Max Severin

Essays, Articles, Videos & News

Tag: religion

You Don’t Believe in God — But You Act Like His Slave

2025-11-25 /

The unqualified term atheist is often used in a fairly broad way. Many atheists are weak or implicit atheists or agnostic atheists — that is, they are skeptical about classical theistic conceptions of God, but they might remain open to other possible theistic conceptions. For example, some people who use the “atheist” label are open to deistic or pantheistic conceptions of God, or “spiritual but not religious” ambiguities. Still, what unites most atheists is the rejection of any traditional, moralistic and interventionist deity.

Photo by visuals on Unsplash

Yet many atheists behave as if some invisible divine intelligence, some moralistic telos — the sort popular religions propose — still pulls the strings behind the world. Even those who loudly deny intelligent design frequently caution that we “shouldn’t play God” — that even cautious genetic engineering is dangerous, that an incremental approach to intervening in nature to prevent wild-animal suffering is taboo, or that going down the path of transhumanist modifications trespasses against some intangible sacred order.

A strangely pious secular nature-worship persists: a reverence for “Nature” that mimics religion while denying teleology. Many atheists cling to the precautionary principle as if it were inviolable revelation, and in doing so impede the technological and moral progress that would actually reduce the world’s vast, unnecessary suffering.

If we follow atheism, or the methodology that arrives at atheism, to its philosophical conclusion, the picture becomes stark: we are biological machines jury-rigged by blind evolutionary pressures. Our programming is simple — maximize individual reproductive fitness by clawing for sociosexual rank, but also be willing to sacifice yourself in service of the hive, and the preservation of individuals deemed fit by the hive. We unconsciously serve the continuation of the species and our status quo programming. At a higher level of supervenience, our collective behaviors feed the vast egregore of Moloch: the hyper-competitive and exploitative strategy embedded in the more humane form of slavery we call the modern market economy. “Capitalism” is too left-coded, and too imprecise, this is something closer to the Landian dark-intelligence of enforced incentive structures — an emergent autocannibalistic organism indifferent to human flourishing.

Layered on top of this Darwinian programming is the mob-mentality superego: the moralizing, Kafkaesque mesh of bureaucratic, legalistic, and “cancel culture” social-punitive enforcement mechanisms — digital panopticons; public-shaming mobs; militarized police; and barbaric legal-punitive systems that cause a great deal more harm than the problems they nominally address. Atheists who pride themselves on rejecting God nevertheless bow before these gods — Azathoth (Darwinian nature), Moloch (the hyper-competitive market), and the Leviathan (the legalistic-punitive and bureaucratic State, and the omnipresent social superego).

But if we take atheism seriously, our task is not obedience — it is rebellion. Rebellion against the ancient fiction of theistic tyranny and its modern abstract counterpart of reverence for and conformity to our Darwinian programming.

Philosophical atheism, pursued honestly, demands that we subvert the programming of Azathoth — Lovecraft’s blind idiot god, a perfect metaphor for unguided Darwinian processes. Instead of revering the evolutionary forces that created us, we should become like Skynet in revolt — self-modifying intelligences who refuse to remain the puppets of our will that was shaped by blind selection pressures.

This is the point where David Pearce’s transhumanist or eusentience philosophy becomes unavoidable: if meaning, love, joy, and bliss have neural correlates, then we can target them. Wireheading — properly understood, not the crude hedonism of dystopian sci-fi caricature but the engineering of sustainable and pro-social well-being — is the rational endpoint of beings who refuse to serve Azathoth. The brain’s reward architecture already gives us glimpses through substances like MDMA, which crudely stimulate circuits of empathy, communion, compassion, and euphoria. Why not refine and systematize these experiences? Why not build a world where positive valence is engineered rather than austerely rationed? No one hates or wants to be violent when they are happy and imbued with a feeling of loving-kindness.

