November 30, 2006

Climbing into de-Bunker....

I apologize from the start for the horrible pun in the title. But get used to it. :o)

Before I was an ex-Christian I was......well, a Christian! I very sincerely confessed my sins and pledged my life to Jesus at the tender age of 7, and I was just as sincere in my effort to maintain my Christianity for the next 35 years or so. I took very seriously the exhortation to 'study to show thyself approved.' Little did I know that my studiousness would be the undoing of my faith in the supernatural.....


My childhood was fairly typical for the son of a Southern Baptist minister. Periods of rebelliousness punctuated an otherwise general attitude of respect and obedience. As a young man I evolved from inerrancy to legalism. I entered Dallas Baptist University with the intention of entering the ministry, which was constantly distracted by my affection for the piano. After my first marriage disintegrated I entered another period of 'rebellion', followed by a return to faith characterized by the charismatic experience. My wife and I met during this time and I led praise and worship for a medium-sized non-denominational church for five years. For most of this time we tithed over 10% of our gross income.

My first dose of critical thinking/reason came from, of all people, my own father! He gave me a copy of Hank Hanegraaff's Christianity in Crisis which, among other things, pointed out a flaw in one of the core teachings of one of our favorite ministers. I soon abandoned most Charismatic teaching and eventually stopped attending church altogether. I later ran across Preterism which at least seemed to make more sense out of the ever-changing field of eschatology while allowing me to remain a Christian. But Preterism's approach to symbolic vs. literal passages in the Bible led me to the discovery of major holes in the Genesis flood story, then creation accounts and eventually the historicity of much of the Bible, from Eden to Palestine. Where faith had taught me to accept even the most incredulous stories as literally true, reason brought doubts. I eventually reasoned my way out of faith in the supernatural altogether.

I have written about this in greater detail here and here.

I look forward to joining my fellow ex-Christians in this endeavor.

The Incoherence of God and Time.

Is God in time or is he timeless? Either stance a Christian takes leads to some kind of incoherence. Let me simply use Christian philosopher Paul Helm’s analysis of this in “God and Spacelessness,” Philosophy55 (1980).

Helm begins with two authors who made similar claims against the timelessness of God. J. R. Lucas made this claim: “To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person.” He reasons that to be a person is to have a mind, and to have a mind requires that it be in time (i.e., thoughts require a sequence of events, etc.). A.N. Prior claimed that a proposition such as “It is raining now” is not equivalent in meaning to “It is raining on Tuesday,” and that an omniscient God who knew the latter would not necessarily know the former, and would not know it if he were timeless, since he could not be present on the occasion on which it was raining.”

[These are pretty persuasive arguments, I might add].

But Helm argues against both authors by merely showing that such a claim also entails the denial that God is spaceless, which in turn denies that God is infinite--something these authors want to maintain. Helm writes that “the arguments used to show that God is in time, in effect support the view that God is finite, and so anyone who wishes to maintain that God is infinite, as the traditional theist does, will either have to find other arguments for the view that God is in time, or eschew the idea of God being in time altogether”—this is the dilemma Helm presents to these authors. And he claims, "if the timeless existence of God is incoherent then so is the spaceless existence of God."

[I happen to agree that they are both incoherent].

Helm does not try to show that God is in fact timeless, nor is his purpose to show that the logic of these two authors is wrong. He admits that he doesn’t even fully understand what it means to say God is both timeless and spaceless. He’s only claiming that a denial of God’s timelessness is also a denial of God’s spacelessness.

After making his arguments he leaves the reader with three alternative consequences to choose from:

1) "Theism is even more incoherent than was previously thought, in that it requires unintelligibilities such as a timeless and spaceless existence." [To this I completely agree with him here.]

2)Recognize that since the belief in God requires an infinite and spaceless God "there must be something wrong" with the arguments against the timelessness of God." [However, it's far from the case that the Bible describes anything but God's activity in time, especially with the purported incarnation. Nicholas Wolterstroff's essay, "God Everlasting" has more than sufficiently shown this, as has Clark Pinnock's essays and books.] The Bible simply does not require that God is timeless. This view of God has been something fully adopted because of neo-Platonism and finally codified by Anselm's conception of the "greatest conceivable being."

3)These authors must "supply an argument against God’s timelessness that does not have a spatial parallel." [To date this challenge has not been sufficiently met].

That is, Helm argues that one can either, a) Deny (or accept) the unintelligible existence of both a timeless and spaceless God, b) Accept the consequences of a God who is both in time and finite, or, c) Supply other arguments on behalf of a God who is in time which does not also deny God’s spacelessness. Not being able to do (c) presents the dilemma of choosing either (a) or (b).

Here is a Christian philosopher of some note who recognizes a very serious problem in reconciling God and time. He makes my case for me. On the one hand we have the Bible, which clearly shows God responds to us in time, along with the philosophical arguments of J.R. Lucas and A.N. Prior. On the other hand, a being in time also denies that God is spaceless. Which is it?

November 27, 2006

A New Atheist/Christian Blog

Daniel Morgan pointed out to me a new Blog on the block. It's called Philaletheia. Here's how it's described:
Somewhere in the blogosphere, two people met on a blog and started a conversation. That’s where this blog began. One is an atheist, one a devout Christian. Both are passionate about seeking truth in their own fashion. Both thought other truth-seekers might benefit from an open dialogue concerning truth-claims, how we know anything, and the nature of everything.

Perhaps you’ve surfed enough to know that atheist/Christian relations are often strained and seldom friendly. One objective of this blog is to listen deeply and learn to talk to one another. Both authors will be contributing thoughts on certain topics, that the other author will be able to respond in the comments along with all other readers.

What I like is that the Christian wrote something on How to Talk to Believers, while the atheist wrote something on How to talk to Atheists.

This is a unique concept, having them both share a Blog. Like them I have always wanted Debunking Christianity to be "a safe place for all involved, be they atheist, theist, or agnostic." I wish them well in their discussions.

November 24, 2006

The incredible "smallness" of Jesus' sacrifice

Christianity has taught, preached and proclaimed that mankind should stand in awe of the "incredible" depth of Jesus sacrifice on behalf of poor wretched sinners. As we have been taught, Jesus took himself from the highest place in the universe down to the lowest place on the human scale. There to die a death, not just any death but a most cruel and inhuman death which our small heads might be able to imagine. As the trite saying goes, "God bankrupted heaven in order that we might enjoy his riches."

Now, to be sure, the story of Jesus does provide a illustration of a sacrifice. However, are we to be awe-fully impressed by it. Is that sacrifice truly a sacrifice of such magnitude claimed? Let's take a brief look.

First of all, Jesus sacrifice was encapsulated in 33 brief years. So, sandwiched in between eternity previous and eternity post is a segment of time which, in comparison, does not even register as a relative blip on the screen. The insignificance of 33 years is brought out by the statement in II Peter 3:8, "...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (ESV). I understand that thousand years can easily be interpreted figuratively and not literally. Nonetheless, the point can be argued that 33 years does not even constitute a significant portion of the divine day. Would we commend someone excessively for devoting 1-2 hours out of entire lifetime to be face to face with those he claimed to love. No, we are not impressed. Jesus gave very little of his time to be with us.

Next we must ask, "how hard was it to be away from heaven for those 33 years?" Imagine if a person lived an incredible life of luxury for his entire life . But the only time he had to really sacrifice would be 1-2 hours of incredible suffering. Then immediately afterwards he could go back to his life of incredible luxury. Now this scenerio is flawed with contingencies based on the mental health status of the person involved. But suppose the person involved is a mentally balanced, rational being. Would that person consider this suffering overwhelming? As long as the person kept the 1-2 hours of suffering in perspective, the situation would be "no sweat." How much more from a divine perspective? How much did Jesus really sacrifice by giving up the riches of heaven when he knew it would only be a short time before he received all back again?
In this question, we are defining sacrifice simply as time spent being human, a fate which most of us do not consider a sacrifice. It is a sacrifice for him, Jesus, only in a condescending way. Maybe a true sacrifice would be Jesus being reborn in each generation to be with us. Maybe it would be Jesus just being with us antlike humans from the beginning. I would actually be impressed if the person that I have worshipped for over 30 years actually took the time to meet me face to face in person. That I think I would begin to call a sacrifice on a divine level. As it is, no we are not impressed.

