Is God a Sexual Predator?

A professor recently tweeted that God is a sexual predator for having impregnated Mary "without her consent." I won't give this man (an apparent Satanist, I've read) direct publicity; you can find his tweet easily enough if you're interested. Here's a brief explanation on why he probably should never, ever dabble in religion again:

Mary actually does give her consent in Luke 1:38: "Let it be to me according to your word." "But," you might object, "How relevant is her consent when the angel tells her that she will conceive Jesus? Can Mary resist the will of the omnipotent God?" As the professor, himself, noted in his inane tweet, the Christian God is omniscient. So, to ask for something (e.g., consent) that you, in your omniscience, know will be given, is kind of a waste of time. Mary wouldn't have been chosen in the first place were it not for God's foreknowledge of her consent. Her very quality of being "full of grace" consists in her foreknown willingness to sacrifice herself for our salvation.

On God's Presence

"If God exists," many atheists ask us, "why doesn't he make himself present to us?"

Although this question appears reasonable, it is in reality patently absurd, and there are multiple ways to explain this absurdity. Here's just one:

There's a mode of perception proper to every object. Scents are perceived through smelling, music through hearing, food through taste, and so on. All of these can be subsumed into the broader category of objects of sensual perception.

Now, the problem with the above question is that God is a spirit, and, as such, is normally perceived spiritually, not sensually. Why can't most of us perceive him spiritually? Because most of us are spiritually blind (most are not, as Christ puts it, "pure at heart"). But this doesn't disprove God's existence any more than a blind man's inability to perceive a visual object disproves its existence.

In other words, the above question is a loaded one, since it presupposes that God has not made himself present to us. Once we understand that he has, and if we work to sharpen our spiritual perception, we will one day discover that God is indeed "everywhere present and fillest all things," as we recite in the Trisagion Prayers.

Thoughts On Faith

"Ninety-nine percent of the things you believe are believed on authority.  The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority - because the scientists say so.  Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority...A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life."

- C.S. Lewis

According to Bill Maher, “faith makes a virtue out of not thinking.” Needless to say, no Christian instructed in his religion endorses this understanding of faith. Suppose some celebrity had recently confessed that he is gay, and the first place you find this reported is the National Enquirer. Assuming you know anything about this tabloid magazine, you’d likely take this story with a grain of salt. If, on the other hand, you see it reported in the New York Times (or whichever news source you typically rely on), you’re more likely to take it at its word. Why is that, if not because you have some measure of faith (gasp!) in that news source? If we didn’t have such faith, we’d doubt most of everything there is to know - not just religious teachings - since most of what we know is learned secondhand. 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you've embraced the Christian faith.  You'd have little need to defend the truth of each and every Christian dogma (e.g., the Virgin Birth) since you can deduce its truth from the teaching of the Church (which St. Paul describes as the "pillar and foundation of the truth"). In this regard, Church teaching is a useful heuristic, fulfilling the same function that one's favorite news source fulfills - purveying knowledge that one cannot (at least easily) acquire through first-hand experience.

In short, the Christian is not thinking any less than he who accepts, on faith, the truth of what his favorite news source has reported. Sure, he might doubt the veracity of this or that story from time to time (hence, his faith is much weaker than the religious believer’s). However, this is simply because he correctly understands that journalists are fallible human beings, whereas Christians believe that God is infallible, and doubting a God who you profess to be inerrant is a total contradiction.

No, No, No - The IQ-Theism Link Says Nothing About Whether Believing in God is Dumb

Of the multiple reasons that may drive an individual to choose theism, agnosticism, or atheism, the primary reason seems to fall under one of three broad classes:

(a) Emotional (e.g., the comfort derived from believing in eternal life might lead one to accept belief in God)

(b) Social (e.g., one might find theism more compelling if it is embraced by family members or peers)

(c) Logical (i.e., through reading, contemplation and/or discussion, one reasons his/her way to theism, agnosticism, or atheism)

These classes of reasons correspond to emotional, socialized, or thinking individuals, respectively.  Now, it seems safe to make the following assumptions:

(1) A typical thinking individual is more intelligent at least than the average member of his/her respective group (whether it is theistic, agnostic, or atheistic).

(2) Higher intelligence does not necessarily guarantee the acquisition of truth (to illustrate, I once successfully convinced an otherwise intelligent relative of mine that Iraq had chosen a monkey as its head of state).  To put it another way, equally intelligent people often disagree.

(3) Atheists are more homogeneous with respect to the primary reason why members belong to this group.

The third assumption appears valid because people are unlikely to be motivated to become atheists for emotional reasons, and even more unlikely to do so for social reasons.  Beginning with the former, although atheism might satisfy one’s desire for moral autonomy, such “benefits” are temporary and thus incomparable to the eternal benefits of believing in God.  As for the latter, most people continue to believe in God.  Therefore, people choose atheism in spite of the social forces pulling them in the opposite direction.  Hence, it seems clear that thinking members are disproportionately represented among atheists.  Of course, this does not imply that atheism, itself, is true (recall the second assumption above).
Among theists, in contrast, one is likely to find larger shares of emotional and socialized members, in addition to its portion of thinkers.  On account of this, and insofar as the first assumption is correct, the average IQ of the theistic group should be lower than that of the more uniform atheist group. 


* For a quantitative study debunking the IQ-theism theory, please click here.

New Article - Are Highly Theistic Countries Dumber?

Excellent news – a manuscript of mine regarding the supposed impact of IQ on belief in God has just been accepted for publication in the Catholic Social Science Review!  See below for the abstract.

Are Highly Theistic Countries Dumber?  Critiquing the Intelligence-Religiosity Nexus Theory

Abstract

Recent research suggests that higher-IQ countries have significantly more atheists, supposedly because higher intelligence confers a greater ability to apprehend the assumed irrationality of theistic belief. In this quantitative study, an alternative explanation is offered to explain the apparent relationship between intelligence and theism. It is theorized that higher education in free societies brings greater exposure to, and eases the acceptance of, such unconventional views as atheism. This exposure, in and of itself, augments the likelihood that one will reject belief in God. In addition, it is argued on the basis of the Christian ascetic tradition that materialism also produces higher levels of disbelief. OLS regression analysis of 99 countries confirms both theories, while revealing no evidence of an inverse link between intelligence and theism. Findings also show that disbelief is significantly lower in countries that are traditionally Roman Catholic, as well as in those that have not experienced communist rule.