The Role of Persuasion and Cognitive Bias in Your Church

This article discusses one of my typical Sundays at church and identifies elements of Principles of Persuasion and Cognitive Bias in it. It is intended to show that Religious Belief is induced and supported by common psychological devices of principles of persuasion and cognitive bias of the type that are used in Politics, Advertising and Marketing. The discussion of Politics, Advertising and Marketing is kept to a minimum because I believe that in those categories, the devices are self-evident. Any book on critical thinking will discuss the use of principles of persuasion in Politics, Advertising and Marketing but will skirt the issue with regard to Religion. To sustain a belief in something for which no evidence exists requires some type of reinforcement. These principles provide reinforcement. They can get you through your "Dark Night of the Soul".

As I moved around I chose my churches carefully. I picked a church that was closest to the kind I grew up with, the kind where the preacher said the kind of things I was used to hearing, and where the people believed the same way I did. I'd get up early on Sunday, eager to get to Bible Study (before I started teaching it). It was the same story I'd heard a hundred times before, but I was hearing it from someone else's perspective. The service followed and I led the singing. I'd stand up there waiting for the preachers cue as he told his formally educated version of a story I'd heard a hundred times before. He would speak with a range of emotion and used powerful imagery. People would be injecting the random "Amen" here and there as he made his points. Then the preacher would give me the cue and we'd sing the same songs we'd been singing in previous years, and people would be waving their hands in the air. Singing those songs loud and strong evoked such good feelings. We'd stop and bow our heads together and the preacher would lead us in a prayer.

He was always dressed professionally and had good hair cut. He was the nicest most likable guy you'd ever want to meet. He was so un-intimidating, so comforting. In fact everyone looked nice (some dressed to kill) and most were a pillar in the community.

We had a stained glass window, pictures of bible stories all over the church and a big Jesus on the cross. After the service we'd get together and talk about things such as how blessed we were. When we talked about things, there was a lot of speculation as we tried to understand how this or that must have come about. I guess you could say it was a little like gossip. That was fellowship, and fellowship was a very important part of the church experience. I miss it now. I always marveled at the loyalty, faith and sacrifice of my fellow church members. The lady that played the piano never stopped serving the community and was an inspiration to me. I wanted that kind of faith, and I strove to get it.

I am assuming my experience was typical of the average protestant Sunday. It was filled with elements of persuasion to keep the faith alive with a lack of evidence. Lets see how many elements of persuasion we can identify in the story above.

First, lets see what "factors of persuasion" and "Cognitive Bias" are. Some of them are in the list that follows.
- People "remember the hits and forget the misses". People are naturally terrible at perceiving and interpreting probabilistic data.
- People are naturally terrible at estimating probability.
- People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from an authority.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it is believed by the larger group.
- People are more likely to believe a story that is accompanied by symbols or imagery to include music.
- People will come to believe what they hear the more it is repeated to them.
- People will change their evidence based viewpoint if it contradicts the viewpoint of the group.
- People overestimate the degree of belief in others.
- People look for confirmation of what they already believe and disregard things that contradict.
- People are likely to use the precautionary principle as illustrated by Pascals Wager in minimizing risk.
- People fill in the gaps in information naturally. We fill in the missing details in stories, with the blind spot in the eye, movies, music etc.

So now, how does the list above relate to the story above it? I'm sure better examples can be found but this is the best I could do with the time I had.

- When thinking about prayer, they focus on the prayer that was answered rather than un-answered. There are more un-answered prayers than answered. (People "remember the hits and forget the misses”. People are naturally terrible at perceiving and interpreting probabilistic data.)

- Attributing coincidences to Divine Manipulation, for example, a woman in the news who was convinced that she was spared by God when a racing car went into the crowd and killed the people next to her. (People are naturally terrible at estimating probability)

- Jesus supposedly taught in parables and people make up analogies to explain religious concepts and scripture. When hearing a story that would normally be hard to believe, in the context of a sermon or being told by a fellow church member, the estimation of the likelihood of exaggeration is low. (People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.)

- People don't expect that people they like, especially Christians, would lie to them. People don't suspect the story is being exaggerated. One reason is the belief that the teller is accountable to God and God knows everything. (People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.)

- People don't expect their religious leader to try to lie to them or exaggerate. (People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from an authority.)

- When the preacher tells a story or uses an analogy, its going to fit what the listeners already believe. The Preacher wouldn’t use it if it didn’t. (People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.)

- People are likely to believe that all these people can’t be wrong and since the belief has survived thousands of years, it is not likely to be false. The bandwagon fallacy. They assume they must be mistaken. Especially since it is a tenant of Christianity to blame people in any case there is a conflict with doctrine. (People are more likely to believe a story if it is believed by the larger group.)

- Christianity relies on powerful imagery. Politicians and the Advertising and Marketing industry rely heavily on this as well. In the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, the use of emotive language and imagery in general (known as the peripheral route in the ELM) is the easiest to use to persuade people. (People are more likely to believe a story that is accompanied by symbols or imagery to include music. )

- After a while, since it is repeated to you so much, you know the bible by heart. Think "sound bite". WWJD. (People will come to believe what they hear the more it is repeated to them.)

- If people start to question their beliefs, they are likely to believe they must be wrong. If they perceive things that contradict the bible, they will bend over backwards to reconcile it in their minds to mitigate the cognitive dissonance that results. This is called self-justification. (People will change their evidence based viewpoint if it contradicts the viewpoint of the group.)

- People are more likely to believe that other members of the church are more devout than they are. (People overestimate the degree of belief in others.)

- If the preacher started to preach from the perspective of another denomination it would make them uncomfortable. For example, Protestants would disregard a lot of what a Catholic priest taught. In another example, think about all those religious leaders that have been found genuinely guilty of abuse but are being defended by their congregation and the Church. They don’t want to believe the religious leader is guilty. (People look for confirmation of what they already believe and disregard things that contradict.)

- The Bible has a cryptic warning about the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Talk about a conversation killer. Be careful what you say about God. Make sure you do the right thing and get baptized and such so you can get into heaven. Why else would you believe the events in the bible except to avoid going to hell? Because you love God? How can you love something you can't comprehend, or touch, or see or hear? Precautionary principle, Cognitive Bias and Principles of Persuasion. (People are likely to use the precautionary principle as illustrated by Pascals Wager in minimizing risk.)