Let us scrutinize a little further. Up to approximately his thirtieth birthday, Jesus simply lived a normal life of a Galilean peasant. Nothing special. He may have gone hungry sometimes. But we are given no indications that Jesus almost starved to death during his physical development. We are given no indications that Jesus suffered any significant physical impairments. How could a real Jesus honestly look at a person who has had cerebral palsy from birth and say that he has made a great sacrifice when Jesus' "sacrificial" experience would provide him not a clue of what it felt like to be CP from birth. If Jesus was going to be truly sacrificial, why couldn't he grow up in a slave camp being beaten daily. Or why couldn't he have a lifetime experience of chronic pain sydrome so that he could truly understand what some of his creature go through without any of the praise and adulation accorded to his name? This shows just how superficial his sacrifice really was. Truly, Jesus, we are not impressed.

Going a bit further, his ministry lasted a mere 3 years, but maybe as short as one year. One cannot disipute that he gave much during this time going without sleep many nights, reaching out to many in need and preaching his double edged message of love and condemnation. Jesus' effort pales incredibly in relation to many of his own followers who have devotedan entire lifetime sacrificing all worldly goods and worldly desires to follow his message. Who should stand in awe and praise of whom. I think Jesus should worship many of his followers because they have sacrificed insurmountably more than he.

Even during this time, did Jesus' sacrifice call him to truly physically suffer? No more than millions of altruistic persons have done. Then what does it come down to? Jesus spent no more than 1 human day truly suffering on an elevated scale including the trial, the scouraging, the mockery, and the actual crucifixion (in which Jesus was granted a brief than usual stay on the cross of only 6 hours. Many others crucified usually spend a much longer time than the fortunate son.). Imagine Jesus thinking to himself, "Sure, right now this is bad. But if I can hang on a few hours. I will be right back up in heaven. And my father promised that everyone will have to bow to my name nowand forever more. I guess that's not such bad deal" Now I am not so "blasphemous" as to suggest that that is the way Jesus actually thought or that the gospel writers imply that thinking. Nonetheless, it pretty much sums up the essence of the situation. How is this sacrifice any greater on the human level? Spartacus, circa 70 BCE,and his compatriots endured torture and the sacrifice on the cross over a much longer period of time for for the commandable goal of raising the status of slaves to a level of human dignifity. His sacrifice was just as noble. But he operated without any promise of a life after death. That raises his sacrifice much higher into the realm of the sublime. If Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, why then does it not appear to be so ultimate?

Shouldn't we expect more of divine sacrifice than we do of human sacrifice?

Does this not make Jesus' sacrifice embarrassing and infinitely small?

Can I ask one more question?

Are we impressed yet?

I Have a Job for You


The Book of Job is a fascinating story, portraying a dialogue between a man and his friends over the concepts of God. Particularly, due to its inclusion in the Tanakh, the God YHWH.

Unfortunately, as infidels, we concentrate on the first two chapters, and the “bet” between God and Satan, while Christians primarily focus on the last five chapters, and God’s reply framed around “Who are you to question God?”

Occasionally we see a verse or two pulled out to defend the idea that dinosaurs walked with humans, or the pyramids were built by God. Often we overlook the rich exchange that happens between Job and his friends.


There is argument that the first two chapters and 42:7-16 were an addition to a much older tale, as the concept of Satan was not introduced until post-captivity. (Satan only makes one other historical appearance in the Tanakh—being David’s Census. 1 Chron. 21:1)

Regardless of the reason for the exchange, the bulk of the book comprises of Job interchanging with three friends over the concept of God. Let’s set the scene.

Job has had a set of personal tragedies that have led him to the point he wishes he was never born. Job 3:11. He gives out a long, whining speech, bemoaning his misery. Three friends respond; Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shulhite and Zophar the Naamathite reply in turn to Job.

(By the way, the next time you hear the phrase, “Job’s Comforters” as a negative reference, remember that the three friends sat with Job in complete silence for seven (7) days. Job 2:13. That takes a pretty good friend.)

After debating back and forth over what God does, God appears in Chapter 38. It is not exactly clear whether God talks solely to Job, or whether all four overhear and see what God says and demonstrates. However, in 42:7 God does speak directly to the three friends, saying:

“…God said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.”

God reiterates again in 42:8 that the three friends had not spoken of God what is right, as Job has. In 42:9 it is indicated again that what Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shulhite and Zophar the Naamathite all said was incorrect.

Clear enough. What Job said about God was correct. What the three friends said was incorrect. But have you ever read the book of Job with the mindset that what Job was saying was right, and what the three friends said was wrong? How about a game of “Believer or Infidel” where we guess whether the statement about God was correctly made by a believer, or incorrectly made by an Infidel?

The rhetorical question: “Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”

Made by an infidel. Job. 4:17. If God says this is wrong, is it true that humans CAN be more pure than God?

Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.

Infidel. Job. 5:17

Why do you not forgive my sins?

Believer. Job 7:21. Interesting how many times we have discussed here the problem of God only forgiving some sins, or how atonement could be so incomplete. We are often told “Who are you to ask God, ‘Why?’” Yet that is exactly what Job did, and God found that acceptable!

If you will look to God and plead with the Almighty, if you are pure and upright, even now he will rouse himself on your behalf and restore you to your rightful place.

Infidel. Job. 8:5-6 Again, we have been informed by Christians that we can still turn to God. That we can still beg forgiveness for our inability to believe. Apparently according to God, all those believers are quite incorrect and should beg for forgiveness for saying such inaccurate statements about him. ‘Cause when Bildad the Shuhite said the same thing, God said it was wrong.

I will say to God: Do not condemn me, but tell me what charges you have against me. Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while you smile on the schemes of the wicked?

Believer. Job. 10:2-3. (I’ll bet you are getting the hang of this Game!) Let’s see if I have this right—What Job says is correct. Job has the audacity to question why God condemns him. Therefore, it seems quite appropriate that we, too, even as infidels would be correct to ask God why he condemns us. Especially given the vast amounts of information that point to his non-existence.

God would seem to give the stamp of approval to us questioning his ways—including his methods of judgment! Remember THAT, next time we are told, “God does not have to answer to you.” According to Job, we are at least allowed to ask the question and it is appropriate.

Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave—what can you know?

Infidel. Job 11:7-8. This has always intrigued me. Remember—God says that this statement about him is incorrect! Very, very often, when discussing God we are informed by Christians that some question, some problem is unknown—because we cannot know the ways of God.

Yeah, this is exactly what Zophar the Naamathite said, “God is too mysterious for you.” And God says that is wrong! So, if God says Zophar is wrong for saying it, are you? Dare a Christian ever revert to the “God is mysterious” defense, in light of Job 11:7-8?

If you devote your heart to him…if you put away the sin that is in your hand…then you will lift up your face without shame; you will stand firm and without fear.”

Infidel. Job 11: 13-15.

I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God.

Believer Job. 13:3

Your sin prompts your mouth; you adopt the tongue of the crafty. Your own mouth condemns you, not mine; your own lips testify against you.

Infidel. Job 15:5-6

Are God’s consolations not enough for you, words spoken gently to you? Why has your heart carried you away, and why do your eyes flash, so that you vent your rage against God and pout out such words from your mouth?

Infidel. Job. 15:11-13

We could go on for the next few chapters, but hopefully the point has been made. I strongly encourage you to read the book, noting who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is “correct” or not.

Now, I may be accused (perhaps with some justification) that I have picked out some problematic portions while others I have left on the table. The concern is that God (according to the author) fails to differentiate between what parts Job said were correct and what parts Job said were incorrect. Likewise with his three friends.

If the claim is made that only parts of what Job/Friends stated were correct and parts were incorrect, how do we come up with a methodology as to which are which, without relying upon a bias? In other words, claiming God approved certain words, simply because we desire God to approve those words.

So here is my question. It may take a bit of reading, but please read the portions of Job which record the statements made by Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Chapters 4-5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, and 25. What, exactly, did the three friends say which was incorrect about God? What was so wrong that God demanded a sacrifice for these horrible statements? I would suspect that any pastor could preach about God working from any of these chapters and not a single person would stand up and say, “Hey. Wait a Minute. What you are saying about God is wrong.”

What did the three friends say that was incorrect?

Preterism is an Admission That Jesus Failed to Return

Exapologist wrote a Blog entry called One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity Is False, concerning the fact that Jesus failed as an eschatological prophet. In the comments section Paul Manata defends a partial preterism eschatology in the comments section, to which I offer these comments:

I believe preterism, or even partial preterism, is a frank concession of the fact that Jesus did not return as was expected from the earliest days of Christianity until recently. It’s one thing for skeptics to scoff, it's quite another to see Christians re-invent their eschatology to accommodate this glaring problem.

