Frequently Asked Questions

Welcome to DC!

First read my comment policy at DC

Were We Really Christians?:

There is No Doubt I was a Christian.
Well, it Depends.
There Are No Christians!
Some Christians Also Struggle With Serious Doubts.

Are We Angry New Atheists?:

Are We Angry Atheists?
Am I An Angry Atheist? No, I'm Just Mad as Hell and You Might Be Too.

Why Do Christians Believe?:

Why Do Christians Believe?
The Concept of God Solves All Problems.
Christians Often Retreat to What's Merely Possible.
You Can't Argue With Christians.
Control Beliefs...Control
Consider the Obvious
Absence of Evidence and the Evidence of Absence
Christians Are Fearful of Doubting
Christianity Simply Reinvents Itself in Every Generation

Why Don't Agnostics and Atheists Believe?:

Is It Really Because We Have a Hard Heart?
Why I've Adopted My Control Set of Beliefs
Why Skeptics Have an Anti-Supernatural Bias.
Why I Don't Believe the Bible is God's Word
What Would Convince Me Christianity Is True?

What Motivates Us to Debunk Christianity?:

Why Our Focus is on Evangelical Christianity
A Bad Taste.
Why I'm Debunking Christianity
What Motivates Me.
Why I'm Doing What I'm Doing

Atheism, Christianity and Morality:

What Motivates Atheists to be Good People?
The Christian Illusion of Moral Superiority.
Do Christians Have a Superior Foundation for Morality!
Do Christians Have An Ultimate Standard of Morality?
The Evidence and So-Called Objective Morality
What Can Account for Morality?
An Atheistic Ethic

Lessons From Bowflex

They are in our houses, lying under our beds, tucked away in our closets. They are in our lofts, or covered up with boxes in our garages and storage rooms. Being the born-and-bred packrats some of us are, we take them with us, laboriously moving them from house to house as we relocate through the years. We had a number of opportunities to sell them at garage sales, but we never did. We keep telling ourselves that we’ll get around to using them again one day, like that short month-and-a-half period just after we bought them, right before we quit using them and tossed them into that “I’m already bored as hell with this” pile of virtual paperweights we own. I’m talking about Bowflex machines and their knock-off competitors sold on TV from those annoying infomercials that perhaps caught us off guard one night, resulting in our making a bad investment [At this point in the article, Joe lowers his head in shame!]. What did we invest in? A piece of crap, that’s what…one that does nothing but remain unused and take up space in our houses.

When it comes to buying trinket-y, worthless gadgets, I am as guilty as a career woman in a shoe store on payday. I buy things, usually smaller items I can talk myself into buying on the spurt of the moment. I’ve got needless computer keyboards, pens, pencils, desktop items, flashlights, and office supplies all over my place, why? Because that tactile part of me, like a small red devil above my left shoulder, convinces me that making these senseless purchases will somehow make me feel more satisfied in accomplishing whatever purpose I bought the item for.

No pattern is more predictable than the cycles of satisfaction (or should I say, dissatisfaction); we want an item, then we want it really badly, so much so that it overcomes any doubts about whether or not we need it or can afford it. So we buy it, have brief fun with it, quickly get tired of it, and then think back on how wanting it was better than actually having it. In the end, we wish we hadn’t bought it at all! However long any satisfaction might have lasted us, it wasn’t long enough, all things considered.

It’s funny how something so vainglorious like Bowflex can teach us big-league lessons about life, religion, and human nature; you have those who seriously want to get in shape, and then you have those who are just toying with the idea. The small irony of it is, those who are no-nonsense about maintaining their bodies will likely not be interested in something as piddly as Bowflex. They would veritably have – lo and behold – a gym membership! But more germane to our subject, those who buy into the claims of Bowflex infomercials parallel those who buy into the assertions of religion, though not in every way.

For instance, you have those who buy into religion, and many of them remain satisfied with it, but with Bowflex, I don’t think I’ve known anyone who remained satisfied with it for long! Most of us buy it and then hate it. You have those like me, for instance, who buy the damn machine and soon get tired of it (those of us who were once religious and became disenchanted with it). Then you have those who never got duped into buying the blasted thing in the first place (those who were never taken in by the charm of religious appeal), and you have those who bought the piece of junk and got tired of it, more or less (those who have been religious and then grew weary of all organized and fundamentalist forms of religion, rejecting them for much more liberal and science-friendly versions). They too have seen for themselves how disappointing faith systems are when the elaborate euphoria of ecclesiasticism wears off, when the harm done by “born again” believers becomes apparent, when the false-alarm-sounding mentality of evangelicals comes to light.

Those who have experienced the flaws of faith are not impressed with hollow religious promises for quick fixes or miracle cures for society’s ills, nor are they ready to buy into dubious claims on how to make a better tomorrow—anymore than a smart consumer watching a Bowflex infomercial will be inclined to buy it because of those nicely tanned, washboard-abdominal-muscled models who are paid to show off the product. Not a one of those finely tuned human specimens got their illustrious bodies from using that machine, but the company wants you to think they did.

The smart shopper realizes that not only are these claims the products of deceitful advertising, but the machine will not feel as satisfying in its use as it appears it will from the view of the couch, watching TV. The device might be too cheaply made, perhaps, or not big enough, not sturdy enough, or just not as fun to work out on as it seems it will be (I have found this to be the case with every “as seen on TV” piece of garbage I ever purchased!). This is in contrast to the believer who looks with elation at Christianity and sees a system of belief that will be the perfect cure-all for a world longing for happiness and answers; stop AIDS by not being homosexual; stop rape and adultery by outlawing pornography and immodest dress; stop terrorist attacks like those of 911 by making abortion illegal so that God will be moved to providentially protect us again; stop school shootings by bringing prayer and the ten commandments back into classrooms; it all sounds so simple and effective to the pious mind, to those living in the black-and-white world of theism.

The wise consumer knows that if he really wants to get in shape, it won’t be through knickknack-y exercise machines, and cute, jazzy-looking equipment. It will be through hard work and the embracing of a healthy lifestyle—eating right and exercising regularly. It’s about life changes, not nifty products. When it comes to considering a smart, pragmatic view of life, healthy amounts of skepticism and cynicism are more than called for. A pious life of folded hands and bent knees is not the only way to go, I don’t care what some preacher or priest tells you.

Equivocally, adopting religious systems to live by will not solve the world’s major problems; they will not bring peace, will not answer questions, and will not improve the quality of life. Religions will not somehow Utopian-ize society as some expect it to. If it could, the world would have been a mostly peaceful and wonderful place since before recorded history, and still would be.

“When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” (Proverbs 16:7)

“But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” (Psalm 37:11)

Uh…not quite! The Holy Land and surrounding areas – that area on Earth with the highest population of “righteous” men in any one place – is far from peaceful and leaves much to be desired, as any remotely westernized thinker must admit. Just look at Islam verses the different sects of Islam, Islam verses Judaism, Islam verses the west and Christianity, and we would be fatuous not to mention the feuding Irish Catholic and Protestant groups throughout the world who relish murdering one another on an incredibly wide scale. Incidentally, the Bible writers seemed to have quite a learning disability when it came to identifying peace. It was prophesied that Josiah would die “in peace,” and yet he died by a pagan king’s arrow in an unnecessary confrontation (2 Kings 22:20; 2 Kings 23:29-30; 2 Chronicles 35:23-24). A similar fate befell Zedekiah who was also promised by God through Jeremiah that he would die in peace, though it certainly did not happen (Jeremiah 34:4-5; 52:10-11). Well, if these are biblically “peaceful” ways to die, I don’t want to even try and think of violent ones!

Like many other well done paid advertisements, a strongly promoted product becomes a sensation where a less promoted product loses out. The biggest and most successful businesses advertise heavily, from Apple Computers to Yahoo. Advertisers target one of two things—need or want (sometimes both). By doing a great job reminding their viewers that a nice, hot, muscular body is the best kind to have (with the proper lighting, stage presentation, camera work, and tanned, pumped-up, oiled-up bodies), Bowflex fosters the want behind the sale and is thus able to move these machines by the thousands each year.

