Converting to Reason

Being new to this blogsite, I was invited to give my "deconversion" story. The truth is, I think I was more "converted" than "deconverted" - or maybe just came out of the closet.

I was a minister for over 25 years, very serious about thoughtful Christianity, a graduate of Emory University with undergrad study in psychology and grad study in religion/theology. Studied anthropology and mythology along the way, because I was fascinated with origins, and because I had a lingering suspicion even in those days that much of what I believed was probably myth. I was a person who chose to believe in the face of dogged unbelief. I struggled with intellectual concerns with Christianity from the day I was "born again" - but my conversion experience was so emotionally gratifying and gave me such acceptance in a tight-knit community that I chose to turn off or "closet" my reasonable objections and simply believe the unbelievable.

And, that is one of the reasons I actually "deconverted" or came out of the closet...I grew tired, after 25 years - of seeing emotion and acceptance be awarded to the converted for choosing to believe something that has no basis in reality. I could no longer live with my own sense of compromised integrity and intellectual dishonesty.

I always questioned my faith, but Christianity and ministry gave me a place, an identity, and frankly a salary, so the questions only took me to a place of constant discontent. I was important and successful in my chosen community because I was a great speaker, a brilliant counselor, and a charming personality. I had exploited the pay-off to my conversion to its maximum effect. But in my moments of reflection I wrestled - not with how to better share Jesus with my flock - but with the nagging inconsistencies of the gospel, the ragged edges of religion and the fact that I really did not believe what I said I believed.

I think the power of religion is that it promises so much, and keeps people "grateful" by keeping them guilty...and withholding emotional validation and acceptance when one strays. Most people I know who are "in faith" are people who have suspended their intellect and accept the package because with it comes occasional emotional validation and acceptance by a group of people. Very few are there because of intellectual reasoning. I hope to meet some on this blogsite.

I am also a believer in evidential consequence. Which means, most of what we know happens because we observe a consequence...a ripple in a pond, thunder after lightning. We understand this as a consequence, even from the earliest age - "mommy, why is the sky blue?" We move backward, examining evidence (which are also prior consequences) until we get to the point of origin...the original action. The rock thrown in the pond, the heated air after a lightning strike. Thus, we learn, and we also put into practice the scientific method.

After 25 years in the organized religious institution, I was nearly asphyxiated due to "lack of evidence" behind the consequence. (What???) I mean - I could no longer justify the lack of genuine belief I saw demonstrated in so-called "believers". The church does not enable inquiry, it shuts it off by pontification and by studying over and over again only the preordained and pre-approved texts. And so we never got anywhere, and we never examined what we said we believed...we just said we believed it and moved on.

When the ripple in the pond is not a ripple, and there is no lightning behind the thunder...then you know it is time to move out and move on.

I have since acquired a more expansive view of "debunking Christianity." Things like: lack of historic evidence, internal inconsistencies in the authoritative document (the Bible - duh!), no sound arguments of proof, being honest about mythological and anthropological origins of the gospel narratives (and indeed the entire Bible, both Old and New Testament).

But, the truth is, I converted - not deconverted. I converted to intellectual honesty. I came out of the closet and admitted...I don't believe this, and I have reasons.

I am a truly happy, born-again and uncloseted agnostic.

Take me on...take on me!

The Young Man's Guide to Curing Homosexuality

If there’s one thing you can be assured of from the Holy Scriptures, it is that God hates fags. In both Old and New Testaments, homos have judgment coming to them straight from the throne of God (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; I Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:18-22)! You don’t want to be a homo because you don’t want to burn in Hell, but you’re having sexual feelings for people of the same sex. What do you do?

Did God make you a homosexual? No sir, he did not, anymore than he made a town drunk a town drunk. You have a thirst for the erotic emissions from those of the same sex, but trust the word of the Lord when he assures you that the names you’ll be calling out in the darkness of Gehenna will not belong to some strapping young dude you met at The Man Hole. And the claw marks on your back? Those won’t be from him either!

Below are seven surefire principles on how to beat homosexuality and stroll right through the golden gates of heaven with Jesus and the godly gang! Take heart, young man! You’ve pulled yourself away from watching Brokeback Mountain long enough to read this, so there’s hope for you yet!

First, realize that you are sick: Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Your parents were right and their parents before them were right; homosexuals are ill. You are sicker than a needle-sharing transient on a San Francisco elementary school playground, and Hell’s mouth is wide-open, just waiting to receive you—not unlike your mouth is open when you go to slurp on the ricardos of strangers with military cuts and washboard abs whom you meet answering ads in the “Anything Goes” section of the Village Voice Newspaper! That old devil got a hold of you when you were growing up and gave you an identity crisis, which made you attracted to members of the same sex. So isn’t it about time you get the prescription medicine from Jesus to cure your illness! Amen?!

Thank God for his mercy: The Almighty has cooled off since the Old Testament. It used to be that Jesus’ daddy was in power way back when. If it were up to him, he’d have killed your sorry, gay ass and been done with it already. But thanks be to God for Jesus Christ his son, who is more merciful and has convinced his papa to give queer-baits like you another shot at heaven.

Pray to Jesus and ask him for strength: This is an important step. Go to Jesus in prayer and ask for the conviction to overcome the raging demon inside you that causes you to lust for strange flesh. But I must warn you; just because Jesus was portrayed as a sissy-looking man in paintings of him in the middle ages doesn’t mean he looked that way! We now have it on good authority that Jesus was a big, hunky man, and so there may be the temptation for gay-wads like yourself to lust after him; he did, after all, rub saliva and mud on the body of another man to give him back his sight (John 9:6), but Jesus is not a mud-wrestling sex object! Jesus is no kink! He is tough and will damn you to Hell if you so much as think of lusting upon him!

Stay away from homosexual temptations: The Lord warned us to remind him not to lead us in the way of temptation, but that means we’ve got to do our part not to walk in it! So stay away from liberals and sexual perverts, especially modern hippies and eurotrash, and anyone who spends a lot of time using cell phone cameras and wears black turtleneck shirts—like the Starbucks crowd, for instance. They are the most abominable faggots around. Be sure and stay away from gyms. Sweat glistening off big, bulging biceps is not what you need to see. Don’t watch TV shows like Will & Grace that glorify nanny-boyism. Also, don’t dare get involved in the fashion industry! To safeguard your soul, learn to detect lisps and anyone who seems to be trying to cover them up. Don’t forget that men who have an excessive number of female friends might be trying to slip under your “gaydar” and right into your bed, and before you know it, you’ll be swimming in satin sheets with a well-endowed piece of man-meat behind you.

Before I get off (No, I don’t mean that, you queer! It’s just a play on words!) this point, it should go without saying that every converting homosexual is required by God (and preferably, their own consciences!) to discard old items that led or might lead to sinful acts…naughty toys, same-sex posters of hotties on your walls, posters of the gay comedian Ant, rainbow coalition bracelets, anything in the color pink, jars of Vaseline, etc. Hot dogs and sausages are off limits to you, as are bananas and enchiladas (and I know I don't have to explain to you why).

Spend more time around grandma and grandpa and the church crowd: Grandma and grandpa new best! That’s why their generation was so lovely and yours is going to Hell in a hand basket. Preacher Hank and churchmen are the best influence you could have. Hang out with them long enough and it’s a darn-near certainty that you’ll find it easier to hate the homo crowd you once ran with. And when trying to find anti-gay friends in your neighborhood, it is a good idea to be looking for someone with a gun rack in their truck.

