C. S. Lewis and the Case of the Missing L’s.

I confess.

When I was a Christian, I was overly impressed with the writings of C. S. Lewis, and in particular, his ‘trilemma’, as presented in the book Mere Christianity:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

While I still enjoy Lewis’s writing style, I can now see how he stacked the deck by limiting the options regarding Jesus to Lord, liar, or lunatic. One doesn't have to be much of a detective to see that there are a couple of missing L’s.

Jesus’ Resurrection and Marian Apparitions: Medjugorje as a Living Laboratory

In a previous post, “Craig versus McCullagh,” I argued that William Lane Craig’s tests for historicity could be satisfied by other events that he might otherwise reject as historical.  See: Craig v. McCullagh

As DC readers may recall, I was responding to Travis James Campbell’s “Avalos Contra Craig: A Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Assessment,” in a book titled Defending the Resurrection. I henceforth abbreviate Campbell’s chapter as ACC.

Campbell challenged my comparison of the Jesus resurrection stories to the reported apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje, a town in what is now Bosnia-Herzegovina. Since 1981, millions of people have reported having all sorts of visionary and other types of miraculous experiences there.

In particular, I contended that the experiences at Medjugorje satisfied McCullagh’s criteria for historicity used by Craig in the case of the resurrection of Jesus. Medjugorje amply illustrates how people can use the most objective and physical language to describe encounters with persons others would regard as non-existent.

I am an anthropologist by training, as well as a biblical scholar. So, I am always  looking for good living examples from around the world of phenomena that apologists for the resurrection deem to be not credible or comparable. 

Medjugorje offers a living laboratory for these reasons:

A. The alleged witnesses are still alive.

B. The Marian visions reported there have been better documented than any in history. Reports were audio-recorded and written down almost immediately after the first events. Audio-visual documentation overall is abundant.

C. A Scientific team examined the visionaries during some of the alleged apparition events. No such systematic and thorough scientific study ever been performed for prior famous Marian apparitions (e.g., at Lourdes, Fatima).

D. Millions of believers were produced within a decade.

I published a study of these apparitions in my article “Mary at Medjugorje: A Critical Inquiry,” Free Inquiry (1992). An abbreviated version appears on-line at: Avalos on Medjugorje.

I believe that they have a natural explanation. However, here I will show how I could easily defend their claimed supernatural character if I used some of the theological assumptions and biblical concepts that Campbell, Craig and other Protestant apologists use to defend the resurrection of Jesus.

Sinner, Do You Know Jesus?

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4: 12

A Pragmatic Approach to Evangelicals, Calvinists, and Presuppositionalists

There are various perspectives among people who criticize religion. 1) There are critiques of religion coming from within each one of them over specific doctrines; 2) There are critiques coming from former believers of a specific religion; 3) There are deistic critiques of all "revealed" religions, 4) There are agnostic critiques of all metaphysical claims; 5) There are atheist critiques of all religion, and with it faith itself.

My present perspective is represented by (2) and (5). But I have embraced all five of them in my intellectual journey from believer to atheist. So, being the pragmatist that I am, let me introduce just a few selected Christian works on biblical issues that should shake most evangelicals, Calvinists, and presuppositionalists to the core, representative of (1) above.

A Very Powerful Explanation of One's Deconversion Away From Faith!!

Jesus Versus Paul: The Greatest Love?

According to the famous Whitney Houston song, the greatest love of all is to love oneself. Travelling back in time long before Grammy awards were handed out, we find that Jesus, (according to the Gospel of John), had a different idea:

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13 (NIV)

The Apostle Paul (not-surprisingly) had his own take on it:

Victor Reppert Argues That Sufficient Evidence for Faith is a Bad Thing!

