Thumbing my nose at Stephen Jay Gould

(Note: This blog entry has prerequisite reading, a short essay to be found here.)

My grandmother used to have a peculiar habit of collecting rocks. Collecting rocks in itself is not weird, most people have done it at one time or another, but most people do it because the rocks they collect have either a certain physical beauty or perhaps they came from a place that has sentimental value to them. My grandmother collected rocks because she wanted to be an archaeologist.

The place where I grew up was considered by many archaeologists to be a veritable treasure trove of artifacts, having been populated for centuries by numerous cultures. An interesting history there, actually; the Pomo tribe was in many ways like the financial center of the ancient California economy. They had a technology that as far as I know is still a secret to this day that enabled them to make stone drill bits they used in the manufacture of beads from seashells. These beads were used as a local currency because there was a limited supply of them made under strict secrecy and control of the Pomo. When Europeans finally made it to the West Coast, they brought with them the technology to make drill bits out of metal, and the economic system collapsed virtually overnight as everyone freely made counterfeit beads.

My grandmother's interest as an amateur archaeologist was, unfortunately, lacking in any sort of scientific rigor. Her back porch was often littered with various stones she had collected on her walks along a nearby creek, and when asked why she had chosen the stones she had, there were two stock answers.

1. "I think these are man-made because I see so many rocks just like them all over the place."
2. "I think this rock was man-made because I've never seen another rock like it anywhere."

I think anyone could see the problem with this logic. Aside from the obvious contradiction, the fact is that real artifacts will probably fall somewhere in between on the commonality spectrum, but in the end, the real issue is that relative rarity of an object is not something that's truly a factor in how likely it is to be man-made. (Those stone drill bits I mentioned are undoubtedly man-made, but are extremely rare, while old rusty nails, which are also undoubtedly man-made, are very easy to find when digging around in the dirt in that area.)

For those of you that read the essay I linked to, you might be wondering what all of this has to do with evolution, or maybe you see it as a transparent attempt to switch the topic to Intelligent Design. Well, ID is definitely going to come up in some form in this post, but I have a message for people on both sides of the evolutionary debate. In his essay, Stephen Jay Gould mentions

"I had always learned that a dexterous, opposable thumb stood among the hallmarks of human success."

I myself had never been taught this, but perhaps I was biased growing up with a cat that had opposable thumbs. I think what Gould is hinting at here is that anti-evolutionists are looking at the thumb of humans and saying essentially, "The thumb as we know it in humans is extremely rare in other animals, therefore surely we must have been designed." Uniqueness is indeed often touted as a basis for assuming intelligent design, usually, of course, as a list of things that are unique to humans in particular. Something that I have been noticing lately after reading a great deal about the platypus is that uniqueness is a surprisingly common thing. Every animal has something that sets it apart from other animals, or it would be the same animal, wouldn't it? And while the platypus is indeed very odd, odd animals exist everywhere. (I think on this continent, our "odd animal" is the hummingbird, but I'm sure there are other freaks of nature.) Anyway, the oddly unique qualities that are possessed by homo sapiens are really a non-issue to evolutionary biologists, and from a purely scientific standpoint, they shouldn't be, really.

The thing that I really find fascinating about this essay is that Gould (a man who, if Darwinism were a religion as some of my fellow fundamentalists seem to think, would have been one of its archbishops if not the Pope) seems to agree with some of the views that creationists and ID proponents espouse today. While most skeptics insist that the idea of a creator who designed life is preposterous and need not even be addressed as a possibility, Gould gives a nod to the concept:

"[I]deal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator."

Certainly Gould never admits the idea of a creator as a likely possibility, and in fact the whole point of the essay is to argue fiercely against the concept, but he does address the concept in order to make a reasoned argument against it, something few evolutionists even bother to do, it seems to me.

