Miracles and The Uniformity of Nature.

In regard to this post of mine on miracles, Steve Hays refers to James Anderson who argued the secularist has no principled reason for assuming that the future will resemble the past. Here

Steve continues: “The real dilemma is for the unbeliever. In order to exclude the miraculous, he must appeal to an iron-clad regime of natural law. But from a secular standpoint, he is unable to justify natural law, for he is unable to justify induction, which forms the basis of this covering law. The only principled way to ground natural law is by invoking divine creation and providence. But once you make that move, you have a God who is able and willing, under some circumstances, to perform a miracle."

Let me rephrase this argument of his: "Since I cannot prove with certainty that the future will resemble the past, I have no justification for accepting the principle of induction and of natural law which forms my basis for rejecting claims of the miraculous. Therefore I cannot exclude the possibility of miracles. The only way to justify natural law is by God's providence, which also at the same time allows for miracles."

But think on the following for a minute: what kind of justification is needed for anyone to believe something? I believe in the uniformity of nature and that the future will resemble the past because every experience I have ever had justifies this belief. Any experiment or any job I ever performed supported my belief in the uniformity of nature, of induction and in natural law. What else do I need?

Do I need to be certain of that which I believe and/or can justify? I think that's what he asks of me. If I don't need to be certain of what I justify then there's no problem, for I can justify most all of my beliefs. But if I/we must be certain of what I/we justify, then no one has a sufficient justification for believing anything--NO ONE!

What kind of justification is needed to believe your spouse loves you? Do you need some ultimate standard…proof…certainty, and lacking that, you wake up every morning suspicious and view him or her as untrustworthy? What kind of justification do you need that your computer will work when you turn it on in order for you to risk turning it on? What kind of justification do you need that your cell phone will work before you risk turning it on? What kind of justification do you need that your car will work before you risk turning it on and driving it?

When it comes to whether of not I’m absolutely certain the future will resemble the past, I’m not. But I’m not absolutely certain I’m actually even responding to one of my critics, either. Maybe I live in my very own inner world in some coma-like dream state where I am pounding on my computer to answer a critic who doesn't exist. So, what!? No one can be certain, absolutely certain of anything, much less that it can be believed with certainty that the God espoused by my critic exists. And if this God cannot be believed with certainty to exist, then I do not need to be certain about the laws of nature, of induction, and the uniformity of nature either before I act in acordance to those beliefs.

All I said was this: “When it comes to believing in miracles, Christians have a double burden of proof.” “On the one hand, they must show that a particular 'event' was not very likely.” This they must do. It means nothing for the Christian faith if a natural event takes place and is used to show Christianity is true. It must be an event that cannot be explained by natural causes. Actually, I claim something even stronger. It must be an event that requires a supernatural explanation. Anything less doesn’t show much of anything except to the gullible.

Then I said this: “On the other hand, Christians must show that the purported miraculous event happened. And yet, everything they say to establish the first burden of proof takes away the strength of the second burden of proof. That is, the more they argue that an event was miraculous, the less likely such an event occurred. But the more they argue that an event was likely to have occurred, then the less likely that event can be understood as miraculous.”

Neither Hume nor I stated that miracles cannot happen. But for a miracle to take place, as far as my whole experience in this life goes, this is about as likely as that the future will be found out to NOT resemble the past. Sure, what I believe here might prove in the end to be false. But I can only judge the future based on the present (and this goes for the past too; I can only judge the past from the standpoint of the present). To ask me to do otherwise is to ask me to suspend my judgment.

Is Atheism a World View?

A lot of our commenters and even our team members (myself included) have been continually writing and allowing category mistakes. I wanted to write a quick post that I can reference later for future "infractions."

Atheism is neither a religion nor a world view; it is a position on theistic belief.

In the past, I spoke of an atheistic world view because the language was so ingrained in the presuppositionalism I was confronting that it seemed distracting to correct in that context. It has now become such a ubiquitous mistake, though, that I think a short post is in order.

There are four theistic positions. While each of these positions are found within world views, none of them are world views per se.

Monotheism is the theistic position that there is one and only one god. Though there are many world views that hold this theistic belief, it is not, itself, a world view. Christians are monotheists (although weird, Trinitarian ones), as are Muslims, Jews, and many other adherents to various world views. Being a monotheist does not require a person to subscribe to any one, particular world view.

Polytheism is the theistic position that there is more than one god. Though there are many world views that hold this theistic belief, it is not, itself, a world view. Hindus and countless tribal religions are polytheists. Being a polytheist does not require a person to subscribe to any one, particular world view.

Pantheism is the theistic position that everything that exists is god. Though there are many world views that hold this theistic belief, it is not, itself, a world view. Kabalistic Jews and some modern new age groups are pantheists. Being a pantheist does not require a person to subscribe to any one, particular world view.

Panentheism is the theistic position that a god is immanent within everything that exists (as opposed to being everything that exists). Though there are many world views that hold this theistic belief, it is not, itself, a world view. Kabalistic Jews and some modern new age groups are pantheists. Ancient South American tribal religions and tribal religions of South East Asia were panentheistic. Being a panentheist does not require a person to subscribe to any one, particular world view.

Atheism is the theistic position that there is (probably) no theos (i.e. god). Though there are many world views that hold this theistic belief, it is not, itself, a world view. Zen Buddhists, Taoists, many naturalists, and many materialists are atheists. Being an atheist does not require a person to subscribe to any one, particular world view.

*A note about "agnosticism." There is no such thing as agnosticism in the discussion of theistic positions. A person either believes that there are gods or a god or they do not. So-called "agnostics" have simply misunderstood the claims of atheism. Very few atheists say that they can "prove" (i.e. in a universal sense) that a god or gods do not exist. The atheists who do say this are called "strong atheists" (and are, in my opinion, philosophically naive). Weak atheists (which is what consider myself and what I imagine most of the atheists one meets consider themselves) simply say that they do not have theistic beliefs and are, therefore, atheistic (i.e. a-without; theism belief in one or more gods).

From now on, I encourage all of our team members and our commenters to carefully watch for this mistake.

No such elective offered

I picked my family up at the church they attend. They go to a modern mega-church based on the Willow Creek concept, with huge attendance. It is all the current rage. And as I was walking in, I see literally 1000’s of people that believe with firm conviction in a God appearing in Human form, born by virgin birth, dying by crucifixion, and raised again from the dead.

I can’t help but be impressed by the idea of how there can be so many that feel so strongly in this truth. What makes them any different than me?

It struck me immediately—the distinguishing characteristic is knowledge and willingness to change.

As I watched various groups break off to pray together, or enter a Bible study, or discuss the most recent sermon, I realize how little most persons attending a Church actually know about the manufacture and creation of the book in which they rest their belief.

In case anyone questions my credentials, I can confirm I have never done a survey in this area. I have not engaged in a 2 year project, attending a different church everyday, creating charts, and quantifying analysis with clever Powerpoint presentations. All I can rely upon is my experience in church.

I started attending Church when I was six weeks old, graduating from nursery, to pre-school to children’s church to Sunday School to Junior High to High School to College Age to Young Married to Not-so-young Married. We were that family that went to Sunday School, Morning Worship, afternoon Bible study, Band/Choir practice, Evening service, Awana, Wednesday Prayer, and weekend activities. I have attended a variety of churches, some with attendances as small as 30, some with over 10,000. I have friends that attend other churches, also with large and small numbers.

I have never heard of a single class, in a church, on the Synoptic Problem. I never even knew of such a thing until I began debating non-believers.

Christians engage in Bible study, not the study of the Bible. Why is that? Because we assumed it to be true, so there was never any reason to review beyond that. But shouldn’t we be willing, and even exuberant in our study of how the book came together? Or the various questions in Christianity?

This is supposed to be an absolute. A religion manufactured by the very creator of truth, logic and the American Way! (Whoops. Sorry. Got carried away with that last one. Strike that.) Christians, I would think, would clamor to obtain knowledge about how Christianity sprang into being. It should only validate the belief. Yet we were surprisingly uninformed.

Oh, sure we all knew about the Epistle of Hebrews. *Snicker* That old chestnut. Silly folks used to believe it was written by Paul, but [b]we[/b] know so much more now. We knew the debate, and how it certainly wasn’t written by Paul.

But no one ever talked about the Pastorals. No one discussed the problem of their authorship, or the varying reasons why Paul would not be the author. No one discussed the complete differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, and how they simply could not be written by the same person. Nor that 1 Peter copied Jude. Certainly nothing was discussed about Jude quoting the Book of Enoch!

A year ago, I was talking to a deacon in his late 60’s who had attended church since childhood. I asked him, “Have you ever thought about reading the New Testament in the order in which the books were written?” He paused for a moment and confessed, “You know, I have never even [i]thought[/i] about the order in which they were written.”

There are no classes on textual criticism. On dating of manuscripts. Defining uncials and minuscule writings. We were not taught that the closest documents we have are scraps of papyrus that barely have complete words (let alone a complete verse) dated before 200 C.E. That the earliest documents we have with sections of the New Testament are dated to the Early third Century. More than 150 years after Jesus was supposed to die. More than enough time for legends to develop, for doctrines to be inserted, for copies to be manipulated.

