Atheist Bloggers have been hesitant in recent weeks about recommending or promoting one of their own to debate Craig, given recent losses in Hitchens and even Carrier. Some of them have taken it personally, describing these losses as "our losses," and that "we've failed."
Knowing atheists and freethinkers like I do so well, who is the "our" in "our losses," and who is the “we” in “we’ve failed”? Herding us is like herding cats, right? Others failed. I didn’t. You didn’t. Atheists didn’t. I choose who speaks for me. So does every atheist. The media doesn’t choose them for me. Book sales don’t do it either. From these atheists I still haven’t seen any reasonable connection between "Hitchens lost" to "I lost," or to "atheism lost." I really haven’t. I think some atheists do though. That’s why they're hesitant to promote another debate against Craig so that THEY don’t lose again. Christianity will not be debunked in proportion to the degree with which atheists win against Craig anyway. Debates are both entertaining and educational. Like a boxing match we get to watch two people spar for the approval of the audience. But truth is not decided by debate. I think atheists know this, but the words they use say otherwise.
There is a liberalizing tendency with evangelicals over the years. It won’t be atheists that lead them down this road, which can and does lead to atheism. The liberals do this just fine without us. The real debate isn’t between atheists and evangelicals anyway. It’s just that both groups in America seem the most passionate about these issues. The real debate is between evangelicals and other conservatives within the Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist and Disciples of Christ churches, and so forth. Then the debate switches to the evangelicals against the liberals, and the liberals will literally clean their clocks. Ever wonder why Craig doesn't debate liberals? That's why I use the arguments of the liberals in my book so often. Further down the road the debate becomes one between evangelicals and every religion in the world. Evangelicals cannot even win the debate between themselves, much less with the liberals, and even less with the many other world religions. But as soon as they apply the same skepticism against their own evangelical faith that they use against other religious faiths they will become agnostics and atheists. This is what I think will happen if they apply my Outsider Test for Faith.
So relax atheists. Religion is here to stay, probably as long as there are human beings. In the meantime let's enjoy the debates and learn from them how to effectively debunk the Christian faith, since after all, that's the one we're most familiar with in the English speaking world.
May 10, 2009
A New Book On the Resurrection I Recommend
Kris D. Komarnitsky just published a new book on the resurrection titled, Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? As you'll see when you read my review by following the link, I think it's a great introduction to the topic from the skeptical side of the fence.
May 09, 2009
Some Things of Interest on the Internet
First off, people are starting to call for a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and me:
Kel is calling for such a debate and says:
Christian Blogger Irish Farmer concurs. He wrote: “I'll second that. I think this would be a great debate, and if we can get a groundswell of support in favor of it then we should." Although he doesn’t think I will win. Others are doing so on Facebook, I’ve heard. I'd like still more Bloggers to call for such a debate if you think it would be both entertaining and educational.
A new book on my wish list is Wicked Plants. Here's the description:
Fellow Blogger at Debunking Creationism, Nicholas Covington (aka AIGbusted), wrote a new book titled, Atheism and Naturalism. I haven’t seen it yet but he wanted me to mention it. Knowing him it's gotta be good.
I'm also getting some flack about a letter to the editor I wrote concerning the appropriateness of posting the Ten Commandments by Dr. Glenn Peoples, a Christian friend of mine who didn't adequately address my points.
Kel is calling for such a debate and says:
Loftus was a former preacher and student of Craig who turned atheist and now runs the fantastic blog Debunking Christianity where he along with other former theists try to debunk Christianity. Now Craig has said he won't debate former students, though given the challenge it does seem appropriate to engage Loftus given his current credentials as a "new atheist". Unlike many of the other atheists recently putting out books, Loftus' book Why I Became An Atheist directly attacks Christianity in particular - contrasting the styles of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett who go after faith itself or the institution of religion.Kel also offers some good reasons why Christianity is not more probable than atheism.
Christian Blogger Irish Farmer concurs. He wrote: “I'll second that. I think this would be a great debate, and if we can get a groundswell of support in favor of it then we should." Although he doesn’t think I will win. Others are doing so on Facebook, I’ve heard. I'd like still more Bloggers to call for such a debate if you think it would be both entertaining and educational.