For those anti-evolutionists who may be reading this, I would say to you that if you actually read Gould's essay and it didn't give you pause, I think you're either being intellectually dishonest or you didn't understand his point. I think a big part of what makes his argument so strong is that he does take time to consider the possibilities presented by the hypothesized existence of an intelligent creator of the panda. In seeing both sides, at least in some limited degree, he's creating a case that is much more well-rounded than most I've heard. Creationists could and should take a tip from Gould. While I've been railing a bit in my last paragraph about evolutionists failing to address the opposition, I don't want to give the impression that I think creationists are any better on average in that respect. No ground is going to be gained for the cause of promoting creationism or ID by ignoring the other side. Evolution has a lot of evidence and many solid arguments behind it, and while, yes, it does seem highly unlikely that somehow billions of years of random chance caused inert matter to somehow coalesce and eventually morph into modern humans, simply saying that it's dubious is hardly an argument in itself.

Gould's argument is pretty straightforward, but needs an essay several pages long to explain the backdrop of the real meat of the argument; delving into the general morphology of the order carnivora, comparing pandas to bears and other relatives, explaining the mechanism of the human thumb vs. the panda thumb all lead up to a basis for putting it all together into a simple premise.

"The radial thumb is...a contraption, not a lovely contrivance."

Gould is assuming that an omnipotent creator would either give the panda the same thumb he gave other animals (especially since all the parts are there to do so), or he would build an entirely new type of thumb from entirely new body parts that simply do not exist in other species. There's logic in this, no doubt. The panda's thumb is essentially a thumb that is designed the hard way, so to speak, when at least one more elegant solution to the construction problem exists, and one might suppose other elegant solutions could be made. (If you were a mechanical engineer, you probably could think of one or two easily, I imagine.)

One of the things about this argument that I find interesting is that, aside from acknowledging the possibility of a creator, it also runs counter to what I've heard from other atheists. Often those who promote the idea of evolution over creationism will point to the similarities between creatures and say that those similarities indicate common ancestry. Gould seems to be implicitly confirming what many creationists will say in response to such an argument: that common design implies a common designer. After all, why should God re-create the thumb for humans when a perfectly good thumb already exists in other primates? It's that very argument that creationists love to use (and the average evolutionist pooh-poohs) that is the very basis for Gould's argument here. Why shouldn't God use a pre-existing design, or, if there was a good reason not to, why wouldn't God make something new rather than cobble together a thumb from second-hand parts, so to speak.

When I was a kid, I got some Legos in a McDonald's Happy Meal. The small collection of Legos was designed to make something specific, like a little racecar. Now, I could make that racecar, sure, but the real fun was in making something new and unexpected out of those parts. Could I position the wheels closer together so that they functioned like gears? Could I make a car that bore little or no resemblance to the intended car design? If I really wanted to get creative, I could have asked my parents to buy me more Legos, but tinkering was fun and stimulating. Is it a sure thing that God would not also think so? As I could think of my attempts to combine the same set of Legos in different ways a way of showing my creativity, could not God also wish to show His creative side by combining the same set of bones, muscles and tendons in varying and surprising ways? Is nature's variety God's way of showing us that there's more than one way to skin a cat?

While I do think that Gould's argument is very strong (and has resulted in my wanting to read some of Darwin's books, particularly the one on orchids, which must be a blast), what's really missing in the story here to truly address the concerns of a theist is more info on the theological side. While Gould takes time to unpack all the baggage of ursine bone structure, when it comes to dealing with the question of creationism, he simply assumes the proper action of an omnipotent creator.

"If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes."

So many arguments against the existence of God boil down to this sentence with different phrases inserted in the underlined spaces. "If God was really good, surely he would have spared my mother Alzheimer's." "If God didn't want me to have sex with whomever I want whenever I want, surely he would not make it feel so darn good." "If God wanted me to believe in him, surely he would give me a million dollars." In short, assume you know what God would do or how he would think, and base your beliefs around that assumption.