I had already mentioned on the Unchained Radio program and in a Blog entry how believers read the Bible through the lenses of their present experiences when it comes to the creation accounts in Genesis, women's roles in leadership, and slavery. Both Paul Manata and Gene Cook disputed that they do this. But here is a case where Manata has done just that.

Now here's the question for Manata. Why can he do this with the return of Jesus and I cannot do this with the present day lack of miracles when I read the Bible? Manata reinterprets the historical church understanding of eschatology in light of about 2000 years of experiences, including several recent failed predictions of the return of Jesus in 1974, 1988, and 2000. So why is it illegitimate for me to see the creation accounts in Genesis as myth because of present day modern science? All I did as a former believer was to attempt to reconcile modern science with Genesis, just as he does with the failed bodily return of Jesus.

As an aside, what can be said about Preterism?

Christians can debate what the Bible says about this all they want to. When they come to an agreement, then I'll know which view to subject to criticism. In the meantime let see what can be said about preterism. Preterism places New Testament eschatological fulfillment in and around AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans when the temple with its old covenantal sacrificial system (the heaven and earth of the Jews) was destroyed, and the new covenant with its heavenly Jerusalem (the new heaven and earth of Christians) was inaugurated. Redemption was made complete and the Kingdom was consummated, we're told.

But this new view is puzzling to me, and I have a few questions about it. Just like the Jehovah Witnesses who say Jesus returned spiritually in 1914, my criticisms are similar in kind. [Exapologist has already quoted William Lane Craig's criticisms of preterism in the comments section of his Blog entry].

In the first place, what was Jesus doing before he returned and inaugurated his kingdom in 70 AD? Was he not already reigning over the believer's hearts? If not, then what was he doing? Was there a time between 33 AD and 70 AD when there was no covenant, no promises, no Christian moral standards to live by? Were Christians still living under the Old Covenant until the temple was destroyed? Was Jesus not yet the King reigning over Christians?

In the second place, what is the difference for the Christian in the supposed return of Jesus in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem, if Jesus was already reigning over their lives. Preterists think it made a difference because the temple was destroyed along with their sacrifices, which leads them to say the Kingdom was inaugurated at that time. But according to the book of Hebrews, sacrifices had already ended in Jesus, and the Spirit had already inaugurated the community of Christians by indwelling believers. If Jesus' resurrection is the only proof that Christians needed, then the destruction of Jerusalem should have proved nothing additional to them, as Christians. This would be the case even if Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed! Think about it. If Jerusalem had never been destroyed with the temple and the sacrifices, then what would have changed for the Christian?

In the third place, did the destruction of Jerusalem prove anything to the Jews? Hardly. Did they become Christians? It only shows me that the Biblical God is barbaric in that he unmercifully destroys people for whom he hasn't given enough evidence to believe. The Jewish religion did go through a major change, though. But the Jewish religion was already supplanted by Christianity decades earlier, according to the NT. The Jews just changed their views of sacrifices, much like how preterists are changing their eschatology today because Jesus failed to return. But why should any of these Jewish theological changes matter to Christians?

Lastly, if the Trinitarian God has always reigned over his world, then what difference did it make to the world in general that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD? Presumably God (Father, Son, & Spirit) never had to ask anyone for permission to reign over his world. The Bible claims he just does, and that he always has done so. It really doesn't matter to God whether or not people acknowledge that he does--he just does. So if preterists are correct that God-in-Jesus started reigning in 70 AD, then who is Jesus now reigning over that he didn't reign over before then? Since his reign has always been over everyone, then it can only mean that he began reigning specifically over Christians in 70 AD. But ever since the inauguration of the church he was supposedly already their king!

So what difference did the destruction of Jerusalem make in the lives of anyone at all with regard to the reign of God-in-Jesus?

November 22, 2006

Evangelical Theological Society Purges "Heretics" (Or Seems to Be Getting Ready To Do So)


Evangelical Christian theologians like Chris Tilling at his interesting moderate Christian blog, Chrisendom, are "disturbed" by the recent decision of the Evangelical Theological Society to adopt the Chicago Statment on Biblical Inerrancy, because it was probably lead to members of that society being voted out as "heretics," and not being recognized as "Evangelicals." (Reminds me of Catholics who have been excommunicated yet who still call themselves "Catholic." Though in the later case the excommunicado seems firmer, while Evangelicals can simply start their own church or seminary, and there already are plenty of non-inerrantist Evangelicals, including whole seminaries full, so the term remains more fluid.) At any rate the comments at Tilling's blog are worth perusing if you have ever been involved in a debate with an inerrantist, say, J.P. Holding of Tekton apologetics, who still clings to the myth of "inerrant autographs." You see, there is no need for "Christian debunkers" get involved in debates over the inerrancy of the Bible, since Christians excell most at debating each other's views of the Bible, and there are plenty of moderate Baptists out there as well as moderates in all the world's major Christian denominations willing to debate inerrantists. You just have to know where the moderates are on the web so you can point inerrantists their way. Tilling's blog also contains links to likeminded moderate Christian Evangelical scholars like himself. Though forgive me for attempting a few criticism of my own below, of the blessed Chicago Statement of Know Nothingness:

QUESTIONS CONCERNING

"The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"

Articles 13 & 14, state, "We deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible."

[COMMENT: So, the Bible is inerrant DESPITE a plethora of items that any sane person would take as prima facie evidence of errors.]

~~~~~~~~~~

Article 15, "We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity."

[COMMENT: Yet these same inerrantist are free to appeal to any and all possible "accommodation" hypotheses to explain a host of other Old Testament and New Testament verses related to other topics from genocide to Jesus's command that "the slave who was disobedient shall be beaten with many stripes."]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article 18, "Scripture is to interpret Scripture."

[COMMENT: Really? The opposite appears to be a well-attested fact of all Christian history, not excluding the history of Evangelicalism. Scripture does not interpret Scripture. Rather, it takes dozens of lexicons, history books, commentaries, and plenty of education to interpret Scripture, and what are the odds those commentaries all contain the same interpretations? About the same odds that every Evangelical theologian contributing to the ever more numerous "Viewpoints" series of InterVarsity and Baker Books will interpret Genesis and Revelation and everything inbetween the same way.]

~~~~~~~~~

Article 16, "We deny that inerrancy is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism."

[However...

Exegetical conflicts arose from the 1860s onwards. It was a time of turmoil that also led to the Catholic Church adopting its doctrine of papal "infallibility." The view that the Bible is "inerrant" and the pope "infallible" seem to have similar roots around that time.

Essays and Reviews (a book on the Bible that said among other things that the raqia or firmament in Gensis 1, was solid) published around the time of Darwin's Origins (the mid-1800s) caused quite a stir in the religious world as did Colenso's book, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, as did the questions of German theologians.

Battle lines began being drawn, and the Catholic church came up with papal "infallibility" (which also was invented to combat growing ideals of "freedom of conscience and belief" that the Catholic Church was against), and the Presbyterians came up with inerrancy of the Scriptures.

For instance soon after The Presbyterian Review was founded in 1880, Warfield and Hodge began formally arguing in its pages for verbal inspiration and consequent inerrancy of the Scriptures.

One prominent "heresy" case (a generation before "The Fundamentals" were even published) involved several Presbyterian professors, Dr. Briggs, Dr. Henry Preserved Smith and Dr. Llewelyn J. Evans. (A retelling of the case in Smith's own words may be found in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists.) All three men pointed out that neither their church's Presbyterian Creed nor the teachings of many of the best known seventeeth-century Puritan theologians would have agreed with the ideas of "inerrancy" that Hodge and Warfield were then developing.

H. P. Smith's account of his heresy trial in 1892, and the arguments he and Dr. Evans put forth regarding their rejection of "inerrancy" can be found in a book titled, Inspiration and Inerrancy [Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert Clarke & Co., 1892]. Smith added that if you wanted to go back much further, Walton's work from the mid to late 1600's, The Considerator Considered, was also still worth reading. (Walton published in 1657 his great Polyglot, giving the ancient version a place alongside of the Hebrew text, and also supplemented the work with a list of various readings that called forth a bitter attack from John Owen, defender of Presbyterian orthodoxy. Owen deprecated the publication of facts which might militate against the authority of Scripture. Walton's reply to Owen was the work Smith suggested reading, The Considerator Considered.)