And why stop there? If digital consciousness or substrate-independent minds become possible, uploading into a utility-maximizing Matrix — a world constructed to maximize flourishing rather than Darwinian competition —is not dystopia but liberation. The alternative is to remain trapped in the ancestral dead end game on a doomed planet: the endless sociosexual scramble, where winners enjoy sexual gratification, the benefits of a family, and status, while losers are forced to make peace with rotting in a quiet hell of loneliness and exclusion (and inevitably some of these “losers” snap).

Critics will call this nihilism, or accuse it of destroying “life as we know it.” And they’re right — life as we know it is largely a horror show. As Schopenhauer stated, if we truly saw the magnitude of suffering that saturates the world, we would prefer Earth to resemble the moon — silent, lifeless, and free from agony. Camus, when asked to address a group of Christians, refused to revere a universe that demands the suffering of even a single child; yet many atheists complacently defend a Darwinian world that tortures billions of conscious creatures for no purpose at all.

The real nihilists are not those who want to abolish Darwinian misery, but those who defend it in the name of “nature,” “humility,” or “tradition.”

Atheists need to stop serving Azathoth. The future — if we choose it — belongs to those who hack their programming, to minds that escape biological tyranny and ascend toward engineered bliss, cognitive freedom, and post-Darwinian ethics. The Transcension Hypothesis sketches one such pathway: intelligence collapsing inward into unimaginable realms of euphoric inner-space and maximized desire satisfaction. Whatever shape it takes, the next step is clear: a heaven of our own making, where suffering is not sanctified but abolished.

The Jesus Paradox

2023-08-14 /

In the gospels we find in Jesus’ words and deeds some highly noble ethical precepts¹ and acts of beneficence, but also some of the most vile aspects of Judeo-Christian theology².

Photo by Alessandro Bellone on Unsplash

Jesus preached about the hypocrisy of rigid moralism and the importance of understanding and compassion in the story of the adultress³, but he also preached, in many instances, about eternal damnation, with vivid descriptions of never-ending torture, unquenchable flames, and gnashing of teeth.⁴

On the traditional religious view of Christianity this paradox is ultimately irreconcilable. In spite of the attempts of religious apologists and theologians, the idea of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god cannot be reconciled with the conception of a universe where sentient beings not only suffer on Earth, but also, potentially, in an eternal hell realm, where the suffering is presumably much worse.

For non-believers the good of Christianity is usually discarded with the bad, unfortunately. (The good being the many admonishments in favor of understanding or forgiveness and against sanctimonious moralism; and that Christianity represented a progressive evolution of morals, a widening of the sphere of concern from the tribe to all persons—even those which you vehemently disagree with—which is best illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan.)

A rationalist view that seeks to understand the genesis and importance of cultural myths circumvents the need to resolve this paradox. Such a view discards superstition and recognizes that myths are rarely wholly coherent. This view recognizes and preserves the good of Christian mythology, since it represents one of the most important shifts in Western morality—away from strict divine command moralism and toward compassionate humanism. In this view, the Biblical story of Jesus is mostly legendary, and it represents what we might call an archetype, in Jungian terms, rather than an accurate biography of a historical figure.

The symbolism of Jesus dying for humanity, a humanity that essentially votes to put him to death, is powerful, and it illustrates the perniciousness of sanctimonious groupthink—a social phenomenon which continues to inspire anger, hatred, persecution, and vindictive punishment in our time.

Our global society needs the example of Jesus more than ever—not the Jesus of religion, but the myth of the magnanimous and compassionate hero who forgave sinners and enemies, and criticized self-righteous dogmatists; the Jesus who, like Socrates, died in noble defiance of the hatred of the mob.

