Tag Archives: Christopher Hitchens

The Day My Parents Lied to Me: “Shame on Them”

Mehran Banaei

I must have been 3 or 4 years old. After half a century, the memory of that day is still vividly fresh in my mind with so many details. It was my mother who came to me the day before and told me that tomorrow is “take kids to work day”. With her innate caring charm, she asked if I would like to have fun by allowing my father to take me to his work. She got me excited and I replied “yes”, with so much enthusiasm.  My father was a civil engineer working on construction sites in the suburbs surrounded by natural beauties. I went to bed that night and looked forward to having fun the next day by running around in the prairie.

img_9307

In the morning, my mother dressed me up with nice clothes and made me wear clean underwear. She told me: “today your dad is working at the hospital.” I knew my father also had a second job in the local hospital in our home town. I was disappointed about not being able to be in nature, but still was excited about the opportunity to get out of the house.

On our way to his work, my father tried to explain his job, working as a radiologist at the department of Medical Imaging. It was my first trip to a hospital and I did not find anything exciting about the hospital environment. I recall, I spent the most of the day waiting in the waiting area full of sick people, or around the garden at the front entrance of the hospital smelling violets and daffodils. By mid-day I was getting restless and bored, told my father that I wanted to go home. My father then introduced me to a nurse colleague and said she can show me an operation room before heading home. The nurse holding my hand took me alone inside, straight to an operation room. She asked if I wanted to play the game of “doctor and patient” and I would be the patient being operated on. I agreed. She put me on the operation bed. The next thing I knew I was surround by a few doctors and nurses. I thought it was all a game, until a male doctor removed my pants and started to touch my private parts. Even at such an early age I recognized that to be ungentlemanly conduct, felt very uncomfortable being exposed and helpless. So, broke into tears. I remember too well another doctor with an unpersuasive smile put a black rubber on my nose and I quickly went into a deep sleep.

The next thing I recall, I woke up at home in my room, being slightly in pain, wearing a skirt with blood stains, surrounded with boxes of sweets and pastries, and couple of new toys at my bedside.

It took me a few more years to learn what happened to me that day was a simple medical procedure called circumcision, which all my peers have gone through. I do not recall either one of my parents ever lied to me again, not even a white lie. Despite that haunting experience, in my book, my parents never lost their credibility or my respect.

While growing up, for years I kept asking myself, why did my parents lie and set me up? Were they at fault? Would there not have been a better alternative than deception to handle what was coming to me? Foremost, how would I have reacted to any other possible approaches?

I suppose another option would have been for my parents to tell the truth at the outset and allow me to make that decision for myself, after all, as the civil libertarians advocate it is my penis. My father could have come to me saying: Son, Piaget the renowned Swiss developmental psychologist argues that you can handle the truth at any age. I see it in you, you will grow up to study philosophy and logic. You will be a man of reason and rationality. So, let’s talk man to man, let me give it to you straight: Your Mom and I are concerned about your hygiene. We are committed to prevent you from having penile problems, such as having a decreased risk of urinary tract infections. More so, when you grow up, we like you to have a decreased risk of sexually transmitted disease. We would like to avoid, you suffering from phimosis, which is an inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis. Beware that the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract. By being more hygienic as such, this helps your future wife to reduce the risk of having cervical cancer.

Relax and do not confuse this simple medical procedure with a form of cruel barbaric genital mutilation or allow yourself to suffer from a Freudian notion of castration anxiety. The doctor involved is the best surgeon in this field. Trust him. He is going to cut just the top skin, not the whole thing.  It is recommended that this surgery to be done at an early age. I assure you that the idea is safe. It has been practiced for thousands of years by all Muslims, Jews and boys from certain aboriginal tribes in Africa and Australia. Despite what you may hear later from secularists and atheists, we are not trying to indoctrinate you or subjugate you to a cruel religious ritual. If you don’t believe me, I offer you a Popperian falsification, go head make my day, consult with the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP). I take it you understand everything. So what do you say, do you agree to a prepucectomy? If so, please sign the consent form after consulting this matter with your lawyer.