Proponents of Christianity play up the need angle; man is a sinner, depraved and wicked to the core, and he is spiritually stupid too, unable to use his natural mind to appropriately and humanely conduct himself, and life is such that it’s hard to find happiness amidst all the depression anyway. So what is the cure? Religion, of course—always each particular preacher’s own version of it. Mankind needs help from the next world. Mankind needs the gospel. But like the wise consumer, the astute freethinker sees through all such lies. He realizes man is fully capable of producing goodness, dignity, and happiness all by himself. In the case of religion, people are being convinced that they have a need for an invisible product; Christianity comes along, says mankind has a “sin problem” (one we would not know exists except for Christianity telling us about it), and then gives the solution to it. As Dan Barker put it, “Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage?”

Scam artists are kept alive and in business by bad consumers who make bad financial decisions. The world needs smarter consumers, but it also needs a smarter populace, one that won’t so easily buy into the claims of creationists, pseudo-scientists, and religious idealists, like hatemonger preachers and fascist religionist politicians. But the road to improvement is a long one to travel, and it doesn’t look as though many want to arrive at that destination.

(JH)

Atheist Peter Kirby is Now a Catholic

[Edit this is old news since Kirby now says he's basically an agnostic. Link.]


Former atheist Peter Kirby says the Catholic Church is his home, and he now finds himself "identifying with the Christian religion."

*cough* In my opinion he never was an atheist in the first place, or that if he was one, someday he'll return to the atheist fold.

I'm not serious when I said he was never an atheist, but Christians regularly say that about those of us who leave the Christian fold. How does that sound, Christian?

In any case, I'm not sure what Kirby has been converted to, since what he describes isn't all that clear to me. He describes himself as "a Catholic-Naturalist." I'd like for him to explain what doctrines of the Catholic Church he believes, and where he has changed his mind regarding the content of these beliefs, if these beliefs have changed. But whether he does or not is up to him in his own timing.

It seems as though he felt the need for "help" from outside of this present existence. We all have that feeling. Just last week I myself "prayed" for help, just in case there was actually a Spirit out there, or just in case there is a mind and that thinking affects reality in some way. I have always been a lucky person, and I don't know why this is so. I think lucky thoughts, if you will, and fortuitous events happen in my life. Is it because I think I'm lucky that in turn I see a fortuitous event, or is it the case that my positive thinking somehow affects events that bring me luck? Since there is no evidence that positive thinking affects historical events, it probably doesn't affect them. But we want to think positive anyway. At least in doing so it helps us to react positively to what happens in this life which gives us the best chance to act in ways that produce positive events in our lives.

Why is it that on shows like "Deal or No Deal," and "Family Feud" that after people make a guess they subsequently clap and say it out loud as a "good choice/answer"? Does it help? What about the Craps Dice roller in Vegas? He calls out for his numbers as he throws the dice. Does it help? Probably not, but who can say for absolute certain, right? So we do. I do. Perhaps Kirby is doing the same thing? Maybe for him it's a Kierkegaardian leap of faith into the unknown. It brings comfort. It offers the promise of help. It feels safe.

Even though I can't fully understand why he would want to support and align himself with the Catholic Church, given its past and present day atrocities, I for one, wish him well.

I would hope that atheists treat their apostates more respectfully than Christians or Muslims treat their apostates.

All Gods Have Been Taken Seriously

One objection to the cliche' that atheists believe in just one fewer God than religious believers do, was expressed recently over at Christian Cadre:

Third, there aren't really thousands of other gods that are taken seriously, and anyone who sees religions as the same except that they have "different gods" has a very childish grasp religious belief. Sure, a thousand and more years ago some people believed in Ishtar and Odin and Zeus, but only a handful of people (if any) really give those types of religions credence today because, unlike Christianity, they don't ring true.

The truth is that every God that people have believed in, both in the present and in the past, was taken very seriously by those very people. Just because we no longer take most of them seriously doesn't mean we could ever have convinced them otherwise via an argument, or with counter-evidence. Christians simply take their God seriously, and that's what all other people have done too.

There is only one God that is deserving of the name, and that is the philosopher's God. That is the God established by reasonable arguments, if such a thing can be done. The other Gods are human religions based upon the doctrines of a superstitious "faith," that legitimize and grant power to those who propogate them, which are spread by the sword, but not containing much by way of convincing evidence, in my opinion.

Chris Hallquist's First Live Debate

Chris Hallquist just had his first public debate. Here's the link. I did find it somewhat amusing that Chris refers to me as a "philosopher," but refers to William Lane Craig as "a Christian writer."

I liked how Chris started. *ahem* I liked it when he startled his audience by saying he was talking to a group full of atheists. Then he explained that they don't believe in the other gods of the religions of the world. I also really liked his suggestion in his closing statement that people should read the Bible because of his confidence that the Bible itself can lead people to disbelieve. Julia Sweeney tells how reading the Bible led her away from God too. Enjoy. Nice job Chris. Thanks for thinking something I wrote was worthy to use as a springboard for your argument.

It's All About Seeing Things Differently.

I like optical illusions. They're fun, and I've compiled a bunch of them. What do you see in the picture at left? Christians see God in this world just like they see a baby in the outline of the tree. I see the world as a natural phenomenon just like I see the natural landscape of the picture. That's the way I look at the world. Christians see it differently. I think they are wrong. They think I'm wrong. But on such an issue we all cannot be right.
My invitation to Christians is to put on what Julia Sweeney calls her "No-God glasses." Try them on for just a few seconds at first. Then for a few minutes. Don't worry, you won't go out and murder anyone. [For those who may not be able to see the baby, I've provided an outline of the baby in red].

From the Introduction of My Book.

Since here at DC our posts are brief and haphazard, let me challenge people who visit to seriously consider getting my book to read one single cumulative case against the Christian faith. In it you won't find a piecemeal argument like you find here on a daily basis. Consider reading it. Here's a selection from my introduction explaining what I aim to do in the book:

In this book I’m writing to explain why I rejected Christianity. It’s sincere, and it’s honest. In it I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity. It includes my own personal experiences with the Christian faith, along with the arguments that I find persuasive enough for me to reject that faith. I consider this book to be one single argument against Christianity, and as such it should be evaluated as a whole. My claim is that the Christian faith should be rejected by modern, educated people, even if I know many of them will still disagree. I’m just sharing the reasons that convinced me, and I think they should convince others. If someone is persuaded by the same reasons I argue for in this book, then I’m pleased.

My method is explained in more detail later in this book, but let me introduce it here. I consider the most significant sections (or subsets) of my argument to be

1) Sociological, in “The Outsider Test For Faith…”;

2) Philosophical, in "Does God Exist?," and "Do Miracles Take Place?”;

3) Scientific, in “The Lessons of Galileo, Science and Religion”;

4) Biblical, in “The Strange and Superstitious World of the Bible”;

5) Historical, in “Historical Evidence and Christianity”; and,

6) Empirical in “The Problem of Evil.” All of these sections are partially summed up in “The Achilles’ Heel of Christianity.”

These sections provide me with the control beliefs for rejecting Christianity’s specific foundational miracle/doctrinal claims.

Since having control beliefs don’t by themselves tell me what to believe about the evidence of a specific miracle claim, I will also examine the evidence for the foundational miracle claims of Christianity. I will consider them as the historical claims they are. I will examine them by looking at the internal evidence found within the Biblical texts themselves. I’ll consider what these texts actually say and scrutinize their internal consistency. Wherever relevant, I’ll also consider whether the Old Testament actually predicts some of these events. Then I will examine these claims by looking at the external evidence. I’ll consider any independent confirmation of these events outside of the texts. Lastly I will subject these claims to the canons of reason using the control beliefs I have previously argued for. I will conclude from all of this that Christianity should be rejected.