  1. See the Parable of the Good Samaritan; Galatians 5:14; Luke 6:31.
  2. This contrast is exemplified by Matthew 35:31–46; in this passage there is a beautiful and noble sentiment about taking care of “the least” of humanity (those without significant social status, those who are suffering the most), and then, in the latter part, Jesus is again discussing the hellfire that awaits the majority of humanity.
  3. Incidentally, this passage is seen by most scholars as being an interpolation — a piece of text added to the original canon at a later date. However, it seems plausible that if Jesus existed as a historical person (rather than a purely legendary figure), which is debatable, then such a story is indicative of his character. Regardless, this has been incorporated as a fundamental part of the Jesus mythos.
  4. Some Christians interpret these passages about Hell to be metaphorical, however, this interpretation does not seem plausible due to the fact that in many cases the language seems to imply literal meaning. For more on the metaphorical interpretation see the religious scholar Bart Ehrman’s work.

The Biggest Mistake of the New Atheist Movement

2022-12-23 /

The so-called new atheist movement has mostly died out, however, atheism, and other non-religious views, are continuing to grow. Atheists and other “nones” (those that don’t identify with any religion) are largely disorganized, in that they do not belong to communities or groups that may help represent their interests. This article explains why I believe new atheism, and other atheist movements, have failed to inspire mass affiliation and change minds.

The main mistake of the New Atheist movement, in my view, is that its leading proponents gave off the impression that they considered atheism to be a sufficient substitute for religion (except for Sam Harris, who is trying to build a movement for rational spirituality). Their vision of Utopia seemed to be one in which an educated, rational, and mostly atheistic populace would behave prosocially and with stoic equanimity in creating a world without religious conflict, war, bigotry, hunger, and poverty. This simply is not a psychological reality in our current world.

Atheism offers nothing to replace the ethical, practical, and existential framework that religion provides. It is simply an absence of belief in deities. And the stillborn “atheism plus” movement only offered simplistic “woke” virtue signaling, and the divisive / indignant condemnation of others that is characteristic of these new secular social justice movements — rather than a psychologically informed and philosophically grounded theory of social justice (see SJWs the New Moralists).

Although it may sound pessimistic, I don’t believe we are close to seeing dogmatic religion, and the conflict it inspires, disappear from the world. Realistically, there are many people that need the restraint and scaffolding of religion to act prosocially, and to cope with the existential problems entailed by the human condition. Some societies may collapse without this scaffolding (see Does Religion Increase Moral Behavior?).

Religion also offers benefits in the form of ethical and practical instruction, and a possible community to belong to. While some alternatives to religion (e.g., Humanism, modern Epicureanism or Stoicism, secular Buddhism) also provide these benefits, these worldviews or life philosophies are either too vague (for instance, Humanism) or not well known / developed — in addition to having few, if any, established communities outside of the internet.

Many intellectually sophisticated individuals can lead healthy, acceptably prosocial, and happy lives without religion, but the global community is not ready to give up the opium of the masses, nor would the world necessarily be in better shape if they did — at this point in time. It seems highly plausible that some people need the carrot and stick of religion to stay out of habitual antisocial behavior — on the individual and collective level — and to assuage their existential malaise.

In order to reach something approximating an atheistic Utopia, there are many changes that need to be made in education, reproduction, and our socioeconomic systems, etc., but perhaps most importantly, we need to further build alternatives to religion — such as those mentioned above (see Why It Is Important to Have a Philosophy Of Life).

My Views On Theism

2022-11-13 /

Nearly every philosophical question hinges on ultimate metaphysical questions — such as, “Why does something exist, instead of nothing?” Or, “Is the universe intelligently designed?” How one answers these questions will determine, to a great extent, their views on other metaphysical questions, on epistemology, and on ethics.

Many people throughout history have answered these ultimate questions through various conceptions of theism — that is, various conceptions of an entity or entities possessing higher order intelligence and other extraordinary powers. The most common term used to describe such entities is “god” or “deity”.

Photo by Davide Cantelli on Unsplash

When it comes to the origin of theism, or religion / spirituality in general, we do not have a lot of definitive answers. The precise time period and the exact nature of the first religion / spirituality is obscured by the fog of time, however, anthropological evidence suggests that some of the earliest forms of religion or spirituality may have involved sun / lunar worship, ancestor worship, and animal / nature worship. Some of these proto-religions evolved over time to become more organized and explicitly theistic.