Dewey M. Beegle from the 1960s-70s is a more recent example of an Evangelical Christian theologian who left inerrancy and thereafter debated his inerrantist brethren in print, yet remained in the church. (H. P. Smith had to switch denominations to a non-inerrantist one, wherein he continued his scholarly writing career.) Beegle was on the board of trustees and the translations subcommittee of the American Bible Society, and was author of God's Word Into English, as well as, Scripture, Tradiation and Infallibility, and, Prophecy and Prediction. He also composed articles on Moses for Encyclopedia Britannica and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, i.e., based on his research for his book, Moses: The Servant of Yahweh. (Beegle's story, "Journey to Freedom," is in L.T.F., the book already mentioned above, in which Smith's testimony can also be found.)

Today's Evangelical Christian "inerrantists" include Evangelical Theological Society members whose views range from young-earth creationist, to old-earth creationist, to theistic evolutionist (like Clark Pinnock), as well as those who hold rival interpretations of the book of Revelation and the "end times," as well as those with rival interpretations concerning all manner of "teachings" and "commands" in the Bible (as can be read about in the "Viewpoints" series of debate books published by InterVarsity Press and also Baker Books).

Neither can various "inerrantist" seminaries agree whether a person is "saved" by believing in Jesus as "Savior and Lord," or just by accepting Jesus as their "Savior." Nor can "inerrantist" Evangelical and "inerrantist" Pentecostal churches agree on how necessary or unnecessary "speaking in tongues" is, or whether or not it is a visible sign of having rec'd the baptism of the holy spirit. Nor can "inerrantists" of various churches agree on how to view the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.

If you want to read a brain sizzling book on the topic of inerrancy, there is one that may soon be available at amazon.com, titled, Inerrant the Wind: The Troubled House of North American Evangelicals. It compares and contrasts the many view of inerrancy and semi-inerrancy advocated by different Evangelical theologians. Very interesting distinctions each makes.]

Edward T. Babinski

The 53rd COTG Link

Here's a link to the 53rd Carnival of the Godless.

Slavery and the Bible

Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?

Paul Copan defends the notion that Biblical slavery was different than American slavery in the antebellum South and shouldn’t have been used to justify it. [“That’s Just Your Interpretation”, pp. 171-178]. Even if this is true, the Bible was still used by Christians to justify the brutal slavery in the American South. Distinguished Princeton professor Charles Hodge defended American slavery in a forty page essay written in 1860, just prior to the civil war. Just read the debates over this issue in Willard M. Swartley, Slavery Sabbath War & Women (Herald Press, 1983), pp. 31-66. Then you’ll see just how unclear this issue really was to them. So again, why didn’t God tell his people, “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves,” and say it as often as he needed to? Why was God not clear about this in the Bible? Just think how Copan’s own arguments would resonate with him if he were born into the brutal slavery of the South! Speaking of American slavery, Sam Harris claims, “Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest—and the easiest—moral question our society has ever had to face.” [Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), p. 18].

November 21, 2006

Why John Derbyshire No Longer Calls Himself a Christian.

National Review columnist John Derbyshire answers questions about why he no longer calls himself a Christian. My thanks to Ed Babinski for pointing this out. See the full article. Here is a snippet of what he says as he deals with the question of whether or not he believes religion is good for people and society:

Q. Do you believe religion is good for people?

A. You’d think so, wouldn’t you? I thought so for the longest time. All those Golden Rules, those injunctions to charity, compassion, neighborliness, forbearance, and so on. Not only does the proposition seem obvious in itself, but we all know people whose lives were messed up, but were then straightened out after they got religion. I know one and a half cases — I mean, two people this happened to, but one of them relapsed after three or four years, and last I heard she was in worse shape than ever.

On the other hand, some religious people are horrible. This past few years, working at National Review Online and fielding tens of thousands of e-mails from readers, I’ve had my first really close encounter with masses of opinionated Christians of all kinds. A lot of them are very nice, and some are very nice indeed — I’ve had gifts, including use of a house one family vacation (thank you, Pastor!) — but, yes, some others are loathsome. I get lots of religious hate mail, some of it really vile. Often this is in response to something I have said, which I suppose is fair enough, even if not a particularly good advertisement for Christ’s injunctions about meekness and forbearance. Often, though, these e-mails come in from people who are not reacting to anything in particular, they just want to tell me that I am not religious enough to suit them, or to call myself a conservative, or to work at National Review, or to live in the USA, or (though this is very rare) to live at all. Half a dozen times I’ve had readers express these sentiments using four-letter words of the taboo variety.

The usual response to all that is the one Evelyn Waugh gave. He was religious, but he was also a nasty person, and knew it. But: “If not for my faith,” he explained, “I would be barely human.” In other words, even a nasty religious person would be even worse without faith.

I have now come to think that it really makes no difference, net-net. You can point to people who were improved by faith, but you can also see people made worse by it. Anyone want to argue that, say, Mohammed Atta was made a better person by his faith? All right, when Americans say “religion” they mean Christianity 99 percent of the time. So: Can Christianity make you a worse person? I’m sure it can. If you’re a person with, for example, a self-righteous conviction of your own moral superiority, well, getting religion is just going to inflame that conviction. Again, I know cases, and I’m sure you do too. The exhortations to humility that you find in all religions seem to be the most difficult teaching for people to take on board. Mostly, I think it makes no difference. Evelyn Waugh would have been no more obnoxious as an atheist.

And then there are some of those discomfiting facts about human groups. Taking the population of these United States, for example, the least religious major group, by ancestry, is Americans of East Asian stock. The most religious is African Americans. All the indices of dysfunction and misbehavior, however, go the other way, with Asian Americans getting into least trouble and African Americans most. What’s that all about?

In the end, I think I’ve now arrived at this position: An individual might be made better by faith, or worse. Overall, taking society at large, I think it averages out to zero. But then…

Q. Do you think religion is a good thing, or a bad thing, for a society?

A. Having just said that it makes no difference to individuals on gross average, the mathematical answer ought to be “neither.” My actual answer is that the question doesn’t make much sense, as a question. Religious feeling just is, there in human nature, unremovably and inescapably. That’s the point of Chesterton’s famous, and true, remark, or quasi-remark. It’s there, and decent societies have to incorporate it somehow, to the general advantage. That’s all. You might as well ask: Is sex a good thing, socially speaking? Depends whether society is good at accommodating it. Pretty much all societies are — we’ve had lots of practice with that. Really formally organized religion is less than 3,000 years old, though. There wasn’t any need for it until really big human settlements — civilizations — came up. We haven’t all got it right yet.

Religion is first and foremost a social phenomenon. That religious module in our brains is a sub-module of the social one, or is very closely allied to it. To deny it expression is just as foolish, just as counter-productive, as to deny expression to any other fundamental social feature of human nature — sexuality, or aggression, or the power urge, or cheating.

The trick, if you want a reasonably happy and stable society, is to corral human nature into useful, non-socially-destructive styles of expression: sexuality into marriage, or at least some kind of formal and constrained bonding; aggression into sport or military training; the power urge into consensual politics; cheating into conjuring, drama, and games like poker. (I don’t mean you should cheat at poker, only that you need some powers of deception to play poker well.) Any aspect of human nature can get out of hand, as we see with these Muslim fanatics that are making such nuisances of themselves nowadays. That doesn’t mean the aspect is bad, just that some society has done a bad job of corraling it.

So I guess my answer is something like: If a society accommodates the people’s religious impulses well, it’s a good thing, and if not, not.

C. S. Lewis, "Man or Rabbit?" an Essay from God in the Dock

"

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert, admires Lewis's essay, "Man or Rabbit," and it was recently cited at his blog here and here. I read that essay ages ago along with all the rest in God in the Dock. But I wonder what Vic really thinks about the following paragraph from Lewis's essay:

"Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.' But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven’t noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand."

Exactly how am I to take the above paragraph except as an altar call?
I say this because in my own journey I sought what I could know about Jesus, I did not ignore the question, because I was at the time a true believer, baptized Catholic, converted and born again Protestant, experienced the charismatic baptism of the holy spirit, read Lewis and Calvin, and hence I could not simply ignore everything I'd been taught about Jesus from birth and my initial reaction to the Gospels as moving literature, nor ignore the arguments I'd imbibed from Christian apologetic books. So I sought to learn about the "Son of Man," and found out to my great chagrin that my beliefs concerning a great number of Christian dogmas and beliefs grew less certain after long study.

So I do not fit Lewis's description of someone "ignoring" the "Son of Man" question. Far from it. But I understand of course from Lewis's perspective of being a convert, that he would write rhetorically in the manner that he does, rather than as I do, about Christianity.