- In relaying stories that support belief or creating analogies to help explain how to view scripture or a religious concept, exaggeration is inevitable. (The listener and the teller fill in the gaps in information naturally and automatically, for example in stories, the blind spot in the eye, watching movies, listening to music, etc)


When there are good arguments on both sides and you don't have any evidence to make an inference based on Logic, then you always have your friends, family, church and culture to give you a feeling about the truth of an issue. This is the how the industry of marketing and advertising works as well as politics.

Does anyone just pick a church at random and make it their church home? No, they shop around and visit other churches till they find one that 'feels' right. Why does it feel right? The Holy Spirit, Satan or self? How do they know? They decide from the factors listed above. The decide based on the persuasive influences in their environment. Those persuasive influences reinforce their belief in things unseen, un-testable, un-detectable, and things that rely on "internal knowing".


REFERENCES

- Cialdini, Robert. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston. Allyn and Bacon.
- Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So. New York. The Free Press: A division of Macmillan, Inc.
- Okeefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion Theory and Research. Newbury Park, California. Sage Publications.
- Social Judgment Theory
- Information-Integration Models of Attitude
- Cognitive Dissonance Theory
- Theory of Reasoned Action
- Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion.
- Cialdini's Six weapons of influence
- List of Cognitive Biases
- DC Article: Why Do Christians Believe?
- DC Article: From an Atheists Perspective
- ChangingMinds.org

Persuasion Videos from Debate Central.
- Speaking to Persuade
- Objects of Persusion
- Theories of Persuasion
- Strategies of Persuasion

Mother Teresa Didn't Feel God's Presence

In letters from Mother Teresa recently published we learn that for 40 years of her 87-year-long life, Mother Teresa could not feel the presence of God. Link. I wonder how many other ministers are as honest with themselves?

The Best Christian Blogs According to the Evangelical Outpost

I like interacting with the best that Christians have to offer. Here's one list of what the Evangelical Outpost considers the best Christian blogs. I encourage our readers to interact with them.

FREETHOUGHTPEDIA

There's a new wiki dedicated to the freethought movment. Freethinkers are asked to contribute if you can.

Fighting Fundamentalism Site

Sarah Bowman has a new site called Fighting Fundamentalism. In her words: "My aim is to make it easy for seekers to find the information they need. According to the stats on my forums, the topics of greatest interest to people are casual lists of sources. But there is one topic that far outstrips every other topic: How to change a fundamentalist's mind." Enjoy.

A Review of Who Was Jesus? by Acharya S

Who Was Jesus?: Fingerprints of the Christ, by D.M. Murdock (a.k.a Acharya S) is a provocative look into what we can know about Jesus. In this 181 page book Murdock provides a good overview of gospel criticism, considering the number of pages it contains. She begins by taking us through the four gospels and noting some of the discrepancies between them. Such things as chronological discrepancies and failed attempts to harmonize stories like the raising of Jairus’ daughter, the anointing of Jesus with oil in Simon’s house, and the sermon on the mount (Matthew) with the sermon on the plain (Luke) leads her to conclude that we are not dealing with “factual history,” and she is absolutely correct about this. She rightly argues that what we have are error filled copies of the New Testament documents, and attempts to harmonize the four accounts are implausible.

She argues against conventional wisdom by claiming the four gospels were written much later than is normally supposed. Mainline scholarship doesn’t think any of the four Gospels were written after 120 A.D. Conservative scholarship argues that the synoptic gospels were written before 70 A.D., while John’s Gospel was written around 95-100 A.D (a minority argue that John's Gospel was written before 70 A.D.). Murdock however, argues the four canonical gospels were all written between 170-180 A.D., with the Gospel of Luke written first, rather than the Gospel of Mark. Hardly any scholar thinks Luke was written first. Textual evidence leads the overwhelming number of scholars to think Mark was written first. Scholars have shown that there is a literary dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark’s gospel, and where they diverge from Mark they do so based upon other accounts of the life of Jesus, mainly a supposed document called “Q” (or Quelle, for source), containing the sayings of Jesus.

Murdock claims Luke was writing to a Theophilus, a bishop in Antioch who wrote an apology called Ad Autolychum (c. 176 A.D.), and that Luke used Josephus in writing his account, from which he derived such things as the census under Quirinius, the death of Herod, and so on. In my opinion these are all dubious claims unsupported by the evidence she offers. Nonetheless, since nothing is at stake for me, I can at least entertain such ideas without the knee jerk reaction that Christians have to these questions about Jesus. And she does provoke thought.

Murdock goes on to explain the sources from which the gospel writers wrote their stories. There is indeed a lot of typology in the New Testament, along with prophecy historicized, as Murdock explains, in the cases of Elijah and Elisha and Old Testament prophecies. After showing us several of these parallels and prophecies she writes:

“In scrutinizing all of the Old Testament ‘prophecies’ that purportedly relate to the coming messiah, it is evident that the gospels were deliberately designed to show that these scriptures had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When these and other OT scriptures are studied and seriously considered, therefore, it is logical to ask if they constitute ‘prophecies’ and ‘prefiguring’ of the advent of a historical Jesus Christ - or if they were used as a blueprint in the creation of a fictional messiah." (p. 90).

Hers is a legitimate question, given several examples of how the gospel writers probably created their stories based upon typology and prophecy historicized, a question I am free to entertain. However, it appears to me that the conclusion Jesus as a person never existed goes beyond what evidence we have. With Jeffrey Jay Lowder I believe that there is a prima facie probability that a historical person named Jesus really existed, even if I don’t believe Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Joshua, Judas or Joseph of Arimathea existed.

In what I consider the best chapter of her book, Murdock spends 41 pages dealing with the “Questions About the Gospel Story.” She deals with such questions as the implausibility of certain miracles in the gospel stories like the purported virgin birth of Jesus, failed prophecies, chronological discrepancies, erroneous interpretations, and historical errors like Quirinius’ census, "Abiathar or Ahimelech," Mosaic authorship, and so forth. Then in the next chapter she effectively deals with Christian apologetic attempts to deal with these problems.