No, we were taught that the KJV only crowd was out-of-date. That’s it.

Oh, we occasionally, for fun, reviewed the “other” books. The ones that didn’t make it in. How silly to believe that Jesus killed a child for running into him. Obvious fakes. No, our books, the ones where Jesus has to take two cracks at curing blindness with spit are clearly far superior!

We certainly did not discuss the archeological findings of the past 30 years. The complete lack of evidence for Joshua’s invasion, the Exodus, the Ten Plagues, and the slavery in Egypt. No classes on the dating of the Flood, and how the other civilizations of the world somehow failed to record it. A pastor or teacher may refer to antiquated research about how the walls of Jericho were found to have fallen outward, or give the urban legend that all societies of the world have a flood myth story, and claim that this confirms every fact from Genesis to Revelation as recorded in the Bible.

But no one was taught to question it. To look it up on their own. To do their own research. Part of every person’s schooling process was teaching how to learn it on your own. It was called “Homework.” No pastor or teacher said, “Here is some homework. Go learn all about archeology and whether it supports or does not support the events recorded in the Tanakh.” Why not? If this is absolute truth, if this is the very basis of the reason we exist, any such testing should be welcomed! Any such research as to the very foundation of one’s belief should be enjoyed and sought out. Not avoided at all costs.

It is not as if Christians are afraid of reason and knowledge. Books by Craig and Strobel and Plantinga and the Intelligent Design crowd fly off the shelves of Christian bookstores. But what is missing? The only knowledge that is sought is confirmation. Not open-ended debate. Christians do not read books written by scientists as to what evolution states, they read books written by creationists that say what evolution states.

Question: If I told Christians that the only way to learn about Christianity is to read what non-believers state, would they hold to this method? Would they only read atheist books, or Muslim tales, or agnostic opinions on Christianity? Most certainly not! Yet when engaged on a course of study as to what non-believers determine, Christians contain themselves to books only written by Christians. If you really want to know about evolution, perhaps reading a book by a scientist on the subject? If you really want to know about the Tanakh, perhaps read a Jewish perspective? They are the ones that wrote it, you know!

I am sure many reading this are saying, “Not me! I know many of these subjects and more!” I am sure you do. The fact that you are on-line and even daring to read a site such as this displays at least an openness to learn. O.K. Are you teaching a class in your church? Are you explaining the various ways to resolve the Synoptic problem? Are you explaining that in some way Matthew, Mark and Luke borrowed from each other, or another source, and that we do not have three independent witnesses, but one or two basic sources? Are you explaining the problems with aligning the birth narratives, the issue of the virgin prophecy, and the inability to coordinate the resurrection appearances without an almost Keystone Cops comedy of errors?

Almost universally, deconverts will state that it was the gaining of more and more knowledge that made Christianity less and less viable. Why is that? Why is a church more than happy to invite an evangelist to speak for a week, but is concerned about my speaking for an hour? If Christians hold truth, they should invite the atheists to come and speak. Let the facts be displayed. They have God, and truth on their side. We should be laughed out of the building. Our facts demonstrated as utter nonsense. Yet this is not the case.

Somehow I doubt my invitation is in the mail.

It is not just lack of knowledge. Even when the knowledge is provided, it is rejected, due to a refusal to modify one’s beliefs.

An axiom of scientific methodology is that a hypothesis must answer the data as we know it. Upon learning new information the conflicts with the old hypothesis, a new one is proposed. The new hypothesis must answer the new data as well as answer the same data the old hypothesis did.

A simple example of one’s automobile not starting. Our first hypothesis is that the key is not in the ignition. We see the key is in the ignition. Now we need a new hypothesis. We propose the car is not in “Park.” The new hypothesis answers the same data the old one did (the car not starting) as well as the new data (a key can be in the ignition, but if the car is not in “park” it will not start.) We see the car is in park. A new hypothesis is there is no gasoline in the tank. This new hypothesis answers the old data (car not start, key in ignition, car in park) as well as answering new data. We then go through the process of learning new information as to gasoline, gas pump, battery, starter and as each new item of data is provided, our hypothesis is modified to incorporate this new information.

Can Christians modify their belief; modify their hypothesis, upon learning new information? Upon learning that the earth, according to geologists, is 4-5 Billion years old, can a Christian modify their determination of a 6000 year old earth? Indicate that Genesis is an allegory, not a literal dating system? Upon learning there was no global deluge, can a Christian modify that? That archeology contradicts Exodus, Joshua and Judges, can a Christian modify their belief?

What I see is dogged determination. Almost a fear that if any one point is ever conceded, the whole system will collapse. As if they have an old owner’s manual that says the car will not start, because the battery is disconnected. We can point out the key is not in the ignition, the car is not in park, there is no gasoline, and even the entire engine is missing, and it will not matter. The Christian is unyielding that the reason and the only reason that car will not start is the reason stated in the old owner’s manual—the battery is not connected.

As I looked at the people milling about me, I thought of two scenarios:

1) I start talking to someone about new information I have learned about the stock market, in which, by using this information, we can invest wisely, and generate income. It doesn’t matter to whom I begin this speech; soon there would be a crowd about, discussing, learning, investigating as to this new system of making money.

And out of that crowd, at least one, if not more would go home and googelwhack the things I said, do some research on their own to test the validity. Some would walk away with a new understanding, and may even modify their lives, to incorporate what I just said.

2) I begin to talk about how Paul did not seem to know the Jesus of the Gospels. How Paul’s writing never records a miracle performed by Jesus, nor does he quote Jesus when it would be supportive of his position. (Yes, I know about the Eucharist. If Paul is willing to quote Jesus on that, why not quote him on something like…..I don’t know……say “Love your neighbor”?)

I begin to discuss the problems with a historical Jesus, in light of this information. Does a crowd develop? Maybe with pitchforks and torches! Does anyone got out and do some research on their own? Absolutely not! About the best I could hope for was a comment later about a raving lunatic that appeared, saying the most insane things like Paul not knowing Jesus’ history. Does anyone modify their beliefs? Of course not.

While this is a bit extreme, it does demonstrate the difference between me and the crowd I found about me. Would I have researched those claims? Would I have done my homework? I guess the only point that would support that I did, is where I am today.

We see people respond to the blogs here. (Thank you, by the way, to all who do, believer or non-believer. Dialogue is mature discussion.) One of the common claims is “You guys make all the same responses.” Yes, Christianity, while a fairly broad belief, is limited. There is only so much information available. Yet these “same responses” are not discussed in churches. They are not being addressed, talked about, discussed, and openly shared.

There are no Sunday School classes for atheists to present their views to inquiring minds. There is no encouragement to view the other side, read a countering position, research on one’s own. There is no investigation into the First Century Greek world, Hellenization, Palestine, or early Jewish beliefs. We see the party line given over and over.

While to many, these may be the “same responses” they have seen elsewhere. But they haven’t seen them in church.

I find it demonstrative that the very first Christian book preserved says, “Test everything. Hold on to what is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21) I wonder if immediately after that, Paul found out that was a bad idea, and dropped it like a hot potato.

"Any View of Hell Needs To Pass the Moral Test."

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the same way as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire…. You hang by a slender thread, with flames of divine wrath flashing about it and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder…. Consider this, you that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity…you shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb…. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery…. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite.” [Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”].

The traditional doctrine of hell “is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned.” [C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain, “Hell”].

So here’s a question: “What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?” [Hans Kung, Eternal Life, 1984 (p. 136)]. “If this were true” (i.e., the traditional view) it would make Hitler “a third degree saint, and the concentration camps…a picnic ground.” [Nels Ferre, Christian Understanding of God (p. 540)].

“As the Church’s threat against all sinners and all its enemies, hell serves the holy purpose of cradle to grave intimidation.” [Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, “Hell].

“The idea that a fully conscious creature would undergo physical and mental torture through endless time is plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with a God who loves humanity.” “In terms of justice, the traditional view of hell is simply unacceptable. It is a punishment in excess of anything that sinners deserve….Besides, no purpose is served by the unending torture of the wicked except vengeance.” [Clark H. Pinnock & Robert Brown, Unbounded Love, “Hell”].

“Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution? Hell is the ultimate big stick to threaten people with…this monstrous belief will cause many people to turn away from Christianity.” (p. 39) “What human crimes could possibly deserve everlasting conscious torture?” (p. 140) “Surely the idea of everlasting conscious torment raises the problem of evil to impossible heights.” (p. 150) Any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test….The traditional belief….is unbiblical, is fostered by a Hellenistic view of human nature, is detrimental to the character of God, is defended on essentially pragmatic grounds, and is being rejected by a growing number of biblically faithful, contemporary scholars.” (p. 165) [Clark Pinnock in Four Views of Hell, ed, Wm Crockett, Zondervan, 1992].

Is there anyone out there who still accepts the traditional view of Hell?

Is there any view of hell that has Biblical support and at the same time passes the moral test? Does annihilation? How about death by lethal injection? Limbo and/or Purgatory? What then do you say about all of the carnage of lives who are snuffed out of existence?

[Presuppositionalists, don't even start. If you cannot see that it's plausible that the traditional view of hell is unjust without having an ultimate moral standard, then you're just not thinking].