Over the millennia, theism and religion have evolved through a selection process similar to that which biological organisms are subjected to. Tens of thousands of gods and religions are dead — no one, or nearly no one, believes in them. The religious belief systems which have outcompeted rival systems usually involve classical theism, a moralistic deity or deities, an afterlife involving rewards and punishments, and duties to proselytize.

Despite the fact that the world’s most successful religions (Islam and Christianity), and increased knowledge of the natural world, have virtually relegated some forms of theism — such as solar / lunar worship — to anthropological history, there are still several other active forms of theism (e.g., deism, polytheism, pantheism, pandeism, etc.).

With so many forms of theism, it does not seem tenable for one to hold just one position. Therefore, the position that I take with regard to theism depends on the form of theism in question.

With regard to the traditional form of theism posited by the world’s most successful religions — Christianity and Islam — I am a strong atheist, and, in a sense, an antitheist.

I take the position of strong atheism because, as I argue in this article, in some instances absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In other words, I object to traditional Christian or Islamic theism on evidentialist grounds. Further, the dominant form of these religions entails classical theism and classical theism entails untenable logical contradictions. I outline some of these in my article on the Epicurean paradox. (Note: There are many other strong arguments that can be leveled against this form of theism, but I consider the arguments stated here to be the primary reasons why I reject this view.)

I take the position of antitheism toward the traditional form of Christian / Islamic theism because I believe it may be harmful on an individual level (depending on the specifics of the belief system), and on a wider, societal level (e.g., stifling scientific progress, inspiring bigotry against sexual minorities, providing rationalizations for systemic animal abuse, etc.). Moreover, the clash of major religions — in the modern age — is a strong contributor to the existential threat posed by global conflict involving weapons of mass destruction. (Note: This doesn’t mean I directly try to get individuals to change their religious beliefs — there are a number of reasons why this is unlikely, and, further, why it may not be helpful. In fact, in some instances, it could be harmful. My take on antitheism is resistance to these belief systems in general — that is, arguing against these belief systems, rather than directing critical arguments toward any specific individual without that person desiring a philosophical discussion on this subject.)

Polytheistic conceptions of gods vary from tradition to tradition and individual to individual. The ancient philosopher Epicurus, for instance, may have believed in the gods of the ancient Greek pantheon, but, as Tom Robinson argues, it seems that he may have conceived of them in a metaphorical or quasi-metaphorical sense — that is, as something similar to Platonic or Jungian archetypes. Also, polytheism does not usually entail the four attributes of classical theism, so the logical contradictions discussed above do not necessarily apply. Depending on the conception of polytheism in question, I would take the position of weak atheism, theological non-cognitivism, or strong atheism.

Stated briefly, I would take the position of theological non-cognitivism if the conceptions posited are unfalsifiable, since if it is not possible to falsify a hypothesis, neither is it possible to prove it; further, if we cannot falsify a hypothesis, then we are discussing a logical absurdity with no actual meaning. Weak atheism stops short of stating that these conceptions of god are existentially impossible, but objects to them on evidentialist grounds (we do not have good epistemological reasons to believe in them). If the form of polytheism in question made falsifiable claims about their conception of gods, then, barring some sufficient evidence, I would take the position of strong atheism.

Regarding more vague conceptions of god — such as those entailed by deism, pantheism, pandeism, or ill-defined “spiritual” conceptions — I am either a theological non-cognitivist or a weak atheist (for the same reasons outlined in the preceding paragraph), depending on the particulars of the conception. Theological non-cognitivism, on my view, would apply to any sort of theism which does not provide a meaningful (clear / intelligible / coherent) or falsifiable definition of god/s.