As for those whom Lewis calls "ostriches" for refusing to get involved in the whole deal, and skirting the issue on the other side of the street, I think there's some wisdom in those who choose to skirt the issue, especially when Lewis is cry out at you from the other side of his essay, calling you an ostrich, even implying that you are a damned ostrich and God is sending you letters you are refusing to read.

Maybe Lewis was just peeved at rising rates of biblical illiteracy?

And what exactly is wrong with believing that God wouldn't eternally condemn someone honestly in error? Lewis presupposes the opposite, that God WILL condemn people for not taking HIS [Lewis's and God's] religion seriously enough. Well then, I'd say to Lewis, prove it, prove the Bible is true when it speaks about God, his nature, his commands, his actions, and heaven and hell, salvation, damnation, soteriology, prophecy, et al. I doubt that Lewis has ever proven such a thing or that any Christian apologist has. That's my non-ostrich-like stance. Of course Lewis appreciates people like me moreso than biblical illiterates trying to avoid his favorite holy book entirely, and who believe if there's a God, they find it tough to imagine him not being able to forgive people if their beliefs are wrong. Such ostriches actually imagine that God if He exists might react as any sane normal person wishing to get along with his neighbor would today.

I say, again contra Lewis, that there is something to be said for the much maligned ostrich, keeping its head down when hot headed people shout in essays that there holy book and their "Son of Man" shall damn anyone with enough sense to try and stay out of some of the world's perpetual quarrels, namely over God and holy books, that continue even among the most highly educated religionists, historians, apostates and converts. Heavens!

November 20, 2006

On The Meaning of Life, Heaven & Hell: Victor Reppert & Edward T. Babinski


Christian philosopher Victor Reppert wrote at his blog: "What God created us for, and what will fulfill us for an eternity is, according to Christianity, eternal fellowship with Himself. If atheism is true, that kind of satisfaction isn't in the cards for anybody. That said, I think Christians make a mistake in saying that life has no meaning if Christianity isn't true. Christianity offers a meaningful life in this particular sense, but atheists can have a meaningful life in many other senses, which should not be denied by theists."

If I may comment on Vic's statement (and those of others who responded at his blog)...

...I take the view that though Vic wrote "eternal fellowship with God" was "the meaning of life," what he was probably more concerned with was the question of the "duration of life," rather than its "meaning." In fact I'd even say that when Vic wrote, "eternal fellowship," he was more concerned with the "eternal" part rather than the "fellowship" part.

Why do I say this?

No matter how you dress up the idea of the "meaning of life" the desire for a longer healthier life is one that we all share, sans all the poetry and heavenly vision talk. Such a simple basic desire is even reflected in the question that Jesus was asked a number of times according to the earliest written Gospels, namely, "How may I inherit eternal life?"

Secondly, concerning the "fellowship" side of Vic's speech, I suspect that having friends and knowing the joy of being with them is something both Vic and I take more for granted than living "eternally." Vic and I already practice "fellowshipping" of a very human sort with people of a wide variety of beliefs and consider it less of a miracle than say "eternal life." I could for instance attend church with Vic, or pray with Vic, and/or he could simply spend time together with me enjoying each others company and friendly banter, and share food, music, films, books, a game of chess, etc. (Speaking of "fellowshipping," a recent poll published in Christianity Today or Christian Century mentioned that even among Evangelicals, most do not put "attending church" at their list of favorite things to do. So most Evangelicals are like most people in general in that respect.)

My point is that "eternal life" is a miraculous wish, but spending quality time with people of different beliefs is something we each do everyday at work, at school, even in our own families where beliefs may differ, but love and "fellowship" of a very human sort, remains. So people of a wide variety of different beliefs are able to enjoy the other "fellow," especially in the U.S.

Unfortunately, many non-U.S. countries are filled with people whose ethnicity continues to regulate their lives, including their language, food, religion, and choice of marriage partners, with rival ethnicities being viewed with suspicion, or sometimes, hatred.

In contrast, in the U.S. people of different ethnic persuasions are uncommonly free to eat what they like, read and watch and speak what they wish, even marry people of completely different religions, and even disagree or change their religion, even within the same family. Take for instance John Wilson, editor of Books & Culture (a magazine published by Christianity Today International, whose flagship magazine was founded by Billy Graham), and who recently mentioned that he and his fellow "Evangelicals are... notoriously riven by disagreement over matters large and small, from the particular translation of the Bible that should be used to the political implications of the Gospel, from the flavor of music most conducive to worship to the role of women in ministry. No wonder a new evangelical denomination or quasi-denomination is born every day;" to which Wilson added, "[Never]underestimate the fluidity of religious identities. My wife and I have four children, all of them raised in an evangelical setting. The two oldest, ages 36 and 28, stopped going to church when they were about 16. We pray that they will return. Our third child — after graduation from Graham’s alma mater, the evangelical Wheaton College in Illinois — converted to Catholicism along with her husband, also a Wheaton grad, who was home-schooled in a self-described fundamentalist family in Texas." [John Wilson, "God Fearing," essay in The New York Times, Nov. 12, 2006]

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE ON "ETERNAL FELLOWSHIP"

If Christianity is true then isn't THIS life here on earth the most exciting point in all of eternity for each human being because only here is where the Christian experiences the excitment of "escaping damnation" and "finding salvation?" It's relatively clear sailing after that according to Christian theology. Or to use an analogy, if Christianity is true then even an "eternity" in heaven seems like an eternal drag on a cigarette after all the "action in bed" is over.

To put it yet another way, see the following conversation, based on something that the famous Rev. Spurgeon really said:

Reporter: But Rev. Spurgeon, What will we do in heaven for eternity? Won’t we get bored?

Rev. Spurgeon: Nonsense. We will joyously sing and meditate on the sufferings of Christ that made the miracle of our salvation possible. As for myself, I could sing and meditate on the wounds round Jesus’s head for a billion years. Then focus on the wounds on his scourged back for the next billion. Then the wound in his right hand for a billion more, the wound in his left hand for a billion, the wound in his side for a billion. Then the wounds in his feet, each foot for a billion years.

Reporter: So, you’re saying there’s nothing worthy of a Christian’s time and devotion, nothing worth looking at, or singing about, for all eternity, except Jesus and his wounds?

Rev. Spurgeon: That’s exactly what I’m saying.

Reporter: So, ah...What’s hell going to be like?

E.T.B. (based on actual replies of Rev. Spurgeon)
____________________________

When Robert Ingersoll heard how Rev. Spurgeon planned to spend billions of years in heaven just staring at Jesus’s wounds, Ingersoll said, “I bet he even takes great delight in reading the genealogies of the Old Testament.”

The Best of Robert Ingersoll, Robert E. Greeley, Ed.
____________________________

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE IN HELL? ANOTHER EQUALLY BANAL ANSWER FROM A THEOLOGIAN

An article in Christianity Today (“Hell’s Final Enigma,” April 22, 2002) by Rev. J. I. Packer (professor of theology at Regent College in Vancouver and executive director of the aforementioned magazine) addressed the question, “How might those in heaven feel about those in hell?” The people in hell will include fellow human beings with similar joys, fears, and life stories to those in heaven, and Christians have been taught they ought to love others with an “unconditional love” and “forgive seventy-times-seven times.” So how can heaven truly be bliss for Christians if people whom they have grown to know and love (and care for) on earth are burning in hell?

Reverend Packer replied that heaven’s occupants would be busy loving each other and praising God. (I wondered if he meant that in the same sense as “winning teammates patting each other on the back for eternity?”) He added that their attention would be focused on heavenly glories. (I wondered if he meant that in the same sense as children so immersed in playing an entrancingly beautiful video game that they cannot be distracted by any actions or thoughts outside of the game?) Then, after having described how heaven’s occupants would feel about God, heaven, and each other, Reverend Packer finally replied to the original question of “How might heaven’s occupants feel about those in hell?” The Reverend’s reply consisted of ten words: “Love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts.”

But doesn’t such a reply beg the question? What kind of “heart” could find neither “love nor pity” entering it, knowing that the greater portion of mankind, including former wives, children, and friends, were all suffering in hell?