Logical Gerrymandering

I have been using the term "logical gerrymandering" for a few years now to describe what some Christians do in unfairly "redistricting" what people like me say out-of-context, in order to gain an unfair intellectual advantage, or to ridicule us.

I also use this phrase to describe what Christians do when caught in a logical inconsistency. Calvinists, for instance, claim God decrees (or ordains) everything we desire to do and everything we do, yet they want to describe God as good, and blame us alone for everything bad we do. With a flood of words they logically gerrymander around this logical inconsistency. [See this article on gerrymandering for what the term means politically].

The first person I know of to use this term outside of political spheres is Walter Kaufmann, in his 1958 book, Critique of Religion and Philosophy, although he merely calls it "gerrymandering." He claimed that "many theologians are masters of this art. Theologians do not just do this incidentally: this is theology. Doing theology is like doing a jigsaw puzzle in which the verses of Scripture are the pieces: the finished picture is prescribed by each denomination, with a certain latitude allowed. What makes the game so pointless is that you do not have to use all the pieces, and that pieces which do not fit may be reshaped after prounouncing the words 'this means.' That is called exegesis."

Sam Harris calls this same approach to exegesis, "cherry-picking," because Christians will cherry-pick the good out of the Good Book, and reinterpret or ignore what they don't like in it. Harris argued, and I agree, that Christians decide what is good in the Good Book.

In his 1961 book Faith of a Heretic, Kaufmann wrote about how Christians view Jesus in the New Testament: "Most Christians gerrymander the Gospels and carve an idealized self-portrait out of the texts: Passen's Jesus is a socialist, Fosdick's is a liberal, while the ethic of Reinhold Niebuhr's Jesus agrees, not surprising, with Niebuhr's own."

Anyway, Kaufmann knew in advance there would be theologians who would gerrymander the words in his book. He said: "This Critique is exceptionally vulnerable to slander by quotation and critics cursed with short breath, structure blindness, and myopia will be all but bound to gerrymander it."

Kaufmann said:

"Quotations can slander
if you gerrymander."

[Pages 219-220].

Of course, The Principle of Intellectual Charity is pretty much the exact opposite way to deal with intellectual opponents, and is akin to what Christians themselves believe they should do with people in general (I Corinthians 13). If we followed this principle when dealing with our opponents, we will be less likely to commit the informal fallacy of attacking a strawman, and thereby less likely to make a fool of ourselves.

The Lessons of Cho Seung-Hui Killings.

In the 48th comment on Joe Holman's satirical post about the Cho Seung-Hui killings, our own exapologist makes a very good point, one that I expressed to my wife last night, and one which is reminiscent of the Columbine shooters.

While many of us want to argue back and forth about the lessons learned from this killer for and against Christianity, exapologist wrote:

I'm worried about the extent to which this massacre is being used to make our pet points, without taking to heart what happened here.

There is a pattern. A kid, or group of kids, are picked on and alienated from their peers. I'm not talking about an occasional jab, but a systematic, coordinated rejection of a child as a non-person. The kid internalizes the message. It builds up until they can't take it any more, and so they explode -- with lethal consequences.

Why is it so hard to learn this lesson? This sort of systematic alienation is just too much for the human psyche. We're essentially social creatures, and can't survive this sort of global rejection. Can't schools, or at least parents, raise their kids well enough so that it would never occur to them to engage in this sort of bullshit?

Here are two links talking about the treatment Cho Seung-Hui suffered from people in general. See here, and here.

What is wrong with us that we cannot treat people who are different from us humanely and with some measure of respect?

God Loves Cho Seung-Hui

In trying times like these, when terrible crimes against humanity have been committed, like the recent murders of Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old South Korean man of Virginian Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia, we must be extra careful not to rush to judgment or let anger get the best of us! The world watched in horror on April 16, 2007, as Cho Seung-Hui made history by unleashing the worst school shooting rampage in U.S. history.

Cho Seung-Hui was described as a deeply troubled man, one who never smiled or greeted strangers, and always expressed deep-seated hatred of “rich kids,” and people who led lives of “debauchery.” He took antidepressants, and it is believed once set fire to a dormitory, stalked women, and wrote very disturbing pieces of literature. He was what many would call “a bad guy.”

Where is God when terrible things like this happen? What we must
remember is, God is there, even though it seems at times as though he isn’t. God loves us all, including those of us who have chosen the wrong path. God loves Cho Seung-Hui very much and looks down from heaven with compassion, despite his wreaking sheer havoc on an unsuspecting college campus, taking many innocent lives in the process.

Jesus was right there all the time, looking down with love as this
angry man premeditatedly sawed the serial numbers off the guns he used to blast screaming college kids into tomorrow. Jesus was watching as young people, with their lives still ahead of them, stood petrified with fear in those brief moments before their demise. Jesus was there, waiting in the wings to comfort those mourning families who lost their loved ones at the whim of a tarnished soul. Jesus was there, my friend, Jesus hasn’t forgotten! As the song goes, Jesus knows, Jesus cares!

There’s a lot of anger in the air because of this tragedy. The world is wishing this guy straight to Hell, thinking of how much people like Cho Seung-Hui deserve to suffer, but its times like these when we must try especially hard to think like Jesus. Its times like these when the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord shines out brighter than the sun. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance! We should not wish evil on this disturbed and erring child of God, no matter how horrible and unsettling his deeds.

We should all aim never to be judgmental or hateful, and we must be careful where we place blame. People are quick to judge Cho Seung-Hui, but before they do, they should consider judging the people he executed first. They were college kids, most of them, and like the majority of young men and women today, probably experimented with premarital sex, smoked pot, and drank alcohol—not exactly followers of Christ! So we shouldn’t judge him too harshly.

Maybe, after this heartless berserker’s rage, when the traumatized halls of Virginia Tech were finally calmed, and 33 people (including the gunman himself) were dead, and 21 more seriously injured, just before Mr. Seung-Hui took a bullet from his own gun to the head, he repented. Yes, maybe, just before the blood-caked carpets of Virginia Tech were combed over by police, when only faint pleas for help could be heard from terrorized victims, curled up and quivering in the fetal position in the corners of classrooms and under desks, this furious killer genuinely repented. Perhaps just before that last bullet ravaged his brain, doing away with his thought processes, he muddled a prayer to God, asking for forgiveness of his sins and relief from the pain of life under which he snapped.

For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life! God loves Cho Seung-Hui, just like he loves you and me. He wants us to spend eternity in heaven together.

Maybe, even as I write this article, those slain men and women that
meet God at the pearly gates are in for a surprise! Singing hymns,
encircling the throne of God, listening to the lovely melody of harps, those murdered children of the almighty will be met by the very man who sent them there, and with forgiveness and beaming smiles of compassion and unfathomable joy, they will make that circle one soul larger! Cho Seung-Hui may not have been smiling much on earth, but he certainly will be in heaven as he, and all the redeemed, clasp hands and dance before the Lord on the streets of gold in that city foursquare!

(JH)

(JH)

Speech at "Battlecry" rally, San Francisco

City Hall Steps, San Francisco, March 9th, 2007.

Battlecry is a fundamentalist youth organization that is gaining
strength and was recently in San Francisco. (see: here. Prior to their demonstration about moral values there was a press conference of people addressing the threat of the Christian right. The San Francisco chronicle had this story:

Marlene Winell, a returning member here, contributed the following speech:

"Good afternoon. I'd like to say a few words about them, and a few
words about us and consider how far apart we really are. My area of
study is psychology and I'm also a former fundamentalist Christian.
The book I wrote, Leaving the Fold, is a self-help book but it began
with my effort to understand my own recovery. Since then I have spent many years working with people struggling to heal from the devastating effects of dogmatic religion, and especially Christian fundamentalism. I've learned a lot about why it works so well, the reasons people stay, the reasons they leave, and the stages of recovery. I believe the helping professions should study it they way they study other traumas and addictions - alcoholism, domestic violence, drug use and child abuse.