Regardless of how smart a kid may be, even a genius 3-year-old is still a 3-year-old child. In retrospect, when I think of it; my parents indeed handled this in the best possible way. They unconditionally served my best interest with no appeal to cruelty or indoctrination. The reason for their lie was to eliminate the fear factor for a 3-year old child. My experience was void of any imposed religious or cultural flavour. In fact, I would not have known what happened that day, if the medical team had acted more diligently, by putting me under anesthesia first before starting the operation. Far from child abuse, my parents’ actions were no different than when Western parents tell stories about the tooth fairy to a child who is about to lose a tooth. How is the former considered as indoctrination but the latter is not? Why is it that parents like mine must be “ashamed”, are accused of cruelty motivated by religious dogma, having indoctrinated their children like a cult leader?

From Hitchens point of view, circumcising a little boy is a “shameful” and “inhumane” act. However, Hitchens had no problem supporting the invasion of Iraq which resulted in the death of over 200,000 innocent Iraqis, most of whom were children. Is this not a case of hypocrisy, or perhaps a convoluted perspective on what is “humane” and “inhumane”? He blatantly ignores researched data which disagree with his position.

The other opponents of the practice of circumcision are the far right anti-immigrant groups in Europe and North America, who think in Rome, immigrants should only do what Romans do. They take an offence, if the penis of an immigrant does not look consimilar to theirs. Similar to opposing to Halal/Kosher dietary practices or observing dress codes, circumcision is also under attack. Its practice seems taken as a big threat to Western values, values which are supposedly built on Judo-Christian heritage, and loudly broadcast tolerance and pluralism.

Like atheists, this group is also arrogantly attacking the practice of circumcision under the pretence of intellectualism blended with a self-acclaimed superior sense of morality and concerns for children’s welfare. In reality, their campaign to demonize and ban circumcision is nothing short of racism and xenophobia.

What motivates me to write this article is because I am getting sick of seeing how secularists like Hitchens, Dawkins and Krauss elevate themselves intellectually and morally high by painting their opponents as being stupid and barbaric. The current anti-theist movement revolves around a campaign that we the atheists are rational, objective; believe in science, and the theists are barbaric and close-minded. For Nothingness sake, for the love of natural selection, in defense of atheistic view, at least say something rational, objective and scientific.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

True Crime: The Prevelance of Perjury in Science and Theology

Mehran Banaei

To testify in a court of law, the witness is obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To arrive objectively at the truth, it is essential that all these three components go together hand in hand. One has to first tell the truth, not concocted fabrications. While disclosing the truth, one has to tell the whole truth, not just half of the truth and be selective to bits and pieces of what is desirable and what is not. Often, while much has been said, is there anything, which has been left unsaid? If so, the concealed information once revealed may force completely a different conclusion. In this respect, half of the truth is as effective as half a parachute. Lastly, in the process of telling the truth, the witness ought not to contaminate the truth with added impurities. Only through the employment of such a fact-finding process can a valid judgement be made.

This is how things are in a court of law, but how should things be in the trial of life? What could one testify with certainty in a lifetime of interactions in this universe? Can we ever ascertain if the universe is created by an external Agent, or is the universe the creator itself?

In analyzing popular discourse between atheists and theists from a Judeo-Christian background, it could be noticed that both sides do not follow this basic tribunal requirement. Both sides vigorously engage in only telling the truth. Yet, both sides with the intention to be triumphant in the debate deliberately ignore the two other concomitant requirements, that is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as if there is such a thing as half reality. Thus, committing the notorious crime of perjury. Both groups need to be reminded that those who jump with half a parachute are not going to have a safe landing.

What is the truth that both sides constantly broadcast? The truth is the outright flaws in their opponent’s view, hoping by embarrassing their opponent, they would score a point to rest their own case. What is left out to say, is the lack of evidence in their own view presented in form of faith, or presented in the name of science having nothing to do with reality.