Why were the Gospels written then? According to Murdock, it was propaganda, not history that motivated the writers. She writes,

“Indeed, an in-depth analysis as found here reveals indications that Christianity as a whole was created for political reasons: Firstly, in order to usurp the gods of other cultures with a Jewish messiah; and secondly, to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion combining Judaism and Paganism.” (p. 154).

Her conclusion from all of this is that

“At most, we could say that the NT represents an inaccurate portrayal based on the best or worst wishes of its composers. At the least, we would have to entertain the thought that the gospel story is fictional.” (p. 168). "The fact is that, when all the evidence is weighed, it would seem irresponsible and unscientific merely to assume the gospel tale as historical, either in part or as a whole. If we are to treat with disdain the myths of other cultures that possess a variety of similar themes and motifs as Christianity, are we not being hypocritical and arrogant, as well as culturally biased, to hold up the patent myths of the Judeo-Christian culture as "real" and "true?" (p. 171).

Apart from the dubious positions of hers I mentioned, I recommend this book. It is provocative and worthy or consideration.

A Good God Doesn't Exist

My wife and I visited Reno, Nevada, recently, along with Donner Memorial State Park, which marks the campsite of many members of the Donner Party. The Donner Party got stranded one winter in the mountains due to heavy snowfall. This is a picture of the rock that was used as a western wall and fireplace for the Murphy Cabin. It was really interesting standing there where many people died, and where some people ate the flesh of others just to stay alive. What a horrific winter it must have been.

It's also interesting to read Patrick Breen's diary. Here's an entry from it on December 31, 1846: "Last of the year. May we, with God's help, spend the coming year better than the past, which we purpose to do if Almighty God will deliver us from our present dreadful situation, which is our prayer if the will of God sees it fitting for us. Amen." Another entry January 19, 1847: "Clear & pleasant. Thawing a little in the sun. Wind S.W. Peggy & Edward sick last night by eating some meat that Dolan threw his tobacco on; pretty well to day (praise God for his blessings)."

Of the 81 people trapped in the mountains, 36 died and 45 survived. Since most of these people were Christians I wonder why God didn't answer their prayers, or answered so very little of what they needed. I cannot envision a good mother not doing so, can you?

Michael Shermer on the Colbert Report

Are You 100% Sure God Exists?

I talked with someone this week who said he was 100% sure God existed. I found that to be an interesting statement. 100% sure. What does anyone think he meant by that? What other beliefs do Christians have that are 100% sure? Can a Christian admit he or she is only, say, 75% sure God exists? Why/Why not? Is a Christian more sure God exists than other things that are obvious? Which kinds of things? How does what you believe as a Christian compare with the other things you believe? Why would anyone feel the need to claim he is 100% sure that God exists?

My Self-Published Book Will No Longer Be Available

My self-published book is being phased out. When Amazon has sold its copies the book will no longer be available. Prometheus Books has picked it up and will be available toward the end of February '08. You can order it now at a price that is about half what it'll be when it comes out. But there will be a time lag of about five months where you cannot get it. I just want my readers to be aware of this in case anyone was thinking about getting it soon. I also want to make a challenge no one yet has met....

I have had about five or more people email me claiming they were going to get my book and dismantle it page by page. One said he was planning on reading most of the books I refer to in mine in order to show me how wrong I am, book by book. Another said he was going to produce a website debunking my book. A couple of others have said they were going to email me their responses page by page. But one after another of these critics simply dropped off the map. Those who started emailing me about my book simply vanished after a few emails. The others I haven't heard from in months. What gives? I have no explanation for this. Maybe they thought my book was so lame it wasn't worth the effort? Maybe they couldn't understand what I wrote? Maybe other more important things crowded out their time? But then maybe what happened is they simply gave up?

Anyway, I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that's always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can. If it causes you to lose your faith (unlikely) then you can thank me, since it means your faith was delusional to begin with. If it strengthens your faith then you can also thank me for challenging you to think a little deeper about these issues. So either way you will be rewarded. And if that's the case you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Here are some of the positive recommendations about it:

Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy, and This Much I Know: A Post-Modern Apologetic (unpublished book): "For years I have been saying that Christian apologetics is answering questions no one is asking. Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication and damaged irreparably by the inadequate apologetics he had at his disposal. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."

-------------

Dr. Norman L. Geisler, author The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: "First [John’s book] is an honest and open account of how a Christian became an atheist. Seldom are unbelievers so candid and open. Second, every Christian--let alone Christian apologist--can learn some valuable lessons from it on how to treat wayward believers. Third, it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face. Indeed, some of his criticisms are valid."

----------------

Dan Barker, author of Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist: "As a former fundamentalist minister who has followed a similar path from apostle to apostate, I empathize completely with the deep struggle Loftus had to make in order to shed his former cherished beliefs. I respect his scholarship, but more than that, I admire his courage. There are many treasures in this book, as well as provocative and controversial arguments, all presented with a crystal-clear and brutal honesty that is rare in religious scholarship. Loftus is a true freethinker, willing to follow the facts wherever they happen to lead."

-----------------

David Van Allen, webmaster of www.ex-christian.com: "This book is an absolute 'must have' for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion. While the book starts out explaining some of his experiential reasons for leaving Christianity, the volume goes far beyond a mere personal testimony and dives deeply into the elemental contradictions of Christianity. The plethora of scholarly works referenced in this publication places it amongst the better resources for the honest student. To do the volume justice one must be willing to follow the research that has been carefully documented by Loftus. For those without the time or interest to explore the mountain of references, this book will, none-the-less, provide a significant store for future study when time or necessity dictates. Loftus deals evenly with the issues, carefully explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Loftus' coverage of the problems inherent in the claims of Christianity is comprehensive. Much of what he wrote sounds like an echo of many of my own introspections except expressed through the well oiled mind of an academia. Loftus does not come away from Christianity with the deep bitterness that affects many in de-conversion, but rather retains admiration for the good influence Christianity had on his own youth. If you are an honest seeker, or an honest doubter; if you truly believe, or truly doubt; I highly recommend you add this book to your collection."

-------------------

Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness Without God, said this about The Outsider Test for Faith chapter: "that's an excellent chapter. The logic of it is insurmountable, in my opinion, even by a so-called reformed or 'holy spirit' epistemologist."