This is a system of thought that is powerful and seductive. It begins with the most basic of human needs and fears – about mortality, about meaning, about connection. The young people who will be here today are motivated by the most primal concerns, and their religion has offered answers, clear and absolute. And don't we all wish it were that simple.

Unfortunately, the price for membership in this select group of saved individuals is utter conformity and obedience. Along with the doctrine of original sin, they are taught to deeply distrust their own ability to think, their own instinctual feelings, and to look outward for any resources of wisdom or strength. The fundamentalist belief system is ultimately based on fear, and the believers spend the bulk of their lives fighting the enemy, whether it is the enemy of temptation
within, where sexual urges are the most frightening as threats to faith, of the enemy without, such as the culture war manufactured by Battlecry. They are taught to think in terms of spiritual warfare, and they must join the forces of good fighting the minions of Satan. A bit like America fighting the axis of evil.

When some of the faithful do manage to pull away and come to me for help, they are terrified. The most sincere souls are the ones most damaged because they tried the hardest to annihilate themselves to obey God's will. They have no idea that thousands of other former believers are also struggling to recover and reclaim their right to think and feel for themselves.

The most dangerous aspect of the fundamentalist mindset is not any specific belief or prejudice or judgment. It's not homophobia or sexism or opposing evolution. The biggest threat, to the mental health of the individuals, and to our society, is the authoritarianism.

This teaching of submission to revealed truth, pure and simple, dictated from on high, from a pulpit, from a book, or from the White House, is a serious threat to all of us. We can't afford the attitudes of good and evil, black and white, us versus them, because the world is not that simple, and people get hurt that way. But this deference to authority, paired with absolute skepticism about one's own right or
ability to think is exactly what endangers our democracy. It makes it possible for someone like George Bush to call himself a born-again Christian, and get overwhelming support from millions of people who have not examined the issues to form their own opinions or have any idea what Bush's policies even are before voting for him.

But before we get too judgmental, let's reflect on this issue for all of us. How well do the rest of us engage in critical thinking? How much do we passively stand by while our unquestioned leaders do what they like to our country and to the world? Why do we allow the super-rich and powerful to dictate the terms for our lives? Why do we turn a blind eye while corporations rape the world? Why do we purchase
goods without questioning where they came from? And why, in God's name, do we allow war to continue and the warmongers to stay in power?

The young people with Battlecry today believe they are standing up for morality, and they have taken the time to do so. You can count on the fact that many of them are scared to death, and yet they are taking a stand. They also want to belong to something bigger than themselves. Yes, they are making judgments, and we may believe many of these judgments are misguided. They need help to see how the results are not loving at all. But let's look at the judgments we have and the morality that we want to uphold.

I for one agree that we have a moral crisis. I think our country has lost its moral compass when we care more for material wealth than for justice, when we are too busy with our own lives, our careers, our pleasures, even our own families, while people are suffering, starving, and slaughtered. Yes, we can have judgments too, because we do need to distinguish right from wrong in the sense that we must uphold the values that are most important. And in the current climate with corporate greed hand in hand with government leaders who seem to have no conscience whatsoever, I believe we do need to fight. We are our brother's keeper. The sin of consequence is not in the privacy of our bedrooms; it's in our boardrooms, and for that we are all complicit because we are reaping the benefits.

We do need repentance. George Bush needs to repent and make restitution for the war in Iraq. And we need to repent for being asleep for too long, imagining that voting every four years spells democracy. Is this nation going in the wrong direction? Hell yes. The Christian right is worried God will withdraw his blessing from the nation because of our iniquity and they say 9/11 was a warning, as if to Sodom and Gomorrah, but they've got it wrong when they focus on who is loving whom or which of us is enjoying what kind of bodily friction, singing about it or even looking at pictures of it. What about the photos at Abu Graib? Let's get real about pornography. As parents, we should worry more about our kids living in a land where
torture and war is condoned, where racism is rampant, the poor are left to drown in a flood, and the state can tap our telephones. What of the future? Will our children even have one? The obscenity on TV is not sex in the city; it's the barrage of sexy ads for new cars in the city, and this while the polar ice caps melt. The disease most deadly in America is not AIDS, it's affluenza complicated by narcolepsy.

So I say let's invite these Battlecry young people who are not asleep, to a table with us, a table where all are welcome, just as Jesus sat down with prostitutes and tax collectors. Let's have sinners and saints, fanatics and fornicators, and let's be honest about what really matters. Who knows, perhaps we can all dig deep and find our common humanity. Let's learn from their passion and urgency and let's help them cherish this earth as the only one we have.

So we stand today as opposed to immorality as anyone here, Christian or not. We will not relinquish the gains made by movements for social progress - the battles successfully fought for abolition, equality for women and all races. We will not sacrifice the integrity of science or the privacy of personal lives. We will not release the ground gained, painfully over the years, to grant every human being their dignity, and we will not relinquish our faith, our hope, in our ability to forge ahead, slowly but surely, collectively creating a world that is just, a world that by its structures supports the human desire and ability to live in peace and yes, love. We reject the notion that we cannot do this, that the prince of this world, the devil, infects us and weakens us to where only the returning Christ, with his armies in the sky, will be able to bring us to our senses. This has not happened
yet despite two millenniums of longing. In today's world, this expectation is too dangerous.

We cannot afford the hopeless and helpless message of the fundamentalist Christian looking to be raptured away, excused from responsibility. This fatalism, by requiring apocalypse for the savior to return, actually fuels the crises - supporting war as a sign of the end, neglecting the environment because the earth will burn anyway, spurning peace-making because it's hopeless, and fearing global community because it spells anti-Christ. This is a recipe for disaster. And yet these beliefs are firmly held by millions of Americans, including high members of our government. Key advisors on domestic and foreign policy have these views. We need to speak up and oppose these attitudes and insist on taking responsibility for the world we create. Our sin is our willful ignorance, our denial of being interconnected, our rejection of our God-given power to be the life-loving, creation-caring, wise and creative beings that we are.

So with ordinary human love, we reach out to everyone willing to join in this commitment to our highest values and our deepest concerns, knowing that when the details of formal religious teachings are taken away, we really do have much in common. We have the most important things in common if we can just see past our fears. And then we can hope."

--------------
Please visit marlenewinell.net for information about services for recovering from religious indoctrination, including an upcoming weekend retreat May 4-6. The book, "Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion," is now back in print and available from Amazon.

A Moment of Silence

How tragic! Yesterday the horror of the events as they unfolded at Virginia Tech University shocked us all. Painfully, we learned more information through the day as at least 32 people were killed, for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Most of the world will focus on this story, but today, in Michigan, we learned of an equally pitiful tale. We had an extremely windy day, and at a local elementary a flagpole sheared from the strength of the wind tugging at the flag. It fell into a group of kindergartners playing at recess, killing a 5-year-old child.

A fluke of circumstances in which lives have been needless cut short. My heart goes out to the relatives, parents and friends of the students of Virginia Tech. It all but broke upon hearing of this young child, thinking of the anguish her parents are suffering right now.

As bystanders, glued to the news agencies providing us glimpses into these incidents, it can be so frustrating. As humans we want to do something to alleviate the pain. It is why we see the outpouring of food, volunteers and funds in Hurricane destructions or Earthquake Relief’s. Unfortunately, this type of pain is difficult to help. No amount of money or food can reduce this suffering.

This is frustrating. These events are written in the past. We can pound on the dashboard as we listen to the radio, or grip the remote more intensely as we watch with aching anger, but there is so little that we can do to reduce the pain that is coming in the next days, weeks and years.

In the next few day we will seen (and have already seen) calls for prayer or moments of silence. This comes from a combination of our desire to help in some way, our distress at the inability to do so, and reverting back to the only safety net we know.