For example, Christian apologetics like C.S. Lewis, John Lennox, Richard Swinburne, John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga are a few among many theists who confront the atheist camp with the weapon of scientific truth, the truth about the inescapable implications of fine-tuning. They well demonstrate that the universe must have a cause and the cause of the universe is not within the universe. Yet, they never mention that there are blatant scientific errors in the Bible, the countless inconsistencies and historical blunders in that which is claimed to be a perfect divine revelation. What is further added to the truth is the baseless claim that the cause of the universe is an anthropomorphic Entity. Is there a shred of evidence in this universe to attest to this claim? While there are compelling reasons to believe in the First Cause, there are no compelling reasons to believe that the entire Bible is word by word dictated by the First Cause.

Cosmos

On the other hand, atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens rightly argue that religious teachings have been used by the elite to control the masses. Organized religion discourages free inquiry and stands at odds with scientific facts. What they do not say is that, this dreadful state of affair is utterly contrary to the teachings of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, neither one had any interest in wealth or power. It is a historical fact that all these three men went head on with the atrocious regime of their time to liberate their community from mental and physical slavery. It is a historical fact that all these three men taught mankind to use reason and expand their knowledge. What Dawkins and Hitchens do not say, is abuses and crimes committed in the name of religion do not disprove the Divine causality. In fact, when a crime is committed, it is irrelevant in what name it is committed, be that in the name of “religion”, “western values”, “self-defense”, etc. What they do go ahead to falsely add is that science has buried the idea of a created universe, and what science discovers about the origin and functioning of the universe would have no implications beyond science.

Cartoon

Such a misleading presentation offered by the two sides often causes confusion among unwary audiences, leading many to agnosticism that the truth cannot be knowable, or it is relative. Thus, one can never be certain about the nature of reality. When it comes to causality, the state of human knowledge is ever inconclusive.

In discovering the truth about the universe and human existence, one has to detach oneself from personal desire and all socio-cultural beliefs without any affinity to or pressure from the external sources. Then tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. If one abides by this simple principle of fact-finding, one can easily arrive at the ultimate reality about the origin of the universe.

The fact is, one may not be able to figure out what is beyond death, or if there is heaven and hell. One cannot know what is the nature of this Entity who caused the universe and how It came to be. But by observing the universe, there are countless assertions that one is indeed able to attest with certainty. The prime evidence of nature is before every man and woman. Nature’s immediacy and simple language are timeless and universal. Our own existence alone testifies to a cause. We know better that nothing can be spontaneously created out of nothing. There is no case in point to falsify this assertion. Everything in the universe is evidently designed and functions based on specific defined laws. From a tiny atom to the most complex celestial system, everything follows a certain order. The idea of a perfectly functioning accidental universe with no beginning or end is impossible and improbable, thus it is irrational to advocate such a position. It is so absurd as well as dishonest to argue that this incredibly complex web of life in the vast space is a result of random chance. One should know better that chance is not a cause. Even chance requires some pre-requisites. The alternative explanations such as materialist explanation are inadequate. The existence of consciousness and free-will refute the materialist position on causality. All exhibits confirm that the universe is somehow created and is pursuing a goal. The creation of the universe is not by accident, but is by intention.

Judging by the ubiquitous effects, the Causer of the universe is evidently infinitely powerful, creative and intelligent. Even most atheists do not dispute these attributes; however, they rather ascribe these attributes to “Mother Nature”, “Natural Selection” or pure chance. From this single assertion one can autonomously extrapolate that the Entity who is intelligent must necessarily be compassionate, merciful and just or He is not intelligent at all. His degree of compassion ought to be proportionate to His power and intelligence. Furthermore, the Causer of the universe must be singular, eternal and there can be nothing like Him.

To say the very least, in the trial of life, one should be able to bear witness that the universe is caused by this Entity for a purpose.

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

Has Science Buried the Camel and its Droppings?

 

Mehran Banaei

An illiterate desert Bedouin of early history walking on a path with his companion inferred that this path must be a frequent passage for camels. The companion curiously asked him how he could be so certain given that there are no camels in sight. The Bedouin wisely replied: look at the trail, all you see here is camel droppings and camel footprints.