-------------------

Matthew J. Green: “It's not everyday that I get to befriend a fellow apostate and freethinker who left the Christian faith but also one who has a sharp theological mind such as John W. Loftus. A divinity school graduate with three master’s degrees, a former student of William Lane Craig, and an academic star in his school days, Loftus has a formidable resume. That's why I was eager to purchase and read Loftus' book Why I Rejected Christianity. This book is one of the best introductory texts on the philosophical problems with Christianity.”

-----------------

Christopher Hallquist, president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and blog owner of http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com: “Where I'm not familiar with the material, I have found Loftus' book quite helpful. I also have no trouble saying the section on the problem of evil was top-notch. Loftus' extensive use and citation of existing material makes this an excellent guide to the literature for anyone who wants to do further reading."

There are also a few real gems originality thrown in there. The best section, though, is at the beginning, in a section called The Outsider Test: "Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating." Here, Loftus solidifies an idea that has floated around in much skeptical rhetoric for some time. He opens up the possibility of consistently applying an idea that has so far only been applied haphazardly. When this is done, the effect is utterly devastating to religious belief. The Outsider Test should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion."

-----------------

Joe E. Holman, founder of www.ministerturnsatheist.org, and author of Project Bible Truth: What Your Church Doesn't Want You To Know (Forthcoming): "With excellent scholarship and thorough detail, Loftus powerfully and systematically dismantles the Christian religion, refuting long held arguments of apologists, laying to waste sacred and traditional beliefs of the faith."

"The book's central strength lies in its information-rich content. In truth, a person could spend quite a long time following up on John's sources and recommended reading materials. There is a tremendous well of knowledge here. The work is chock-full of great information with one major theme underlying it all; the supporting "facts," the cardinal pillars of Christianity, cannot be rescued from unrelenting, submerging doubt--even if one happens to find belief in Christianity viable. Cause for serious skepticism is everywhere lurking. The major tenants of Christianity, the "core doctrines" at the heart of the faith, are shaky at best and vulnerable to attack from all sides of debate. John speaks the language of competent and well-known Christian scholars and apologists of both liberal and conservative affiliation, employing their own words against them, demonstrating that they themselves recognize the grave position they are in when facing the critical eye of a skeptical, modern world."

"I see this book being of exceptional value to college students, philosophy buffs, and particularly those who are "on the fence," actively struggling with an open mind to objectively beat their doubts about the validity of Christianity. I also see it serving as an ideal study-guide for someone looking to get in touch with other excellent works on the nature of the Christian religion. John's scholarship is solid, drawing from a host of proponents and critics in a wide range of disciplines, including history, philosophy, and theology. Loftus is very well read. Any doubts about that will quickly disappear upon reading the book."

"The Outsider Test for Faith is one of those chapters that says what every doubter of religion has always thought but perhaps never said so well. The chapter is an absolute jewel, an extended take on the old realization that "If you lived in Iraq, you'd be a Muslim." John did a masterful job at making application of this truth.

In addition to possessing some very fine chapters this work covers some ground that is seldom touched on in other comparable freethought works."

---------------------

Chris Knight-Griffin:
"If you have questions about your faith, read this book. Those nagging questions are addressed and exposed. Every skeptic should have this concise reference book on the desk, dog-eared, tagged, and highlighted. I’ve read Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, and Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. I've read numerous books on the subject but John’s book was what I was looking for. The other books hit the target but John’s book hits the bulls-eye. I doubt anyone with faith could walk away from this book with that faith intact."

"This book is a reference tool with sources documented well beyond most books in this field. Literally hundreds of sources are quoted throughout and it is amazing that someone could sift through that much material into a succinct, scholarly and easy to read work. Awesome book!!!! It is honestly everything I've been looking for so far in my ‘quest’ for knowledge. Thank you!"

-------------------

Harry Noetzel, Ph.D: “I find John’s book a well balanced, honest and succinct examination of orthodox Christian beliefs that I would highly recommend to anyone seeking the understanding of the foundations of Christianity.”

----------------

Greg Meeuwsen: "I have read numerous publications on this topic, but I don't believe I've ever seen as many great reasons to reject religion in one place. John’s arguments are numerous and rock-solid. The book reads without even a hint of condescending tone towards his former faith. It is obvious that the man is simply sincere, and he resorts to no personal attacks on any level. This is more than can be said of most current atheist authors. The level of research and brutal logic applied to the Bible is absolutely stunning, as is the sheer number of examples given. There is "no stone unturned", as Loftus takes on nearly every apologist angle ever conceived. This book will give more insight into scholarly unbelief than you ever thought possible."

--------------------------

Paul Harrison: "If you read Christian apologetics, you owe it to yourself to have this anthology of the best arguments against Christian apologetics in your library."

--------------------------

Valerie Tarico: "What is unusual about Loftus is his breadth and depth of research in defense of the Christian faith before finally rejecting his faith. Loftus applies himself in this book with the same intellectual rigor he had applied to defending the faith, and effectively dissects those very same arguments. I found myself marveling at the impressively contorted reasoning used by apologists through the ages in defense their received traditions. Arguments on behalf of the “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit” and the incarnation are extraordinary in this regard. These arguments are testimony to the power of the human mind when we are determined to make the evidence fit a preconceived story line---or when we are determined to hold an appealing belief despite being backed into an evidentiary corner. They are worth reading from the standpoint of cognitive psychology alone. It is thoroughly referenced, and quotes extensively from scholars on many sides. His encyclopedic knowledge speaks for itself."

Will Ex-Christians Like Us Be in Heaven?

I received an email from a good Christian friend of mine who attended a church I preached at. She thinks I'll eventually be in heaven! Isn't she nice!? Any other Christian think this way? Here's what she wrote:

John...I find it so interesting that you have turned such a 180 degree around on your belief in God or who He is..You don't have to carry on this persona with me. I know deep down you know God is a loving God...but now that you have strayed away from him..you would have to eat crow to change your mind ..let alone that you are now married to an Atheist.

It does amaze me also that you do not see that you have been deceived of the truth by Satan himself. You know what he has done to you is very typical of how he operates and how you let your guard down to turn away for God. After all..we all know that the Christian life is very hard..it is the hard path. You have now chosen the easy way to deal.

I do believe in "Once saved aways saved" and although I know you are grieving God's very heart by your actions...and will suffer those consequences...I will see you on the other side someday.