When faced with unexpected danger, or troubling circumstances, something in our mind says that home is safe. When the Northeast section of the United States blacked out, millions of people got into traffic jams with one thought in their mind—“get home.” I found it striking, in more than one interview with the students at Virginia Tech, upon learning that “something” was happening; their first desire was to get back to their dorm room. Home. Safe.

Even within our homes, we have designated “safe” areas. My children, upset with circumstances, will retreat to their area of safety. Their room. Home. Safe.

I can understand the theist’s call for prayer in these tragedies. It is home. Safe. When things are out of their control, and with little to do, it is place of solace where they can find security and stability in a situation that is anything but secure and stable. It is a feeling of release that at least they are doing something, when there is nothing that can be done.

Out of respect for the variety of beliefs, we will hear requests for “a moment of silence.” A politically correct notion to allow people to pray to their particular God, or reflect on what has happened. Infuriatingly, I have already seen complaints that a “moment of silence” is a useless acronym, as “silence” does nothing to help.

Yet, in some light, that is true. What benefit does it have for a grieving parent whether I take a moment from my schedule and set it aside just to think about what they experienced? Will this take away an ounce of their grief? Will they gain a gram of comfort, merely because I stopped typing for 60 seconds and reflect? What do I, as a naturalist, think about in that moment of silence?

Equally--will prayer help, either? I am not trying to diminish the effect of prayer, or bring out some statistical study as to whether it helps/does not help. But if there was a God that is so actively involved in the day-to-day events of planet earth that it would modify its intention at the request of a single human—such a God is well aware of yesterday’s tragedies in Virginia, Michigan and around the world. The harsh reality is that a person giving a five minute prayer from Topeka, Kansas will not give new insight to God that people elsewhere need comforting.

The moment of silence; the hour of prayer is primarily for us. It benefits us. It is a comfort for us. Perhaps, in small measure, it will ease some of the burden of those struck hardest, simply to know the rest of the world is taking time of their busy schedule to come together as humans and say two simple words, “We know.” Clearly we have not all experienced the same pain, nor have many of us lost children at such a young age. But we have all had tragedies—friends die, loved ones go astray, relatives become sick and pass away. While we may not ever experience the tremendous amount of agony others are experiencing today, we can share in a small portion, realizing that we have had miseries, and may in the future.

When we might want others to pause for a moment and say, “We know.”

Therefore, I will take time out of my schedule and observe a designated moment of silence. A moment to simply say, “I know.” And within that moment vow to do the best I can to alleviate the pain I see in the world. The pains from yesterday are too large, and too far away for me to help. However there are plenty nearby that I can reduce.

I know that may be of no use to those affected by yesterday. But as a human, it is the best I can offer today.

Why I am an Agnostic: The Bible as a Domain of Knowledge

"In my walk with God, I thought I found him but I was wrong. If he were there I would have found him, unless he were hiding."

I present this diagram and explanation because I have seen several times Believers lamenting that they just want to see how an atheist thinks. While I don't consider myself an Atheist, I definitely have properties of one, so the label fits well enough for practical purposes. I can't speak for everyone but this is how I think. Johns Book review and follow on Article gave me the impetus I needed to come to grips with an idea that had been bubbling on my back burner for a while. I had alluded to it several times in articles and comments but had never made it coherent. It was an internal thought process that I had never tried to put into words or explain before. Hopefully this will show, contrary to claims from believers, that I do not want god to be a trick pony, and that there is evidence that would convince me of his existence and why it is not reasonable for me to commit to the Idea of a god.

If we say that the Bible represents a domain of Knowledge (A) and it contains knowledge that we can perceive (B) as well as knowledge that we can't perceive, then there is a portion of the knowledge of A and B that we can validate. If we set about a process of validation then the parts that we cannot validate or are shown to be false will fall outside our sphere of commitment (C). As we validate, invalidate or find inconclusive, our sphere of commitment will move either inside or outside the Domain of A. There will come a time when the sphere or commitment falls far enough outside the Domain of A that the person cannot reasonably commit to the domain of A. This depends on the acceptance of the types of evidence that the person is willing to commit to. In my case, the kind of evidence that I require prevents my sphere from moving towards A. I think my requirement for evidence is pretty simple. I want a god to be non-ambiguous and/or irrefutable. Not that I want it to make me a robot, but I do want it to present its case or evidence so that it would be unreasonable for me not to accept it. I have to say that my walk with god was a lot like a walk with chance. That idea occurred to me while I was praying one day.

Now this raises the question, if I am wrong, is god justified in sending me to hell. He has the burden of proof. Compared to a god I am stupid, worthless and weak. I should be easy to convince.

Here is how to say it in a more nerdy way. It is a reprint from a comment I made in Johns follow on article.

In an inquiry, when an argument from ignorance has investigated a domain looking for a true proposition and does not find one, then the argument from ignorance turns into an argument from knowledge.
The more you search through a knowledge base, the more you know about it until you know enough about it to say whether a given proposition is true or not.

- If I had an older brother I would know about it. Robert C. Moore calls this type of reasoning Autoepistemic Reasoning.
- I did not find my dog in my house, if he were in my house, I would have found him.

Another way to say it is as follows.
D is a domain of knowledge, K is a knowledge base in D.
It has not been established that all true propositions in D are contained in K.
A is a special type of proposition such that if A were true, A would normally or usually be expected to be in K.
A is in D.
A is not in K.
For all A in D, A is either true or false.
Therefore it is plausible to presume that A is false (subject to further investigations in D).
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press. P.149.

Absence of Evidence and the Evidence of Absence

In the comments section of my review of Stenger's book, a person calling himself ReallyEvilCanine raised an interesting question:

The common aphorism "Absence of evidence is [...?] evidence of absence" is the same fallacious logic used by those who believe in some deity. There's no difference between the following two versions of the Appeal to Ignorance:
* There's no evidence to disprove X, therefore X exists.
* There's no evidence to prove X, therefore X doesn't exist.

I've had this discussion before, and it can be complex. Is there evidence for Christianity or not? There is evidence. But what is it evidence of? Stenger claims science can test the evidence, and when it does, there is a lack of evidence for Christianity. Christians dispute this, of course, but Stenger makes a good case, nonetheless.

Most all of the evidence on behalf of Christianity is that science cannot explain everything, i.e., "if there's no evidence to disprove X, therefore X exists." If science cannot fully explain consciousness, the origins of morality, logic, the laws of science, and the origin of this universe itself, Christians take this as evidence that their faith is true. This is called the God of the gaps defense. God is to be found in the gaps of our knowledge.

There are twin problems for this kind of defense. One problem, as Martin Gardner explains, is that there will always be gaps in our understandings. Therefore, there will always be room for the theist to believe. The other major problem is that the believer is demanding an unreasonable standard before the evidence can actually show his faith to be wrong. The believer is demanding that the evidence must eliminate all possibility that what the believer claims is true. That's an impossible evidential standard, as I've indicated. In no other area of belief do we demand this impossible standard.

What the believer should admit is that at best, "if there's no evidence to disprove X, therefore it's possible that X exists." But you see, since there are a great many things that are possible but not actual, such a conclusion doesn't gain the believer much ground at all.

Furthermore, the scientist does not claim "if there's no evidence to prove X, therefore X doesn't exist." What he actually says is this: "if there's no evidence to prove X, therefore X probably doesn't exist." Does this appeal to ignorance in the same way as the believer does? I think not. Consider how science confirms theories. Science confirms theories based upon logical fallacies. Consider this scientific argument:

If scientific hypothesis P is true, then experiment Q will obtain.
Experiment Q obtains,
Therefore scientific hypothesis P is true.

The form of this argument is invalid. It looks like this:

P-->Q
Q
.: P

This is a fallacy called affirming the consequent, and yet that's how science proceeds for the most part when it comes to confirming hypotheses. Science doesn't prove hypotheses, even if the experiment obtains, because the hypothesis could still be false even if it does. Perhaps the experiment didn't actually test the hypothesis accurately? Perhaps premise one is a non-sequitur?