Camel droppings

The Bedouin did not have any formal education, but he certainly used solid scientific methodology to arrive objectively at his conclusion, which is the usage of observation, information gathering, analysis of empirical evidence, inductive reasoning and so on. At his disposal he had all the essential tools that freethinkers require to make a valid inference. What other possible conclusion can any skeptic make from the available data under identical circumstances? I believe there is absolutely none. Nevertheless, so many would not give up trying and be cynical at the conclusion made by the Bedouin. For example, there are those who could vigorously argue:

1) The droppings are not really camel droppings, they have the appearance and odour of camel droppings. However, the real thinking individual would not be fooled by the appearance, only those who have a lazy mind would think that the aforementioned signs would mean that a camel must have passed by. (Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins)

2) There are so many different animal droppings and footprints in the world. How do we know that these are camel droppings, but not of a polar bear or fish? (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker)

3) No camel ever passed over the trail; the camel droppings have created themselves out of nothing. (Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss)

4) No camel ever passed over the trail; the camel droppings have always been there from eternity to eternity with no primary cause. (Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi)

5) If camels do indeed regularly pass through this passage, how come there is so much pain and suffering in the world? (Epicurus, Sam Harris, Dan Barker)

6) Camel and camel droppings do not exist. They are illusions, the idea is totally unfounded, an ancient fairytale. It is wishful thinking, a manifestation of humankind’s oldest inner desire to achieve emotional comfort. (David Hume, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche)

7) People who use teleological argument in favour of camel droppings and camel droppings-maker are people of faith; religious zealots with a certain fundamentalist agenda disguised as freethinkers. (The Skeptics Society, Atheist Alliance of America, American Atheists Association)

8) Camel droppings on the path evolved and branched out independently from droppings of other species by blind processes of natural selection. Thanks to science, camel is no longer needed to produce camel droppings. Natural selection should suffice as an explanation for the existence of camel droppings without recourse to an actual camel. (Richard Dawkins speaking for Charles Darwin)

9) The only reason that one believes that a camel has passed by is all because one is raised in a culture where everyone believes that a camel has actually passed by. If one were raised in a culture where everyone believed that the great Juju at the bottom of the Sea left those droppings behind, one would then adhere to that tribal belief. (Richard Dawkins)

10) Camel is not great; the belief in existence of camel having passed the path is a man-made idea to control the masses. I do not want to live in a universe that one is obligated to acknowledge the existence of a ruthless camel that drops waste. (Christopher Hitchens)

11) Even if one observes on a daily basis that numerous camel caravans routinely pass by here, the existing droppings and footprints on the trail do not entail that they belong to a camel, which has passed by. One cannot generalize from specific and move from “is” to “ought”. (David Hume)

12) There were no camel droppings until we observed them. The camel dropping particles exist due to the wave function collapse brought about by our observation. (Neils Bohr et al)

13) The belief that camel droppings and footprints are indicative of a camel in the vicinity is based on blind faith. The Bedouin’s assertion is founded on religious dogma. His conclusion does not constitute an inference from scientific data. Faith is a vice pretending to be a virtue. I cannot believe people in the 21st century still believe that camel drops waste on its path. You Intelligent Design people must be ashamed of yourself thinking order, complexity and fine-tuning mean anything. Aren’t you embarrassed to believe in pseudoscience? (PZ Myers)

14) Today the real scientists no longer believe that we need a camel to end up having camel droppings; biologists can easily create camel droppings in the lab without a supernatural cause. One may not be able to prove that a camel actually did not pass through the trail, but science makes the necessity of camel passing through unnecessary. The laws of physics can explain in details what the droppings are made of without the need for a camel. Thus, science has buried the camel and its droppings. (Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking)

At times, it may seem that modern scientists are inadvertently not employing the principle of Occam’s razor, that is, not complicating explanation beyond necessity. However, a careful examination reveals that avoiding the simplest explanation is their career goal as many of them are heavily into atheism who are more concerned about defending a particular ideology than scientific discoveries. Nevertheless, when science deviates from common sense, it is no longer science; it is no longer pursuit of truth. It is then no wonder why the most inevitable conclusion on the most fundamental question in life is so often missed by scientists.