Malevolent Design

Ed Babinski sent me a link to a first chapter of a new book called Malevolent Design. In this chapter the biological category of Malevolent Design is discussed. There are four more categories that will be spoken about in the proceeding sections: environmental, cosmological, mythological and finally, chronological. To read this go here. Anyone who wants to claim Intelligent Design needs to come to grips with Malevolent Design. To read what Ed wrote about this same topic go here.

Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement and the Justice of God

The centerpiece of Christian theology is the atonement. Various theories of the atonement have been put forth by theologians throughout Church History but the dominant one in evangelical circles is the Penal Substitution Theory. To emphasize this point, John MacArthur states

The doctrine Anselm articulated, known as the penal substitution theory of the atonement, has long been considered an essential aspect of all doctrine that is truly evangelical. Historically, all who have abandoned this view have led movements away from evangelicalism.

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0103.htm

In simple terms, the penal substiutionary view states that Christ suffered the penalty for sin in man's place by dying on the cross. His death satisfies the holy wrath of God against sin and allows God to justly forgive sinners. This view seems at its root to be unjust. How can it be considered justice for an innocent party to suffer the penalty due a guilty party? This seems to run contrary to the basic idea of justice; yet we are told that it is precisely because of God's unswervable justice that the death of Christ was necessary.

Some will argue that Jesus died voluntarily, therefore it is just. That misses the point. I am talking about the justice of punishing the innocent for the guilty. A person could volunteer today to be executed in place of a death row inmate but that would not be allowed because it would not satisfy the basic essence of justice which is that the person who commits the crime is the one who must be punished.

The Natural History of The Bible

This article is based on a compilation of my notes of Dr. Daniel Hillel's "Science and the City" lecture from his book "The Natural History of the Bible". Knowing the history of the Near East and its Semitic Tribes are essential to understanding the Bible. Daniel Hillel is professor emeritus of environmental studies, University of Massachusetts, and senior research scientist, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University. In his book the "Natural History of the Bible" he discusses the ancients of the Near East, how the Israelites came about and shows how their environment shaped their folklore and their beliefs.

Dr. Hillel divides the Near East region up into different environmental domains, the Riverine Domain, the Pastoral Domain, the Desert Domain, the Rainfed Domain, the Maritime Domain, the Urban Domain, the Exile Domain. After the last ice age (Pleistocene period) in the neolithic revolution, the Fertile Crescent developed. Over time people settled there and began to work the land. As they worked the land they domesticated plants and animals and began to adopt a sedentary mode of life as farmers. They were polytheists. They created societies and cultures based on their environment (domain) and they imagined that the forces for which they had no control, were controlled by gods. They deified the elements of the environment in order to try to have some influence over them. They prayed to them, tried to please and placate them. The god of rain was Baal and to this day rain-fed farming has retained its traditional name of Baal farming. The earth was depicted as a reclining fertile woman, identified as Ashera, Ashtarte or Tanit etc. They imagined the processes of fertility as sexual mating between the sky god and the earth god, the sky god sending his rain into mother earth. The reddish soil they called adamma (earth). The first man was born out of the soil and he was called Adam.

Life in the pastoral domain centered around the well. Where the maiden would go to draw water and bring it to the flocks and to the home. The bible is full of stories of meetings around the well. Abraham's servant Eleazar met Rebbecca, Jacob met Rachel and Moses met daughters of the priest of Midian Jethro. They were primarily tending cattle so they worshiped animal gods, the calf, the bull, the ram, etc.

People in the desert engaged in hunting and worshiped what they found in the desert. The lizard, scorpion, whispering snake, sun, moon and mysterious spirits that lurked in the caves in the mountains. Moses used the snake cast out of copper. The word for copper is the same or similar as the one for snake. He used the snake symbol to cure the people afflicted in the desert. The symbol was used until it was purged by King Hezekiah, but today the medical profession still uses the snake as their symbol.

One of the Riverine domains consisted of the five tributaries of the Indus river. They realized that they could divert waters, take the seeds from the rain fed domain and control agriculture better. They did not need to depend on rain. They worked around the floods. Southern Mesopotamia, the most organized civilization, to survive needed to control the water and agriculture. It was in the center of four rivers. This was a "Garden of Eden". It contained "gardens" of delightful fruit trees. This is where the Enuma Elish was created. Marduk fought the evil goddess of the brine lurking beneath the soil and split her body and created the arc of the heaven, the canopy of the firmament and the earth. There is a stone with an engraving of the King Hammurabi receiving the code of law from the sun god Shamash. It is interesting to compare it to the story of moses, and the mosaic code of law. In this area the Ziggurats were built. They make an appearance in the bible as the Tower of Babel.
The rivers meandering around the plane break through their banks and flood uncontrollably from time to time. Hence the story of the the Flood. The people of southern Mesopotamia started a destructive process that caused the water table to rise and caused the destruction of their civilization. The salt bearing water underneath rose and the process of evaporation of the water increased the concentration of salt in the soil and ruined the land. In contrast, in another riverine domain, the rivers of the Nile flooded every summer bringing silt from other parts of the land renewing the soil along the Nile keeping it fertile. It was an automatic process of fertilization and irrigation which made that civilization stable for 5-6000 years.
Those people had no idea where the rivers came from. The further upstream they went the more terrible the conditions became so they gave up and they believed the river emanated miraculously from Hopi the riverine god, bringing bounty to Egypt. Compare this to the idea of turning the Nile river to blood and of the Holy Spirit as a river.

The Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible, have similarities with Egyptian culture. Findings in Egypt are similar to the Old Testament. There is a story where an Egyptian god makes a man out of clay and the custom of circumcision (also referred to as Genital Mutilation) seems to have originated there. There are drawings of Semitic tribes depicting pastoralists that tried to immigrate into riverine Egypt during periods of drought, begging to be accepted, making bricks by mixing mud and straw and the scourging of slaves by slave masters etc. Gerald Massey a poet, scholar and amateur archaeologist talks more about this in his books on the subject of Egypt.
Wall carving were found describing sea battles with 'sea peoples' these were people from Eastern Mediterranean, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, Cyprus, and Crete. They roamed over the sea like the Vikings which followed thousands of years later. They settled on the southern coast of Canaan and became the philistines.