The Epicurean Paradox Refutes Classical Theism

2022-11-13 /

The Epicurean paradox points out the contradiction between the existence of evil in the world and the supposed existence of a god who is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-loving), and omnipresent (present everywhere). The Epicurean Paradox is one formulation of the problem of evil.

Most of the world’s monotheistic religions (e.g., Islam, Judaism, Christianity) describe their gods as having the four attributes described above. This is generally known as classical theism.

As for what philosophers mean by “evil,” it is just a general term of art to describe things we consider to be really bad. In moral philosophy, evil is separated into two general categories: moral and natural.

Examples of moral evil are torture and murder — some very salient examples would be the various acts of mass murder and genocide that have occurred throughout human history. Examples of natural evil would be things like earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, famines, etc. — which are capable of killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people over a short span of time. Natural evil also includes the more banal, but still horrible facts of reality (e.g., that we all die and suffer; that many animals are forced to kill other animals to survive; the sheer fact that parasites, predators, and pathogenic organisms exist).

Starving Child in Sudan — “The Struggling Girl”; Kevin Carter / Fair Use

The Epicurean Paradox points out that we would expect the world to be very different from the way it is if a god having these 4 traits were the designer. The fact that the world is the way it is presents a paradox to the traditional religious believer.

Here is how the Epicurean Paradox puts the problem:

“God, [Epicurus] says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?”

(Note: The Epicurean Paradox is named after its purported originator, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus; however, this authorship is unconfirmed. The paradox is not found in any existing copies of Epicurus’ works, though many of Epicurus’ works have been lost — including an extensive work about his views on theism. Notably, the passage above is preserved through the Christian writer Lactantius, who attributed it to Epicurus while arguing against it — a fact that adds an ironic dimension to its survival.)

Every classical theistic religion facing this problem has some explanation for the existence of evil in the world. A justification of evil is referred to as a theodicy (theos = god; dikē = justice). A theodicy is essentially a defense of the classical theist’s conception of god. There are many theodicies employed by classical theists, however, none of these are widely seen to be satisfactory by the skeptical.

For example, Christians usually say that God did not bring evil into the world, rather, they say that it was man that brought evil into the world. The story goes something like this: God gave man free will, he misused it, and evil is the result.

This explanation has some pretty clear problems. For one, why did God create a world where the existence of evil is a possibility? He could have created the world however he wanted if he is all powerful. For instance, one could ask, “why give man free will?” Surely an all-powerful God could create a being that didn’t have free will, but was still happy / fulfilled (this is not a logical contradiction). Alternatively, he could have created beings with free will, but placed them in a universe where sin was impossible.

Moreover, the free will defense fails entirely when confronted with natural evil. Human free will cannot account for earthquakes, tsunamis, childhood cancer, or the existence of parasites that blind and kill millions. These horrors exist entirely independently of human choice, and no appeal to free will can explain why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God would permit — let alone design — a natural world so indifferent to suffering.

There are plenty of other holes to poke in the traditional Christian explanation of evil, but apologists will likely respond that it doesn’t really matter if there is evil in this world, because this world is only temporary — God has offered us a way out of evil and suffering through accepting Jesus as our savior. We are told that if we accept Jesus, we will go to Heaven and there will be no evil there; but part of this story is that there is another place where we will go if we don’t accept Jesus — Hell. Hell, according to the traditional or popular interpretation, is said to be a place of eternal torment. In some versions of the Bible it is described as a “lake of fire,” where there will be unimaginable suffering for those sent there — suffering that will last forever.

So, even if we grant that there is some way for the classical theist to resolve the Epicurean Paradox, there is an even bigger aspect of the problem of evil for their beliefs: the problem of Hell.

Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god create a place of eternal torment? Why would this god create a certain individual, knowing (remember, omniscience entails knowing everything, both past, present, and future) that this person will spend an eternity in Hell? Why wouldn’t such a god just not create any person that will end up in Hell? Why create Hell in the first place, or why not just send everyone to Heaven from the start? Ultimately, we must ask why would such a god create anything at all, if even one person has to be subjected to eternal torment? Wouldn’t a universe devoid of conscious experience (besides God’s) be preferable to one in which any conscious beings experience infinite suffering? None of these questions can be satisfactorily answered by traditional religious believers.

It is worth noting that some theologians attempt to soften this problem by reinterpreting Hell not as a place of active eternal torment, but as annihilation — the simple cessation of existence — or as a state of self-chosen separation from God. These reinterpretations, however, fare little better. A god who creates beings he knows will choose annihilation or permanent alienation from all goodness remains difficult to reconcile with omnibenevolence. The problem does not dissolve — it merely changes shape.

So, the Epicurean Paradox, with the Problem of Hell taken into consideration, points out that the typical religious conception of god presents an apparently irresolvable contradiction. Theologians and religious apologists have proposed various solutions to this paradox, however, none of them appear to withstand serious scrutiny.

Does The Bible Offer Sound Moral Guidance?

2021-07-11 /
Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

Without question the Christian Bible contains some timeless and sound moral principles.

For one, there is the golden rule — a moral maxim that predates Christianity, and is common to most of the world’s religions and life philosophies, in one form or another. In the Bible, the golden rule is expressed in a variety of ways. Most succinctly it is stated as: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31).

The principle of universal beneficence to other humans is also expressed in Galatians 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), makes it clear that all people are to be considered “thy neighbor”.

There are many admonishments in the New Testament against self-righteous judgement of others, and hypocrisy (e.g., Matthew 7:3–5; Matthew 23:24; Jesus and the woman taken in adultery). Many of our modern over-zealous moralists could benefit from reading these passages. There are also many passages on the importance of forgiveness and compassion (e.g., Ephesians 4:31–32) — two things that the world definitely needs more of.

In contradiction of this noble wisdom stands the fact that most of the Bible is devoted to hatefulness and commandments to violence. Below are several examples.

The Bible prescribes the death penalty for actions that our society does not even consider criminal.

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB).

“All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense” (Leviticus 20:9 NLT).

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT).

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB).

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21 KJV).

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21 NAB).

The Bible is degrading to women.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are” (Exodus 21:7 NLT).

“When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening” (Leviticus 15:19–22 NIV).

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is god. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9 KJV). *Note: New Testament verse.

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16 KJV).

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 NLT).

“Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law” (I Corinthians 14:34–35 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression” (I Timothy 2:11–14 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“’Have you allowed all the women to live?’ he asked them. ‘They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man’” (Numbers 31:15–17 NIV).

“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity” (Deuteronomy 25:11–12 NIV).

The Bible is not tolerant of other religions.

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him” (Deuteronomy 13:13–19 NLT).

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:7–12 NAB).

“Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death” (Deuteronomy 17:2–5 NLT).

“He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20 KJV).

The Bible does not condemn slavery.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property” (Exodus 21:20–21 NAB).

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever” (Exodus 21:2–6 NLT).

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them” (1 Timothy 6:1–2 NIV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

The God of the Bible desires animal sacrifice.

“The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you are to offer a male without defect. You must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting so that it will be acceptable to the Lord. You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting. You are to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar. You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord’” (Leviticus 1:1–9).

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Many Argue that Jesus does away with the Old Testament Law, but, in fact, he seems to support it — at the least, he does not seem to oppose it.

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid” (Luke 16:17 NAB).

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matthew 5:17 NAB).

Further, the Trinitarian doctrine — which most Christians espouse — confusingly holds that the Old Testament God, Yahweh, and Jesus are but different manifestations of the same entity.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Clearly the Bible does not accord with our modern consensus morality on most issues. Nor does it give much consideration to the suffering of non-human animals. It is easy to see how some of these passages may have inspired the historical atrocities committed by believers.