If this is true of science in general, then it becomes even more problematic when science investigates metaphysical beliefs. When it comes to these beliefs there comes a point when one person's fallacy is another person's anomally.

Think of it this way. If the claim is that the Russian government massacred 800 people in a farmland near Moscow in 1968, and there is no physical evidence that they did, what should we conclude? At that point all we have is the lone survivor's claim. Whether he is believable depends on whether we believe the tale he tells and what we think the Russian government might have done to the people he claims were killed.

What about the claim that Santa Claus or an Easter Bunny exists? What about the claim that Zeus or Apollo exists? There is no scientific evidence for such beliefs that I know of. None. So we must examine those claims pretty much the same way we would do with the claim that the Russian government killed 800 people in 1968, with an exception. We would have an additional problem with believing in so-called supernatural beings, since we have seen them come and go depending upon the culture of those who believe.

As best as I can determine it, the phrase, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence," merely describes how science operates. Science looks for evidence to support a theory. If no evidence is found for the theory, then this lack of evidence is taken to be reason to think the theory is not probable. That's all science can say, and it does it's job well.

The Bible as Truth?

If a truth is real, shouldn't it be able to be verified? Once a truth is verified shouldn't it become a fact? Once a fact is verified as the truth, shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny and always be found to be true?
If we can't verify a fact, should it be a truth? If we can't verify a truth can it really be considered a truth?
(I am updating this article with new links and references as they come to mind.)

In my post on the bible as a faulty premise I showed that the bible does not appear to be the product of one mind, a Gods mind, and there is no corroboration for it, therefore its claim to be 'god breathed' is likely to not be valid. Its validity is based on circular reasoning. What is circular reasoning and why is it important with reference to the Bible? In laymans terms circular reasoning is when you state your claim and then, usually after rewording it, you state it again as your reason for your claim.
Here is a link to Wikipedia that explains it and I have also provided some analogies to help explain it which follow.
- Tom says he doesn't lie, therefore he doesn't.
- The company that makes motor oil says theirs is better than all the rest.
- A childs parents tell them not to do something because they said so.
- God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God.
- The Quran is a revelation from God because it says it is.
- Formula one auto racing is the best kind of racing because they go faster and use complicated tracks, and any race that goes faster and is more complicated must be the best.
- A Pharmaceutical company says their drug will help this or that and is safe.

Hopefully these analogies will show why it is important not to overlook the fact that a thing should not be considered valid until there is some other way to measure it or validate it.

Circular reasoning is not an acceptable kind of reasoning in our day to day life. When we submit a resume, the employer always asks for more than one reference. In courts, people are not convicted on the testimony of one individual. We tell our kids not to talk to strangers, or get in the car with strangers. Should we tell them that the exception to the 'stranger' rule is when they find one that says they are honest?

If we accept the concept of circular reasoning as valid reasoning, we open ourselves up to all kinds of fraud. In fact billions of dollars are spent every year in law, medicine and insurance because circular reasoning is not a practical type of reasoning for ensuring fair and equitable circumstances for a population.

So if we shouldn’t accept the Bibles claims simply because it claims them, maybe we should find out where it came from. If it is the truth it should be verifiable and stand up to scrutiny.

What else could corroborate the bible?
Archeology, Anthropology, Textual Criticism, Biblical Criticism.

I recommend some impartial university courses on Comparative Religions and Ancient Civilizations concentrating on Near Easter Civilizations and I urge people to give a serious look at their mythology.

There is good reason to believe that the Tanakh (The Old Testament) has roots in Near Eastern Mythology. Here is a website from a scholarly author that talks about his research and his books. He is one of many since the 15th century that have observed this phenomena.

Here are some links to information (from Wikipedia) about that time period. They are not intended to prove anything but are intended to be a quick reference for a better understanding of the Bible.
Phonecia
Ugarit
Fertile Crescent
Canaan
Palestine
Israel
Judea
Assyria
Persia
Babylonia
Egypt
Flood Myths, Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible
Validity of David and Solomon, interview with archaeologist/author Neil Asher Silberman
Excerpt from Biblical Archeology Review with Israel Finkelstein from MSN Groups

Alan Dundes, a famous Folklorist, says that academics are at risk for questioning the traditional understanding of the bible. "It turns out that studying the content of the Bible could prove to be a risky proposition, definitely dangerous to ones health or professional standing"(Dundes, 20). He goes on to cite some cases. His Book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore" was published at the end of his career and a few years before his death. There is significant pressure in academia not to criticize the Bible. This is not the case in other fields of study. In other fields of study, criticism is expected and necessary to weed out the ideas that don't work from the ideas that do.

In a addition to the general information links listed above, below are some references material that are useful for a study of the Bibles validity.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

Davis, Kenneth C. 2006. Don't Know Much About Mythology: Everything You Need to Know About the Greatest Stories in Human History but Never Learned. New York. Harper.

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. 2002. The Bible Unearthed. New York. Simon and Schuster Free Press

Frazer, James George. 1975. Folklore in the Old Testament. New York. Hart Publishing

Friedman, Richard Elliot. 2003. The Bible With Sources Revealed. 2003. New York. HarperCollins.

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

Matthews, Victor H. and Benjamin, Don C. 1997. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from that Ancient Near East. New Jersey. Paulist Press.

Smith, Mark S. 2002. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Dearborn, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Interesting link, but I'm not sure of its credibility:
Torah, Ugaritic Bible

A Review of Victor J. Stenger’s book, God: The Failed Hypothesis

A review of Victor J. Stenger’s book, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Prometheus Books, 2007).

This is the first book ever published by the atheistic Prometheus Books press that ever made it to the New York Times best sellers list, and that’s newsworthy, especially since atheism is a minority viewpoint.

Stenger’s argument is that science has progressed to the point that it can now make “a definitive statement” on the existence of a God who has the attributes “traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.” (p. 11). His conclusion is that the existence of this God “is not only missing from but also is contradicted by the empirical data.” (p. 231).

In Stenger’s previous book, Has Science Found God? he argued that the evidence for God is “inadequate.” In this book he wants to say something more. Here he claims that the evidence is actually against the existence of God. (p. 17)

Stenger begins by basing his argument "on the contention that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans." (p. 13) To those who disagree with this contention, he refers the reader to Theodore Drange's argument from non-belief, and to John L. Schellenberg's argument with regard to the problem of divine hiddenness. Drange has argued that since God wants people to believe and since he has the power to help them to believe, the reason why a majority of people don't believe in the Christian God is probably because God doesn't exist. Schellenberg has argued that since there are people who are open to believe in God who still don't believe, it means that a perfectly loving God probably doesn't exist.

Both Drange and Schellenberg’s philosophical arguments form the basis of Stenger’s whole argument, and I find them very persuasive. Stenger, however, seems to have a low view of philosophical arguments in general when it comes to solving the debate over the existence of God. He thinks science can step in where philosophical arguments only seem to lead to further debates, as both sides define and redefine the terms used in the arguments themselves. (p. 34). According to Stenger, “Arguments for and against God have been largely confined to philosophy and theology,” while “science has sat on the sidelines and quietly watched this game of words march up and down the field.” (p. 9)

The most charitable way to read Stenger is that scientific evidence is the way to tip the scales in favor of atheism, not that philosophy isn’t useful in doing so, since two philosophical arguments form the basis of his whole argument. But I’m not so sure such a charitable interpretation is justified, given what he said, and given that many scientific minded people eschew philosophical argumentation.

Stenger proceeds from here by arguing there is scientific evidence against the existence of God, in so far as “absence of evidence” is “evidence of absence.” (p. 18) “If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist.” (p. 18). He claims that if there is a failure with the evidence, “the argument may be made that a hidden God still may exist,” but only if the believer can adequately deal with Drange and Schellenberg’s arguments.