Vic commented saying that the perspective of the Outsider's Test for Faith unreasonably requires that "God would virtually have to write his name in the heavens in order to make any belief in him believable." No, not at all. I have previously indicated the kinds of evidence that would convince me Christianity is true. Vic goes on to say:

My "Atheists Talk" Interview on "The Outsider Test for Faith"

Enjoy

Another Review About "God or Godless?" (Co-written with Dr. Randal Rauser)

One reviewer on Amazon said:

I don't know who initiated this book. If it was John, he chose a lightweight opponent, if it was Randal, he took on a fighter two leagues above. 'Winning' is not actually the aim of such discourse, but here, Randal is knocked k.o. in every round. John gives amazingly rich arguments in short space with facts and quotes while Randal is telling silly stories on the intellectual level of an 8 year old. Link.

Check the other reviews out for yourselves: God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.

The Shallowness and Stupidity of a Brain on Faith

On Facebook I had placed this quote from Aldous Huxley: "The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Wes Skolits commented: "What evidence does he have for *that*? methinks he overstates." Not to be outdone my Christian philosopher friend, Dr. James Sennett, sarcastically commented: "Don't question, Wes. Just believe." Whether this is an rhetorical overstatement or not, it is both shallow and stupid not the see the evidence for Huxley's claim. Anyone want to help them out? I've linked this post to their comments.

The Duplicitousness of David Marshall

I don't mean to pick on my apologist friend Marshall, but he provides so much fodder it's hard to resist. On the one hand he rates my book, "The Outsider Test for Faith," with two stars over at Amazon, saying it's "Interesting but [has] fatally flawed arguments, yet on the other hand in a recent article for Touchstone with a title that says it all, he argues, Into All the World: Testing John Loftus's "Outsider Test for Faith" Shows Why There Are Billions of Christians Today. Which is it? Is the OTF fatally flawed or does the existence of billions of Christians show their faith passes the test? Rank-and-file Christians want to know.

Are Christian defenders this bad? What I've seen over the years is that Christians should not trust their own apologists to tell them the truth. I am not attributing any deliberate attempts by these apologists to deceive them (although in some cases I do wonder). It's just that educated Christian apologists are more, not less deluded. Education has a way of doing that to them in most cases, if for no other reason than that they have more invested in defending their faith. They become like defense lawyers who are experts at finding loopholes, and since there will always be at least one loophole they can find room for their faith. But because the rank-and-file have "trust issues" with atheists and seek to confirm their faith rather than honestly investigate it, they will read what their apologists say rather than what we write almost every time. This is cyclical, unending and maddening.

The Slavery of ‘Revealed Truth.’

“God said it. I believe it. That settles it!”
Christian bumper sticker

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell... And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) member of the House Science Committee

“In this respect fundamentalism has demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them fanatical because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which they are dimly aware.”
Paul Tillich

I would like to present a few thoughts on the marked difference between the fundamentalist view of truth and the scientific pursuit of truth.

A Question on Historical Reality

Which of the following names have objective credence in historical reality?
A. Abraham
B. Moses
C. Jesus
D. Polyphemus (The Cyclopes in Homer’s Odyssey)

The Illusive Search for Truth in the Biblical Foundations of Judaism and Christianity

Christian apologists will find themselves relying of on faith, theological dogmas and outright denials as they attempt to deal with the following facts.

Plus (to further prove my case) I have then listed 295 sacred Jewish and Christian texts of which the bulk of these are Jewish works which were produced at the very time the Jesus myth was emerging. While the Jews could only present their God in terms of past events, Christianity quickly learned that miraculous present events won converts.

"Reason on the Bayou" Was Awesome!

Last Sunday I was among a very nice line-up of speakers for the first ever secular rally in the state of Louisiana, held on the campus of LSU. It was put together by Chad Thibodeaux along with several helpers, and executed very well. Here is a link to the write-up in The Daily Reverie, a campus newspaper. Below are some pictures from this awesome event:

I'll Be Live On "Atheists Talk" Sunday, April 21st

"Atheists Talk" is produced by Minnesota Atheists. I'll join them this Sunday, April 21st at 9AM central time, to discuss my newest book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True. This book seeks to help readers view religion from an outside perspective, to better understand the irrationality of believing in one god (or set of gods) over all others. And it encourages believers to apply the skepticism they have toward other religions to their own. LINK.

Richard Carrier vs David Marshall - "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?"