And of course, I would be doing you a great disservice by not mentioning how necessary it is to remember great Bible characters who fought homosexuality and are thus excellent examples for you to follow; there was righteous Lot (Genesis 19; 2 Peter 2:7-8) who resisted successfully the flaming influences from the gay community of his time, and there was King Josiah, who tore down the houses of the sodomites and vanquished them from the land (II Kings 23:7).

One more thing; it is a common ploy for sissies and sissy sympathizers to scream discrimination and accuse God-fearing Christians of harassing them. Don’t be deterred by this; when these whining wussies find out what Jesus is going to do to them in Hell, they’ll be BEGGING to be back here on earth, getting mocked by us again, with our usual assortment of hot mayonnaise jokes!

Challenge yourself to become straight and actively anti-gay (emphasis on the word “actively!”): March in an anti-gay rally and protest. Wear “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” t-shirts (loose-fitting only, you fruit!), and put anti-gay bumper stickers on your car. When you do see a gay couple in public, go up to them and call them out: “You are an abomination to the Lord, queer! Repent while there is still time!” After rebuking them in the name of the Lord, get away from them so that you won’t be tempted to apologize and exchange phone numbers.

As an ex-queer, remember all the wrong that you have done and the hurt you caused your parents for making them put up with your gay indecency for so long. It’s time to make reconciliation! Get married (to some girl, any girl) as quickly as possible and have kids. You owe your parents that much. Bring a girl home, and even if you aren’t attracted to her, marry her just for appearance’s sake. That’s the least you can do to make mom and dad proud. Having the commitment of being married will be just one more safeguard against your ever falling back into sodomy. The good Lord would rather you wake up each morning next to a loveless hag with matching rings than to be led into the chambers of Hell by a firm-bodied Adonis.

Put away the iniquity forever: This is the last step in your reformation from an unfaithful fag to a born again believer. Here is what you do; go to the store and buy some clay and make the clay into an erect penis facing upwards. Make it at least one foot high so that you will notice it, and make it look real; take some time with it, sculpt it and shape it well; give it testicles too. Then harden it in the oven, and when it is done cooking, leave it in your living room or whatever room you frequent most. Every time you have a temptation for someone of the same sex, write the temptation down on a sticky note (no, not that kind of sticky, you fudge-packer!) and attach it to the clay penis. When the week expires, lay hands on the penis and pray; “Lord, on this phallic image of evil I lay all of my homosexuality. As it is destroyed, let my sins be destroyed forever, along with the temptations.” Then, take a baseball bat and smash the hard penis to pieces. You’re done! You finished the object lesson that helped to reinforce that you are now converted to the Lord and freed from sin!

If after this you are still experiencing homosexual temptations, then know that you could be the dreaded antichrist who is to come. It is predicted that he will also be gay (Daniel 11:37). If you are not the antichrist, you are still someone who was obviously insincere in following one or more of the steps we covered above. In that case, I hope you enjoy Hell!

(JH)

Dawkin's Out Campaign

Dawkins is asking people to come out and let others know you are an atheist, and I add, agnostic. I'm in favor of nonbelievers coming out of the closet, but this doesn't mean you have to commercialize it like he has done. I do understand if some non-believers cannot do it at this time in their lives. But if you can do this, I too encourage it. See link

Evil and Evolution Debate:Draper v. Plantinga

This is a debate hosted by the Secular Web between two important philosophers that you shouldn't miss. I will be reading through it in the coming days. Here's Draper's introduction. You can click on the Table of Contents or proceed to the debate itself from there.

Freshmen College Students Are Staying Away From Religion in Record Numbers!

According to a survey by the Higher Education Research Institute, students entering college are staying away from religion in record numbers. Nineteen percent have no religious preference, and more than 23 percent have not attended a religious service in the last year—a new high in the thirty-nine-year history of the survey. The survey also asked about parents’ religion. Almost 15 percent of the students’ fathers have no religious preference (at least according to their children), compared to 10 percent of mothers. The generational lag tells an interesting story. Fathers now are at the level of nonpreference displayed by male students in 1998; mothers are at the level of female students in 1997.

Thanks to Ed Babinski for pointing this out.

No More Religious Appeasement!

Weisberger Evaluates the Loftus-Wood Debate on Evil

This is the last post I'll republish from the other blog I deleted.

Reason to Disbelieve: A Critical Reflection on the Loftus-Wood Debate. By A. M. Weisberger:

Some prefatory remarks should be made about the following discussion of the Loftus-Wood Debate

First, both sides continually refer to god as "he." Although this may be a cultural throwback, my comments will use what I believe to be the more accurate term: 'it.' God, as theologically construed, would be an incorporeal, genderless being, having neither the attributes of female nor male, but some wholly other constitution that transcends these physically-based categories. Alternatively, we might construe god as a combination of all genders [here we can bracket the question of whether gender categories are binary or not], and interpret god's perfect nature as incorporating all gender configurations. In this case, god would also be an 'it' since the combination of all genders would render attributions such as 'he' inappropriate. If there is difficulty in conceiving of god as an 'it' we should be reminded that we do have examples of creatures classified in such a way, namely the mule. Mules, offspring of donkeys and horses, are considered to be genderless beings, and referred to as 'it' rather than as a 'he' or a 'she.'

Secondly, the term 'god' is frequently capitalized as if it is a proper name. Being a non-theist (and here I lay my cards on the table), I lack faith in the existence of such a being, let alone such a being with a proper name. As a result, I find that the capitalization of 'God' begs the question for the theistic hypothesis, and prefer the more neutral reference to deity: god.

Terms of the debate
Framing the terms of the debate is helpful for clarificatory purposes. I found Mr. Wood's remarks in his review of the debate to be helpful in this respect, as he touches on some issues which were not laid out in the opening remarks of the debate itself.

In his critical review of the Loftus-Wood Debate, Mr. Wood lays out 5 possible debate propositions, and focuses on the distinction between implausibility and improbability. He claims:

Whereas a person could hold that the existence of God is improbable yet still plausible, to say that the existence of God is implausible means that we shouldn’t even take God’s existence seriously.

However, he seems to have it backwards here: if a proposition were to be labeled implausible, it would be difficult to believe, or have some quality that provokes disbelief. On the other hand, if a proposition were to be labeled improbable, that would mean it was unlikely to be true or occur. If something is unlikely, it would therefore be difficult to believe, and would in fact have some quality which would provoke disbelief. Therefore, if a proposition were improbable, it would be implausible as well, contrary to what Mr. Wood claims. For why would anyone accept that something is plausible when it is unlikely to be true? On the other hand, it does make sense to say that although a proposition seems implausible, it is still probable -- in other worlds something may be true even though people do not believe it is. It is much more difficult to provide evidence for the claim that although something is recognized to most likely be false, it still makes sense.

In short, it seems in Mr. Wood's listing of the 'weakest to strongest' debate propositions, he should reverse the places of 'improbable' and 'implausible' so that:

(1) The extent of suffering in our world poses an interesting problem for theists, since God is said to be all-powerful and wholly good.
(2) The extent of suffering in our world is at least some evidence against theism.
(3) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God improbable.
(4) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God implausible.
(5) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God impossible.

becomes:

(1) The extent of suffering in our world poses an interesting problem for theists, since God is said to be all-powerful and wholly good.
(2) The extent of suffering in our world is at least some evidence against theism.
(3) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God implausible.
(4) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God improbable.
(5) The extent of suffering in our world makes the existence of God impossible.