The fact is, maybe Gould is right. I mean, it sounds reasonable. However, there are a lot of things that sound reasonable, but aren't necessarily so. "Humans are designed in a manner so high above the other animals in dexterity, intelligence and other factors that surely we are the apex of creation." That's something that sounds quite reasonable to most people, but evolutionary biology shows that this is not the case at all, or at least it doesn't follow in direct logical progression.

You know what I think? I think there are (at least) two things in the universe that are simply beyond our ability to fully comprehend. One of them is the full story of the origin of life as we currently know it, and the other is the mind of God. Maybe instead of fighting over who has come closer to arriving at unattainable knowledge, we could just enjoy the journey? Probably not likely, but that's my personal plan.

Moralists Anonymous

I have another post I've been working on, but I put it aside for this. This post is dedicated to one of my biggest fans, who posts quite often on my other blog, and even occasionally here: Anonymous. This guy is great, not so much that he's always the kindest comment poster or deepest thinker, but I am flattered that he takes time out from all his poetry writing, clever quipping and police informant work to drop in on my blog and give me his opinion. Lately, he had a lot to say in response to my post on slavery (scroll to the comments), but in the end, it apparently boiled down to an issue that I haven't addressed there, and probably never will, due to the nature of the blog.

The issue is the moral nature of God. Anonymous claimed, as many before him have done, that there is good reason to question whether or not God is morally right in His actions and overall interaction with humanity. For many people, this issue is raised as part of the Problem of Evil. Short version: (A) God is good. (B) God is all-powerful. (C) Evil exists. It is claimed that all three of these cannot be true, and if this is so, and rational people cannot reject (C), then (A) and/or (B) must be false, and Christianity cannot be based on truth. This is also related very closely to the problem of suffering, which is essentially the same, but with "evil" replaced by "suffering". Anyway, the point is that the nature of God becomes questionable in this light, and one must wonder what Bible believer can say about it.

I'm pretty sure I have addressed elsewhere the issue of questioning (B), but due to Anonymous' questioning, I think it might be time to shed some light on (A). Why does it sometimes appear to some that God is immoral, and how do Christians reconcile this? Why does God allow evil that seems like it would be simple enough for an all-powerful God to stop, and on top of that, why does the Bible condone things like slavery and capital punishment that many of us find morally distasteful? I'm not going to pretend to have the answer, although I may highlight my favorite theory before I wrap this up.

One of the very common ways to respond to the issue is to simply say "We have no right to judge God." This actually comes in a number of different forms, some of which blur the boundaries with other types of responses that I plan to discuss here. One form is that of the defaulted reverential approach to God, where one has simply been taught that God is Holy and wonderful and that one should never question God's goodness because...well, just because! What are you, some sort of heretic? A more abstract but actually in a way more reasoned approach is to simply point out that since God created the universe and the living creatures in it, they belong to Him, and he gets to do whatever He wants with them, and if you don't like it, go make your own universe! Maybe that's alright for some people in their own minds to take a position like this, but for someone who is not a believer to begin with, this approach will be sadly lacking in weight. Furthermore for those of us that are believers that want to have any sort of serious discussions of theology, there is a need for a reasoned approach. This isn't it.

As I said, there is a blurring of the boundaries between these different types of responses, and it may not be really clear why this is different, but another approach is to claim that morality is actually a creation of God, and since God made it, He has a certain amount of control over it. This is a strange and many-faceted idea that sometimes is approached from the other direction in a manner of speaking, when someone tries to argue that without God, there is no morality, period. The idea in such an approach is to suggest that the fact we can make moral judgments somehow verifies the existence of a higher moral standard, and that that standard can only be the almighty creator of the universe. Perhaps somebody can suggest to me a good book or essay to read on the subject because I frankly have never understood this position, and every time I've heard it, it seems to be stated as though it's self-evident. Putting that aside and getting back to the subect of God's "control" over morality, a good metaphor is that life is like a game where the rules exist in God's head. Whatever God does, He can bend the rules to fit his actions, or, more to the point due to God's omniscence, God has created the rules with loopholes for Himself. (That's an over-simplification, but I'm really convinced that the argument boils down to that in essence.) Those who don't like this argument seem to feel that it's a matter of hypocrisy that God doesn't have to obey moral law while His creation does, and there might be something to that. One thing that Christians in particular have claimed is that in the person of Jesus, God lived the life of a mortal, and in the thirty-odd years He spent on earth, He willingly subjected Himself to those laws. Whether that helps the argument or is even plausible to those who read the Gospels with a skeptical eye, who can say?