A new book on my wish list is Wicked Plants. Here's the description:
A tree that sheds poison daggers; a glistening red seed that stops the heart; a shrub that causes paralysis; a vine that strangles; and a leaf that triggered a war. In Wicked Plants, Stewart takes on over two hundred of Mother Nature’s most appalling creations. It’s an A to Z of plants that kill, maim, intoxicate, and otherwise offend. You’ll learn which plants to avoid (like exploding shrubs), which plants make themselves exceedingly unwelcome (like the vine that ate the South), and which ones have been killing for centuries (like the weed that killed Abraham Lincoln's mother).Christians must ponder why these plants exist. I have a better explanation in blind evolution than either the supposed Fall in the Garden, or divine hiddenness (which one of these plants is God hiding behind to watch us?).
Menacing botanical illustrations and splendidly ghastly drawings create a fascinating portrait of the evildoers that may be lurking in your own backyard. Drawing on history, medicine, science, and legend, this compendium of bloodcurdling botany will entertain, alarm, and enlighten even the most intrepid gardeners and nature lovers.
Fellow Blogger at Debunking Creationism, Nicholas Covington (aka AIGbusted), wrote a new book titled, Atheism and Naturalism. I haven’t seen it yet but he wanted me to mention it. Knowing him it's gotta be good.
I'm also getting some flack about a letter to the editor I wrote concerning the appropriateness of posting the Ten Commandments by Dr. Glenn Peoples, a Christian friend of mine who didn't adequately address my points.
May 08, 2009
Is it Self-Defeating to Argue on Behalf of Skepticism?
The answer is a resounding NO! Christians claim that it is and then try to drive a whole truckload of assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If, after all, it's self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism then, well, anything goes, including the inspiration of a canonical set of documents written by ancient superstitious people and the beliefs that are entailed within them by interpreters today (yesterday's interpreters got it wrong, you see). So even if it is self-defeating to be skeptical about skepticism Christians are completely wrong to make such a huge leap.
But in fact it's not self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism. Not by a long shot. Not even close. Skepticism is not a belief system. It's an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters. We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don't understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don't see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in. We won't even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That's how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be.
Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science. We must think outside the box. Skepticism then is a virtue. Skepticism is the hallmark of an adult who thinks for himself. He refuses to believe something just because others tell him that's what the truth is. I see nothing self-defeating about this at all. If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.
Now consider some odd sort of phenomena, and let's say there are only seven known theories to explain it, some more probable than others. The skeptic may deny outright three of them and weigh the others in the balance. Then he might conclude theory E is the best explanation for it. But he also acknowledges he could be wrong and even that there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet. The non-skeptic may only consider one particular theory, the one he was taught to believe, and he may pronounce it to be true beyond what the evidence calls for, since there are other theories that have some degree of probability to them as well. Nonetheless, the non-skeptic acts with some measure of certainty that he's correct. He may not even consider the other theories at all, or if he does, he does so to refute them.
That's the difference. There is a huge difference between affirming a truth claim and denying one. The denial is the easy part, since there are many possible theories to explain a phenomena. The hard part is to affirm which one of them is the correct one. And there is also a huge difference between the level of assuredness the skeptic has of any truth claim he accepts, from the non-skeptic. The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far, and it simply is not self-defeating at all.
But in fact it's not self-defeating to argue on behalf of skepticism. Not by a long shot. Not even close. Skepticism is not a belief system. It's an approach to truth claims, a reasonable one at that. Skepticism is founded squarely on the science of human nature, psychology, and the science of culture, anthropology, for starters. We human beings are woefully illogical and gullible and trusting. We adopt the beliefs of the culture within which we were raised. We don't understand things very well. What we believe we prefer to believe. We don't see things correctly. What we see is filtered by what culture we were raised in. We won't even seriously consider we were led to believe something that is false. In fact, we may be personally offended and think anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid. That's how entrenched some cultural beliefs can be.
Based on these scientific studies we should be skeptical about what we believe. We should be skeptical about that which we were taught to believe. We should test claims and see if they have independent corroboration through science. We must think outside the box. Skepticism then is a virtue. Skepticism is the hallmark of an adult who thinks for himself. He refuses to believe something just because others tell him that's what the truth is. I see nothing self-defeating about this at all. If after approaching a truth claim with skepticism it passes muster, then the skeptic has good reasons to accept it. So the skeptic does accept certain claims to be true. No one can be skeptical of everything. It's just that each truth claim he tests for himself must pass the test of skepticism.