That being said, the claim that the extent of suffering in the world serves to make the existence of god implausible seems to me to be too weak a position. I would opt for the stronger statement that the abundance or extent of suffering in the world serves to make the existence of god improbable. However, this debate focused on the weaker claim, namely that the extent of suffering in the world makes the existence of god difficult to believe. Implausibility refers to the belief-worthiness of a claim, while improbability references the chances that something is true or will occur. The belief in god might be argued to be plausible or implausible, whereas the debate over the existence of god should focus on issues which call probability and possibility into question.

Since this particular debate referenced the plausibility option, the focus is then on whether or not the god hypothesis is difficult to believe, given the constraints of so much suffering in the world. Perhaps framing the debate as: "Does the Extent of Suffering in Our World Make Belief in the Existence of God Implausible?” would clarify this ambiguity. [Again, it does seem, however, that the more interesting issue would focus on the stronger claim which could be rendered as: "Does the Extent of Suffering in Our World Make the Existence of God Improbable?”

Perhaps this ambiguity is responsible for Mr. Wood's understanding that the debate does not focus on the existence of god, but whether evil makes the existence of god implausible. It is unclear what this distinction really amounts to, for it is the existence of evil itself, in such great abundance and variety that abounds in the world, which is in need of justification in order for a deity so radically opposed to evil, and who admittedly has the ability to eradicate such evil, to be claimed to exist. In fact, it is the existence of wholly good, all-powerful god which the problem of evil calls into question.

Another issue to be addressed is the burden of proof which, Wood claims, lies with the skeptic. But his position here appears to rely on a misunderstanding. The entire terms of the debate rests on a response to the god hypothesis, initially offered by the theistic view. The problem of evil, which is the focus of the debate, could not even arise unless a particular theistic worldview were presented beforehand.

This worldview, as Dr. Hatab noted in his introductory comments to the debate, is peculiarly western: god is assumed to be all powerful, (inclusive of all knowing), as well as wholly good. If we round out what these terms mean in their most profound sense, we should conclude that we are referencing a deity which is as powerful as logical possibility would permit, and so perfectly good that this being would be opposed to evil in every respect. So this god, no matter what other attributes might be claimed of it, would be powerful enough to eradicate evil (provided it was not logically impossible to do so) and motivated to do so by absolute goodness, which we can suppose is the opposite of evil.

If we posit the existence of an omnipotent (and omniscient), and omnibenevolent deity, then one might wonder why there is such an abundance of suffering or evil in the world. It is only if we posit the existence of such a god that evil becomes a "problem." So we see that the questioning of the existence of god, or the plausibility of the god hypothesis, only occurs in response to the god hypothesis. As a result, the burden is on the proponent of the hypothesis or the presenter of the initial claim.

An analogy would be if someone were to claim that invisible, green gremlins power all microchips. Confronted with this hypothesis, one might ask how this is so, how it is known that these gremlins are green if they are invisible, and many similar questions. It is simply not convincing for the proponent of the invisible, green gremlin hypothesis to then claim, 'Well, since you question the gremlins' greenness, it is up to you to prove that they are not green!' This does little to persuade anyone of the viability or plausibility of the gremlin hypothesis. Similarly, anyone making claims about the existence of extraordinary phenomena, such as invisible, green gremlins, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. And the claim about the existence of a wholly good, all powerful being, in the face of such abundant and excruciating suffering in the world, appears to be an extraordinary claim! It is the proposer of the god hypothesis, no matter what the flavor (classical or personalist), who must bear the burden of making sense of the claim that an all good, all powerful being -- one who is powerful enough to eradicate at least some of the tremendous suffering that exists, and one who is opposed to such suffering by its very essence -- exists.

The Arguments
Mr. Loftus presents a summary list of evils in the world, from mental torture to animal suffering to the evils of slavery. Reflecting on these leads to the following questions:

• Why did god create any of this at all?
• If god had to create, why not just create a heavenly world with perfect existences (no evil)?
• If there was an initial heavenly world, but there was rebellion, then how can we explain how an angel would rebel when in the presence of an all-powerful, wholly good being?

Free will is frequently offered as an explanation, complete or partial, for numerous instances of suffering, mostly those having to do with moral choice. But the issue of free will provokes another set of questions. One of which is:

• Did god not know how free will would be abused?

Loftus reminds us that, If the answer is affirmative, then god is blameworthy for the subsequent suffering. If the theist maintains that free will is a ‘gift,’ then the giver of a gift, for which it is foreknown will be used to cause harm, is guilty of that harm. For example, a mother who gives a toddler a razor blade to play with is responsible for the resulting damage.

For Loftus, there are a number of moral concerns which arise from a posited relationship between an all-powerful god and creation. Some of these are:

1) We should not be permitted to create suffering by abusing free will (we should not be constructed so as to easily choose evil)
2) We should not be placed in a dangerous environment (we should not be subject to suffering from natural disasters)

• To claim there is a compensatory greater good for our troubles is problematic as a justifier. Such claims do not justify our torture of others, even if we were to reward them afterward. And, the purported greater good is not revealed.
• Creatures should not be subject to the horrors of predation, and pain is not necessary as a warning mechanism. God should not have created animals, if their only purpose was to suffer pointlessly. (There is no moral lesson animals are meant to learn.)
• If physical laws are responsible for suffering, then why could the laws be altered so as not to do so?

3) We should not be created as to be so physically vulnerable (why can’t our injuries be more easily healed?) Our configuration could have been different so as to minimize suffering, especially in light of god’s omniscience.

The resulting conclusion from Loftus’ argument is that this just cannot be the best of all possible worlds – an omniscient being should have been able to do better.

_____________________________________________________________


In his response to these concerns, Mr. Wood begins by stating that it is not the existence of god which is at issue, but whether the abundance of pain and suffering does damage to the god hypothesis. His claim is that the burden of proof lies with the atheist rather than the theist.

Wood lays out two options here. Either:

1) There is a reason for suffering
or
2) There is no reason for suffering

Wood argues that on intellectual grounds, but perhaps not emotional, there is a reason for suffering. He uses the example of the plot in the film Sophie’s choice. Sophie, while standing in line to the gas chambers with her two small children, must select one child over another to save -- under duress from a Nazi. If she fails to select one, all three will die. If she plays the Nazi’s cruel game, two of them live. She chooses her son and sends off her daughter to die. Wood claims that this was an acceptable intellectual choice, though emotionally devastating. In the film, Sophie eventually commits suicide.

However, is such a choice justified on intellectual moral grounds? Is it the case that we have some definitive framework for determining a morally correct choice here? And if so, is there obvious evidence for adopting an act utilitarianism over a rule utilitarian or even deontological approach -- which might claim that since all human lives are infinitely (or even equally valuable) one cannot then choose between them? To make this claim, and in light of the background of Nazi insanity, implies that there was a logically coherent and correct response to the Nazi proposition of choosing to save one of your children and condemn the other to death. This is not a rational proposition, and there is no rationally based correct response to such horror. There is not even a moral framework, let alone a meaningful language external to the incoherence of the Holocaust, to judge the actions of the film’s protagonist.