Similarly, but with some deeper theological implications, there are those who claim that God, a being of a higher order and quite different from us in many ways, does obey moral law, but has a completely different set of moral laws that apply to Him. Generally, this is hard to explain in the particular case of God, but perhaps can be illustrated in a different way. Let's talk fleas. Most people would not think it immoral of a person to buy a flea collar for their pet. The flea collar kills fleas, but we recognize that the fleas are detrimental to the health of the pet, and for the pet's sake, should be eliminated. If the pet chose to wear it or managed to remove it, either way, most people would not think such an action on the part of the pet would be immoral. Now despite the fact that the pet and the owner are unhappy with the flea, nobody would particularly feel that the flea was immoral for biting the pet (or the owner, for that matter) since that is the way it survives, and cannot be expected to do otherwise. Also, the flea has no comprehension of why it is unwanted (if indeed it is aware of it at all!)

So, as the difference between fleas, pets, and pet owners implies different moralities not just in degree, but in kind, so God exists in a state where His morality is perhaps as unrecognizable to us as ours is to a flea. And the comparison is perhaps appropriate, as many have wondered about the morality of God creating fleas in the first place. It may be that God has created fleas (and evil and suffering in many other forms) for reasons that we simply cannot fathom, not being God. I think a likely objection to this view is that if God's morality is of a kind that is not related to ours in such a fantastic manner, how can one even know that God is moral? Really, we'd just be guessing and/or taking God's word for it. While that objection is basically true, this may nonetheless be the case, like it or not.

Now, my preferred manner of viewing the morality of God is that God's morality is of a higher order than ours, but not so much of a different type. The distinction between this position and the last one is that while we often do not understand the moral aim of any choice God makes, it is not because it is intrinsically unknowable. The issue for God is that God sees the big picture. My children don't understand why it's not good to eat nothing but candy all the time. They're too young to understand nutrition. Frankly, I don't understand nutrition either, but I'm mature enough to recognize that there is a right and wrong way to choose foods, even if I don't always do it. My kids could grow up to become nutritionists or doctors, and have a much better grasp on the concept, the potential is there. Now while we can't "grow up" and become God, I think that God has knowledge that leads Him to do things that is often beyond our current grasp.

One of the biggest things that I feel that God understands better than any person alive is the concept of death. There's a bit of a trend I've seen lately, perhaps started by Steve Wells in his blog Dwindling In Unbelief, to point out that if one goes through the Bible, we see God killing more people than Satan. I am personally of the belief that when God (and perhaps Satan as well?) kills a person, it is a different matter than when a human kills another. This is not a matter of God having the right to kill because He created life (a fairly popular response), but God having the right to kill because He and He alone, being omniscient, knows the full implications of ending any particular life at any particular time. One of these days, I'm going to have to do a post on my view of the spiritual aspect of murder, I have what I think is an interesting personal take on the matter. Why do I take away my kids' candy before dinner? Because I know something that they don't. Why does God take away a life or allow some other form of suffering? Because God knows something we don't. People can complain that God allowed a man like Hitler to exist, and then turn around and complain the He allowed a baby to die. We may not be aware that had that baby grown to adulthood, he would have become a man far worse than Hitler, and it was better that he died before setting off down the path that led to that end. Wildly theoretical, I know, but not at all impossible.