Now consider some odd sort of phenomena, and let's say there are only seven known theories to explain it, some more probable than others. The skeptic may deny outright three of them and weigh the others in the balance. Then he might conclude theory E is the best explanation for it. But he also acknowledges he could be wrong and even that there might appear an eighth theory to explain it that no one thought of yet. The non-skeptic may only consider one particular theory, the one he was taught to believe, and he may pronounce it to be true beyond what the evidence calls for, since there are other theories that have some degree of probability to them as well. Nonetheless, the non-skeptic acts with some measure of certainty that he's correct. He may not even consider the other theories at all, or if he does, he does so to refute them.
That's the difference. There is a huge difference between affirming a truth claim and denying one. The denial is the easy part, since there are many possible theories to explain a phenomena. The hard part is to affirm which one of them is the correct one. And there is also a huge difference between the level of assuredness the skeptic has of any truth claim he accepts, from the non-skeptic. The skeptic has the reasonable position, by far, and it simply is not self-defeating at all.
May 06, 2009
Church Attendance and Torture Approval - What's the Connection?
The circles I run in include a fair number of recovering fundies—people who were raised on the notion that morality comes from Jesus. In fact, the former Calvinists among us were taught that anyone who is not "washed in the blood" is utterly depraved. For real. A Seattle Calvinist mega-minister, Mark Driscoll, had this to say to his flock: "If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there’s no reason for us to be here. If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there are parties to be had, there are women to be had, there are guns to shoot, there are people to shoot." (Have you heard that Calvinism is all the rage?)
Children are hard-wired to be credulous, to accept what they are told—which means that this shit gets inside people at a gut level—which means it takes a lot of work to get it back out. Recovering fundies spend a fair bit of time reminding each other that just because something got wired into your brain before your critical faculties developed doesn’t mean it’s true. So of course last week’s Pew report about churchgoing and torture approval made the rounds.In case you missed it, Pew released survey data showing that the more frequently someone went to church, the more likely they were to approve of torture. (So much for total depravity on the outside.)
Church attendance in this case may be a proxy for conservative religious belief. Of the groups surveyed, Evangelical Christians were most likely to think that torture is often or sometimes ok (62%), followed by Catholics (51%), followed by mainline Protestants (46%). Nonbelievers were least likely to agree (40%).What’s the deal? Over at the Washington Post religion blog, On Faith, modernist theologian Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, suggested that maybe the problem is rooted in theology, what is called the "penal theory of atonement." Jesus gets torture and death because the rest of us deserve it. So through the twists and turns of theo-logic, Jesus getting tortured to death turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to the human race. It’s the way believers escape the fate that awaits the rest of us—and is a part of God’s perfect, loving plan.
"For Christian conservatives," Thistlewaite says, "severe pain and suffering are central to their theology." In evidence, she points to Evangelical enthusiasm for Mel Gibson’s movie, a theologically justified orgy of Hollywood torture. She has a point. Convinced of the film’s salvific merit, my mother’s church bussed in teens and made special arrangement for wheelchair-bound elderly. Wouldn’t want them to miss that half-hour beating scene.Does penal atonement theology lead to torture approval? Could be. A host of other hypotheses were suggested in response to Thistlewaite’s article, most of them none too flattering in their assessment of those Evangelical churchgoers:
--It’s political. They’ve allowed the GOP instead of the gospel to shape their thinking.
--They don’t think. Being a Christian requires you to torture logic every day.
--Christians have a higher duty to protect innocents than prisoners.
--Since God approves of torturing most of the human race for eternity it must be ok.
--Witch drowning, heretic burning, even medieval waterboarding – the Church has a lot of practice at torture.
--Evangelicalism is authoritarian—so is torture.
--Anyone who believes in torture isn’t a true Christian.
--They approve because it’s Muslims who are being tortured.
--The ends justify the means in saving souls; the ends justify the means elsewhere.
--Since Christian leaders are saved, they can do no wrong.