Undeterred, Wood argues that the concept of god’s goodness is not a claim about personal behavior, but about essential features. Despite a misplaced reference to Thomas Aquinas’ pronouncement that ‘god is good’ (since Aquinas was loathe to apply moral predicates in any meaningful sense to god) this concept is abandoned.

The claim that Wood wants to emphasize is that there are coherent reasons for why a god would permit the existence of suffering in the world. Wood briefly mentions 3 possible theodicies, and only discusses the last in any detail:

1) Free will theodicy:

• A world with free will is better than one without
• True freedom entails the choice to choose evil

Of course, both of these claims are highly questionable. Why is it the case that a world with free will is better than a world without? How is the value of free will quantified so as to make such a claim? What measurements would be used to determine that free will is so intrinsically valuable that without it our lives would somehow be diminished? Considering that god itself does not have free will, namely the ability to even choose to do evil since god is perfectly good, it does not seem that it is really such a boon to existence.

And, does true freedom really entail the choice to choose evil? If we had the choice between very good, good, and uneventful actions, would that not be a real choice? Is it not a real choice if I am only choosing between oatmeal and Frosted Flakes for breakfast? Could not free will also refer to the ability to choose to act, and not necessarily to commit the act? (As in choosing to create a plan to do evil, but not have the ability to carry out the plan?) If so, then is not having the ability to fly, no matter how hard we flap our arms, a limitation on free choice? In other words, is ‘true freedom’ the same as absolute freedom? If so, then we do not have that now.

2) Wizard of Oz theodicy

• The world is a place of wonder, and problems make us realize there is hope

I am not sure what to make of this claim. It is not really a theodicy at all since it does not offer any explanatory power regarding the existence of suffering. Is the existence of hope somehow the justifier for suffering? Was it just fine to torture people in concentration camps so long as they had hope of liberation? And is the take home message, for concentration camp survivors and others who were enslaved, that the world is a wondrous place? It seems to me that if god is relying on suffering to create a sense of wonder in humans, then god is inept, and really not the sharpest tool in the shed. A miracle now and then would seem to have a better chance of assuring the resulting sense of wonder in the face of the world than torture!

3) Soul-building theodicy

• Suffering builds character, god is a divine thermostat

Although this theodicy has a long history, Wood makes no reference to any of the literature on the topic. Instead, Wood constructs a very odd argument:

1) If god exists, we would not be permitted to feel pain (since it interferes with our happiness)
2) We experience pain
3) Therefore, god does not exist

But, Wood notes, what if premise one were not true? What if the purpose of existence were not to maximize happiness? Then the argument against soul-building fails.

Of course, the reasonable rejoinder is that even if premise one were false, and suffering serves some good purpose, there still does not need to be the abundance of suffering that exists in the world. And it is the great abundance of suffering, or gratuitous evil, which calls into question the existence of a wholly good, all-powerful deity.

Anticipating such a response, Wood argues that the world is not such a bad place as the non-theist makes it out to be. The non-theist makes it out that the world is just one giant cesspool of suffering, without focusing on the good that exists. The atheist, according to Wood, has ‘tunnel vision.’

This view, that the world is a happy place overall, is perfectly consistent with being a privileged, well fed, insulated person who has had the good fortune to be born into a first world country and who has all their immediate survival needs met. The facts speak quite differently, especially if one were to take a global perspective.

Just to take one example: 18,000 children a day die of starvation. 18,000 children: innocent people who have never done anything to deserve such a horrible death. These are children who have had the misfortune of being born into a country in which there are not enough resources to feed them – either due to natural occurrences such as drought, or due to the misuse of freewill by political leaders aiming to torture their own people and/or accrue wealth to satisfy their own desires. To take one example, the death rate for starvation in North Korea is monumentally higher than that of South Korea. Here, being born in one geographical location considerably impacts on quality of life and life expectancy. According to James Morris, outgoing director of the UN World Food Program:

"The average 7-year-old North Korean boy is eight inches shorter, 20 pounds lighter and has a 10-year-shorter life expectancy than his 7-year-old counterpart in South Korea. And to have this much disparity by age 7 — it's a terrible thing."1

Moreover, death by starvation is not even a remotely pleasant experience. And, having to watch one’s own children die of starvation adds an additional layer of agony, one which is incomprehensible to the majority of us living in the privileged environment of the US.

So, the attribution of ‘tunnel vision’ by Wood in this case seems to be self-referential. What possible justification could there be for subjecting 18,000 children per day to death by starvation? And notice, this number does not include adults into the equation. Estimates are that 40,000 people per day die of starvation worldwide.

The point Wood wants to make is that the claim about the abundance of evil outweighing the good needs substantiation in order for the argument from evil to succeed. But this is a factual issue that must rely on some type of quantification, both in the amount and quality of suffering versus incidents of pleasure in the world. And who is willing to make the case that the joy of an American child receiving a Playstation 3 for Christmas outweighs the excruciating pain a North Korean child experiences while suffering from starvation?

The important issue is that the suffering of the North Korean child is unnecessary and gratuitous. If one North Korean child could be prevented from starvation without that occurrence impacting any of god’s ‘plans’ in some negative fashion, then that suffering is gratuitous. If it is reasonable to think that the entire course of the universe is not dependent upon the suffering of one North Korean child, then not all suffering is necessary. If not all suffering is necessary, then there is no reason for some suffering, and it is gratuitous. If there is gratuitous suffering in the world, then we can imagine a better world than this, one in which there is at the very least, no gratuitous suffering.

So, to clarify:

1) If an instance of suffering could be prevented without compromising a greater good, that suffering is unnecessary for that greater good
2) If an instance of suffering is unnecessary, then there is gratuitous suffering in the world
3) If there is gratuitous suffering in this world, then we can imagine a better world than this

Contrary to what Wood believes -- that the burden is on the atheist to show how the suffering outweighs the happiness, the burden is on the theist to show why this particular worldly configuration, one in which gratuitous suffering seems to exist, is the best of all possible worlds.

Because if this is not the best god could have created, even with the 18,000 children a day dying of starvation, then there is a problem.

4) If god could have done better but chose not to, god is not wholly good
5) If god wanted to do better than this but could not, then god is not all powerful
Assenting to either one of these propositions supports the conclusion that the argument from evil offers.

It is the original claim that is what is really at issue – it is the theist who makes the initial claim that god is wholly good and all powerful. And a wholly good being would be opposed to suffering in such a way as to desire to eradicate it. An all-powerful being would have the ability to do so. The stubborn fact of suffering in the world, and especially apparently gratuitous suffering, is what calls the theist’s claim into question.

Ignoring the entire issue of god’s allege omnipotence, and the ability to eradicate suffering in the world, leads to a consideration of the other primary attribute called into question by the argument from evil: god’s perfect goodness. Wood finds difficulty with the concept that there are moral laws that god must follow. In other words, god may be above the moral law, in other worlds, god is the source of moral law.

He presents an argument:

1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
2) Objective moral values do exist
3) Therefore, god exists

Wood comments that the logic is valid. This may be so, but this is far from a sound argument. As first year logic students are taught, an argument’s validity says nothing about truth, it is merely a statement about the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. Valid arguments are not necessarily sound.

