraculous" defeats of "heathens" by the hands of the "true" believers.]

The wise lend a very academic faith to every report which favours the passion of the reporter; whether it magnifies his country, his family, or himself, or in any other way strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities. But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime a character? Or if, by the help of vanity and a heated imagination, a man has first made a convert of himself, and entered seriously into the delusion; who ever scruples to make use of pious frauds, in support of so holy and meritorious a cause?

The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame; because the materials are always prepared for it. The avidum genus auricularum, the gazing populace, receive greedily, without examination, whatever sooths superstition, and promotes wonder.

How many stories of this nature have, in all ages, been detected and exploded in their infancy? How many more have been celebrated for a time, and have afterwards sunk into neglect and oblivion? [And how many more are celebrated for all time into the modern age?] Where such reports, therefore, fly about, the solution of the phenomenon is obvious; and we judge in conformity to regular experience and observation, when we account for it by the known and natural principles of credulity and delusion. And shall we, rather than have a recourse to so natural a solution, allow of a miraculous violation of the most established laws of nature?

I need not mention the difficulty of detecting a falsehood in any private or even public history, at the place, where it is said to happen; much more when the scene is removed to ever so small a distance. Even a court of judicature, with all the authority, accuracy, and judgement, which they can employ, find themselves often at a loss to distinguish between truth and falsehood in the most recent actions. But the matter never comes to any issue, if trusted to the common method of altercations and debate and flying rumours; especially when men's passions have taken part on either side. [Personal note: consider now how the miracles of the Bible are accepted as fact despite all common sense and human experience being to the contrary. Consider then how unbelievable the stories are and how unnatural it would be that any god would presume his people to believe such unbelievable nonsense but for pain of eternal torment. How cruel this god must be to make only his chosen people capable of believing the unbelievable and to make eternal damnation the punishment for those who would not believe that which contradicts his own experience.]

In the infancy of new religions, the wise and learned commonly esteem the matter too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard. And when afterwards they would willingly detect the cheat, in order to undeceive the deluded multitude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses, which might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery.

No means of detection remain, but those which must be drawn from the very testimony itself of the reporters: and these, though always sufficient with the judicious and knowing, are commonly too find to fall under the comprehension of the vulgar.

Upon the whole, then, it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very nature of the fact, which it would endeavor to establish. It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder. But according to the principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion.

I beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history. Thus, suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was  a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: that all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.

But suppose, that all the historians who treat England, should agree, that, on the first of January 1600, Queen Elizabeth died; that both before and after her death she was seen by her physicians and the whole court, as is usual with persons of her rank; that her successor was acknowledged and proclaimed by the parliament; and that, after being interred a month, she again appeared, resumed the throne, and governed England for three years: I must confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I should not doubt of her pretended death, and of those other public circumstances that followed it: I should only assert it to have been pretended, and that it neither was, nor possibly could be real. You would in vain object to me the difficulty, and almost impossibly of deceiving the world in an affair of such consequence; the wisdom and solid judgement of that renowned queen; with the little or no advantage which she could reap from so poor an artifice: All this might astonish me; but I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than to admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.

But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion; men, in all ages, have been so much imposed on by ridiculous stories of that kind, that this very circumstance would be a full proof of a cheat, and sufficient, with all men of sense, not only to make them reject the fact, but even reject it without farther examination. Though the Being to whom the miracle is ascribed, be, in this case, Almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions, in the usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable. As the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles, than in that concerning any other matter of fact; this must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony, and make us form a general resolution, never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered.

Lord Bacon seems to have embraced the same principles of reasoning. 'We ought,' says he, 'to make a collection or particular history of all monsters and prodigious births or productions, and in a word of every thing new, rare, and extraordinary in nature. But this must be done with the most severe scrutiny, lest we depart from truth. Above all, every relation must be considered as suspicious, which depends in any degree upon religion, as the prodigies of Livy: And no less so, every thing that is to be found in the writers of natural magic or alchimy, or such authors, who seem, all of them, to have an unconquerable appetite for falsehood and fable.'

I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, no on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure. To make this more evident, let us examine those miracles, related in scripture; and not to lose ourselves in too wide a field, let us confine ourselves to such as we find in the Pentateuch, which we shall examine, according to the principles of these pretended Christians, not as a word or testimony of God himself, but as the production of a mere human writer and historian. Here then we are first to consider a book, presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people; written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extending to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.

What we have said of miracles may be applied, without any variation, to prophecies; and indeed, all prophecies are real miracles, and as such only, can be admitted as proofs of any revelation. If it did not exceed the capacity of human nature to foretell future events, it would be absurd to employ any prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or authority from heaven. So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.