After this introductory material Stenger argues that “design is an illusion,” simply because “earth and life look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.” (p. 71). He argues that brain science shows us that “thought processes are accompanied by localized physical activity in the brain.” (p. 83) He argues there is no credible evidence for “out of body experiences,” for psychics who claim to contact the dead, for ESP, or for the efficacy of petitionary prayer.

In his most unique scientific argument he claims that since the existence of “nothing” is fundamentally unstable, “only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something [rather than nothing at all] is just what we would expect if there is no God.” (p. 133).

Stenger moves on to the evidential failures with regard to religious experience, unfulfilled prophecies, Messianic and otherwise, and the lack of archaeological evidence for the Israelite Exodus. With regard to the Exodus, Stenger quotes former believer turned agnostic, William Dever, who said, “Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up.” (p. 186).

Stenger argues we don’t need the Bible for morality, and that at times the church has used it to justify horrendous things like Southern slavery. He argues: “the hypothesis of a God who provides moral knowledge is falsified by the observable fact that many of the moral teachings found in the scripture that are supposed revelations are not obeyed by even the most pious faithful.” (p. 173). And “the very fact that humans have a common moral conscience can be taken as evidence against the existence of God.” (p. 210).

Lastly Stenger argues that the amount and intensity of evil in this world is evidence against the existence of God. He concludes the book by arguing that religion has a negative impact upon society.

This is a very good book, scientifically speaking, as far as I understand the science that forms the background to his argument as a whole. He’s best when it comes to science, having authored a number of books on science. It should be read and discussed by everyone who is interested in the God question.

I find him lacking, as I do most scientifically minded people, when it comes to the areas of philosophy and theology, though. His arguments with regard to failed prophecies and the problem of evil are too brief, and too simple. There are several objections Christian believers can make against these arguments that he doesn’t show awareness of, or deal with, although, in the end I agree with his analysis. Stenger does provide further references for further reading which does what he doesn’t do, in many cases. Christians can claim there is historical evidence which shows Jesus arose from the dead, which may lead them to believe, despite the other problems Stenger finds with their belief. How does science dispute this claim of theirs? Christians can also argue God isn’t hidden in that the Holy Spirit reveals himself inwardly to everyone, even though I find these arguments unpersuasive.

This biggest problem I have with the book is that it isn’t just science that shows God probably doesn’t exist. It’s always the sciences taken together with philosophy that confirms or denies anything we believe. Without the philosophy, science can’t show much in the area of the existence of God. But in taking them both together this book presents a powerful case against the existence of God. I highly recommend it.

Framing Science and Atheism for the Public

A bit of a bomb has gone off in the blogosphere. I refrained from posting earlier on the precursor -- the "framing" debate sparked by a Science article and discussed at length here -- but I think there are sufficient disparate issues at play here to tie together into one coherent argument. My argument is simple: people are talking past each other because of a lack of focus. Now, the same issue hit the WaPo, and the blogosphere is buzzin' again.

The larger issue is fundamentalist religion, plain and simple. In Chris Mooney's own words,

In the Post, we focus on one of the most obvious examples of badly framing the defense of evolution--tying it to criticism of religion. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent example in this regard, and we single him out accordingly. I want to emphasize that I grew up on Dawkins' books; they really helped me figure out who I am. But nevertheless, over the past several years I've grown increasingly convinced that his is emphatically not the way to make many Americans (people very different from me) more accepting of science.

It isn't only defenders of science who feel the way Mooney and Nisbet do -- humanists and freethinkers have recently decried "angry atheists who hold down our movement".

While some progressive Christians maintain that Christ was divine, they nevertheless manage to agree with us on principles of human rights, reason and science. If we refuse to build alliances with people who do not agree with us on every single issue, we will never be strong enough to stand up to the Religious Right.

The media, by its nature, interviews figures whose views are diametrically opposed. News has morphed into entertainment, and the masses cry for gladiators of words and ideas to step into the ring and let mental blood. Sophisticated viewpoints don't conform to soundbytes. Therefore, why waste a perfectly good 30-second interview on an atheist who refuses to call names and instead wants to discuss transcendental arguments for a god's existence?

When Elaine Pagels was interviewed by Salon, we see this common theme resurface:

What do you make of the recent claim by the atheist Richard Dawkins that the existence of God is itself a scientific question? If you accept the idea that God intervenes in the physical world, don't there have to be physical mechanisms for that to happen? Therefore, doesn't this become a question for science?

Well, Dawkins loves to play village atheist. He's such a rationalist that the God that he's debunking is not one that most of the people I study would recognize. I mean, is there some great big person up there who made the universe out of dirt? Probably not.

Are you saying that part of the problem here is the notion of a personal God? Has that become an old-fashioned view of religion?

I'm not so sure of that. I think the sense of actual contact with God is one that many people have experienced. But I guess it's a question of what kind of God one has in mind.

So when you think about the God that you believe in, how would you describe that God?

Well, I've learned from the texts I work on that there really aren't words to describe God. You spoke earlier about a transcendent reality. I think it's certainly true that these are not just fictions that we arbitrarily invent.

Certainly many people talk about God as an ineffable presence. But if you try to explain what transcendence is, can you put that into words and explain what it means?

People have put it into words, but the words are usually metaphors or poems or hymns. Even the word "God" is a metaphor, or "the son of God," or "Father." They're all simply images for some other order of reality.

I own two of Pagels' books. I respect her scholarship greatly, but she seems to have missed a very large point: Dawkins (and Harris) are aiming for exactly the sort of god that is most dangerous to believe in, and the one that the overwhelming majority of anti-scientific anti-gay bigots cling to. Dawkins doesn't put the intelligentsia in his sights because they are not the ones whose stance against science has led to the current stem cell veto, and the battles over teaching sound biology. These Christian academics instead resort to, *gasp*, reasonable and long discourses.

She mentioned Dawkins as "village atheist," and this same term was reserved for him by Novak in his recent "Lonely Atheists of the Global Village." Novak is no dummy, and I commented a month ago that I was looking forward to reading this. In fact, I enjoyed reading this article, and then a couple more, especially his response to Heather McDonald's article in TAS in November. The exchange was typical of the sort of dialectic that doesn't make newspaper headlines and can't seem to find its way into a split-screen on FauxNews. It was complex and engaging to someone who honestly wants to learn.

Some Christians have already commented on Novak's new article, but without in-depth analysis. I agree with both he and Pagels on some of their criticisms regarding the shallow treatments given god(s) by Dawkins and Harris, as I've said previously, but Novak, especially, seems to dismiss Dennett very lightly, which I find telling. Those who try to lump Dennett in with Dawkins and Harris are those who haven't read the books. His critiques are philosophical and scientific in nature, not polemical, and not directed at any one particular religion.

There is a tension between the god of the philosophers and the god of the layman, and I think it has always been there. When I say that I'm an atheist, for example, I don't mean towards an abstract concept of "the grounding of existence" or "the nexus of causality" or "the first cause". While the "tri-omni" god is beyond my capacity to believe or findreasonable, these rather abstruse theological ideas I constantly engage my faculties in contemplation of -- I am a freethinker, after all. While I'm an atheist towards Yahweh, and Zeus, and Thor...etc., and while I think there are adequate responses to many philosophical arguments for theism, I find some of them lacking, especially with respect to cosmology and those along moral lines (not that I find the religious alternatives on the latter subject any more coherent). There are a lot of atheists who completely disregard philosophical arguments for a god's existence, and think that the Todd Friels of the world represent the best of intellectual Christianity. That's unfortunate.