Wood notes that the second premise might be called into question in an effort to defeat the conclusion. But not only might the second premise be challenged, namely, whether there are such things as objective moral values existing independently of moral creatures in a vacuum, but the first premise is itself highly questionable. What, exactly, is the connection between god and morality? It seems that Wood is making the assumption that there is such a connection, an assumption that would beg the question in favor of his position.

If we hearken back to Socrates’ question in the Euthryphro, the difficulty is immediately obvious. In Socrates’ version the question is framed in the following terms: ‘Do the gods love what is holy, or is what is holy whatever the gods love?’ In terms relevant to this debate, the question could be framed as: ‘Is what is ‘objectively morally valid’ whatever god determines it to be, or is god itself subject to moral laws?’

In the first interpretation, god is the source of objective moral values. Therefore, whatever god tells one to do must be the right thing to do. So, if god spoke to you and told you to murder your infant daughter while she slept, than that would be morally the correct thing to do. If god had really commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, without the ‘just kidding’ part at the last minute, then according to the first interpretation [what is ‘objectively morally valid’ is whatever god determines it to be], human sacrifice would be morally correct. Note, this is the view that the first premise of the argument assumes. We should also note that the concept here of ‘objectively morally valid’ really means ‘subject to god’s whim at the moment’ – not very objective at all really.

If, on the other hand, we reason that there are actions which are right or wrong, independent of what god decides at the moment, than god itself must be subject to moral laws. If so, then the existence of ‘objective moral laws’ has no bearing on the existence of god, since god itself is subject to these laws. If god is subject to these laws, there is a complication with imagining that god is also the source of these laws.

After parsing out the first premise of the argument Wood offers, we can see that it is incoherent. If God is the source of moral law, it is hardly ‘objectively valid.’ On the other hand, if there is such a thing as an objective moral law, then it would not be dependent upon the existence of god. In fact, the theist is better off arguing that there is no such thing as an objective moral law (denying premise #2) in its most absolute sense, since that claim would then negate the concept of god as the creator of everything.

In sum, either premise 1 is false (that morality is dependent upon god) or premise 2 is false (that morality is independent of god). Objective moral values cannot be both dependent upon god (in which case they would be subjective to god) and truly objective (independent of a subjective viewpoint) at one and the same time. Such an argument, as Wood constructs, falls under its own weight, without even so much as a whisper from the atheist.

Perhaps it might be better to construe moral values as inter-subjectively determined by moral creatures who are attempting to make the world a better place than they found it. The issue of why we find so much suffering in the world, suffering that we moral creatures should be attempting to eradicate, still remains unanswerable.

Any coherent attempt on the theist’s part to offer an explanation will need to go beyond the hollow repetition that god has reasons for everything. Ultimately, the belief in such a deity in the face of the horrendous suffering that currently exists, coupled with the reliance on the hope that it will all one day make sense, requires a leap of faith beyond the boundaries of rationality.

1 Departing U.N. Food Chief Reflects on World Hunger Michele Keleman, National Public Radio.

The Nature and Value of Free Will

[Written by John W. Loftus] There is a horrendous amount of suffering caused by humans. This is known as Moral Evil; suffering as the result of the choices of moral agents.

Here are some examples: The holocaust, molesting, torture, beatings, and kidnappings. Drunk drivers across America regularly slam their vehicles into other cars instantly killing whole families. There are witchdoctors in Africa who tell men who have AIDS to have sex with a baby in order to be cured, and as a result many female babies are being taken from their mother’s arms and gang-raped even as I write this. Is this not horrendous? In sub-Saharan Africa nearly four million people die from AIDS each year! Just watching a re-enactment of the holocaust as depicted in Spielberg’s movie, Schindler’s List, is enough to keep Christians up late at night wondering why God doesn’t do much to help us in this life. Nearly 40,000 people, mostly children, die every day around the world, due to hunger. Then there was Joseph Mengele, who tortured concentration camp prisoners; atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Soviet gulags, 9/11 twin tower terrorist attacks, Cambodian children stepping on land mines, Columbine shootings, Jeffery Dahlmer, Ted Bundy, gang rapes, and brutal slavery. The list of atrocities done by people to each other could literally fill up a library full of books. Additionally, many theists believe there will be “many” compared to the “few” who suffer in hell.

According to A.N. Weisberger, “The free will defender must assume that free will is of such superior value that any evils which result from its use are justified.” Since this is so, “the free will defender is compelled to say why free will is of such supreme value. Instead, the free will defender merely assumes that such an assessment of free will as especially valuable is unanimous and offers little, if anything, in way of reasons for this assessment.” [Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism (Peter Lang, 1999, p. 164)].

When we take into consideration the sheer massive weight of suffering in this life and the next life for the “many”, it seems entirely rational to conclude that the value of having free moral agents does not outweigh the pain and suffering caused by these free moral agents to others and to themselves.

When placed on a scale, God must think that it's “better” that human creatures have free will than if they didn’t. But when we consider the word “better” here, we must ask, “better” for whom? If someone lives a short miserable life and then dies and is sent to hell, it surely isn’t better for that person to have been born at all. Since this is the case with so many people, surely they would wish never to be born at all. Surely; no question about it!

Is being born better for the saints who end up in heaven? Who knows how to properly evaluate this, since if they were never born in the first place they wouldn’t know the difference? Still, given the two choices they would be glad to be in heaven. But this reward, according to Christianity, merely represents the minority of people who were born. So there is more suffering for human beings as the direct result of God’s decision to create this world than if he didn’t. God’s decision to create this world caused much more suffering to the people he decided to create, than if he didn’t create any of us at all. Why did he do so, then? He did so for his own pleasure? Many many millions of people have suffered and will suffer because of what he wanted! Isn’t that what we call selfishness? Is that a recognized virtue? Can God be selfish and yet still call selfishness a virtue because he’s God? Why? I simply don't see how, even if an act is done by God. It's still called selfishness, and better known as self-gratification no matter who does it.

Why is it more valuable to a good God that he create free moral creatures when the results have been horrific for millions upon millions and probably billions of people down through the centuries? The Christian answer is that God wants creatures who freely choose to love and obey him, and that this justifies why he purportedly created us with free will. That is, what God wanted is more important than the fact that people will suffer. But as I just argued this sounds exactly like God is more concerned with his wants than with our wants. He wants people to freely love and obey him no matter what the consequences are for most of the people who are born into this world. And if this is true, then how can God’s love be called agape, or self-giving love? God’s wants are placed above our wants, because we do not like to experience such intense suffering in this world, or in the next one.

There are many problems with this Christian viewpoint. It does absolutely no good at all to have free will and not also have the ability to exercise it. Most women do not have the upper body strength needed to stop a would-be attacker, while some people don’t have the rational capacity needed to spot a con-artist. I could not be a world-class athlete even if I wanted to, for instance. Our free will is limited by our age, race, gender, mental capacity, financial ability, geographical placement, and historical location to do what we want. Both our genes and our social environment restrict what choices are available for us to make. We do not have as much free will as people think. Just think of the slaves in the South. They didn't have choices to do much of anything that they would've liked to do.

I dare say that if God exists and created a different soul inside my mother’s womb at the precise moment I was conceived, and if that organism experienced everything I did and learned the exact same lessons throughout life in the same order that I did at the same intensity, then the resulting person would be me, even given free will. And if you won’t go that far, the limits of our choices are still set by our genetic material and our social environment. All of us have a very limited range of free choices, if we have any at all.