Here's To Those Who Died So I Can Speak Up For What I Believe!

Christians are outraged over the fact that Abdul Rahman, a 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Islamic laws for becoming a Christian in Afganistan. I am outraged too.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be beaten, tortured or executed for their religious or nonreligious beliefs. But just like our apostate forefathers were beaten, tortured, and burned alive by Christians in order that I can have the freedom to deny my former Christian beliefs, so also there will be many former Muslims who will have to die before they will have the same freedoms. The problem is that Christians don't realize this is exactly what they did to suppress dissent and apostasy in past centuries. But I'm thankful for every one of our apostate forefathers. They helped give me my freedoms. Perhaps Christians should once again read about their faith.

To anyone who says Christianity is as bad as Islam, I say that I applaud the freedom to dissent without fear of dying. This would be a start for them.

Emotion Vs. Logic

One of the primary findings of persuasive psychology is that people are tied to their opinions through emotional and/or logical deduction. In other words, people believe that certain concepts are true for emotional and/or logical reasons. Therefore, in order to instill a new belief into an individual, we must remove the existing belief by appealing to people through the exact avenues in which they have derived their beliefs.

Let us consider a hypothetical scenario in which we are entrepreneurs who have just opened a business on the top floor of an old city skyscraper. Everything is set to go, but there's one major problem with which we need to contend. The only business consultant in the entire city refuses to take the elevator to such a high elevation because he has deduced that something tragic could possibly take place at that height.

Since our first impulse is to conclude that the man has a fear of heights, let us first consider that this is in fact the correct scenario. We must now ask ourselves whether this man has a fear of heights for emotional reasons or for logical ones. Barring the presence of a series of tragic events that have taken place while the consultant was in similar structures, it's a fairly safe assumption that the man has a fear based on emotion. This should be nothing new to us because we realize that phobias are typically emotional fears often attributed to isolated events that took place at an impressionable age. The next logical step here is to ask why the consultant is afraid of heights. If he cannot articulate a legitimate reason and relies instead on such explanations as "I just get scared when I look out," we know we have made a safe assumption that the man holds a belief for an emotional reason.

The question now becomes "How do we eliminate this fear?" Should we bring in the experts who built the structure to ensure him that it won't fall? Should we show him the evidence that the building was constructed according to the proper codes? Should we show him the statistics of how unlikely it would be for a tragic event to take place at that height? The answer to all questions presented here is the same. No. Why would such measures fall on deaf ears? The man has an emotional fear of heights, thus we cannot appeal to his senses through pleas of logic. As he's perfectly aware that millions of people go into tall buildings every day and return to the ground unharmed, what good what it do to tell him what he already knows? Instead, we must appeal to his emotion. One such recommendation would be to have the man ascend the building slowly, allow him to look outside on each floor, and let him adjust to his surroundings each time until he feels comfortable progressing up the skyscraper. Such methods are how psychologists often remove unreasonable fears in their patients.

Let us now consider a situation in which the man feels that the building will fall because he believes that old skyscrapers are not as safe as the newer ones. Instead of having an emotional fear, our business consultant has formed what he believes is a logical reason to avoid ascending the building. Do we use the same measure as we did in the previous scenario? Will having him slowly ascend and allowing him to adjust to his surroundings alleviate his fear? No. Why would such measures fall on deaf ears? The man has a logical fear, thus we cannot appeal to his senses through pleas of emotion. We must show him the evidence that the building was constructed according to code. We must bring in the experts who built the structure to ensure him that it won't fall. Such methods are how we appeal to intellect in order to remove unreasonable fears in people.

So, how does this all relate to the subject of debunking Christianity? Religious beliefs, like the beliefs of the consultant, must also be held for emotional or logical reasons. With this in mind, how should we approach the task of deconversion? As before, we must delve into the history of the individual's beliefs to find the place from which they originate. I would be confident that if we undertook this exercise in a large group of people, almost the entire sample would have built their beliefs upon emotional reasons. This is not to say that people can't be Christians for logical reasons. After all, apologists are masterminds at creating logical reasons in the defense of their emotional beliefs; and as they old saying goes, smart people believe dumb things because they're very gifted at coming up with ideas that support their notions. The reason I feel that people build their beliefs upon emotion rather than logic is that the vast majority of people are introduced to the emotional components of Christianity before the logical ones. Such notions as "God is perfect," "Jesus loves you," "Heaven is real," "Hell is a terrible punishment," and "the Bible is sacred" are consistently instilled in children long before they are approached with evidence and data that suggest the fraudulent nature of such claims.

If the conclusion is accurate that religious beliefs are primarily built on emotional reasons, we now know the avenue that we should take to change the incorrect beliefs held by Christians. This discovery, of course, does not destroy the layers of conditioning that one will have to fight through, nor does it remove the individual's propensity to invent absurd justifications to eliminate cognitive dissonance, but it does demonstrate the futility in trying to convince someone that the Gospels are unreliable by utilizing such examples as the disagreement between Matthew and Luke on Jesus' birth in order to reveal its obvious human fallibility. People with emotional ties in this instance will emotionally cling to the Gospels' veracity while their cognitive dissonance is alleviated by apologists' absurd "Quirinius held the office twice" or "Quirinius was a co-governor" explanations.

However, life is rarely as black and white as it can be made in hypothetical scenarios. The people with the most influence over maintaining Christianity are the people with all the answers – the apologists. Upon a large foundation of emotional attachments to the veracity of their religion, they have weaved a tangled web of what they believe are logical defenses for their beliefs. While simply clearing the emotional attachments before destroying the perceived logic in belief may work for common individuals, this tactic will surely not work on those who have come up with clever ways to convince themselves that their beliefs are solid. With a network of logical and emotional bonds to wade through in order to reach the apologist, how does one even begin? For the answer, I believe we should revisit the scenario offered earlier about the business consultant.

Let us now consider a hypothetical situation in which the consultant has a combination of emotional and logical reasons for not wanting to visit us at the top of the skyscraper. Not only has he developed an emotional fear of heights beginning at a young age, he has also convinced himself of the legitimacy of his fear by reinforcing his decision with a network of misinformation built upon logical inaccuracies. Now the man has created a wall of perceived legitimate reasons as to why his emotional fear is a sensible one. Well, how do we handle such a situation?

Since we wish to invoke rational thinking in order to get people to drop their misplaced beliefs, we must decide whether emotion or logic is the biggest opponent of rational thought. This choice should be obvious since emotion is often irrational, and logic is closely related to rationale itself. To put it in a much simpler way, we cannot appeal to logic when emotion is in the way. We must defuse as much irrationality as possible before we can begin to utilize logic in support of our position. We cannot simply usher the man to the top of the building by allowing him to adjust to his surroundings because there will come a time when the logical fears of being on floor three will be outweighed by the emotional fears of being on floor ten. The amount of success in this initial step of tackling emotion will vary from person to person, but through much time and effort, we might be able to force the man to make enough concessions on his emotional beliefs, which will then eliminate a bit of emotional irrationalism, so that we can illustrate how his logical fears of floors three through nine are misplaced. If this much easier step of tackling logic proves fruitful, then we simply rinse, lather, and repeat.

Admittedly, this is much easier said than done when it comes to religion. When some of the constructs of emotional beliefs include "God is perfect," we find that it can be extremely difficult to make chinks in perfect armor. All is not lost, however, because we know that it is possible to intellectually reach people who believe that God is perfect, or else we would not be gathered where we are right now. Where one should ideally begin the task is debatable, but I strongly feel that attributing human authorship to the Bible is the proper avenue to take. This does not invalidate the premise that God is perfect because it makes room for such possibilities as God allowing humans to write their history and God not concerning himself with perfection of everything. These ideas seem harmless enough on the surface, but they begin to provoke questions of bigger impact, such as why God would choose such avenues when they lead to increased doubt and logical ambiguity.

I very often hear skeptics only going after the logical misinformation presented by Christians before giving up in disgust and wondering why they can't appeal to people's intellect. I've even caught myself doing it on more than one occasion because we're often provoked with misinformation. We must remember, however, that it can be nearly impossible to alter a person's stance on an important topic by invoking the use of logic and rational thought when so much of that person's stance is protected by emotional irrationalism.

Mercy vs. Justice

We often see, in claims about the Christian God that He is “Just” as if this word imparts some significance in the particular action being discussed and that God is bound (whether He likes it or not) to the action. Or that He is “Merciful” as if that term has a deep meaning, in which we should be especially appreciative as to His action, or non-action, in this regard.

But without any ability to confirm whether God is acting inside the parameter of a law, or outside a parameter, these two terms eventually lose real sustenance when applied to God.

Why is it influential, or even credible, to assign these terms, when further reflection reveals the person making the claim has no ability to substantiate it?

We should first define our terms, so as to consider what is being said.

“Justice” is not that complicated of a word. It means conforming to or consonant with what is legal or lawful; legally right; lawful. It is equally easy to apply—read the law, review the situation, and determine a yes/no answer—does it conform to the law?

A city may enact an ordinance that states all business signs must be 1.5 meters by 1 meter or smaller, and any person that sets up a sign larger than that is guilty of a misdemeanor. In this simple example, justice is easy to determine. The owner that erects a 1.5 x 1 Meter sign is not guilty. The owner that erects a 1.51 x 1 Meter sign is. Even if it is only 1 millimeter more, the sign is no longer in conformance with the law, the owner has violated the ordinance.