5 Comments

Filed under Philosophy of Science and Religion

God: “The Celestial Dictator”

Mehran Banaei

Richard Dawkins in his book God Delusion perceives the God of the three Abrahamic religions as a monster with psychopathic tendencies. He says:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

His fellow British atheist Christopher Hitchens sees God as a “celestial dictator” who “punishes man for eternity for thought crime.” He has expressed the following view repeatedly both in prints as well as in his lectures and debates:

“Do I think I’m going to Paradise? Of course not. I wouldn’t go if I was asked. I don’t want to live in some F***ing celestial North Korea for one thing, where all I get to do is praise the dear Leader from dawn to dusk.”

There are a few parts of the Old Testament in which God is portrayed in a distasteful manner, however to extend this image of God to all religions and scriptures is a giant erroneous generalization.

In assessing the atheists argument there can be only three possibilities. First is that God does not exist. Second is that God exists and He is not a dictator. Third is what Dawkins and Hitchens suggest: if God exists, He is indeed a fascist dictator. This is a bizarre and absurd idea on the rise gaining popularity day by day. The following section below is the analysis of the atheist argument in light of each possibility.

1. God does not exist

It is suffice to say, that which does not exist, is not worthy of preoccupation. It is puzzling as to why atheists go outside the domains of their expertise to declare an entity, which they claim to know for sure does not exist, insisting publicly and vociferously that it does not really exist. This is perhaps the only movement in the world that identifies itself with what its followers do not believe, rather with what they actually believe. We agree that it would be silly and waste of time to propagate a universal belief in denial of fire-breathing dragon with wings. The same can be said about denial of any other imaginary concept i.e. “God”. Indeed, what is the point of such an obsessive and over-the-top activism? It is more ridiculous to see them audaciously painting a negative image for an entity that is claimed to be nonexistent and fictional, in order to demonstrate that it is non-existent!

2. God exists and He is not a dictator

All dictators enjoy the support of a superpower or each one forms a coalition or treaty with other like-minded dictators without which they cannot last very long. Who is the higher power behind the scene supporting this “celestial dictator”? Unlike the authoritarian Saudi ruling family who unjustifiably claim that everything in their country belongs to them, (even they named the country after their family) everything in the universe rightfully belongs to God. Everything including mankind. His rulership over the universe and ownership over mankind are legitimate.

Moreover, the universe does not indicate that God is a dictator. On the contrary, everything in the universe indicates that God is a Merciful Provider. Life is a joyful experience. The earth is hospitable place with plenty of renewable resources freely available for our consumption. Regular expression of appreciation to the Provider for what is provided is not a sign of bondage. We can never thank Him enough.

Furthermore, everything in the universe indicates that the Creator of this universe is powerful and intelligent. The Being who is powerful and intelligent must necessarily be unequivocally just, loving and forgiving or He is not intelligent at all. So long as one does not engage in overwhelming acts of transgression, and believes in this non-dictatorial Creator but testing Entity, one is assured everlasting peace after death. What could be a better gift given by this most generous Philanthropist?

Therefore, on what grounds is this Ruler perceived to be a dictator? Is anybody here overtaxed, overworked, underpaid, beaten up, chastised, ostracized, persecuted or detained? Does one feel that one lives under Divine Imperialism where one is oppressed, suppressed or depressed? If so, is it God who is responsible for one’s miserable life, or is it because of the ungratefulness, arrogance, irrationality and rebelliousness from His specified correct path as advised peacefully by the prophets and sages over the ages that mankind is suffering without self-reflection?