The people of Lebanon became fishermen and farmers of cedar. They engaged in trade, learned to make glass, extract a dye from snails which reminded the Greeks of the legendary Phoenix so the Greeks called those people the Phoenicians. The land of Canaan became the land of Israel. Its principle source of water was the Jordan river. Micro and Macro climates exist in the hills. The south sides are barren and north sides are vegetated. The wells were dug into the water tables. There was a discovery 50 years ago. A depiction made by the Israelites showing the God Yahweh and his consort Asherah. Before adopting Yahweh as the only god, he had a consort that played the traditional role of the feminine. There was a triune of the male god, the female earth, and the child as crops.

In each of the domains the people developed a distinctive culture, but the bible tells us that a single unique group of people traversed each of the domains. This group absorbed elements of each culture and this experience enabled them to see the overarching unity of nature, which gave them a comprehensive view of nature and thereby its creator.

In Jerusalem, in trying to unite the squabbling tribes of Israel, King David conquered the Jebusites and founded a capital to elicit the loyalty of the people and unite them to defend against the invading forces of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans and Persians that came around time to time in that little sliver of land that is the intersection of Africa, Asia and Europe. To unite the people the King needed to administer them effectively. He needed a strong faith and initiated the construction of the holy temple. They formalized their religion. The temple mount had a perennial source of water and was the reason why Jerusalem was located there. Before people learned to build cisterns they depended on streams. In times of siege, king Hezekiah ordered the stream to be diverted into the city. The town dump was where the outcasts were made to live and became known as Gehenna, which later came to mean purgatory or hell.

From time to time the land of Israel was overwhelmed by armies. Drawings depict Egyptians attacking the walls of the city. It shows the Israelite defenders beseeching their god and burning incense and sacrificing children in order to ward off the invaders. There exist depictions of the Judean King of Northern Israel King bowing down to Assyrian invaders after being defeated. Two or three generations later Jerusalem succumbed and were led into captivity into Babylonia. There, the Israelites had spiritual leaders that collected, collated, edited and unified scripture to create a 'portable temple' on parchment (the word) giving the unique and revolutionary idea that god was not associated with a region or a land, but with a people. It was stronger than a temple of stone and it focused the peoples loyalty and raised their hopes and faith. When the Persian king conquered Babylonia, he let the people of Judea return bearing what came to be know as their Torah.

The scriptures were a sort of private diary of the people as they wandered across all the domains of the near east and tried to settle in that vulnerable sliver of land as a small vulnerable community, vulnerable to nature and invaders. It was the intersections of continents. The land was marginal and was always being conquered. They had no one to depend on but their God. He would manipulate chance to their advantage because he loved them so much. Paganism preceded monotheism. For example, they believed that the nephilim, the sons of the gods, came to earth to mate with human women who had children that became the Heroes of old. But because they were always vulnerable, the Israelites chose to have Yahweh, the warrior god whom they needed as protector, to be their only God. They were always looking to please him. But even this monotheism was not a unique idea since an Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1364-1347 B.C.), had done the same thing earlier. But this religion survived and out of it branched Christianity and Islam.

References related to The Natural History of The Bible

Columbia University website featuring Hillel's book "The Natural History of the Bible"

Lopate interview with Hillel

Science and the city web page
and you can download or listen to the audio here

- Neolithic Revolution

- Fertile Crescent

- Wisconsin Glaciation

- Post flood ice age, no mention of it in the bible. This is a link to how "Answersingenesis.org" handles it.


Beyond Mesopotamia: A New View Of The Dawn Of Civilization


References for more information on the Bible as Folklore.

- My DC Article "The Bible As Truth?" which includes links to more data.

- 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.

- Massey, Gerald. 1992. The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ. Brookly, New York. A & B Book Dist Inc.

- 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.

The Beauty of God's Plan?

HT: Dangerous Intersection

The Phenomenal Language Argument And the Creation Accounts

I'll be gone for a week and a half, so this will be my last post until I get back. Let me leave you with something good to talk about:

Christians will argue that God described his creation of the world to the Biblical writers in “the phenomenal language of their day,” given that we still talk about the “sun rising,” and so forth. But it’s more likely that the Bible merely reflects ancient views of cosmology based upon a mythic non-historical consciousness. To see what the Hebrews believed about the universe see here.

Isn’t it crystal clear God could’ve described the universe differently in order to teach human beings about the vastness and age of the universe? Why didn’t the author of the first Creation account in Genesis start out by saying:

"In the beginning God created an immeasurable universe of billions of stars, some of which are billions and billions of miles (cubits) away, through a process that took billions of years out of which he finally created the sun, moon, and a spherical earth which revolves around the sun. On it he created water, land, the beasts of the sea, and eventually every living thing on it. Finally he created human beings to rule over everything he created."

I just don't see why God didn’t reveal this, if he exists, or why ancient people couldn't have had a good grasp of what he said. It certainly would be easily understood, and would not later be undermined by the findings of modern astronomy. By stating that the earth was spherical or that it went around the Sun would’ve done wonders for Biblical credibility with the dawn of modern science, since it would predate what science would later discover.

Apologists will argue that ancient cosmological beliefs were not important for God to correct; since all he wanted to do was to let humans to know that it was HE who created it. But when we reflect on the Galileo affair and the irreparable harm it did to the Christian faith once astronomers understood the vastness and age of the universe, one can only shake her head in utter amazement God didn’t foresee that because he didn’t reveal this, it would lead many of us to doubt the Bible. I am an atheist because this very problem started me down the road of doubt. Does God really not care about the fact he didn't tell human beings the truth about the universe? By not doing so, God has produced many unbelievers who don’t see any true divine revelation in the Bible!

Apologists will object that if God had revealed this to the ancient world it would’ve been laughed at by the ancients who knew differently, just like Socrates was laughed at in Aristophanes’ play called, The Clouds, for suggesting rain came from the clouds rather than from the sky itself. Several things can be said about this objection.