Justice is harsh. It does not forgive mistakes or ignorance or consider “extenuating circumstances.” It is always a yes/no proposition.

If Peoria requires $5 for a dog license, and East Peoria, one block over, requires $50 for a dog license, “justice” does not address the issue of disparity. Justice requires that your neighbor, across the street, pay 10 times more for owning a dog. While enacting the laws, we hope the legislatures consider all circumstances, but once enacted, Justice has nothing to do with being fair. It doesn’t care. All it states is, “Here is my law. Conform or pay the consequences.”

If there is no law, there is no need to discuss justice. If our city had never enacted an ordinance regarding signs, the owner could install a 1.51 x 1 Meter sign, or a 12 x 12 Meter sign. There is no such thing as a sign “in conformance” or “not in conformance” with the law as there is no law. We would not even use the word “Justice” in that situation because it has no meaning.

To call God “just” in our vernacular means that He is in conformance with a law. One could certainly argue about what that “law” is, and whether this is a hyper-technical modern application of the Bible, and whether its definition is the intention of the authors of the Bible. But to even give the word value, it must mean God is in conformance with something.

I have seen arguments that God is not in conformance with a “law” but rather with His “covenant.” That is perfectly fine, we can review the covenant provided, and confirm whether he conforms with it or not. He does, it is “just,” He does not, he is not. Or one could argue that God is in conformance with his Nature. Again, a simple application of the principle. Determine what His “nature” requires, and determine whether he is conformance with it.

The problem starts to appear. How do we confirm what God’s covenant is? Or His nature? Or His law? The only way provided is that God is telling us what it is. But what if His covenant allows lying? Or His nature? And what is so “just” about conforming to one’s Nature? Even toadstools and turtles do that! Do we call them “just”? Not hardly

A very basic rule of cross-examination, is to never ask a question that two opposites produce the same answer. You do not learn anything. Either God can lie, or He cannot. If he cannot lie, then asked, “Are you lying?” He is bound to say, “No.” If he can lie, he is no longer bound, and will say, “No.”

Me: God—are you lying?
Truthful God: No.
Lying God: No.

Two very different Gods, the same question produces the same answer. We do not learn anything, because we have no outside vectors by which to determine if God is lying or not. Since we were created with the ability to lie, it is at least conceivable that the creator can lie. God calling Himself by the term “just” does not provide even a clue as to how to confirm it. A human, providing a defense of God as being “just” is even less persuasive.

“Just” means that God is conforming to a rule, a law, a covenant, something by which we can say, “This action is in conformance, and that action is not.” It necessarily implies that God could do something different that would be unjust.

“Mercy” is the opposite of Justice. It is the reviewing the action, and deliberately not applying the law. Deliberately not being just. Deliberately not conforming to the requirements of the law.

The judge understands the law, understands the consequences, and even recognizes the appropriate remedy the law required. The judge, by conscious will, refuses to abide by the law, and disregards it. The person accused also recognizes the necessary consequences, and, hoping the judge will not impose the remedy, “throws themselves on the mercy of the court.”

It should be noted that many laws provide exceptions. For example, a governor, with the legal ability to pardon a crime, is not acting mercifully by pardoning a criminal. The law provides the governor with that legal right. The prisoner may feel that it was an act of mercy, and we may even view it as such, since the prisoner did not have the legal right to a pardon, but the act on the part of the governor was still within the confines of the law. It was “just.”

For God to act mercifully would mean He is aware of the law. He must recognize a certain action (or non-action) is in accordance with that law, and make the conscience effort to not do so. If God is always in accordance with the law, or is always “just,” then he would never violate the requirements of that law, and would never perform a merciful act.

When people say, “God is always just” taken to the literal extreme, it would mean that God is never merciful. When stated that “God is always merciful” taken to the literal extreme, it would mean that God is never just. Clearly both positions are wrong. The Bible implies that there are occasions on which God is just and occasions in which God is not, by being merciful.

(Note: this is a problem with the theory that God’s justice means in conformance with a covenant or His nature. That would necessarily mean when God is being merciful, he can act contrary to his covenant or his nature. Therefore God would no longer be bound by the confines of His nature or the terms of the covenant. He could do what he wanted, when he wanted, with no limitation.)

But how can we tell which is which? Without any way in which we can determine what that thing (whether law, nature or otherwise) is, which God is either abiding by or failing to abide by, we are left completely guessing as to what is just and what is merciful.

Let’s look at two examples, to ferret out the problem:

King David’s Baby

A little history. God covenants with Abraham, to give him the land of the Hittites (among others.) Gen. 15:20. God remembers this covenant, and covenants again with Moses to bring the Hebrew nation out of Egypt to the land of the Hittites. Ex. 3:17. The problem is—what to do with the Hittites living there. Do they move them out? Not at all.

God is explicit in His command—the Hittites are to be driven from the land. Ex. 33:2. Ex. 34:11. Those that stay are to be killed. In case it is not clear, God’s command is “you shall let nothing [Hittite] that breathes remain alive.” Deut. 20:16-17.

Seems obvious enough—to follow God’s command is to kill all the Hittites. That would be Justice. For God to follow his own covenant, and his own promise, He, too, must kill all the Hittites. Granted, God could let some live, but then that would not be just, it would be mercy.

In the meantime, God orders King Saul to kill the Amalekites. 1 Sam. 15:3-26. Saul fails to do so. Because of King Saul’s failure to obey God in this genocide, God’s justice (apparently) demands that the kingdom is taken away from Saul. His children will never be king. We can only hope that the next king, David, will do better obeying God’s commands!

But what have we here? We know there is a standing order from God to kill the Hittites. None should be left breathing. Yet our King David, has a Hittite among his 30 most mighty warriors! A fellow by the name of “Uriah the Hittite.” 1 Chron. 11:41 Assumably, then (in light of Saul) God is being merciful to King David by allowing him to be King, because David is not following God’s commands.

Of course, we know what happens next. David has Uriah the Hittite killed. 2 Sam. 12:9. Arguably, God would be pleased that King David finally obeyed God’s command—right? Well, it turns out no. Apparently following Mosaic Law and killing a Hittite is against God’s commands! 1 Kings. 15:5.

So when God ordered Saul to kill the Amalekites, God’s justice demands that the Amalekites be killed. But when God orders David to kill the Hittites, God’s justice demands that the Hittites NOT be killed. Confused? It turns out God was not being merciful with David by not killing him for not killing the Hittites, but being just!

So now God is going to do Justice, by punishing David for killing a Hittite. Justice demands death. Numbers 35:30. We expect, then, that God will impose the death penalty. But no. Mercy rears its head. Instead of killing David, God determines that, for punishment, his wives shall be kidnapped and raped. 2 Sam. 12:11. (I’ll leave it to the reader as to whether this is “just” or “merciful” to the wives. It completely baffles me.)

At this point in our story, we would have thought that mercy is allowing David to retain his kingship for letting a Hittite live. Turns out to be Justice. We would think it is justice for David to not be punished, following God’s command, but it is mercy.

David confesses that he messed up. Now, God (through his prophet) has immediately preceding this point, laid out what the punishment will be (the kidnapping and raping). But since David admitted his failure--Now what does God do? Provides even more mercy. He takes away David’s sin. It is an absolution, an expungment , a justification. There will be no punishment because it is as if there was no sin. Mercy. 2 Sam. 12:13

(Another side note. One could argue that there is the additional sin of adultery. Another command punishable by death. Lev. 20:10. Odd that Bathsheba gets completely ignored, although she is equally guilty in this regard. Perhaps one could argue, she obtained mercy, too, by only being kidnapped and raped, rather than murdered. But would the rapist be guilty of adultery, and thus receive God’s justice of being killed, or since God ordered it as punishment, would the rapist be unjust if he refused to rape David’s wives? And then God would kill him for not raping them? It becomes difficult to keep up with who God wants killed and who God wants raped and when it is just, and when it is not.

No matter, at this point the sin has been taken away, regardless of whether it was murder or adultery.)

And our story should end. There is no sin; God has taken it away, right? Nope. Now is when it turns ugly!

God says, a little unclearly, that this sin (which is no longer considered in existence) has given occasion for the enemies of God to blaspheme, there must be further punishment. This is unclear, as God had just said this was done in secret (2 Sam. 12:12) so how the enemies of God would even know of it is not certain. Secondly, God seems to invoke mercy by taking away the sin, and then immediately invoking justice, by imposing it back on.

Since David committed this atrocity, we listen in on what his punishment will be. “The child born to you shall die.” (2 Sam. 12:14) For David’s punishment, God will kill a baby.

Is this an act of justice or mercy? From the standpoint of David, it is an act of mercy, as the law requires His death. From the standpoint of the child, it is certainly not an act of mercy! That would mean, (mercy being in conflict with the law) there is a law that says God has to let children live, and God is violating that law every time he kills a child. From God’s standpoint, is it justice to kill a baby for its father’s sin? Is there some law that allows a non-voluntary substitution of a human for another’s sin?