If free will explains some of the suffering in this world when we already have limited choices anyway, then there should be no objection to God further limiting our choices when we seek to cause intense suffering in this world. Theists should have no objection to God intervening when someone chooses to do horrible deeds, especially since theists also believe God can restrict our choices just like he purportedly hardened Pharaoh’s heart against Moses. I’ve suggested some reasonable ways God had at his disposal, if we concede for the moment the existence of this present world: One childhood fatal disease or a heart attack could have killed Hitler and prevented WWII. Timothy McVeigh could have had a flat tire or engine failure while driving to Oklahoma City with that truck bomb. Several of the militants who were going to fly planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11 could’ve been robbed and beaten by New York thugs (there’s utilitarianism at its best). A poisonous snakebite could’ve sent Saddam Hussein to an early grave averting the Iraq war before it happened. The poison that Saddam Hussein threw on the Kurds, and the Zyklon-B pellets dropped down into the Auschwitz gas chambers could have simply “malfunctioned” by being miraculously neutralized (just like Jesus supposedly turned water into wine). Sure, it would puzzle them, but there are a great many things that take place in our world that are not explainable. Even if they concluded God performed a miracle here, what’s the harm? Doesn’t God want us to believe in him?

Theistic scholar William P. Alston argues that “for all we know, God does sometimes intervene to prevent human agents from doing wicked things they would otherwise have done.” [Evidential Argument From Evil, p. 113]. My response: 1) This is unfalsifiable. 2) It’s implausible God has done this at all, since there are obvious cases of senseless suffering in this world he could alleviate. 3) This is known as the fallacy of the beard. To ask us to draw a line here is like asking us to pluck out whiskers until we can say which whisker when plucked, no longer makes it a beard. Hence, we might not be able to specify how much God should intervene but we know that with all of the intense suffering caused by free will choices that God doesn't intervene enough, even if he does sometimes. Likewise, according to Bruce Russell, “We can know that some penalty (say, a fine of $1) is not an effective deterrent to armed robbery even if there is no sharp cut-off point between penalties that are effective deterrents and those that are not.” [The Evidential Argument From Evil, p. 205].4) Such an objection doesn’t say anything about this particular world and the suffering in it. This is the world we are looking at, and there simply isn't any evidence that God has intervened. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not we would expect a good God to avert the Holocaust, and the answer is that morality requires it. 5) If there was no intense suffering or there was an adequate explanation for suffering, my whole argument would fail.

William P. Alston again: But if God were to act to intervene in every case of incipient wrongdoing…“Human agents would no longer have a real choice between good and evil.” [The Evidential Argument From Evil, p. 113]. Eliminating intense cases of suffering would still allow humans with significant real choices. I’m not asking for an all or nothing proposition here. I’m arguing God should disallow those choices that cause intense suffering in our world as the result of free choices. Besides, there’s a difference between having a real choice, and being able to actualize our choices. For all we know God could turn bullets into butter and baseball bats into a rolls of tissue paper whenever they are to cause harm, for God can surely judge us by our intentions to do wrong alone.

If God gave us more freedom than we can be responsible for, then he’s mainly responsible for the horrible deeds we do. J.L. Mackie asks, “Why would a wholly good and omnipotent god give to human beings—and also, perhaps, to angels—the freedom which they have misused?” [The Miracle of Theism (Oxford, 1982), p. 155)] Pierre Bayle exposes this difficulty [in “Paulicians” in his Historical and Critical Dictionary (1697)]. “It is in the essence of a benefactor to refrain from giving any gift which he knows would be the ruin of the recipient.” “Free agency is not a good gift after all, for it has caused the ruin of the human race in Adam’s sin, the eternal damnation for the greater part of his descendants, and created a world of a dreadful deluge of moral and physical evils.” Paul Draper wrote, “we would expect God would behave like a good parent, giving humans great responsibility only when we are worthy of it.” [Evidential Argument From Evil, p. 24]. Andrea Weisberger wrote, “We do not normally hold freedom to be intrinsically valuable, as evidenced in the willingness we show to limit our freedom to achieve goods, and especially when such freedom gives rise to suffering.” “The prevention of heinous crimes, even if such prevention limits another’s exercise of free will, improves the world.” [Suffering Belief, p, 167, 171].

Giving us free will is like giving a razor blade to a two-year old child. Razor blades can be used for good purposes by people who know how to use them, like scraping off a sticker from a window, or in shaving. That’s because adults know how to use them properly. We could give an adult a razor blade. We cannot give a 2 year old one, for if we did we would be blamed if that child hurts himself. Just like a younger child should not be given a license to drive, or just like a younger child should not be left unattended at the mall, so also if God gives us responsibilities before we can handle them then he is to be blamed for giving them to us, as in the case of free will.

Christian Theists say free will is important for building character, or ‘soul-making,’ which is a higher good.” This does not explain the sufferings of animals, and it’s difficult to see how this explains senseless evils. Nonetheless, theistic scholars such as Kelly James Clark, Eleonore Stump [“Providence and the Problem of Evil,” in Christian Philosophy, ed. Thomas P. Flint (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1990, 51-91)] and others argue that “a perfectly good God would not wholly sacrifice the welfare of one of his intelligent creatures simply in order to achieve a good for others, or for himself. This would be incompatible with his concern for the welfare of each of his creatures.” [William P. Alston in The Evidential Argument From Evil, p. 111]. Therefore, the theist has the difficult task of showing how the very people who suffered and died in the Nazi concentration camps were better off for having suffered, since the hindsight lessons we’ve learned from the Holocaust cannot be used to justify the sufferings of the people involved. It’s implausible that their sufferings did more to teach them the virtues of character and cooperation than from banding together to win an athletic contest, or in helping someone to build a house. And it's implausible that any moral lessons learned as the result of pain and suffering are relevant in an eternal bliss. If this world is to teach us the virtues of courage, patience, and generosity in the face of suffering, then most all of those virtues are irrelevant in a heavenly bliss where there is no suffering or pain.

These same theists would say that “Evil is necessary as a means to good.” Even if this is so, God could’ve created a world with far fewer evils, which is my point. Such a solution assumes a good God initially created the world with the proper balance of suffering. If so, the question becomes whether or not we should try to alleviate suffering. On the one hand, a theist is the first one to say we should alleviate suffering wherever we can, even though God is not obligated to do the same. But if we do, then aren’t we also reducing the total good created by God, since suffering is good for us? Maybe we should rue the day that someone found a vaccine for Tuberculosis, or Polio? Maybe our real duty would be to increase human suffering, since it molds character? On the other hand, if suffering can be alleviated by modern medicine without making it worse off for us as a whole, then those very evils we eliminated were not necessary for our good in the first place. Can the theist have it both ways? [This is a point that H.L. McCloskey, makes in “God and Evil,” in Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, ed., Baruch A. Brody (Prentice-Hall, 1974), pp. 168-186].