In the first place, if God had directly revealed this to Adam and Eve then all humanity would’ve accepted what God revealed. It would be the consensus opinion which would require evidence to prove differently. Secondly, if God actually did the many miracles claimed in the Bible, they would be considered strong evidence to believe what he said about the universe as well. Thirdly, God could also have provided Adam and Eve with the knowledge to confirm what he said by telling them how to make a telescope, for instance. Fourthly, if God had revealed the truth about the universe then human beings, especially believers, would find ways to confirm what he said, just like believers today try to confirm the stories in the Bible. So revealing this would also speed up what we know about the universe, and since it predated our discoveries, it would be strong evidence that the God of the Bible exists. Lastly, we must place this lack of divine foresight in the context of other things God could’ve revealed, but didn’t. He could’ve revealed to us how to discover penicillin; but didn’t. He could’ve unambiguously condemned slavery; but he didn’t. He could’ve condemned honor killings, witch burnings, and Inquisitions, but he didn’t. In fact, the Bible does not contain one single statement that could not have been written by a person living in that time period. The best explanation for this is that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.

Victor J. Stenger v. Hugh Ross

Victor J. Stenger discusses his bestselling book God: The Failed Hypothesis with creationist Hugh Ross here, in two parts.

Christian McDumb Defends Creationism

Christian McDumb, attorney at law, may seem like just another dime-a-dozen litigation lawyer from the South, but he’s much, much more! Author of “One billion and one reasons why Archaeopteryx is just a bird and Lucy is just an ape,” “The Face of Jesus on Mars,” and “The Verdict Is In: T-rex was on the ark,” McDumb holds a “BS” degree in precisely that. He is making waves in the world today. As a proud defender of the Intelligent Design Movement (a.k.a. creationism), he donates his time and abilities to skillfully bootlegging his Lord Jesus Christ into the classrooms of America through the court systems of our land.

McDumb’s greatest joys are when states like Kansas (which happens to be his favorite state) accept creationism, and when science textbooks have disclaimers put in them that deride evolution and science. McDumb boldly writes “scientific” pamphlets that use big, scientific-sounding words, like “probability,” “hypothesis,” “postulate,” and “irreducible complexity,” and he is always careful to leave the word “God” out of these pamphlets so that they have a better chance of being seen as scientific by an infidel judge.

McDumb was crushed, devastated in fact, when the ID movement suffered a great setback in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005. He and his best friend Pat Robertson didn’t know what to do with themselves when that dark, dark day came over our nation. Handkerchiefs in hand, they stood united and strong, pronouncing God’s judgment on the wicked city of Dover. And McDumb keeps on fighting the good fight. He is stubborn and has a gift from God for not knowing when to quit.

He is a smooth operator. He says things like, “Teach your children they come from monkeys and they will act like monkeys.” He makes arguments against evolution, like, “If evolution is true, why are monkeys still around today?” He understands perfectly well that evolution must be fought, for if not combated, it will lead to homosexuality, the most heinous and blasphemous sin in the eyes of all his friends—churchgoing Republicans over the age of 45.

When McDumb gets wound up, it’s hard to slow him down. He’s a sharp cookie, making powerful arguments in debate. Atheists run from him like Mercedes-driving sophomores from Virginia Tech. He tells them: “You haven’t found the missing link yet!” Then he asks tough questions like, “What good is half an eye?” McDumb knows his stuff, especially about halves and monkey-men. “Show me an ape/man, Mr. Evolutionist! You can’t, can you?” He knows that if evolution were true, there would be half-ape/half-men everywhere…and also half-mosquitoes/half-elephants, half-crocodiles/half-zebras, and half-gnats/half-brontosauruses. This subject is deep for McDumb and it took him the better part of a year to struggle through the issue of why there isn’t a half-broccoli/half-pregnant woman, but I suppose that’s another matter. So the next time you DON’T see a half-mollusk/half-eagle, you’ll know why! It’s because God created everything in wholes. If the cosmos had evolved, there’d be halves of every combination of things in the universe!

McDumb is open-minded too, just as he is intellectually keen; he goes before a judge and argues passionately that ID is not about God or religion in any way, and then he stresses that the designer of the universe could have been anything…but not an alien race or any non-eternal entity because that only begs the question of who created them, so he’s right back to assigning God as the creator! So McDumb is trying to get God into the classrooms, even though he says he’s not but is only trying to teach an alternative scientific theory!

Now McDumb says he’s open-minded, but he can’t be too open-minded; he tells the judges and the large audiences he addresses that he just wants all sides of the debate to be heard, that he wants more information put out there so that everyone can make an informed decision about their origins, but when asked if he’d like Astrology to be taught in schools alongside Astronomy, he declined because that doesn’t agree with his beliefs.

Well, OK, so maybe McDumb isn’t always fair or consistent, but God loves the McDumbs of this world—the McDummies, as they are called. McDummies are not ashamed to defend The Nazarene through devious means. They are good soldiers for Jesus. They’ll tread right into the heart of enemy territory to bring victory for the Lord, so they really don’t care if anyone likes them or not, especially non-churchgoing scientists in white coats with real degrees.

As for McDumb, he will persevere. The spirit of Michael Behe carries him on. He sleeps with a copy of Darwin’s Black Box under his pillow at night. McDumb’s other heroes, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved, pave the way for him. What would Jesus do without the McDummies of this world?

(JH)

Is God Primarily a King or a Father...or Both?

Is God a father, a king, or a fatherly king? Setting aside the fact that the image of God as a king is antequated among today's democratic loving people, let's say he's a fatherly king (since both images are to be found in the Bible). Okay? Then there are at least three views about God's relationship to his creatures:

Is he 1) a king to everyone but a father only to the elect; 2) a father to everyone but a king only to the elect; or 3) both a king and a father to everyone?

Let's look at these images and see if we can make sense of any of them:

Let's immediately dismiss views 2 and 3 above, since no Christian would affirm God is not a king over every creature even if they don't recognize him, and because the Christian claims a special family relationship with God that others do not share. Okay so far? [If this is not okay please tell me what you mean by kingship and fatherhood and I'll see what can be said about your view].

This leaves view number 1. What is a good king? A good king enacts impartial justice to bring peace in his kingdom. He's impartial toward his subjects. His role is the Justice of the Peace. As a good father though, the king must treat his sons differently. What is a good father? A good father will show partiality to his children, or favor them because he loves them. He's partial to them. He loves them.

Now it's quite possible for a good king to love his subjects, and a good father must show impartial love toward all of his children. But a good king must be impartial toward his subjects, while a good father should be partial toward his sons. The good father will always favor his sons over any outsider, while a good king should not favor anyone in his kingdom. So it just doesn't seem possible that a good king can treat his subjects like sons, nor can a good father treat his sons like subjects.