One can’t help but correlate it to the Son of God’s death, but if that death paid for all sins, past, present and future, it must have missed this one of David’s. Because God said a baby has to die, in addition to Jesus!

Is it mercy on God’s part? Was there some law preventing God from killing this child, that God forsook, and imposed a death sentence?

The Christian is left in a quandary. For God to be just, means killing children for their father’s sin is acceptable practice. What else is acceptable? Is throwing a child in Hell, in the stead of its father also allowed by God’s law? How can one verify this? If this act was merciful, then there is a law that prohibits God from killing babies that he deliberately violated. Again, if God can violate this law, can He violate a law that says believers get entrance in heaven? Who knows!

Realizing God has now imposed a death penalty on a baby, (for something it did not do) we can only hope that the death is quick and painless…….right? Ulp. Not to be.

God gives the child an illness. 2 Sam. 12:15. No crib death. No instantaneous, painless ending of his life. No immediate entrance into heaven. All of these options were available to God. He imposes none of them. God decides to let the child be sick for seven days! The verses do not say whether the child was in pain, whether it was in a coma, or what happened to the baby in those seven days. Did he eat during those seven days? What was the illness? Did it cause vomiting, misery, pain? An illness which causes mortality and takes seven days is not pain-free. It is very likely that this baby suffered pain during this time period.

What possible law would God follow, in the role of justice, to allow this baby to suffer for any time at all, let alone a period as long as seven days! God had imposed a death sentence. God was going to carry it out. This is causing pain and anguish for no reason.

It is a troubling situation, when contemplating God’s justice and mercy. What law could God be limited in, by killing a baby for a sin that was absolved? Why, if the law required it, would God have the baby be ill for seven days? How many other laws allow God to kill a baby to provide mercy for the guilty party?

A question for the Christians that believe in an eternal Lake of Fire. If there is a law out there, in which God is throwing a baby into the lake, for every believer that enters Heaven, would you still be able to enjoy Heaven? Would you still accept God’s sovereignty that He knew what he was doing, and He has the right to deal with his creation as he wills?

If you hesitate on this question, why do you accept God killing a baby, in the stead of his father?

Next Story….

Joab and Abner

Joab was King David’s commander-in-chief. His right-hand man. He obtained this position by being the first to attack the Jebusites (another clan that David was to wipe out) and providing David with the city of Bethlehem. 1 Chron. 11:6) Without Joab that whole prophecy of Jesus being born in Bethlehem could have been blown!

Abner was Joab’s counterpart in Saul’s army. The enemy. When Saul’s son, Ishbosheth became king, Abner was his commander-in-chief. After meeting in battle, Abner’s army was defeated by Joab’s army. But Abner killed Joab’s brother, Asahel. 2 Sam. 2:12-23.

Abner then decides to align with David. 2 Sam. 3:21 David accepts, because it would only strengthen his position, as well as reduce the fighting. Joab is upset that David agrees to take in the person who killed his brother. So Joab kills Abner. 2 Sam. 3:27. Interesting question of whether it was murder or not, but for our sake, we shall assume it was.

Being murder, the punishment is death. But David needs Joab. This is the leader of his army, one of the 30 mighty men. It is Joab that tends to keep David on an even keel, through his emotional outbursts. Joab to be trusted to kill Uriah. Joab to take the census. Joab to kill Absalom. Time and again, we see that David relies upon Joab to do David’s dirty work.

So David cannot impose the death penalty. What does he request instead? “Let there never fail to be in the house of Joab one who has a discharge or is a leper, who leans on a staff or falls by the sword, or who lacks bread.” 2 Sam. 3:29. David learned this trick from God.

What an interesting justice system we have. Imagine being Joab’s cousin. All of a sudden, you have leprosy. Why? Because of something Joab did. Your child is born. Has a crippled foot. Why? Because of something Joab did. The obvious person to punish is Joab. But just like God needed David, so He couldn’t kill him, David needed Joab, so he didn’t kill him.

Look, if God wants to impose mercy, and not apply the required punishment on the actor, that is God’s business. Why would God add this extra step of mandating punishment on people that did not commit the crime? What law is God following that requires this? Or is God acting outside the law, and punishing others is merciful?

Defense attorney: Your Honor, my client pleads guilty.
The Court: According to the law, I must sentence your client to one year in jail.
Defense attorney: My client throws himself on the mercy of the court.
The Court: Very well. I expunge the crime. He is free to go.

Defense attorney: Thank you, your Honor!
The Court: Is that the defendant’s son over there?
Defense attorney: Er…..yes. Why?
The Court: Officer, take this child out and beat him with a stick until he bleeds.

The ironic part? The sentence of Joab was not commuted, it was only delayed. On his deathbed, when he no longer had need of Joab, King David informed his son, Solomon, to execute the death sentence. 1 Kings 2:6. All these years, there was sickness, and death, and calamity in Joab’s household, and for naught. Joab was to die as punishment anyway. 1 Kings 2:32-34. Luckily Solomon makes sure to get the last jab in, by saying the blood of Abner will be on Joab’s descendants forever. So it is possible the punishment of David continued after Joab’s death.

What we see from these two stories, is a complete inability to confirm or determine what law God is or is not following at any given time. To claim God is “just” or “merciful” is pretty words with no backing, no meat to the bones themselves.

Why say it? Because it provides an escape clause, a word with apparent validity to excuse the actions of their God. Torturing people forever? “God’s justice demands it.” God killing himself to fulfill his own justice? “God was merciful.”

Every time I hear “God is just” or “God is merciful” I think of David’s baby and Joab’s cousin, and realize that the person making this statement hasn’t a clue as to what God is or is not, and is actually saying, “I don’t understand it either, but I sure hope I get the mercy end, if it gets me out of hell, or the justice end if it guarantees me a heaven.”

Reason Taught Me Selflessness

By Joe E. Holman

I distinctly remember looking at my cell phone. It was 3:04 PM on a Monday afternoon. I was at Walmart, picking up some groceries - some groceries I had to come back to get since I had forgotten them an hour and a half earlier! It was a busy day. I remember sweating and rushing around. I was tired and decided I would grab a quick bite to eat at the MacDonalds store inside before getting in the check-out line. I thought to myself, “Finally, a chance to sit down and just vegetate for about 30 minutes and enjoy a nice cold, double-chocolate milkshake with a Big Mac and super-sized fries!” The thankfully short line at the counter I had to wait in wasn’t that bad. All I wanted was to sit down and rest. My legs were aching, but it wasn’t long until I had my food and was seated comfortably. It was just too good to be true that day. Not a moment after I sat down, I was jolted out of my relaxation by what I saw...

A quaint-looking middle-aged mother with her paraplegic son approached my area of the dining room. Of the relatively few people in the restaurant, not a one of us could look in that direction without shooting off a tiny smile of pity (you know, the kind that severely handicapped people always get, but don’t want?). She wheeled him towards my table and ended up sitting at one of the wheelchair-accessible tables just across from me. I couldn’t help but notice this hideously ugly boy. He was wearing a dirty, light blue, long-sleeved shirt with the whitest albino skin I’d seen in recent memory. His arms were flailing, twisted, and deformed, drawing attention to the rest of his gaunt, crippled body. He couldn’t have been older than 10 or 12. The bones in his pale face were pointed and unnatural looking. His tongue would hang out and his vacant eyes would stare straight ahead and upwards as his misshapen head wobbled repeatedly up and down. He couldn’t keep still. He would squirm so much, he shook those tremendous bags of medical equipment attached to the wheelchair. His mother was feeding him. The patience of that woman was remarkable as she kept on assisting him while massive chunks of food fell out of his mouth, dirtying his stained shirt and the floor all around him.

Now my mind is on my busy day, and when I am trying to complete a task, I am as single-minded and inflexible about it as they come. I don’t want to be bothered. I don’t want to have my down time interrupted. I can’t stand the nasty sight of this boy. I would not have been able to eat had I not positioned my chair to look away from him. The restaurant was small. There was no where else I could sit to avoid seeing or hearing him. But I was hungry, hadn’t eaten all day. I was angry and disturbed, thinking about all the chores I had left to get done by the evening. Then, just when I thought I was going to drop my mind into the proper channel to actually enjoy a bite of the lucious grease burger that sat in front me, it really began, [COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH...etc.] That damn kid was disrupting my meal! The scene became so bad, I pondered just leaving, but remembered I still needed to check out. Oh well, maybe it’ll pass [COUGH, COUGH, etc.]. I was trying to look away, but was compelled to look back at him: spit-up, exactly the color of my milkshake, all over him and his table! I wasn’t going to be able to finish my meal now, I just knew it! Nothing had gone right this day and here I was being deprived of one of my few pleasures in life - eating! When this happened another four or five times, I wasn’t even hungry anymore! I was angry, damn angry! I couldn’t take my mind off his slobbering all over the place! [COUGH, COUGH, etc.] It continued, made me cringe inside! Every time I would try and look away, this palsied pretzel of a handicapped kid would recapture my attention by spilling more soda, regurgitate French fries, and twist and turn with an open mouth full of food. The twitchy movements and spastic tendencies increased, as did those distasteful moans of disability that sounded like a sick, dying cow [MOOOOAN, MOOANNN, MOOOANN, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, SQUIRM, SQUIRM, SQUIRM, SQUIRM, SQUIRM, COUGH, COUGH, REGURGITATE, REGURGITATE, REGURGITATE, etc.] By this time, mom had partially chewed food all over her, but you could tell she was used to it. [MOOOAN, MOOOAN, COUGH, COUGH, etc.]The tension was building and my heart started beating faster. I couldn’t believe causality had selected this particular event to happen here and now. The moans got louder. I started to think of ways to wrap up my food and just carry it around with me till I got home, but in the process, I almost spilled my drink because I couldn’t concentrate due to this pitiable specimen of humanity! I so badly wanted to tell the lady to get that damn kid out of there! Why did it have to be happening when I was eating? Why? Why? [COUGH, COUGH, MOOAN, MOOAN, SQUIRM, SQUIRM, REGURGITATE, REGURGITATE, etc.]. The spark was ignited...