Of this debate Dr. Hector Avalos said to David Marshall: "I’ve seen your debate with Carrier, in which you were clearly outmatched intellectually, theologicaly, historically, and scientifically." Having seen it myself I agree.

What religion has contributed to the world this month

My Second Major Post at DC on the Bible Will be Up by This Weekend

Tentative Title: Embarrassing Facts About Christianity’s Biblical Birth and Foundation

Nathan Phelps (Apostate Son of Fred Phelps) On Faith

Here's what I don't understand. When pressed reasonable religious folks concede that faith is what justifies their notion of god. But they all spend sooo much time learning and regurgitating all these biblical arguments that "prove" god. It seems to me if you're going to invoke faith, just stop there. No need to reason it out or rationalize. In fact a more consistent position would be to spout some gibberish then end with "therefore god!" Am I wrong?

Belief in Angry God Associated with Poor Mental Health

I have encountered a number of angry Christians over the years here at DC. They happily condemn me to hell. They think it's Biblical to treat me with utter disdain, since after all even God will cast me into hell (no, I do not choose to go there if hell exists). Guess what? One study shows the kind of God one believes is based on one's personality and the angry Christians have mental health issues.

According to the researchers...overarching beliefs about the dangerousness of the world can influence mental well-being: "Belief in a punitive God... facilitates threat assessments that the world is dangerous and even that God poses a threat of harm, thereby increasing psychiatric symptomology." LINK

The Bad Shepherd

Gather ‘round children, because today we are going to talk about Jesus the Good Shepherd. Even though he is good and kind and loving, it is important for you to understand that because of his great love for you, sometimes Jesus must do Very Bad Things to ensure that you stay close to him, and love him more.

Alexander the Great, Jesus, and David Marshall: A Simpleton's Approach to History

Alexander Mosaic at Pompeii (ca. 100  BCE?)

If you ever engage in arguments about the historical Jesus, it will only be a matter of time before someone invokes Alexander the Great or some other ancient figure to charge those who doubt claims of Jesus' supernatural activities with undue skepticism.

Those who cite Alexander the Great often assume that his acts are so well established historically that doubting them is a sign of undue skepticism. And if you doubt that Alexander the Great performed certain feats, then any doubts about Jesus’ supernatural activities can be dismissed because of similar undue skepticism.

This essay will show that those who think that Jesus’ activities are as well established as those of Alexander simply don’t know Alexander scholarship well. In addition, I will show that many or most of Alexander’s exploits cannot be verified because they depend on secondary and tertiary sources whose claims are difficult to corroborate.

Publishers Weekly: "Atheists, the Next Generation: Unbelief Moves Further into the Mainstream"

LINK.

Some General Observations on Christianity:

A. This superstitious belief system is the default setting for any mind that refuses to be objectively educated about reality. In short, it’s a reward for mental laziness.

Quote of the Day, by Dr. David Heddle

"I have always admitted I have no way to distinguish my faith from insanity."

Really? Please tell us more. ;-)

Sermon: Why Jesus Can NOT Answer Your Prayers ?

There are many Christians who come to this blog seeking answers to spiritual questions that have vexed their soul. Indeed, while most of the posts here are on the secular level, I want to address a perplexing question with an important message all praying Christians have had to face at one time or another: Why doesn’t Jesus answer my prayers?

I've Got Something to Say, Song by Starfiel

Listen to the agony expressed in this Christian song. I was there at one time. I remember crying out to a God who never answered. It's very painful to leave what you've believed for all of your life. Although I argue against faith I know what it feels like very well. This song made me feel like it was only just yesterday.

Bill Maher On Christians Reading the Bible

Test Your Knowledge on a Harvard Final Ancient Near East History Exam

The following final exam is from the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations: Ancient Near East 105 (History of the Ancient Near East: The Levant up to Alexander the Great). The course number in this department is ANE 105 / Harvard Divinity School course HDS 1118.