A person might object to this sort of speculation as being the same sort of grasping at straws that "blind faith" breeds, and heck, they might be right. However, I have met many atheists that have a similar view of materialistic science. If we only knew more about the universe, they assure us, then we'd have no need for God or miracles or an afterlife. Well, how do they know that? The same way that I know that God is moral. The more I investigate, the more I understand, and as yet, nothing has given me strong reason to think otherwise. And anyway, I do have faith in science in that way as well (well, short the part about not needing God), and I don't think it's wrong. I think science can tell us everything we will ever need to know about the physical universe, if we only investigate carefully. I simply feel that the physical universe is not all there is. There is God, there is the spiritual aspect of our world, and there is a morality, both of man and God that shapes it all in ways that we only partly understand.

I'm answering, I'm answering!

I hope Hellbound Alleee won't mind me responding here, but I get the impression it's not her original material, either. She posted in her blog this Monday "The Questions Christians Can't, or Won't, Answer". I'm hoping to answer them as best I can. Indeed, I may not be able to.

To the Christian (who, of course, believes in hell, and don't give me that seperation from god stuff--you know that's supposed to be terrible suffering as well, otherwise no one would care that they were seperated from your pansy god):

I think you're misunderstanding the Christian concept of "separated from God". Try this metaphor: Imagine driving in your car through the desert. It's 120 degrees Fahrenheit (around 50 degrees Celsius), and although it's bad, you're in your air-conditioned car. Then your motor hitches up, and you notice: you're out of gas. Now you're "separated" from your car, and from your air conditioning. It doesn't matter whether or not someone would describe your car as a "pansy" car, you're in for an awful afternoon.

The Christian concept of the world is that it's a potentially cruel and terrible place that's being kept at bay to an extent by the grace of God. Take away God, and that's Hell. Yeah, it sucks. Yeah, there's suffering. It's not meanness, it's human choice to reject that grace.

How can you enjoy your afterlife while millions suffer eternal torment in hell? Especially when some of them could be your friends, aquaintances, and family? When so many millions of them are simply regular, "good" people who were in the "wrong religion?" Little children, grandmas, people who have done wonderful things, millions of people who led wonderful lives, suffering in hell because they did not accept Jesus?

Indeed, that is a question most Christians can't answer. How the heck can you be happy when you know people are suffering? Some theologians have suggested that God makes us forget about them, but I don't find that convincing, or even completely reasonable.

A man goes to Hell, and Satan offers him an eternity in one of three rooms. In the first room, people are standing on their heads on hard, rough wood. In the second, people are standing on their heads on a stone floor. In the third, there are people standing on their feet, drinking coffee while knee-deep in shit. The man decides that while they all look bad, the third is far preferable. Satan walks him inside, closes the door and says: okay everyone, coffee break's over; back on your heads!

Did you laugh? Why? It's a story about people suffering. Sure, it's fictional, but then, there are real people suffering in the world right now. Did you know that over 8,000 people die from AIDS every day? How can you laugh while that's happening? Wearing any clothing made in China? It was probably manufactured by the cheap labor of political and religious dissidents. Are you heartless? Sometimes I suspect that, despite the fact I'd like better, Heaven will be much like this life, where we manage to enjoy ourselves despite the fact that elsewhere, suffering is occurring. There is probably more to be said to these questions, but I'm trying to be brief. (By my standards at least.)

Let me clarify: I'm asking about you, and your feelings personally. Will the terrible eternal suffering of others, whether they supposedly "deserve it" or not, whether they were Gandhi or just some 8 year-old child of Buddhists that did nothing in his life but do what 8 year-old kids do, will you be able to sing loud enough to drown out their screams, and pretend everything is perfect the way it is? Is that perfection to you? If you sit outside of a torture chamber while someone's fingernails are being peeled off, will you be perfectly blissful as long as you've got yours? Because, after all, Kiko or Deepa "knew" Jesus and just ignored Him.

Well, I imagine that those who are in Heaven will not be sitting "outside of a torture chamber" like Hell is right in the next room. We'll know it exists, but have no direct knowledge of it. I'm sure people are being tortured as I write this, and will be as the reader reads this, but we have the ability to tune them out because their screams will not be heard, they will only be a thought somewhere in the back of our heads, if at all.