“GOD D**NIT, GET THAT F**KING FREAKAZOID KID OUT OF HERE, LADY! HOW COULD YOU BRING THAT MONSTROSITY IN PUBLIC, B**CH! I’M TRYING TO EAT! GET HIM OUT THE F**K OUT, NOWWWWW!!!!”

No...I didn’t actually say those words, but I had to exercise a feat of self-control like few times in my life to keep from saying them! Then I began to cool down...my reason took hold of me, and after a brief mental pause, I began to perspectivize. When I did, it was as though I slapped myself in the face for being a compassionless, selfish prick.

Here was this poor kid, this horrendous mistake of nature, sitting in a wheelchair, absolutely helpless to his circumstances, having to live in a world of shame and misery, and all I could think about is my blasted milkshake!! Here is a pitiable little being, confined to a life of round-the-clock care and all I can focus on is getting to the check out line quickly and scarfing down grub I can come back and get anytime I want!

This deprepid kid! He’ll never know the touch of a beautiful woman, nor the joy of sex. He’ll never know the independence of choosing and buying a house or a shiny new car. He’ll never know what it is like to run down to the local 7-11 corner store and grab a Big Gulp after a hard workout. He won’t even know the carefree fun of getting drunk with his buddies at a late night party. He should never have been subjected to this life. Someone, some people, should have known better and not let it come to this, but that wasn’t his decision to make. A mistake was made, and he was that mistake...a living, breathing mistake.

But not me. My faculties work fine, physically and mentally. Through and through, I’m a normal guy. I’m no Brad Pitt by any means, but when I go out in public, I never have to worry about being pitied as a freak of nature. I will never have to face the sort of mockery he faces. No sir ‘ee! I can go to the store and do whatever my precious self desires to do when I am good and ready!

But damned if I didn’t come within an inch of losing my head and saying something to that poor mother I would have forever regretted.

Here is this unfortunate woman, waiting night and day on this invalid. Her patience could be seen in her eyes. But I wasn’t thinking about either of them, nor the pain and the difficulties they must face everyday. I was only thinking about me and my precious, ordinary life. I was being selfish, totally selfish.

On their way out, this woman glanced at me, and I have a feeling as perceptive as she seemed to be, she might have been noticing how perturbed people were at her for subjecting them to her son. She glanced at me just for a second as she was about to head out the door, and as she did, I smiled at her to let her know that it was OK with me. I’m sure glad I had that chance.

Better late than never, I became unselfish. I became unselfish not by religion, not by Christianity, not by Islam, not by the principles of Tibetan Buddhism, not by the prevalent influence of so-called “Judeo-Christian Values”, and not by self-help books promoted by that crying-crew homefront known as The Oprah Winfry Show, but by the most valuable thing instilled in us all - reason. No deity was shaking his finger at me, telling me to become unselfish when I put myself in her place and made way for my anger to subside. I became selfless when the reason in me combined with my humanity, and when I remembered that old, cherished saying, “Tears are our common lot.”

(JH)

Do These Beliefs Cancel Each Other Out?

I received this email from a Muslim recently. He agrees with me that Christianity is wrong, but rather than being an atheist he thinks I should be a Muslim. Just look at how sure he is about this...it reminds me of how sure Christians are of their faith too.

I totally agree that the trinity really makes no sense whatsoever, how can three equal one, and that is what leads to atheism in many Christians. I just want you to know if you ever experienced Islam this is the only true religion that makes sense. There are many former Christian preachers and fellow Christians that have come to Islam. If you truly want to find out the truth please give Islam a chance. Please don't compare Islam to what you hear all over the media because it is completely not true.

I just want to let you know that all the questions are truly answered in Quran. There are preachers and ministers coming into Islam. So just ask yourself truly why are they coming to Islam? If you’re looking for the true religion please check this out. We believe Jesus was a prophet not a god. That’s what led to atheism. Don't just go by what you hear in the media. Also there is a lot of scientific miracles in the Quran to take a look at that haven't been proven wrong.

For what it's worth here are my thoughts when I received this e-mail:

David Hume argued that competing religious claims of miracles "cancel each other out." That is, if competing religions offer up testimonies of the miraculous as support for their faith, then testimonies of miracles themselves cannot provide the basis for religious beliefs. Why? Because these testimonies cancel the credibility of each other out.

The late Ronald Nash said this is probably the strongest of Hume's four subsidiary arguments. [Faith & Reason, p. 238]. Richard Swinburne criticized Hume by arguing that competing religious claims only cancel each other out if the proclaimed miracles of each religion did in fact occur, and if these purported miracles are used to establish the truth of each of these separate religions (since there is nothing prohibiting God from doing a miracle out of kindness to anyone of any faith). [The Concept of Miracle, 1970, (pp. 60-61)].

But listen to what Hume actually said: "This argument...is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against anyone, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed." [An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X]

For Hume this is an epistemological problem, and a credibility problem. Against Swinburne, who claims the force of Hume's argument only works if the proclaimed miracles of each religion did in fact occur, the question in Hume's mind is how he can even know whether or not both miracles occurred, since the credibility of both is suspect. And as far as these purported miracles being used to establish the truth of each of these separate religions goes, how about the claim that Muhammad was miraculously inspired to write the Koran (where it states Jesus did not rise from the dead), and compared that with the Christian claim that Jesus did rise from the grave?

Hence, the Muslim faith does indeed "cancel out" the credibility and epistemological significance of Christianity, and vice versa.

My Story

I’m quite honored to have had my request for inclusion to the blog accepted by John, with facilitation provided by Ed Babinski. The big names here (with more to come) both goads me to raise the bar on my efforts to post, and amazes me that I ever made it in. This introduction post will serve as a brief bio.

I am an ex-minister, though without a formal education or denominational attachment in ministry, unlike some of my fellow contributors here. I am an ex-drug abuser. I am an atheist.

My story is no more special than any of the others here, or of your own. Raised in Redneckville, USA, nestled safely away from temptation and any semblance of a classical education, I did what every child does: I trusted my authorities and parents. I made the oh-so-courageous decision to abandon moral responsibility and ask Jesus to take away all my guilt and shame as a pre-teen. At that point, unfortunately for my parents (and for Jesus), I moved to Nerd City.

Every week, my allowance was spent solely upon paperbacks from the K-Mart across the road, and science became a passion (not to mention that it was a more beautiful epistemology than a Presuppositionalism founded on the Cinderella-esque “Prince Jesus picked me, a lowly pauper, and put the Glass Slipper of the Holy Ghost on me” story). By 16, I had already developed pretty deep and serious doubts about the Christian worldview, partly due to the things I had learned about anthropology, the evolving (memetic) tenets of all religions, and Christianity in particular (especially post-Enlightenment), and one of my favorite subjects, cosmology.

The simplistic non-answers proffered by religious authorities I sought assistance from did nothing but further my doubts, and when my father, a devout Southern Baptist, was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, I became a sort of agnostic, more of a nihilist, although I didn’t know it at the time. To be fair, childhood religious experiences are often suspect as claims of deep and meaningful rational decisions. My own decision to give up the idea of faith at 16 is impugned by the personal grief and confusion of finding out about my dad’s condition, I will concede. Irrespective of this, I began using drugs shortly thereafter. Possibly I would have used regardless of my worldview, I can’t really say, but I moved quickly from alcohol and weed to harder drugs.

Suffice it to say I only used in this fashion for a few months before my mother found out and I was sent to get help. On my graduation date (May 1999) I was sitting in a circle saying, “Hi, I’m Daniel, and I’m an addict…” (…hi Daniel...). After returning to the real world, I didn’t last long before using again. I was told this would happen, because, in their words, I hadn’t “hit rock bottom yet”. I also refused to give up alcohol and weed, believing I could simply abandon the harder stuff but keep smoking dope with no “gateway” issue. I was wrong, obviously.

In retrospect, I see they were right, but for the wrong reasons, but that is for another essay. I was arrested August 14^th of that year for eight felonies, placed on house arrest (with the ankle bracelet that Martha made infamous), and assigned to stand trial in November. My attorney negotiated to have me sent to Appalachian Teen Challenge, my parents’ ultimatum, in order to have the case taken “under advisement”. I was there 14 months. I spent an average of 20 hours a week in Bible study and around 10 hours a week in prayer. I came out and was “on fire for God” (or a well-programmed holybot, depending on your perspective). My charges were reduced to one misdemeanor and lots of probation, and a great deal of the clemency was attributable to the people I had robbed−known drug dealers.