Theists will say everything will be made right in an eternal bliss for the saints. But what about the possibility of free will and rebellion in heaven? Paul Copan offers three possibilities with regard to free will in heaven [in That’s Just Your Interpretation, pp. 106-108]. 1) That through our truly libertarian free actions on earth we gain access to heaven where we no longer have this freedom to sin. But if heaven is a place where we longer have the freedom to sin, then God could’ve bypassed our earthly existence altogether. If there is no free will in heaven then why not just create us all in heaven, as I’ve argued? What does it matter what we did or didn’t do on earth? Furthermore, why reward someone by taking away their free will? If free will can be taken away without a loss of goodness, then why create us with it in the first place? 2) That God foreknows that no one who enters heaven will freely choose to sin. But if God has that kind of foreknowledge then again, what is the purpose of creating this particular world? It appears to be a cruel game of hide and seek, where God hides and we must find him, and only the few who find him will be rewarded while the many who don’t are punished when they die. If God has foreknowledge then why didn’t he just foreknow who would find him even before creating them, and simply place them in heaven in the first place?...then there’d be no one punished for not finding him. 3) That those who enter heaven will be in the "unmediated presence of God" such that "not sinning will be a ‘no brainer’—even though it remains a possibility.” But if this is the case, then as I’ve already argued, why do Christians think the Devil rebelled against God, since he was supposedly in the direct unmediated presence of God?

And there is the additional problem of free will in hell. Theists typically claim that people in hell continue in their rebellion against God and so the "doors of hell are locked from the inside." Those who are saved are rewarded for their tortures here on earth by the removal of their free will to make moral choices, but those who are damned keep their free will. Why this difference? If God just took away the free will of those who are damned, then they too could've been brought up to heaven. If free will is such a good thing, then why isn't it such a good thing in the end? Those who are damned keep it, but those who go to heaven lose it. If this is the case then moral freedom isn't as important as Christian theists claim. And if that's the case then why bother creating anyone...anyone...with moral freedom, especially when doing so has produced such suffering that we experience in this life and the next?

David Wood now claims that before Satan sinned in heaven there was moral choice-making in heaven. There was some "epistemic distance" between him and God so that Satan was ignorant about God’s absolute love and power, and as a result could make moral choices unhindered by the direct presence of God. At the consummation of the ages, however, God will allow the saints in his direct unmediated presence, and as a result there will be no moral choices in heaven, even if there is free will. By being in God’s direct unmediated presence there will be no reason or motivation to sin against God, since the saints would see his love for what it truly is, and they’d also realize it would be futile to sin or rebel against him. But why didn't God start out this way, by allowing Satan into his direct unmediated presence in the first place, thus avoiding the sufferings of a fallen universe? For David, it's because of the value of moral freedom. This is where incoherence sets in, for if moral choices are such a good thing, then why take them away as a reward in the end?

What Mr. Wood proposes is that God wanted creatures in heaven who truly loved him and obeyed him, and that the existence of this world is the best way for God to have done this. Consider the motivations for God wanting this state of affairs. What is the value of this to God? Why does he want anything? A want is not exactly like a need, but to want something, anything, implies a lack of something. What did God lack? Apparently God lacked people who freely choose to love him. Why is this so important to him that he would knowingly creat a world where most humans must suffer so much? What is there about people who freely love him that is different than people who simply love him, which, in the end, are the people who end up in heaven anyway? After all, just because people made moral choices that showed they loved God on earth doesn't mean they would always love him in heaven, does it?--especially if they had the same epistemic distance in heaven they had on earth. Why does God want anyone to love him in the first place? Why does he care? Does he need stroked, appreciated, needed? Look at all of the carnage of wasted human and animal lives that required this result. Is this truly a loving God?

In light of this consider what Ivan Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s character, said: “Tell me yourself—I challenge you: let’s assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquility. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let’s say a little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it? Tell me and don’t lie!” [in The Brothers Karamazov]. But the Christian God did exactly this!

Theists claim that God needs to keep a correct “epistemic distance” from us so he can know for sure we truly love him and that he isn’t forcing himself on us with the power and love of his direct presence. This is one of the reasons offered for the perceived “hiddenness of God.” He hides himself in the bushes, so to speak, to see if we really want to love and obey him. But think about this. If I did that with my wife what would be the result? If I didn’t let her see the real me...if I hide my real goodness from her and watched to see if she really loved me, then it would be a false test of her love. I would be wondering whether she loved a caricature of me and not me. Let’s say I didn’t show her my tender side, or my true compassionate nature. Would I expect that she should love me the same as if I did show her my true self? No! Why should God think that it’s any different when it comes to loving him? We see plenty of suffering in this world and so we ask whether or not God is good and deserving to be worshipped. If we conclude he isn’t a good God and reject him because of this epistemic distance, then he should know we have not rejected who he really is. We have merely rejected what he revealed himself to be in his creation, and if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be upset at us when we do reject his love. Why? Because he doesn’t show us his true love. There is little by way of our experience that leads us to think he loves us, or that he exists. And if that's the case, then why should he even be surprised at our reactions? Why?

According to Weisberger, "The real problem with epistemic distance is in showing how humans can ever do right or discover the will of God intelligently in the apparent absence of God...it is impossible for anyone to intentionally do what is required when it is not known, for how can we be expected to fulfill God’s commandments if there is true epistemic distance?” So “it seems absurd for a wholly good God to force humanity into a position of ignorance regarding correct moral choice and then hold people accountable for such a choice." [Suffering Belief, p. 135-6].

Christians respond that since God is omniscient he knows the proper distance needed to test our love and that he’s clearly revealed himself enough for us to love and obey him in the appropriate degrees, proportionate to this distance. When Christians respond like this they are reverting to a prior held faith statement that is outside the bounds of the questions I am asking. I’m looking at what I see and I’m questioning the goodness of God and this so-called needed "epistemic distance." I’m wondering why this world was created, if it was. I’m questioning whether this God even exists based upon what I see. Christians respond that God knows what he’s doing without giving reasonable answers to my questions. If God exists, then why did he do what he did? Punting to mystery doesn't answer my questions. I question his motivations. I doubt his plans. I reject the purportedly good results from the creation of this world. These questions must be answered before I can accept that he knows the proper distance and he can judge us fairly. Of course, if an omniscient God exists it is possible he has created the correct epistemic distance between him and us to know whether we love him. But in so doing he also created so much human and animal carnage that I cannot accept his supposed good wisdom in doing so.

The Extent of Suffering in Our World Makes The Existence of God Implausible.

This is my opening statement in the debate I had with David Wood on the problem of suffering and God.

Christian philosopher James F. Sennett has said: “By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.”

I’m arguing against the theistic conception of God, who is believed to be all powerful, or omnipotent, perfectly good, or omnibenelovent and all-knowing, or omniscient. The problem of evil is an internal one to these three theistic beliefs which is expressed in both deductive and evidential arguments concerning both moral and natural evils. I’m going to hopefully combine all of these elements into a novel approach to the problem.

As I do this, keep in mind what Corey Washington said in a debate with William Lane Craig: “We’ve got to hold theists to what they say…if they say God is omnibenelovent, God is omnibenelovent, if they say God is omnipotent, God is omnipotent. We can’t let theists to sort of play with these words. They mean what they mean. And if God is omnibenelovent, God will not have any more harm in this world than is necessary for accomplishing…greater goods.”