Quote of the Day, By Don Severs of Skeptic Ink Network

If you trust God no matter how he acts, then you are in an abusive relationship. The issue isn't whether God could have good reasons for allowing suffering. Serial killers have reasons that satisfy themselves. The issue is whether he could have included less suffering in the world. If he could have and just didn't, then he is sadistic.

If we say God loves humanity no matter how he treats us, then love means nothing. If we can't judge God to be evil, then we can't judge him to be good, either. LINK.

A Modest Proposal for Comprehensive Traditional Marriage™ Reform.

Behind all the furor over gay marriage, there seems to be the underlying belief by fundamentalists, and the preachers and pundits of the Religious Right, that the purpose of marriage is this: To be a method of funneling men and women together into a government-backed monogamous, lifetime child-production alliance. They also contend that Traditional Marriage™ is in a weakened state and needs to be protected and propped up by the government, since the future of society, our country, and indeed perhaps civilization itself could be threatened if gay marriage becomes a legally-recognized union. Traditional marriage does seem to be in trouble, and in light of this, I would like to present a solution which addresses all the important root causes. If you are a literal-minded Christian, please stop reading immediately, get a dictionary, and look up the word ‘satire’ before proceeding.

Faith is the Problem Not the Solution

This creative diagram is floating around the web. I call it the Venn Diagram of Faith. If you'll notice, Scientology is at the intersection of all four categories of bollocks (i.e., rubbish). Does that make Scientology the most irrational of them all? Or, is it rather that when faith is the basis for what people accept as true almost anything can be believed, or denied? Does it make a real difference how many things are believed or denied because of faith? Faith itself is irrational. I had a conversation with a friend last night, posing some hard questions for his Christian faith, and you know what he said repeatedly? "You just got to have faith." Faith is the problem. If not, then what is it?

Another Mathematician, Dr. James Lindsay, Critiques the Kalam Argument

This 5 part series of his seals the deal. Taken together with James East's critique the Kalam can be considered dead. Take a good look. Another Wow!

Bible Slavery: TOTALLY DIFFERENT

A Mathematician, Dr. James East, Critiques the Kalam Argument

I'm not a mathematician by any stretch but what Dr. East wrote was very readable to me. He made some great points I haven't seen anywhere else before. I sure hope he gets this published in the journals. Wow! Take a good look.

The History's Channel's "The Bible" Made Me Laugh

Yeah, I'll confess I watched a lot of this series. I previously wrote a post on The History Channel's "The Bible" arguing it was pure propaganda. There were two scenes that made me laugh. The first one was where Jesus called Peter to be a fisher of men. Peter wasn't catching any fish so Jesus waded up to his chest in water and asked Peter to help him in his boat. Then with a little sleight of hand Peter was able to catch a boat load of fish. What struck me is that Jesus didn't walk out to Peter's boat on the water, as we're told he did on a different occasion. I found that funny. You see, just one miracle at a time, not two.

The other laughable thing that struck me was that after his resurrection Jesus was given back his pre-crucified body. During his trial and crucifixion his face, hands, and body were all bruised and cut from the whippings, nails, crown of thorns and the spear thrust to his chest. But in his resurrection the body of Jesus was restored to its original condition, with one exception. His resurrected body had prominent holes in his hands and feet. If God gave him back his original body then why were the holes in his hands still there? It was obvious this was the same person. The disciples did not need to see holes in his hands to know that it was Jesus. Oh, no, I thought, maybe the disciples couldn't recognize him without the holes in his hands. Maybe they were that dumb! Or, it was made up instead to help convince readers of the Gospels that Jesus arose from the dead. This is not unlike what we find in the virgin birth narrative of Luke's Gospel, where an angel tells Mary she will conceive a son. Mary responded by saying, "How will this be since I am a virgin?" (NIV, Luke 1:34) You see, if Mary was actually talking to an angel she would not have to say she was a virgin. The angel would already know. By the same token, the disciples wouldn't need the evidence of holes in the hands and feet of the resurrected body of Jesus either. They would already know it was him.

Children Accused of Witchcraft

Christian, You Are Fooled On April Fool's Day!

It was just a joke! ;-) What's the best other prank you've ever done on this date?