I enrolled in engineering at SVCC while I became the youth pastor at a church of ~500 people, then went off to Virginia Tech to finish my degree. I got married, got a B.S. Biochemistry / B.A. Chemistry, and enrolled in a Ph.D. chemistry program at the University of Florida. I then re-initiated a defunct freethought student organization at UF.

I was a holybot, and am now an atheist. What happened in between my departure from TC and now is long, convoluted, and I am still trying to figure out. Succinctly, I began to study the Bible more in-depth, evolutionary theory and its evidence of a blind and chance process producing humans, and I started to read basic philosophical arguments against god’s existence, possibly most important of all, I began to reflect upon the process by which I acquired faith, my motives and reasons for believing and practicing religion. From my introspection and studies, from my interaction with friends and family, with pastors and laymen, with scholars and everyday working “Joes”, I abandoned faith in God. I was already an atheist towards Zeus and Allah and a million other concepts of god, and basically I just became an atheist towards one more − the Judeo-Christian god of my heritage.

So...that’s my story, in brief, or at least as briefly as I could stand to make it. Hopefully, those who come to this blog and read my posts and comments will judge my ideas on their own merits, and nothing else. Again, I am glad to be here, and I know I’ll learn a lot from the more-learned-than-I who allowed me aboard, and I am enthused to jump into the fray at the interface between us heretics and some of the “defenders of the faith” who have engaged with the blog so far (and all the others we expect to debate with).

Thanks for taking the time to read about me. Feel free to email me anytime.

Why I Doubt Christianity and Joined Debunking Christianity

Having been invited to become a contributing poster to Debunking Christianity I gladly accepted. However who has time to post often? I read far more than I write these days, and have plenty of other things that fill up my time. However, if anyone would like to catch up on some of my past web-icles that explain in detail why I doubt Christianity, below is a short list.

Let me preface the list with a statement found in a work edited by Bruce Metzger, a textual scholar held in high esteem by many of his fellow Evangelical Christians. Note that Metzger was one of the main editors in the reference work I cite which admits that none of the four canonical Gospels originally contained the names of their authors. They were originally anonymous works and only many decades later did Christians advocate that each Gospel be "named."

That goes for the Gospel of Luke, a Gospel that does not name "Luke" as its author, and only names the person for whom the Gospel was allegedly written, i.e., "Theophilus." Likewise the Gospel of John is anonymous and says in chapter 20 simply that "we" wrote it, while chapter 21 says it was the "beloved disciple" who wrote it. But that disciple is not named, and chapters 20 and 21 feature not one, but two different endings for the Gospel, which means that chapter 21 was probably added later as an attempt to add individual apostolic authority to a Gospel whose first ending in chapter 20 simply claims an unnamed "we" wrote it. At any rate, note the "perhapses," below. We certainly are not speaking of inerrant claims as to who wrote the Gospels. In truth, nobody knows. That alone should make one wary of attempting to squeeze unquestionable dogmas out of them:

“Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest. . .

‘Matthew: Written by an unknown Jewish Christian of the second generation, probably a resident of Antioch in Syria.

‘Mark: [There is] confusion in the traditional identification of the author . . .

‘Luke: Possibly written by a resident of Antioch and an occasional companion of the apostle Paul.

‘John: Composed and edited in stages by unknown followers of the apostle John, probably residents of Ephesus.’

--Kingsbury, J.D., “Matthew, The Gospel According to,” in Metzger and Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993], pp. 502-506

To learn more about my reasons for leaving the fold, especially reasons for doubting "the resurrection" stories, I include a list of links below. I also consider the many dubious "prophecies" in the New Testament another good reason to doubt the veracity of the Bible.

Letter On The Resurrection Written to Apologist Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University (An Evangelical friend agreed I had raised some "knotty problems," while Habermas asked an Evangelical publisher about possibly publishing a dialogue between us--though the publisher's response was 'No.')

Letter I Received From Producer of Lee Stroble's "Faith Under Fire" And My Response Concerning Historical Criticism of the Bible

Scholars Comment on N.T. Wright's Resurrection Arguments

Additional Reviews of N.T. Wright's Resurrection Book by Scholars

The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus [article by Dr. Robert M. Price]

Literary Criticism and Historical Accuracy of the Gospels, Including a Discussion of the Alleged Words Spoken by the Resurrected Jesus That Grew In Number With Each New Gospel, Or That Were Simply Added As in Mark's Three Additional Late Endings

C.S. Lewis’ “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”

The "Born Again" Dialogue In the Gospel of John [a point made by Bart Ehrman]

Newsweek Defends Resurrection as History in Newsweek's Easter issue, March 28th, 2005

Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity

What Happened to the Resurrected Saints?Raising doubts not saints.

More About the Resurrected Saints

The Christian Think Tank's Response to Questions Concerning "The Many Resurrected Saints"

The Lowdown on God's Showdown

The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah [not by me, though I suggested some books the author employed in his research and for which he thanked me]

Not One, But Mutiple Views Of Biblical Writers On The Afterlife

The Former Popularity among Christians of The Abominable Fancy, or, A Heaven that only "Snuff Film" Aficionados Could Love

Is the Book of Revelation a Literary Patchwork Quilt? (Including a Discussion of the First Book of Enoch)

Or read Dr. Price's Beyond Born Again (a sort of warm up book to be read before the rest of Price's writings, written while he was still a liberal Christian)

Ed

Was the "Son of God" a Human Being?

Today, with the advent of genetics, Christian thinkers now know that Mary must have contributed the female egg that made Jesus into a man. [Jesus, being a male, could not have been her clone, otherwise he would be a woman, and if cloned purely from Mary’s genes would nullify the claim that he was God’s son, too]. This presents a problem for we know that in order to be a human being in the first place, it takes a male sperm.

The ancients commonly believed that the woman contributes nothing to the physical being of the baby to be born. The mother was nothing but a receptacle for the male sperm, which grew to become a child. So the ancient and medieval church believed that Jesus’ humanity was a new creation, and therefore sinless. Modern genetics have forced Christians today to take a new view of the virgin birth. Can they adequately explain how Jesus is a human being, since a human being is not conceived until a human male sperm penetrates a human female egg. Until that happens you do not have the complete chromosomal structure required to have a human being in the first place.

Of course, Christians can always say God can do anything, even create a human being. But then how is Jesus a descendant of Joseph? Neither Luke's nor Matthew's geneologies genetically link Jesus with Abraham or Adam. He's not the "real" father of Jesus.

And as far as punting to the "God can do anything" defense," Christians only use that defense when they need to use it, for you don't hear them saying this when it comes to the problem of human suffering in the world. You don't hear them arguing that God could eliminate evil. "He has his reasons," they say.

It's just that at an ancient time when people thought virgin births were genetically possible, people claimed they happened, that's all. Does anyone really think they happen today? How hard would it be to convince someone in today's scientific world that a virgin had a baby, which was sired by God, and yet geneologically linked to a great great great...grandfather?

There are too many improbabilities here. Way too many.

Defending the Almighty

"God is not a bad God, Joe. You cannot prove God doesn't have reasons for human suffering."

If you guessed this little segment is an excerpt from another tireless attempt on the part of a Christian to try and explain to me the evils of my atheistic ways, you guessed right. There is nothing unusual about this, of course, but it always brings to mind how believers can be so anxious to defend the will and honor of the creator of the universe.

The God of the Bible was never created, nor can he be destroyed, we are told. He exists, defining all concepts that govern existence, as the first and only cause of the universe. He sits, enthroned in glories unspeakable, with complete control over his creation. Nothing happens without his knowledge or consent of it. He has the power to hold the Pleiades Cluster in his right hand, along with the seven seas. He can be at one end of the universe, inside a quasar at any one moment in time, and right smack dab in Peoria, Illinois at the very same time. He can create or destroy in a mere thought. He is the traditional god idea of the Christians and of the world's great religions, yet he needs to be defended by lowly creatures, flesh bags like you and I: small, weak, slow-moving, lacking in intellect, short-lived, and often contemptibly unwise. Man is confined to one small planet on the outer fringes of the Milky Way. He is woefully ignorant of the mechanics of how the universe works. On top of all that, man is easily manipulated and led astray, prone to delusions and insanity, irrationality and self-destructive behavior, and yet man is the being who is called upon to defend this deity's existence! Since when should pauper peasants be responsible for representing the honor of the King? The absurdity compels me to scream!

So you have meatbags, trying to convince other meatbags that an invisible man exists, and that this invisible man is the better one than any of the other invisible men of other religions and cultures. A Muslim, using reason, could come along and convince a newly converted believe in the Christian God that the Muslim God was the real one, and this would mean that the belief in the Christian God was never a sure thing to begin with. Conversions are made every which way into every faith and denomination, but none of them have certainty, just plenty of zeal and self-deceit that they each are right and the others wrong.