Take the issue of punishment, for instance. A good king may enact stiff punishments for crimes committed based on deterence, reformation and retribution (although no moral sense can be made of the latter motivation). A good father though, will not punish his children in the same ways a good king should (what father, for instance, would ever kill his son for any crime, even if he was the king, even a good one?).

Christians believe God acts like a king when he punishes sin. The person who sins must die. That is a kingly image which show no partiality, and as such God is primarily viewed as a king. If God were primarily viewed as a father to his children, he would not demand this punishment. He would be more like the father in the Parable of the Lost Son, who simply accepts his wayward son back based on his repentance.

So if God is a fatherly king then we have a huge problem, for one of these images must be primary. As a king he cannot act as a father. As a father he cannot act like a king. If God is a king to everyone but a father only to the elect, then he is not acting as a good king. Why? Because inside of his kingdom he's showing favoritism towards a certain group of people.

So which is it? Is God primarily a king or a father? He cannot be both.

Philosopundit's "Four Philosophical Moments That Changed My Life"

For an interesting read see here. We all change our beliefs from time to time in the face of arguments about everything from which diet is best, to whether or not God exists (although the latter belief seems much more difficult to give up). We should all keep reading and thinking and see where we end up like he did. Never stop reading. Never stop thinking. Never stop growing. Never stop questioning.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Problem of Evil

This article is a summary of a portion of an interview with Social Psychologist Carol Tavris on Point of Inquiry, the Podcast of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry. She and Social Psychologist Elliot Aronson are the authors of a book on Cognitive Dissonance called Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs and how it affects us in everyday life. It covers the manifestation of Cognitive Dissonance in prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement officials, politicians, smokers etc. In the interview she was asked if Cognitive Dissonance is manifested in religious belief and this article summarizes her response.

In the beginning of the interview she talks about characteristics of Cognitive Dissonance and how it manifests itself in Attorneys that have discovered they have wrongly prosecuted someone, law enforcement officials that are trained to believe the person being questioned is just as good as guilty thereby justifying whatever means necessary to elicit a confession, and politicians that support policy that is shown over time to be wrong but will not change their position. She uses the resulting situation of the Iraq War and the position of the Bush Administration as an example of a manifestation of Cognitive Dissonance.

Q: There are religious people that don't demand proof for their beliefs, is this a way of relieving their cognitive dissonance?

A: The more important a particular belief is to us the more strongly we will ignore or reject evidence suggesting we are wrong. Religion is central to what gives many people meaning and purpose in life. This type of belief will be defended at all costs. Examples of dis-confirming evidence creating Cognitive Dissonance are Evolution, the Holocaust and disasters.
Most religious people are not threatened by evolution. They find a way to fit it into their beliefs, but some cannot fit it into their beliefs and they will go to great lengths to try to refute the dis-confirming evidence.
How do Jews deal with the Holocaust? The Jews believe they are the chosen people, and god is looking after them. How could a good loving god have permitted genocide? Students of Cognitive Dissonance Theory would predict that people would become more religious and their faith would be strengthened. What most people do is not lose their faith in God but reduce the dissonance by saying God is responsible for the Good in the world, human beings are responsible for the Evil or God is testing faith. The Christian response to the question of how Jesus could permit enormous suffering to happen is to believe that it is to test faith. Anything that is not consonant with a belief in God is reinterpreted to make it consonant. For example after a terrible disaster the survivors will say something like "god was looking after me" but discounting the fact that God was not looking out for other people that died.

Another interesting interview related to cognitive dissonance is from the radio show "All in the Mind". They interviewed Phillip Zambardo, the lead researcher involved with the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment had to be canceled because it got out of control. The participants started self-justifying doing terrible things to each other and it had to be stopped. He was the expert witness for the defendants in the Abu Ghraib trial, explaining how situational factors can make good people do bad things using cognitive dissonance to self-justify their actions. He talks about it in his book The Lucifer Effect.

It made me think about slavery, the crusades, Old Testament atrocities and Craigs defense of killing pregnant mothers with a sword. (thanks Steven Carr!)

REFERENCES
Point of Inquiry podcast with Carol Tavris interview.

Science Friday podcast interview with Elliot Aronson

Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs

Wikipedia on Cognitive Dissonance

All in the Mind

Stanford Prison Experiment

The Lucifer Effect

The Sixth Humanist Symposium Has Been Posted

The Sixth Humanist Symposium has been posted here. I have an entry under the category of morality. Enjoy.

Dr. Craig Answers Dan Barker's Alleged Argument

A questioner asked Dr. William Lane Craig something about the Kalam Argument, and he responds here. [Note that Craig doesn't think this is actually Dan's argument].

Dan wants people to know that it is not in fact his argument. He wrote me,

"Could you reply that this was a misrepresentation of my argument? I was very careful not to phrase it like Craig phrased it, and Craig clearly did not read my article. Well, it was not cited, so he could not have. My article is to be found here."

Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for the Existence of God

Atheist Dr. Zachary Moore was invited by Kevin Harris to question Dr. William Lane Craig during a lecture after the taping of a podcast for his Reasonable Faith website this past weekend. I find Kevin to be quite charitable, and this is a mark of someone who values truth. Dr. Moore writes about this experience on his Blog where Craig is offering his moral argument for the existence of God. Craig is in the process of revising his Reasonable Faith book and it will include this argument.

Dr. Moore had previously asked me what question I might ask Craig and he writes about it in the last paragraph. It's the same one Mark Smith asked him that many Christians have doubted he did. Smith simply challenged others to ask the same question, and Moore did with pretty much the same results. (Click on "Comments on Craig's Book: Reasonable Faith").

The Pale Blue Dot and Four Cosmological Displacements

Through astronomy there have been four cosmological displacements:

1) The Copernican theory of the heliocentric universe defended by Galileo. (1600’s). Man was no longer the center of our particular solar system.

2) The discovery that our solar system is not central to the Milky Way galaxy, but located on the periphery; out on a spiral arm. (c. 1900). Man was not even central in his own galaxy.

3) The discovery that our galaxy is only one of billions of galaxies. (c. 1930’s). Man isn’t even central to the universe as a whole.

4) The possibility that there are an infinite number of universes, called a multiverse. God is no longer needed.