3. God exists and He is a dictator

If an atheist claims that God is a dictator, then it seems that the issue at hand is not whether there is a God or not. One gets the impression that these atheists already believe that there is a God, but they just do not wish to submit to this God, because they do not like Him. Hitchens in his book: God is not Great, as the title suggests, presents arguments not against God’s existence, but against God Himself. He refuses to bow down to Him. To a believer in the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, this is a choice made out of arrogance, not out of logic. Further, it is a choice made out of hypocrisy and not intelligence. Many of these individuals who adamantly claim not to believe in God, whenever they find themselves or their loved one in a life-threatening situation, they suddenly start to pray to the rejected God. However, as soon as they reach safety, they quickly retrogress to their normal routine. If that is so, then they are not atheists, a new terminology is needed to refer to the individuals who believe there is God but hate Him and refuse to acknowledge Him as their Lord. ‘Anti-theist’ would perhaps be a more appropriate term to refer to likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.

A dictator is a person who has no legitimacy to the power, but manages to hang on to it by fear-mongering, threats, use of violence, detentions and mass killings. For sake of argument let us seriously assume that the atheist anthropomorphic view of God, as expressed above by Dawkins and Hitchens is indeed correct. It seems that rather than an old man reclining up there in the clouds, we have a dictator in a military uniform up in the clouds, watching over our daily conducts with surveillance cameras. Let us further assume that God is a “celestial dictator” and we are all trapped in an Orwellian forced labour camp on earth to worship Him. I suppose, subjugation of human beings must be vital in the preservation of this Divine totalitarian regime, or his Divine economy will soon collapse. What are our options to end this tyranny?

A question that I would like to put to our smart anti-theists and seek their guidance is: What is the proper course of action we ought to take in order to bring down “celestial dictatorship” and gain our freedom?

A) Can we go somewhere else to be free and immune from His reach, for instance to seek asylum and protection? No, we cannot apply for refuge status in a different universe. There is no such a place; everywhere is under the sphere of His influence and control.

B) The most frequently attempted method of changing a regime is a coup d’état. Is there any possibility of regime change in Heaven by a coup d’état? No, there are no competent or worthy oppositions in the autocratic celestial system. If the idea was feasible, the Devil who is the most elite rebel against God’s regime would have plotted this a long time ago. If the Devil is not up to the task, there is no chance for the atheist materialists and anti-theists. Furthermore, study of military coups illustrates that in every single case of a coup, nothing actually changes, as one bully manages to replace another bully. Therefore, what is the point of such a change? No coup d’état ever gave birth to an institutionalization of a durable democratic system, just take a glance at the political history of Africa and the Middle East.

C) Then, are we going to fight Him? What are anti-theists particularly going to do about this “celestial dictatorship”? Can they show us some leadership?

Let us assume that atheism expands from a philosophical ideology into a political ideology. Atheists now from passive observers of the universe change to active revolutionary freedom fighters who are mobilizing the people to resist and fight this unjust dictator. A movement led by contemporary atheists, the four horsemen of atheism: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett.

Realistically, how do we fight this dictator, and if we find a practical way, can we win it? His power seems endless. If God is a “celestial dictator”, it seems that resistance is futile. Let us be positive and assume that, we can win this fight, and we eventually will.

One hopeful scenario would be that these revolutionary pioneers would be able to educate and unite the masses and successfully get everyone to revolt against God. Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and secular humanists together form a formidable coalition against God. Boycotts and civil disobedience are the first things to do. No one should engage in acts of worship or attend places of worship. The movement gets hot and popular, and subsequently starts to spread like a wildfire. There will be secular Jihadists ready to give up their lives for a noble cause: Man’s freedom and unholy secular values. After sacrificing the blood of many humanist martyrs, at the end, humanity triumphs. God losses His throne. He is at last overthrown by humanity. Mankind is finally free from Divine subjugation. Individualism prevails, no more “Dos” and “Don’ts”. Envision a world without boundaries, imagine having a lifestyle when you can act as you like, when you are free to follow all your inner desires, when religious decrees can no longer spoil your enjoyments, when you are no longer judged or held accountable, when you are no longer required to pray, fast, go for pilgrimage or pay charitable taxes. Is this humanist idea of utopia worth fighting for?

D) Where is God’s headquarter in this endless universe? Where does He reside? Where can we find Him? Where is heaven, if He is there, how do we get there to arrest Him and bring Him down to justice?