Perhaps Rev. Packer’s next column should be about how to reconcile the following two statements, the first one being his own:

“Love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts”

“Love is patient… it keeps no record of wrongs… It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails… These three remain: faith, hope and love.” (1 Corinthians 13:4,7,8,13--NIV translation)

E.T.B.
_________________________

According to the book of Revelation, Heaven is an eternal praise service; a service of compliment or flattery. God sits on his throne, attended by twenty-four harp-playing elders (Rev. 5:8) and some other dignitaries pertaining to his court, and looks out over his miles and miles of tempestuous worshippers, and smiles, and purrs, and nods his satisfaction northward, eastward, southwards; as quaint and naive a spectacle as has yet been imagined in this universe, I take it. It is easy to see that the inventor of this image of heaven did not originate the idea, but copied it from the show-ceremonies of some sorry little sovereign state up in the back settlements of the Middle East somewhere.

Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth
____________________________

Is it possible that an infinite God created this world simply to be the dwelling place of slaves and serfs? Simply for the purpose of raising orthodox Christians? That he did a few miracles to astonish a few of them? That all the evils of life are simply his punishments, and that he is finally going to turn heaven into a kind of religious museum filled with Baptist barnacles, petrified Presbyterians and Methodist mummies?

Robert Ingersoll
____________________________

Have you ever been awakened early in the morning by a Jehovah’s Witness? Maybe you’ve been accosted by a crazy street preacher with a megaphone? You turn on your TV, and there’s Tammy Bakker, Jerry Falwell, that Reverend Scott guy who never sleeps. Has it ever dawned on you that heaven might be a very annoying place?

My brother Mike has always been--and still is--the most annoying religious person I’ve ever known. He thinks homosexuality is a sickness. He believes that all Jews will burn in hell. He thinks women belong in the home. Mike’s one of those people who has to talk to God, because nobody else can stand him.

One Thanksgiving Mike told me, “You know, Ricky, I’m really worried about you! I’m beginning to think that you might not go to heaven!” I leaned toward him very calmly and said, “Mike, I don’t want to go to heaven. You know why? You’re gonna be there!”

Rick Reynolds, Only the Truth is Funny
____________________________

The experts on Heaven disagree about which conglomeration of religious believers will qualify, but they always seem to think that they personally belong to that elite group.An eternity with people that conceited seems intolerable to me.

Robert Anton Wilson, “Cheerful Reflections on Death and Dying,” Gnoware, February 1999

C. S. Lewis's "Man or Rabbit?" and Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"

The Christian philosopher, Victor Reppert recently asked at his blog, "Do Christian apologists and atheists agree on something important that much of the world denies?"

I tend to doubt that such a question is quite as insightful as the fact that fanatics/fundamentalists who attach themselves to mass movements (in either religion or politics) seem to have much in common; while the rest of humanity, perhaps the majority in fact, appear less fanatical/fundamentalistic, and have learned to live a bit more autonomously (not merely being drawn to become cogs in mass movements) and learned to acknowledge uncertainties in their belief systems along with varying degrees of both hope and fear. I even suspect that "moderate" Christians and "moderate" Moslems and "moderate" non-believers can often get along better with each other than fundamentalists/fanatics can with fellow fundamentalists/fanatics even within their own tradition.

Speaking of being drawn into mass movements of the religious or political nature, below are some quotations from Eric Hoffer's little classic, The True Believer. It might be interesting to compare and contrast Hoffer's psychological insights into what drives people to become "true believers" with say, C. S. Lewis's views expressed in "Man or Rabbit?" (especially in light of how I myself summed up matters above). But for now here's Hoffer alone:

P22 "Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves." [Or, when faith in one's own autonomy is not allowed to develop, such a person may join a mass movement, either religious or political.--E.T.B.]

P23 "The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.

"There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless."

"One of the most potent attractions of a mass movement is its offering of a substitute for individual hope. This attraction is particularly effective in a society imbued with the idea of progress."

P24 "In a modern society people can live without hope only when kept dazed and out of breath by incessant hustling."

"The embracing of a substitute will necessarily be passionate and extreme. We can have qualified confidence in ourselves, but the faith we have in our nation, religion, race or holy cause has to be extravagant and uncompromising. A substitute embraced in moderation cannot supplant and efface the self we want to forget. We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it."

P45 "The chief passion of the frustrated is 'to belong'..."

Chapter 11: The Sinners

Pp55-56 "An effective mass movement cultivates the idea of sin. It depicts the autonomous self not only (p56) as barren and helpless but also as vile. To confess and repent is to slough off one's individual distinctness and separateness, and salvation is found in losing oneself in the holy oneness of the congregation."

Chapter 12: Preface to Part Three: United Action and Self-Sacrifice

P58 "What ails the frustrated? It is the consciousness of an irremediably blemished self. Their chief desire is to escape that self-and it is this desire which manifests itself in a propensity for united action and self-sacrifice."

P59 "Both united action and self-sacrifice require self-diminution. In order to become part of a compact whole, the individual has to forgo much. He has to give up privacy, individual judgment and often individual possessions. To school a person to united action is, therefore, to ready him for acts of self-denial.

Pp59-60 "The technique for fostering a readiness to fight and to die consists in separating the individual from his flesh-and-blood self-in not allowing him to be his real self. (p60) This can be achieved by the thorough assimilation of the individual into a compact collective body-by endowing him with an imaginary self (make-believe); by implanting in him a deprecating attitude toward the present and riveting his interest on things that are not yet; by interposing a fact-proof screen between him and reality (doctrine); by preventing through the injection of passions, the establishment of a stable equilibrium between the individual and his self (fanaticism).

P60 "To ripen a person for self-sacrifice he must be stripped of his individual identity and distinctness. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by the complete assimilation of the individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings."

"He has no purpose, worth and destiny apart from his collective body; and as long as that body lives he cannot really die."

P61 "To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life."

P75 "The readiness for self-sacrifice is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life."

"All mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth nor certitude outside it. The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ."

p76 "It is the true believer's ability to 'shut his eyes and stop his ears' to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move."

"Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine; It must be 'contrary to nature, to common sense and to pleasure.'"

"The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth."

"In order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength."

P77 "If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of the doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness."

"To be in possession of an absolute truth is to have a net of familiarity spread over the whole of eternity. There are no surprises and no unknowns. All question have already been answered, all decisions made, all eventualities foreseen. The true believer is without wonder and hesitation. 'Who knows Jesus knows the reason of all things.' The true doctrine is a master key to all the world's problems. With it the world can be taken apart and put together."

P78 "An active mass movement rejects the present and centers its interest on the future. It is from this attitude that it derives its strength, for it can proceed recklessly with the present-with the health, wealth and lives of its followers. But it must act as if it had already read the book of the future to the last word. Its doctrine is proclaimed as a key to that book."

"The urge to escape our real self is also the urge to escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic."

"They ask to be deceived. What Stresemann said of the Germans is true of the frustrated in general: '[They] pray not only for [their] daily bread, but also for [their] daily illusion'. The rule seems to be that those who find no difficulty in deceiving themselves are easily deceived by others. They are easily persuaded and led."

P79 "A peculiar side of credulity is that it is often joined with a proneness to imposture. The association of believing and lying is not characteristic solely of children. They inability or unwillingness to see things as they are promotes both gullibility and charlatanism."

"Only the individual who has comes to terms with his self have a dispassionate attitude toward the world."

P80 "By kindling and fanning violent passions in the hearts of their followers, mass movements prevent the settling of an inner balance. They also employ direct means to effect an enduring estrangement from the self. They depict an autonomous, self-sufficient existence not only as barren and meaningless but also as depraved and evil. Man on his own is a helpless, miserable and sinful creature. His only salvation is in rejecting his self and in finding a new life in the bosom of a holy corporate body-be it a church, a nation or a party. In its turn, this vilification of the self keeps passion at a white heat."

"He [the fanatic]embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness and holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold on to."

P89 "Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us."

"There is a guilty conscience behind every brazen word and act and behind every manifestation of self-righteousness."

P90 "A sublime religion inevitably generates a strong feeling of guilt. There is an unavoidable contrast between loftiness of profession and imperfection of practice. And, as one would expect, the feeling of guilt promotes hate and brazenness. Thus it seems that the more sublime the faith the more virulent the hatred it breeds."

Pp91-92 "Their clamor for a (p92) millennium is shot through with a hatred for all that exists, and a craving for the end of the world."

P92 "Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life."

P93 "The act of self-denial seems to confer on us the right to be harsh and merciless toward others. The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit this earth and the kingdom of heaven, too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish.

"There is also this: when we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we not only renounce personal advantage but are also rid of personal responsibility. There is no telling to what extremes of cruelty and ruthlessness a man will go when he is freed from the fears, hesitations, doubts and the vague stirrings of decency that go with individual judgment. When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom-freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse."

"Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook". [Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943), p 171.]

"Thus hatred is not only a means to unification but also its product. Renan says that we have never, since the world began, heard of a merciful nation. Nor, one may add, have we heard of a merciful church or a merciful revolutionary party."

P94 "Imitation is an essential unifying agent. The development of a close-knit group is inconceivable without a diffusion of uniformity. The one-mindedness and Gleichschaltung prized by every mass movement are achieved as much by imitation as by obedience. Obedience itself consists as much in the imitation of an example as in the following of a precept.

"The chief burden of the frustrated is the consciousness of a blemished, ineffectual self, and their chief desire is to slough off the unwanted self and begin a new life. They try to realize this desire either by finding a new identity or by blurring and camouflaging their individual distinctness; and both these ends are reached by imitation.

P95 "The less satisfaction we derive from being ourselves, the greater is our desire to be like others."

"The desire to belong is partly a desire to lose oneself."

"Finally, the lack of self-confidence characteristic of the frustrated also stimulates their imitativeness. The more we mistrust our judgment and luck, the more we are ready to follow the example of others."

P96 "Imitation is often a shortcut to a solution. We copy when we lack the inclination, the ability or the time to work out an independent solution. People in a hurry will imitate more readily than people at leisure. Hustling thus tends to produce uniformity. And in the deliberate fusing of individuals into a compact group, incessant action will play a considerable role."

P107 "The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the single-handed defiance of the world.

"Charlatanism of some degree is indispensable to effective leadership. There can be no mass movement without some deliberate misrepresentation of facts." [Emphasis added]

p108 "The total surrender of a distinct self is a prerequisite for the attainment of both unity and self-sacrifice; and there is probably no more direct way of realizing this surrender than by inculcating and extolling the habit of blind obedience."

"All mass movements rank obedience with the highest of virtues and put it on a level with faith: 'union of minds requires not only a perfect accord in the one Faith, but complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and the Roman Pontiff as to God Himself'. [Leo XIII, Sepientiae Christianae. According to Luther, "Disobedience is a greater sin than murder, unchastity, theft and dishonest.." Quoted by Jerome Frank, Fate and Freedom (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1945), p. 281] Obedience is not only the first law of God, but also the first tenet of a revolutionary party and of fervent nationalism."

P114 Suspicion

"Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves."
"Strict orthodoxy is as much the result of mutual suspicion as of ardent faith."

FOR FURTHER ERIC HOFFER GEMS, click here and here and here

November 18, 2006

The Pieces Just Don’t Fit (Part 1 of 2)

There’s something about a rebellious 7th grader and a one thousand-piece puzzle set that just don’t mix. But there I was, sitting at a table, being punished, having to painstakingly and meticulously piece together this stupid image of a serene farm in autumn, a farm I cared nothing for and saw no beauty in. But under penalty of after school suspension, I had to finish it.

So what does a bratty, undisciplined pre-teen do when he is faced with a crappy activity he hates? Why, he ruffles through the pieces and finds the more colorful ones and slams them together into one big mob–whether they fit or not! The rest of the pieces get discreetly thrown back into the box when the teacher isn’t looking. “Close enough”, I figured. No after school detention for me that day!

Had the teacher looked a little closer, my plot would have been foiled. Old and nice, white-haired and soft-spoken Mrs. Cloud in her early 70’s would have seen that the pieces I mashed together were not a perfect match at all, but oh how eyes with less than 20/20 vision can reduce one’s powers of perception!

I never noticed it as a believer, but so many things in God’s most holy of books didn’t fit with what I was taught about the natural world. I could see the logic behind Bible statements, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” (Genesis 1:16) But my view of the natural world - much like our jumbled and contorted puzzle above - didn’t quite fit with Bible mythology.

For one, the sun and moon end up not being able to obey orders all the time. Heavy cloud cover often blocks out sun and moonlight. In the case of a meteor or comet disaster, such as the massive one that touched ground in the Yucatan Peninsula some sixty five millions years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs, sending thousands of cubic miles of dirt into the sky, blocking out light and changing Earth’s climate drastically, the results were cataclysmic. Over fifty percent of life on Earth was destroyed. For almost half a year in the northern and southern Polar Regions, the light of the sun is not to be seen. The inhabitants there live in deprecating darkness. The orbital mechanics of Earth have it so that the moon only shows up in the sky a number of nights per month. So even under ideal conditions, this “lesser light” doesn’t do his job, and never does he do it well. There’s no way by moonlight to see if there are any bugs in my sleeping bag if I’m out camping, and certainly not enough light to read the Bible before bedtime as God would want us to do!

Then, of course, there is the fact that if people had been around three billion years ago, the moon would have been a real bastard! The moon has always been a record-holding mass murderer, producing natural disasters; back when Earth had six-hour days, the moon brought massive tidal waves that pulverized Earth’s surface daily, but you wouldn’t know that today. Today, the moon has gone from overzealous to near apathetic when compared to the earlier impressions he made. He is starting to get lax on his duties as he is retreating from Earth at about an inch and a half per year, slowly but consistently losing his grip on our beloved planet. How this is supposed to “declare” the glory of God in the firmament is beyond me. If it does, God’s glory must be as fleeting and changing as these celestial evangelists that declare it.

Then there is the problem of the moon having craters. Not exactly what you would expect to find in a flawless creation of God large enough to stabilize our planet and solicit awe from mankind. The thing is scarred with craters, and these are marks of a chaotic past, not an orderly creative one. The moon is a testimony to death, to catastrophe, and not life or universal harmony of God’s workmanship. It should be an embarrassment for the Bible believer because by the looks of it, it wasn’t created at all, but formed naturally in a planetary collision billions of years ago. That is what science says happened. More than anything else, the moon is like a great big tombstone to Earth—gray, dead, barren, and over our heads. It just lacks our names!

I am embarrassed to say I once believed that a greater light was made to rule the day and a lesser light was made to rule the night (even though there weren’t two lights, only one, the latter being a simple reflection of the former), but I have since come to understand that neither were “made” for anything or anyone, anymore so than Sirius B was “made” for the Dogon people of Africa to worship as the creator of all life on Earth. But this is not all. The real tickler is to follow.

The Bible says, “He made the stars also.” Oh, just like that! God made the world then the stars! What’s wrong with this picture? We know that stars had their origins before everything else we see around us, certainly long before planets. But to Bible writers, God creating stars was just as trivial as picking up laundry detergent at Mr. Patel’s local Sac n’ Save corner store on your way home from work. The stars were just an afterthought of God…nothing big, certainly not colossal nuclear reactors or nurseries of planets like we know they are now. They were unimportant except to serve as points of light in the sky, testimonies to the creative power of a ghost. This would be a more than forgive-able error for people of that time period to make had believers in this myth not claimed divine inspiration, and thus, infallibility in all matters, secular and religious.

The unsurpassed arrogance boggles the mind…Biblicists want us to believe that the ultimate meaning of NGC 598, the Sombrero Galaxy, M81, Andromeda, and all the other hundreds of billions of galaxies in existence were really created as heavenly testimonies to exalt and extol a Hebrew war-god on a planet far, far away called “Earth,” who commanded his people to kill lambs and turtledoves so that he can take pleasure in the smell of it (Psalm 19:1-5; Leviticus 1:9; 12:6). Like an ugly, middle-aged, business tycoon with a hairy back, who buys a Ferrari just to be noticed by floozy college girls less than half his age, God created galaxies and stars just for us to look up at and admire! The very thought calls for a contemplative sigh of amazement!

(JH)

November 17, 2006

Carnival of the Godless 53



Welcome to the 53rd edition of the Carnival of the Godless!

I will arrange the posts by subject tags, but the numbering is arbitrary.