Meanwhile, the Creator of the universe is sitting up on high, watching as floods and mudslides destroy homes and take lives. Strands of the flu virus mutate and spread, becoming more dangerous than before. Terrorists plant bombs on school buses full of children. Bodies are mangled into lifeless heaps of pummeled protoplasm in auto accidents, and for what? The theists will tell us why - because God has decided that we need work to do, cleaning up all the mess He made or allowed to happen. He could, quicker than a nanosecond, bring an end to evil everywhere and vanquish every doubt as to his existence. He is, after all, omnipotent. It would cost him nothing to rectify the world's wrongs, but like a lazy son who makes his crippled father do his work for him, the God of the Bible throws this responsibility in our laps, knowing that among the children of men that he created, there are those wayfaring souls who will boldly and eloquently defend him and make him look as good and as noble as a President or King.

(JH)

Ye of Subjective Faith

I started writing this in response to an interesting, new commentor to this site, SandalStraps, but it got a little longer than most comments should be. I tried to generalize it a little.

I asked SandalStraps, "What reasons do you have for believing there is a god to place your faith in?" He responded:

Intuition, personal religious experience, and all sorts of other "non-rational" but not irrational claims.

Faith in God is not principally about belief in propositions, but rather about experience of a personal nature which fills life with meaning.

I've seen a study that says 70% of the world's population has experienced déjà vu. I've experienced it several times myself and it is very real. I truly felt that I had been in that conversation, room, situation before.

So, it seems I have two choices in my analysis of this very real, subjective experience. I can (1) believe that time is noodlier than I thought and that I am actually experiencing the same events a second time, or (2) my brain is simply mixing qualia and it is applying the sensation of the past where it should be applying the sensation of the present to my situation.

Now, I must choose between these two options. I ask myself which is the simplest answer. Is it easier to think that I am experiencing time in a different way than the person next to me, or is it simpler to think that my brain has simply made a “mistake”?

The latter seems far more plausible.

Many Christians describe their subjective "personal religious experience" very similarly. They believe that they have had an experience with a disembodied mind. Is this probable? How does a thought exist without a brain? Have you ever heard of a thought without a brain? Yet this is what some Christians are claiming for their god. This being of theirs has a really odd characteristic; one that seems impossible, in fact.

On the other hand, it could be that a Christian’s brain produces a qualia that we call a religious feeling. Feelings of religious experience can be induced in labs.

Dr. Michael Persinger, for instance, has constructed a "God Helmet" that causes 80% of its wearers to have a "religious experience." Read about it here and here.

Other, less controversial, experiments have also linked the temporal lobes of the brain to religious experience.

Temporal lobe epilepsy, for instance, has been shown to cause intense religious experiences. The brains of praying nuns and Buddhist monks have been studied during their religious practice and the temporal lobes have been singled out as the location of these religious experiences.

What if religious experiences are simply actions of the brain that are as real to us as anything else? Just like we really experience déjà vu, so some really experience a religious feeling.

Now, you must choose which is the simplest answer. Either (1) your religious experience is the result of an action inside your brain, or (2) an eternal, all-wise, all-powerful, disembodied ghost-mind has spoken to you.

Either way, the experience is the same. The question is whether a disembodied ghost-mind is the cause or your brain is the cause.

Look at the evidence for the former (viz. your religious experience is the result of an action inside your brain): (1) people with temporal lobe epilepsy often have religious experiences associated with their condition. (2) Studies on monks and nuns in deep meditative states show the temporal lobe active during those religious experiences. (3) A "God Helmet" can produce religious experiences in most people by creating a magnetic field around your brain.

Let's examine the evidence for the latter (an eternal, all-wise, all-powerful, disembodied ghost-mind has spoken to you.):

. . . [Sorry, can't think of any. Maybe the Christian bloggers can help me out here. Your job is to show me why you should believe that the religious feeling you experience isn't simply result of a brain activity and that it si more reasonable to believe a disembodied mind causes your religious experience.]

If no one offers any reason to think that a disembodied ghost-mind caused your particular religious feelings, then I think I'm going to have to side with the brain explanation since there is more evidence in that direction.

Update:

I wrote this post before I read SandalStraps' latest comment. There, he writes,

If a person, S, has experience, E, which seems to be of a particular object, O, then, everything else being equal, the best explanation of S's having E is that S has experience O, rather than something else or nothing at all.

and

The presumption created by BEE that a seeming experience of a particular object, O, is, in fact, an experience of O is strengthened by the more "sightings" of O and the more variable the circumstances under which O has been sighted.

This fits in very nicely with my comments above.

I, person S, experience the feeling, E, of having lived this moment before (i.e. deja vu; object O). Everything else being equal, then, the best explanation of my, person S, having E is that I, S, have experienced living this moment in time before.

Sounds pretty fishy so far.

As I mentioned, as many as 70% of the world's population experience deja vu--i.e. they feel they have lived a particular moment before.

Therefore, the presumption that I have experienced living a particular moment in time before is strengthened by the more "sightings" of living in a particular moment in time before.

[I know this sounds bad, but you have to blame the argument, not me. In religious encounters, a person S is not experiencing an "object," (i.e. something with mass or appearance), but rather an emotion. No one is having a "sighting" of a god, just as no one truly has a sighting of deja vu. They may have experiences of both, but they really aren't "seeing" anything in either case. I'm simply using the language of the argument.]

Using the argument above then, it would be most reasonable to assume that experiences of deja vu are actually occassions of re-experiencing a particular moment in time.

This, however, seems implausible and I refer my reader back up to my argument above about which seems to be more likely.

What's the Likelihood that Calvinists are Wrong?

Out of this discussion Calvindude said: That we recognize something happens according to the will of God does not in any manner mitigate against the responsibility of those involved in the action. And on the face of it, it is most certainly not illogical to hold to this:
1. Those who murder are guilty and ought to be punished.
2. God ordains that John murder Bill.
3. John is guilty of murder and ought to be punished.
God’s ordination of these events does not alter the responsibility of the actors involved. Whether you agree or disagree with this is, at this point, irrelevant. It is only a matter of simple logic here.

There is indeed a problem here, depending on what you mean by the words “ordain” and “ordination.”

If we understand these words to mean that God caused John to kill Bill in the sense that: 1) God made John desire to kill Bill (that is, there was nothing John could possibly do to resist the God-implanted desire to kill Bill), and 2) God made John kill Bill (that is, there was nothing John could possibly do to resist this God who decreed that John should kill Bill). Then God killed Bill.

How in the world is it possible to blame John for killing Bill? Under these circumstances John is blameless. If I forced John to kill Bill (that is, if I had the means and the power to do this) then I would be guilty of killing Bill. No reasonable court would think otherwise, providing there is evidence I did this. There is no dual causation here. God decrees both man’s desires and his actions, and man cannot resist.

So how in the world is it remotely possible that John can be blamed in any way shape or form for killing Bill, even though he wanted to kill Bill? Yes, he wanted to kill Bill, and he executed the evil deed. But God “caused” him to want to kill Bill in the first place, and God “caused” him to actually do the deed! To understand this in any other way is to participate in what I call Logical Gerrymandering. God is to be blamed for all of the evils in human history, period.

This Calvinistic God is not a God of love at all, by our moral standards. But it’s claimed God has transcendental standards, and we cannot presume to judge God. What possible standards could God have for claiming he’s a God of love with all of the suffering he “causes” in our world? His ways are mysterious, we’re told. He is the potter, we are the clay, we’re told. But few of his actions makes any sense coming from a purported God of love. And yet we’re told to believe, in spite of these difficulties, even though whether we believe or not is also decreed by God. We are a painting, created by God, we’re told. He puts us in our place to make a beautiful painting. In his painting he needs dark ink that serves to highlight to bright ink. Who are we to judge what he’s doing with the painting?, we’re asked.

But on this side of death we are trying to figure out whether we should believe and worship such a God. And from this side of death he isn’t a God we can respect or love at all. There are people who spend their whole lives in prison because God decreed that they should murder someone, and then God also decreed that they should be convicted of the crime. But that's not all. When they die God then sends these prisoners to hell to suffer forever because he decreed this too. Who punishes God for this? I could go on and on here about the pain and suffering God has inflicted on us as “his loving creatures,” especially the whole notion that God decrees billions of our mothers, siblings, spouses, children and friends to spend eternity in hell in a conscious torment for what they’ve done (which God also decreed). How this gives glory to God is utterly nonsensical. It utterly shames him, because it's obvious he could've likewise "ordained" that all of his creatures obeyed him and will be in heaven for eternity. But having people suffer forever in hell purportedly brings him more glory. There's only one word I can think of to describe this: BULLSHIT!

To answer that God can do whatever he wants to because he created us, merely says God has the power to do whatever he wants. He is a bully and will have his way with us regardless. He doesn’t love us. He’s just making a painting, or a jar of clay. We are just pawns.

According to Clark Pinnock, “One need not wonder why people becomes atheists when faced with such a theology. A God like that has a great deal for which to answer.” [Predestination and Free Will , ed Basinger, (IVP, 1986, p. 58).

Given the nature of this horrible Calvinistic God, and the fact that Christians disagree over almost every doctrine of theirs, what is the likelihood that the Calvinistic God actually exists versus the possibility that their exegesis of the Bible is faulty? To me it's obvious.

Of course, I go further and deny the Bible too, but one step at a time....baby steps.