I'm also not convinced by rhetoric that seems to imply that undeserving people will go to Hell. Part of that has to do with a subject I intend to post on sometime soon, but a lot of it has to do with my understanding of the nature of God. It just sounds unfair that God would punish an 8-year-old just for being born into the wrong family. But God IS fair. So I don't believe God will punish that child. Now, is it fair to "punish" anyone at all? That's a bigger question. Maybe I will make a dent in answering it nonetheless as I finish this post.

Why did God/Jesus make the rule? Please justify the morality of eternal suffering for nonbelief. After all, if God made it so, it must be moral, and it must be really easy to figure out why eternal suffering after death is morally justified.

First of all, we're starting with an assumption that I think is not supported. Who said God made the rule? Maybe someone did say it to you, but that's not my point; I ask it in a rhetorical fashion. While some Christians are fond of saying, "God created the universe, so He gets to make the rules," I don't think you'll find such a sentiment in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, God does make many rules, and He does punish people for breaking the rules. I'm simply saying that the reason for God making the rules is not often stated, and we are left to venture guesses. Furthermore, I don't believe that God does make every rule there is, and I suspect this is one that is to some extent beyond Him. (See my post on possible limits to "omnipotence".) Something I have heard said many times that I do think is true is that God does not do actions that are against His basic nature. Whether that is a choice, or something He is bound to by the higher impersonal force of logic, I do not know. But perhaps I will be allowed to slightly rephrase the question and keep the essence of the problem intact.

What is the purpose of the rule? What explains the need for suffering as a result of mere nonbelief? I hope that this is an acceptable rephrasing, although I still have a slight issue with the word "nonbelief" to clear up. I don't think nonbelief is the real issue. I think the real issue is having enough information to understand to some extent the nature of God, and refusing to acknowledge Him as an act of rebellion. Actually, if you look through the Bible, you see a lot of people who believe in God, but get in trouble because they simply don't do what is right. Why was it wrong for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? They certainly believed in God, since they were on speaking terms with Him. The act of eating the fruit was in essence saying, "God, I know you said not to do this, but I think I know better." That's rejection of God, not mere nonbelief. Hell is not God saying, "I've decided that by this arbitrary rule I'm going to hate you and do mean things to you." Hell is God saying, "If you really are so determined to make your own decisions and live your life without me, then by all means, I don't want to force you."

Now, I say this knowing that nonbelief does not cause suffering in life, because I am an atheist, and I am a very happy person.

Whoever the original author of this piece is (is it Bob Smith? I thought his site was great (but not for the easily offended, I personally loved the very cool dressup games and "sticker attack" video), but can't find the article there and don't have audio right now), I wonder how he can be happy while people are being tortured? That's just me being a smartass...

I also know that belief, in life, does not prevent suffering (or the cause of suffering.)

Right. A very important point. Don't let anyone tell you that the purpose of Christianity is to reduce your suffering in the current life. While I said before--as many others have--that I think part of its purpose is to goad one to reduce the suffering of others, the main purpose of Christianity is not to make yourself feel better.

Therefore, the suffering must come after death (if you can figure that one out).

It's simple. The idea (which is not unique to the Christian world-view by any means) is that death is just a passing from this stage of life into another. The nature of the suffering that may come is, I think, pretty well explained above in my desert metaphor.

So that's why you guys had to create the idea of hell. I mean, come on, many people who do not believe in your fantasy are perfectly happy in their own fantasies, or reality. So you had to create this idea that otherworldly Lord-Of-The-Rings-Style imps to inflict. Ta Da! The non-belief itself didn't make me suffer. God had to make it so beings he created hurt me.