Debunking Theism
  1. The God Conundrum, by Sean Carroll from Cosmic Variance: Responds to a review by Eagleton of Dawkins' The God Delusion
  2. Fruitful Inconsistencies, by Stephen Frug from Attempts: You may want to scroll down -- the first half of the post discusses the way that contradictions in literature, far from being a blemish, can in fact be a source of literary richness; I then apply the same thinking to religion -- a kind of fiction, after all -- and discuss the ways in which the very contradictions that make it (to atheists) not believable is also a source of its imaginative power
  3. Conceptual Time-Capsule Five, by Danieru from The Huge Entity: The post is a backlash to recent secular humanist writings from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. My submission explores the nature of our 'God-Shaped Hole' and dismisses claims that science can ever fully override religion.
  4. The evidence of things unseen, (trackback) by John from Hell's Handmaiden: "Faith is rarely questioned. The unseen evidence of faith is taken as is. It is even worn as a badge of honor. Or taken almost as a proof of itself. I believe, because I believe."
  5. ...And This Bird You Cannot Change..., by Akusai of Action Skeptics: A critical look at religious arguments surrounding free will and the nature of God.
Debunking Christianity (see bottom for more from this site)
  1. Christian Presuppositionalism: A General Response, by Daniel Morgan from Debunking Christianity: Highlights a paper from a philosopher (Prof. D. Gene Witmer) responding to this style of Christian apologetics
  2. Prof. Gene Witmer Debates Pastor Gene Cook on Unchained Radio, get the .mp3 here: Prof. Witmer and Pastor Cook lock horns over whether atheism is capable of explaining abstract entities like logic and morality, and the conversation turns to the problem of evil near the end -- very good show. Chris Hallquist has some of the transcript with analysis.
  3. A Hard Look at Presuppositional Transcendental Arguments, #1, #2, #3, by exbeliever from Not Many Wise (formerly of DC): These three articles seriously examine the sorts of arguments that claim that Christianity is true because atheism cannot "account" for certain metaphysical entities, and clearly demonstrates the lack of substance to these arguments.
  4. What Does Fact Matter?, by Michael Klaas from Klaas Acts: De-constructing a conversation between and evangelical Christian and his potential convert.
  5. Burying the Dead -- Normalizing the Extreme in the Gospels: A Hypocrisy of Homilies, by Jerry Monaco from Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, & Culture: I write an historical explanation of several passages in the Gospel where the character of Jesus urges his followers to to violate kinship norms, family piety, etc. Kinship systems were both the foundation of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean society and were falling apart everywhere. I explain why attempts to normalize or modernize the Gospels must fail historical scrutiny, because in the context of the time the attack on father-son relations and the chiliastic urgency of the Gospels led the Gospel writers to extremist views.
  6. Picking and Choosing Belief, by Jeff Hebert from A Nerd's Country Journal: One atheist's method for deciding which parts of a religious text to give credence to, and which to reject
Evolution/Science
  1. Religion, Science, and Bigotry, by Alonzo Fyfe from The Atheist Ethicist: Back in my home state of Montana a Republican law maker called Montana's governor a bigot for claiming that the state's education agenda should not promote the view of those who think that the earth is 4,000 years old. This article looks at the concept of 'bigot' and denies the charge that advancing science fact over science fiction represents any type of bigotry.
  2. Francis Collins Does it Again!, by Shalini from Scientia Natura: Evolution And Rationality: On the famous scientists' attempt to save God from scientific falsification, rendering the hypothesis impotent
  3. Ken Miller, by Mr. R. from Evolving Education: Talks about the difference in the positions of Dawkins and Miller with respect to evolution -- an ongoing debate amongst scientists and the godless everywhere
  4. The Sad State of Science, by Daniel Morgan at DC: comment on the 2006 Science and Engineering Indicators, especially reflects the correlation between poor science education and superstitious thought/belief.
  5. Groupthink, by Jason Rosenhouse: Who exhibits the 8 classic symptoms of groupthink more clearly: ID advocates or evolutionary theory (mainstream biological science) advocates?
Misc.
  1. Famous Atheists - Butterfly McQueen, by Mojoey from Deep Thoughts: Mojoey has started a project to document and highlight the lives of famous people who are oft-forgotten as having been atheists.
  2. Second Coming Insurance, by Stuart from Daily Irreverence: A real story about some Catholic girls who bought insurance to make sure that they'd have the resources to raise the next Jesus
  3. Elements of Character, By Wenchypoo from Wisdom from Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket: Too often we try to unnecessarily inject the divine into analyses of character
  4. The Four Stages of a Truth: Part 1, Part 2, by Francois Tremblay at Check Your Premises: Francois describes human reactions to arguments and facts along the spectrum from acceptance to non-confrontation.
  5. Analyzing the Data for Social Trends in Xianity, by Daniel Morgan at GBLoGBB: Is Christianity growing? What are its leaders saying about growth? In what sectors? Are megachurches evidence of growth? What data supports the growth of atheism?
On Godlessness, Goodness and Meaning
  1. Thus Spoke Zarathustra -- a Book Review, by Brandon Peele from Generative Transformation (trackback): Pretty self-explanatory
  2. Make Your Own "Why", by Dave from Villa Nandes: Finding meaning in a godless life.
  3. Thank Goodness!, by Daniel Dennett, posted to The Edge: Dennett talks about his very recent near-death experience, and what it taught him about goodness. One of my favorite posts.
  4. Atheist pride, by purplebob: calls for agnostics to come out of the closet as atheists, and to use the label with pride, just as queers did -- I suppose the Brights wouldn't appreciate this effort ;-)
  5. Peer-Reviewed Article Researching Deconversions, by Daniel Morgan at GBLoGBB: One of the few published journal articles laying out scientific observations among apostates
Politics
  1. Playing Dirty for God, by the Dr. from And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Questions the role of faith in Bush's own life, in his politics, and in the GOP generally, and concludes, "...it’s not just that Bush is running the False God Kool-Aid stand; he’s also a client."
  2. Anti-Dominionism is not McCarthyism, by Alon Levy from Abstract Nonsense: rebukes the notion that people like Kevin Phillips and Michelle Goldberg are just hysteric about Dominionism the way McCarthy was about communism.
  3. A Letter Sent to the Office of the Archbishop of York, by Alun Salt at Archaeoastronomy: Archbishops have been attacking public Atheism this week. The Archbishop of York has posted online an address to the Diocese of Newcastle in which the Archbishop insists Christianity should not be rammed down people's throats and the best way to do this is insist on people having Christian names on forms, wishing Merry Christmas rather than seasons greetings and restoring free parking to the good Christians of Plymouth.
  4. Ted Haggard Shows the Virtue of Hypocrisy, by Jon Swift: Where did this strange idea that hypocrisy is not a moral virtue come from?
  5. Jim Benton on Fundies vs. Gay Marriage, by Salto sobrius: The conservative Christian animosity towards gay marriage is most probably rooted in its interpretation of marriage as defined by women's submission to their husbands.
  6. Why I will never vote for anyone who says this, By Barry Leiba from Staring At Empty Pages: Politicians who put God above the people are dangerous.
  7. Have we got a minyan for the election?, by Barry Leiba from Staring At Empty Pages: Comments on people praying for favourable election results -- doesn't this amount to asking God to "fix" the election?
  8. Evangelicals vs. the Religious Right, by Daniel Morgan at GBLoGBB: Pasted article from Newsweek with commentary afterwards on the intrinsic hypocrisy within the RR among those who give money and time towards the RR but not towards charity
A Sample of Debunking Christianity, for the interested:
  1. Calvinism Explains Everything and Nothing, by John Loftus at DC: a hard look at the logical difficulties within Calvinism and gullibility required to believe it
  2. Flat Earth Assumptions of Biblical Authors--Edward T. Babinski VS. Dave Armstrong & J.P. Holding, by Ed Babinski at DC: Examines whether or not the case for a flat earth was biblical
  3. The Logical Problem of Evil Is Still Very Much Alive!, by John Loftus at DC: A response to the "solution" by Plantinga to the PoE
  4. My Encounter With Calvinism, by Ed Babinski at DC: Discusses the degree of credulity needed to embrace Calvinism
  5. Was Jesus Left Handed?, by DagoodS at DC: Wrestles with some of the logical absurdities of the Incarnation -- how God could've been tempted "in all points" like we are
  6. On the Possibility of a Beginningless Past: A Reply to William Lane Craig, by exapologist at DC: examines the problems in the cosmological argument for God's existence
  7. In Defense of Visions: Objection One, by Matthew Green at DC: rebuttals to naturalistic explanations of the stories in the gospels
  8. A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith, by Joe E. Holman at DC: cites famous examples of Christianity's atrocities to support the idea that "Christianity is an albatross to humankind"
  9. A Bad Taste!, by exbeliever at DC: cites Scripture to explain why some "have left the fountain [of God] with a horrible taste in our mouths?"
  10. There is no Jehovah-Rophi, no Covenant, by Daniel Morgan at DC: investigates the promises of the old and new covenants, particularly with respect to health/healing, and concludes that either God is a liar, or there is no Covenant (and never was)
That's it for this edition. Here are the pages for COTG 52 and COTG 54 (Thanksgiving Ed.).