Joseph's Deconversion Story

For sometime now a blogger named Joseph (aka Jospeh) has been visiting DC and commenting. I asked him for his story. Here it is:

I was raised in a strict fundamentalist home by my dad (a minister) and mom (an anti-feminist homemaker). My grandfather was an evangelist and preacher in the churches of Christ. My dad followed in his footsteps and I in his. Three generations steeped in the dogmatism and confident swagger that is so characteristic of those belonging to "the true church." Growing up, I heard hundreds of sermons which "exposed" the doctrinal falsehoods of "denominationalism." I learned to "speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent," and to have a Bible passage to back up every belief I held. To top it all off, I was homeschooled from 5th grade through high school and became quite familiar with the curriculum of Bob Jones and Bill Gothard.

I was baptized at right before my 13th birthday (incidentally, against my mother's wishes, who thought that I should wait until I was an adult). Shortly after I was baptized I felt the calling to preach. The pulpits in the churches of Christ, as you probably know, can be quite dry and didactic. As I begin to delve into the Bible for myself, I felt that it could be made more practical and accessible to the average person. My parents happily schooled me in the art of public speaking. I read several standard books on the doctrines and teachings of the church, but found that my sermons were more issue oriented. I admired preachers like James Kennedy and Chuck Swindoll who told it like it was and saw my own ministry headed in that direction. My radical mother supported me as I began speaking out against rock music, dating, and the separation of church and state and for homeschooling, courtship, and America's Christian history.

By age 16, I had read the Bible through multiple times and believed that I understood what it was all about. I had an answer for every question, a comeback for every objection, and a reconciliation for every discrepancy found in Scripture. My doctrine was well-contained in a nice, neat, little box that remained relatively undisturbed for the first 7 years of my Christian walk.

At one point I remember being disgusted with the whole sin problem and I said to myself, "You know what, this is ridiculous. There is no reason for me to go one sinning against God any longer. I'm just not going to sin anymore." That lasted for about 30 seconds, but the experience planted a nagging doubt in my mind. Why was God allowing sin to have such a stranglehold on my life? Why wouldn't I, through his power, be able to overcome anxiety, fear, loneliness, depression, and sexual temptation? And why didn't I always sense the presence and approval of God in my life?

Nevertheless, my passion for preaching continued. Wherever my dad's ministry took the family, I believed that my purpose was to bloom where I was planted. Usually that meant "livening up" small, struggling congregations across the south, mid-west, and northwest. Like many fundamentalists, I came at it from the perspective that I was there set other people straight. Meanwhile, the silent doubts about my faith continued--doubts which I successfully pushed to the side for a time, but would one day come exploding to the surface.

Some may assume that my faith was superficial and, looking back, in some ways my understanding of biblical theology certainly was. But my conviction was rock solid. I was ready to die for Christ and his principles. As long as I stayed sheltered in my own family and church community, my faith remained strong and stable.

It was not until I joined the military that my world was shaken. For the first time I was exposed to people from all walks of life--including other denominations. I saw the best and worst of humanity. During this time, I also went through a serious physical trial. I felt abandoned by God and trapped in my situation with no particular end in sight. For an entire year, I didn't pray or read the Scriptures. My spiritual life was drying up and cracking, but my spiritual identity was not gone completely. As I hit rock bottom, I realized that I was truly saved and could never leave my Lord.

When I got out the military I found a wonderful church home and became a minister there in a number of capacities. It felt good to be back in my groove, teaching multiple Bible classes, leading youth group meetings, conducting Bible studies, and preaching several sermons a week. I devoured the apologetic works of Norm Giesler, the creationist writings of Henry Morris, and every John MacArthur book I could get my hands on. I happily shielded myself from books and television promoting different points of views (my only exposure to skeptical points of view was by way of Giesler's "When Skeptics Ask").

Ten years into my ministry, however, the doubts reappeared and started to chip away at my faith once again. Some doubts were little ("Why did Abraham, Moses, David continue to sin when they had experienced first hand the power and presence of God in a way we can only dream of?") and others great ("Why does a loving God allow terrible, tragic things to happen to people?"). The atrocities recorded in the Old Testament ( e.g. the Israelite conquests) impacted me in a way they never had before. Suddenly, I saw clearly: there was a huge discrepancy between what evangelicals of every stripe professed and what the Bible taught. I awakened to the vast difference in character between Yahweh and Jesus. I realized that if an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God existed he would do something to clean up the evil in his world--since it was quite obviously more than the church could handle. On an intuitive level, things just didn't make sense.

I began surfing the net to read unorthodox opinions about Christianity. I stumbled across DC and my world was changed. My paradigm was shifting and along with it, my identity. Everything I had been so sure about was fading away. For those who have never struggled with their faith, I cannot put into words the awfulness of the feeling. When the rug is pulled out from underneath you, it's not such a great thing. Believe me, I would have never chosen the path of unbelief had not my honest, intellectual and intuitive search led me there.

Where do I go from here? Well, I will continue to keep an open mind. Yet, I have a new found boldness that has allowed me to question things like never before. It is completely refreshing to be able to speak out in a forum like DC or in my conversations with family member and friends without the fear that God is looming over me, waiting to strike me down for even the hint of unbelief. And, by the way, I still attend church. Why? Because there are good people at my church doing a good work. I have yet to find another organization of people who can replace the family spirit and warm encouragement that the church gives me. On the other hand, there are some things about the church that are ugly and hateful and if that ever outweighs the good, I will probably leave for good.

For now I am like a sponge, learning all I can about the faith that I have left and my understanding of life and the universe grows exponentially from week to week. I now proudly fix myself to ranks of the freethinkers and am grateful that there are other people like me who are willing to call it like they see it and engage in honest dialogue.

The God of the Gaps Reasoning

Victor Reppert and the folks at Christian Cadre are both highlighting an article by Robert Larmer on the God of the Gaps reasoning. It's an interesting discussion to me. Below are some of my brief comments:

Isn't it interesting that before the rise of modern science when people could not explain much at all, theists would often utilize the very god of the gaps argument that they now want to distance themselves from? Whatever could not previously be explained they resorted to saying, "God did it," or "God explains it." The list of such things is probably endless, from a healing, to the rain, to the birth of a child, to winning a war.

I admit that the the god of the gaps epistemology is a logical failure when used by either side. But if the standard of belief is logical proof, then there isn't much any of us can believe, because most all of the time we're only talking about probabilities. The real question is who must retreat more often to the "merely possible" in order to defend their views.

Christian philosopher W. Christopher Stewart objects to the “god of the gaps” epistemology because, as he says, “natural laws are not independent of God. For the Christian theist, God upholds nature in existence, sustaining it in a providential way.” From his perspective this is true. But his rationale is a bit strange. He says, “To do so is to make religious belief an easy target as the gaps in scientific understanding narrow with each scientific discovery,” in “Religion and Science,” Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael Murray (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., Co., 1999), p. 321-322. Why should he be concerned with this unless science truly is leaving less and less room for the supernatural? He’s admitting the evidence does not favor his faith. He’s trying to explain away the evidence. If he lived in a pre-scientific era before science could explain so much he’d still be arguing this is evidence that God exists!

The fact that Christians have abandoned the god of the gaps defense when they previously used it so often, it a testimony to the fact that the evidence in nature does not support the belief in God. The evidence from nature is that there is no active supernatural being in this world. Now God might exist anyway, but there is no evidence of his activity in our world. That's what Christians have learned to give up by abandoning the god of the gaps defense. Others like me simply say that if there is no evidence of God's activity in our world, then it's likely there is no God (given this information alone). This is a reasonable conclusion to make.

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.