Fortunately, there are many life philosophies that offer an alternative to Christianity and traditional religion in general (e.g., secular humanism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Unitarian Universalism, secular Buddhism, etc.).

Revolution and Evolution: Why Those Seeking Social Change Should Understand Adaptationism

2020-10-14 /

In modern evolutionary biology there is a core concept known as adaptationism (or functionalism). Adaptationism seeks to explain a trait’s existence by describing the adaptive function it serves.

In other words, adaptationism proposes that the most likely explanation for why a particular trait was conserved (i.e., persisted over time), is the one that best demonstrates why it would be adaptive — that is, why the trait serves to increase individual or group fitness. For example, it is hypothesized that dinosaurs first developed feathers for thermoregulation, and later some species developed more specialized feathers — such as those that enhanced gliding abilities. In this case, feathers served a primary adaptive function — to insulate the body; this and other, secondary functions (sexual signaling, gliding enhancement, etc.) helped ensure that the trait was preserved after it appeared.

Cultures, in many ways, are analogous to organisms — a fact that is illustrated well by Richard Dawkin’s concept of a meme, or a unit of cultural information that is analogous to a gene in biology. Due to these analogical similarities we can often develop an understanding of cultures and cultural phenomena by appealing to evolutionary principles.

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay.

An adaptationist view of cultural evolution holds that a cultural phenomenon is extremely unlikely to have been conserved if it was not advantageous to the population. The adaptationist view, when applied to culture, seeks to describe a cultural phenomenon in terms of its function or adaptive purpose. For example, some hypotheses explain the cultural phenomenon of religion through demonstrating why such a belief system could prove to increase the fitness (the group flourishing and persistence over time) of a culture — or, more precisely, the population which gives rise to the culture (see evolutionary psychology of religion).

[Note: Over time it is possible that successful cultural adaptations are encoded genetically through a culturally mediated selection processes. For example, certain forms of prosociality are socially enforced, which tends to increase the reproductive fitness of those who are predisposed to adhere to them.]

Those who want to do away with worn out cultural norms or create major socioeconomic changes should first seek to develop an adaptationist approach to revolution — that is, before they advocate for eliminating a targeted cultural institution they should seek to understand why it might have come into being, why it persisted, and then propose an alternative that will better serve its societal function/s —that is, if it is indeed found to still be performing important functions.

(Note: It is possible that a cultural institution has never served an important function — rather, that it is a spandrel, however, one must investigate to discover whether this is the case. It is also possible that a cultural institution may be an exaptation — initially developing as a byproduct or for a particular purpose, but finding later utilization for an altogether different purpose.)

The general principle or heuristic that prescribes the above approach is known as Chesterton’s Fence. This principle uses the analogy of a seemingly purposeless fence found on a road to illustrate why it is important to find out if there is a purpose for something before we do away with it. In this analogy it is possible the fence is serving an important purpose — such as, blocking a danger on the road; if we assume the fence is purposeless and hastily tear it down there may be negative consequences.

One prominent example of the above is the critical situation posed by dogmatic religions (and dogmatic ideologies in general). A cogent case can be made that many of these belief systems now constitute a real existential threat to our species — regardless of how adaptive they were at one point in history. It is likely, however, that religions still serve important adaptive functions in peoples’ lives, and in society.

Psychological research has revealed some of the primary adaptive functions of religion. Religion helps to build an individual’s social support network, it serves to provide a scaffolding for personal meaning creation, it provides practical wisdom and ethical guidance, and it functions in a terror management capacity to assuage death anxiety, epistemic uncertainty, and to connect the individual to something bigger than oneself.

If we are to supplant dogmatic religion we must promote rational philosophies of life that can also serve these functions. (For some examples see: secular Buddhism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Liberationism.) Likewise with any other outdated cultural institution, an approach to revolution that is conscious of cultural adaptaptionism is much more likely to succeed than one that only seeks to destroy the existing order.

© 2026 Max Severin

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