I agree completely with PZ and Larry Moran that atheists and scientists must continue to criticize superstition and fantastical thinking in order to preserve scientific knowledge in our culture. If we muzzled our "angry" and "militant" voices, then the angry, militant fundamentalist Christians and Jews and Muslims would gladly step into the void. They would love nothing more. And I agree with them that appeasement has not worked. These people believe any ground-giving to science is "compromise," punishable by brimstone. But the question I want to ask is whether we should consider religious liberals and moderates our friends, and refrain from insulting them, as PZ thoughtlessly does to Ken Miller in that latest response.

The sorts of people that we need Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for are the Falwells of our culture: the unthinking lynch-mobs whose readiness to rapture lauds them (they're showing 'great faith!') in ignoring the perils facing our grandchildren. The sorts of people who use deceit and fraud and millions of dollars to erode our civil liberties into their vision of theocracy and oppose sound science education because their small brains can't encompass the theologians' alternatives, or Gould's NOMA.

I also agree with Elaine Pagels and Michael Novak -- we cannot paint religion with such a broad brush as to attack all forms of religiosity and call names and hold to the old, insulting phraseologies ("reality-based community" and "I live by reason" are tacit insults). We must remind ourselves that there are voices of reason in the religious community, no matter how silly we feel some of their views are. And the Pagels of the world are those we atheists and we scientists need to sit down and have more discussion with. If that happened, there would be a great deal more respect on each side of the fence.

While Pagels (and intellectuals like her) are focused on getting the fundies to grow their brains a little to encompass the more sophisticated aspects of theology, and PZ et al on getting the fundies to stop their anti-scientific crusades, perhaps they could realize that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Perhaps more honest discussion between the "evangelical", "uppity", "angry" and "militant" atheists and liberal/moderate Christians would yield a rich reward in finding the assistance we can afford each other in reaching mutual goals.

I want to "frame" science and atheism together, because that's my perspective. But I want to hear every possible (logical) framing as well -- I also want to hear and have heard Elaine Pagels' view of evolution from a theologian's perspective. Am I saying I want her teaching biology courses? Of course not. I want her views heard in the same media mine are, and PZ's, and Dawkins --in the 'sphere, or the MSM. The creationist hordes need to have their stupid false dichotomy (my version of Christianity or atheism) irreparably damaged by the critical words of god-believing theologians. The demagogues like Falwell and Pat "Midas Touch" Robertson hold sway over the sheep precisely because of the false picture they present --that their own views of God are the only/most valid. When more Christians see that the huge majority of scholarly Christians are moderate or liberal in their theological views, and especially towards Genesis (sometimes they find this out with much chagrin), perhaps more credence will be given to evolutionary biology, and this would be a win for "both sides". Or perhaps no change will be affected.

Let's face it: we're both minorities and we're both intellectually-centered. Our common enemy is the anti-intellectual, theocratically-wet-dreaming, rampantly superstitious Christian/Muslim/Jewish right that work tirelessly to render America into Jesus' Iran -- replete with a new "creation-based science" and the conversion of our secular institutions into "godly" ones. They're a huge voter bloc, well-organized and well-funded.

We need all the friends we can make in our "coalition of the unwilling" -- those quite unwilling to participate in theocracy or pseudoscience at our species' own peril.

What is My Ideal Kind of God?

The good thing about Blogging is that you can just have a conversation without always quoting a bunch of scholarly authors. Here's an exchange I've had in the comments section to this post of mine [Edited somewhat].

One Wave asked me this:

"I'm wondering what your ideal God would do if the world He created went against the things He knew would be best."

I answered:

We're talking anout an omni-benelovent God, correct?

Then I would at least like him to have the same kind of love for his creatures as a mother does for her children.

Do not respond that God does this. He doesn't. Yes, parents punish their childen, although, with Parent Effectiveness Training, they do not need to spank or hit them. But the punishments are called "discipline," beause they are geared toward helping to teach their children how to behave. A good mother never punishes her children in any harsh manner at all simply because they deserve it. It's always to teach them to be better. No mother sends a proverbial hurricane because her child "swears" or says "no" to his momma.

Can you honestly tell me your omnibenelovent God is more loving than a good mother? Really?

Even humane governments do not pluck out a criminals eyes, or maim him for life, or starve him to death, or burn him alive, or decapitate his head. Even when it comes to capital punishment we demand that it's not done cruelly.

Then an anonymous person wrote:

Yes, God is more loving then a good mother. God, the creator of the universe, died for my wrongdoings. There is no greater love than laying down ones life for a friend. However Jesus died before I knew him, and he even died for those who rejected him.

How good is love to only love those who love you?

Then I responded:

Okay, anon, now tell me why my sins are such dreadful things that someone had to die for my sins?

Besides, there is no coherent understanding of exactly how Jesus' death on the cross helps us.

Furthermore, if God is omniscient then he should understand what sin is from our perspective, or, if he knew in advance that he just couldn't stomach our sins, he should never have created us knowing that he'd have to send an overwhelming majority to hell. Why do that when everything was already perfect for him such that he needed nothing, desired nothing, and had everything he wanted...everything...he lacked nothing. To say he just wanted to share his love isn't a satisfactory answer, since he would also know that to share his love he would also have to condemn a great majority of human beings to hell in the process. To say he wanted free willed creatures who freely love him isn't a satisfactory answer either, for then arises the difficulty of whether or not there will be sin and free will in heaven. If there isn't free will in heaven, then why bother creating us on earth? If there is, and God can also guarantee people won't sin, then why didn't he just create us in heaven in the first place? If there is free will and sin in heaven then why bother to die for us on earth?

Tabash-Friel Debate on God's Existence, 3-26-07

The debate bode very well for atheism, and very poorly for any future hope for Friel at a career in philosophy. I think Eddie won handily. Friel basically sermonized and waxed emotive all night. His only arguments were from incredulity and ignorance (something I expected, from personal experience with him and the general creationist style). He honestly sounded more like a guy trying to convert a bunch of teenagers than someone attempting to make a rational case for theism. But...make up your mind for yourself, and leave a comment.

[See the debate videos below].

I really won't go any further than that, because I swear I don't think Friel is worth the analysis. He had nothing new, and what older arguments he did have were mangled versions (e.g., the first cause argument), which Eddie was able to refute, as he was met only with more personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

I was unable to tape Eddie's opening because I was limited by lack of equipment, but his arguments for naturalism were almost identical to what he presented (see below) to AAFSA last Sunday, albeit abbreviated, since he had 15 mins instead of 45 -- Eddie opened with arguments against the supernatural along Humean lines: miracles, the argument from physical minds, arguments against an afterlife, the argument from divine hiddenness, and the problem of evil. It was typical Eddie -- cogent, precise and clear.

The Center for Inquiry - Daytona came off looking great, from their representation to the graphics and banners and the ACLU table. Props to them for their hard work -- they were all really nice and appeared to have taken this project quite seriously.

My seat for part 1 gave me a poor angle to begin with, and the issue of quality was compounded because I was only able to post this in low-res as the shitty Google Video Desktop Uploader for large files wasn't working earlier (no matter what I tried) with the hi-quality versions. I have DVDs (hi-res, 3.0Mbps) burned, and if you want a DVD, email me and we'll negotiate the $^***. I also have Eddie's talk at UF encoded and burned to DVD, and am uploading it to GV right now.

Here is part 1 of 2, which I recommend watching below as GV stretches it out and makes it look even worse at their site:

Here is part 2 of 2 of the debate:


Here is part 1 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF on 3-25-07:


And finally, here is part 2 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF:


Please leave thoughts and comments below.
________________
***To cover my time and media/shipping expenses -- I think $10, including S&H, is fair. You can pay me via mailed check, but I would prefer using the PayPal function on my own webpage, it will expedite the process and make record-keeping easier. Go down to the bottom of the left sidebar, where it says "Austausch", and use it there (I prefer it over Amazon). Again, email me and we'll negotiate.

PS: I'm always amazed by how differently two eyewitnesses can report the facts about an event -- see here for someone who thinks that atheists were "humiliated" by Eddie's performance...

You be the judge.
_________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy, AAFSA