Let us suppose that God is somehow arrested and charged with planning and conspiracy to engage in the continuous act of Divine terrorism, using weapons of mass destruction i.e. tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes and plagues. He is charged with killing of innocent children by injecting them with cancerous cell and viruses. Charged with failure to help victims of medical complications resulting in death or bodily harm. The list goes on and on. The bottom line is that He is a fake “Mr. Nice Guy”, He had the power to intervene and stop evil, but He chose not to.

The deposed God is brought on live television, interviewed by a panel of humanists. He confesses to His crime and is put on a fair trial. His trial is televised like O.J. Simpson’s trial. He is found guilty by a very objective judge and competent jury in the International Court at The Hague for crimes against humanity.

E) What is next rational step? Are we going to execute Him? The answer should be very obvious: We cannot. This dictator unlike all other dictators is immortal. He has no beginning and no end. He has no head to hang, no body to shoot at. He cannot be electrocuted or terminated by needle injection.

F) If death penalty is not an option, can He be sentenced to life in prison without parole? Once again the answer is no, this dictator’s life expectancy is eternal and never-ending. Furthermore, what if He escapes from prison and tries to regain His throne? For this detainee, the cost of His eternal everlasting escape-proof detention ought to be infinite.

G) Are we going to throw Him out of His domain and send Him off into exile somewhere far away? We cannot. Where to? Everywhere is His domain. That is a serious dilemma. What shall we do with a convicted God? Let us say he is kept in Guantanamo indefinitely until a solution is found. Meanwhile, maybe He will go on hunger strike and dies out of starvation and depression.

I suppose, we shall not be content with our achievement so far on this planet and would like to free the rest of the universe. We shall export our democratic revolution of “by the people, for the people and of the people” to other galaxies to free all other enslaved creatures as soon as we overcome the ‘minor problem’ of attaining warp speed. I suppose, it would free them up and help other lifeforms/extraterrestrials just as it did help the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and tons of other places.

H) Let us say that this guilty God voluntarily gives up His power and somehow wipes Himself out of existence into the realm of Nothingness. Let us suppose when He disappears, His creation will not disappear with Him. What is next? Who is taking over the universe now? Richard Dawkins? Or perhaps the ambitious Lawrence Krauss, or maybe Daniel Dennett since he has more experience. Let us assume there will be no back-stabbing and rivalry among these intelligent men of science for humanity’s intellectual and political leadership and there will never be divisions in this forever-cohesive political movement. Are there any guarantees that this new leader is not going to turn into another dictator? I think, human history can convincingly answer this question that power corrupts. In particular some of the worst dictators in human history were atheists, Godless cruel absolutist like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot. In most human revolutions, the new clique turned out to be more ruthless and more ambitious than the old one, to the extent that soon after the regime change the masses started to regret the loss of the old ruler.

Thus, if all the above options are not a workable solution to deal with a “celestial dictator”, what would be a workable solution? If one somehow rationally comes to this conclusion that God is truly a dictator, this person should also objectively come to the subsequent conclusion that resisting this powerful dictator is futile and suicidal. So, get use to it, this is one dictator that you do not want to mess with. Therefore, the best sound thing for this individual to do is to submit to God as all other options are dead-end. And, if one really wants to gain favors and impresses this “celestial dictator”, it is best to “praise the dear Leader from dawn to dusk” and start reading this Dictator’s handbook on how to gain His favours. This is the only “dictator” worthy of adoration and worship. Hence, it pays off to conform and be submissive than to be a defiant loser.

When you think of it, to surrender to this “dictator” whole heartedly may indeed be a very liberating experience. Is this not what many believers in God voluntarily do with so much pleasure? For example, Muslims willingly submit to Allah from dawn to dusk by not separating “profane” from “mundane”, “sacred” from “secular”.

In conclusion, the obtuse and appalling idea of a “celestial dictatorship” seems to be deeply flawed and void of basic common sense.

2 Comments

Filed under Philosophy of religion