Well, if you're talking about the medieval concept of Hell as this fiery cave deep in the earth where red imps with horns and pitchforks giggle while they rip out your intestines, then I'd have to agree. I think that the Church of those days decided that they needed some stronger incentives to convince the pagan masses that there was a good reason to convert, so they made up these ideas and sold them to the general public. It's unfortunate that we haven't grown out of that concept, because not only does the Bible give virtually no support for that picture of Hell, but as far as I know, the Catholic Church is no longer promoting it either (if indeed they ever were in any official capacity). But that doesn't mean Hell as a more abstract concept does not exist at all.

Now that you think you've justified it, tell me why those who vote for the losing presidential candidate should not be tortured right now.

This cracks me up. I think there are two mistaken concepts at the heart of this. First of all, there is the concept that God is torturing people because He's some sort of "bad winner". Imagine Jesus sitting in a throne up in the sky, thinking, "Oh, ME! I can't believe what I'm seeing! As soon as I finish kicking the butt of Satan at the battle of Armageddon, I'm going to turn right around and kick the butt of everybody who didn't like me best of all; that'll show 'em who's boss!" Once again, God loves people, and only wants to have what's best for them. But He also respects their personal choices, and if they choose being separated from Him, then He allows them to be. If you think that's not a problem at all, then I guess you have no reason to become a Christian, do you?

The second assumption, the one that's a little more subtle, is that the suggestion given is not already a reality on some level. Behold: the tortures of the damned! All around, ever since the disaster that was the 2000 election, I've seen people with bumper stickers and t-shirts claiming "Bush is not my President!" Well, if you're a U.S. citizen, then let me say "Sorry" because he is. I didn't vote for him myself, but I don't understand the apologies, the denials, etc. Apparently, many, many of those who did not vote for Bush feel that they ARE being tortured, and that they are being separated from a government that serves their need. (On the latter part, they may be correct.)

Tell me why you shouldn't beat your wife, burn her with cigarettes, throw her down the stairs and humiliate her.

Because that would be mean, cruel and disrespectful. I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue of Hell, though. I see as more like I find out my wife has been cheating on me, so I divorce her and toss her out of the house with nothing. It probably still would be considered mean, but many would understand what I considered my justification.

Tell me why, if a child talks back to you, that you shouldn't lock him in a closet for days and let him sit in his own filth. And then rape him when he comes out.

Because that's not the way you ought to treat a child. Most likely even most parents who spank wouldn't consider that a spanking offense. Punishment may be merited, but certainly not to that degree.

After all, if God saw fit to make that happen, if Jesus made it so, you should do the same thing. Correct? Justify it.

No. God, in that He is a being far above us moreso than even a parent is over a child, has a different set of standards to live by. There are many aspects of God's character that we are to emulate as Christians, but one thing that Jesus does say is "judge not". God is the judge, we are not. The government has the right to put criminals behind bars, we do not. My neighbor has a right to discipline their child in the way they see fit, I do not (although I do with my own children).

I'll be waiting.

Your questions are answered. You may not like my answers, but they are answered. Thank you for the mental stimulation; whether anyone likes my answers or not, I think I learned a few things about my own beliefs in writing them.

"...actual proof of God..."

From the comments section of my latest post in the ASAB:

Also, wouldn't you think that if God REALLY wanted everyone to believe in him the proof would be undeniable instead of nonexistant? Afterall, if there really was actual proof of God all of these "debates" would vanish.

The poster may have thought s/he was being original, or not. It doesn't matter. I've heard this many times before. It puzzles me to no end.

I ask you all here, and the poster as well: What exactly would be "undeniable" proof? I'm strongly preferring answers from atheists and other skeptics here.

Technorati tags: ASAB agnosticism atheism atheist Bible Blogging challenge comment conclusive debate evidence God incontrovertible indisputable irrefutable let us reason together Luke 16 miracle miraculous open invitation philosophy proof proof of God proof of the existence of God religion response skeptic skepticism theism theology unarguable unassailable undeniable undeniable unquestionable volunteers watertight complete crap list of tags longer than post spending too much time with the thesaurus