--Evangelical Christianity is a tribal religion, focused on distinguishing in-group from out-group, and out-group actors don’t have rights.
--Christians walk around with an instrument of torture dangling from their necks.
--Many Christians misunderstand the message of Christ.
After spending 10 years watching my tired father twitch in church, I’ll confess to my personal favorite: "Sometimes sermons are such that congregants who cannot fall asleep feel that torture is part of God's plan; this does not imply that they like it."
But one comment actually made me think. It was from a nonbeliever who expressed her dismay, not that so many Christians were willing to condone torture, but that so many nonbelievers did too. Christian fundamentalism may increase tolerance of torture, but if so, it is part of a broader problem.
Scholar Riane Eisler (The Chalice and the Blade,The Real Wealth of Nations) offers a framework that may lend some relevant insights. Eisler proposes that all institutions, ideologies, and relationships can be thought of on a continuum from domination orientation to partnership orientation. In a domination orientation, people are caught up in the business of competing for control. You either eat or are eaten, and given the option, most people would rather be at the top of the food chain. Underlings use what power they do have: manipulation, deceit, passive resistance, even suicide. Those in power do harm, often because they perceive that the alternative is "being done to." Being the torturer is better than having your hands tied behind your back and a hood over your head.
Evangelical Christianity has a strong dominance orientation. The metaphor of "spiritual warfare" is ubiquitous. Onward Christian Soldiers. Dominionists seek to take control of the reins of power to rule the rest of us according to Biblical principles. In the church I grew up in, women were taught to submit, even to abuse. My pastor gave a full sermon on breaking the will of his two year old. Spare the rod . . .
But the rest of us are not immune from this mentality of domination either, which ultimately is a mentality of fear, the fear of exploitation or insufficiency. It’s so—primate. Unless the weaker monkey can sneak, the dominant monkey will eat all the grapes. Unless the weaker chimp can sneak, the dominant chimp will get to mate with all the best females. But even our primate cousins would have impossibly wretched lives without the rudiments of compassion and cooperation. Chimpanzees both seek help from one another and give it. Rhesus monkeys have been willing to starve for a week rather than shocking another monkey to get fed (Hauser, pp. 354-355). Their behavior reflects a complex blend of domination and partnership strategies dictated largely by instinct. But, our intelligence allows us more behavioral flexibility than any other species. We who call ourselves homo sapiens sapiens –wise, wise—have the power to understand fear and domination deeply and to orient our personal relationships and social institutions toward the other end of the continuum.
Even as old an institution as Christianity has the power to learn. That may be one of the most important take-aways from the Pew study. Yes, as many people pointed out, the Church has a history of embracing torture, sanctifying it theologically and using it to defend purity of belief. And yes, those Christians who are still stuck defending the "fundamental" belief agreements made in the Fourth Century may be stuck defending torture as well. But Christians like Thistlewaite who have been willing to re-evaluate the old regula fidei or rules of faith have moved both theologically and morally. Many mainliners center their theology not in "penal atonement" but in radical hospitality. Call it love. Like partnership oriented Humanists, Buddhists and others they teach their children how to think rather than what to think and don’t feel a need to "break" them to control their spiritual quest. If that doesn’t help us to outgrow torture, I don’t know what will.
Children are hard-wired to be credulous, to accept what they are told—which means that this shit gets inside people at a gut level—which means it takes a lot of work to get it back out. Recovering fundies spend a fair bit of time reminding each other that just because something got wired into your brain before your critical faculties developed doesn’t mean it’s true. So of course last week’s Pew report about churchgoing and torture approval made the rounds.In case you missed it, Pew released survey data showing that the more frequently someone went to church, the more likely they were to approve of torture. (So much for total depravity on the outside.)
Church attendance in this case may be a proxy for conservative religious belief. Of the groups surveyed, Evangelical Christians were most likely to think that torture is often or sometimes ok (62%), followed by Catholics (51%), followed by mainline Protestants (46%). Nonbelievers were least likely to agree (40%).What’s the deal? Over at the Washington Post religion blog, On Faith, modernist theologian Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, suggested that maybe the problem is rooted in theology, what is called the "penal theory of atonement." Jesus gets torture and death because the rest of us deserve it. So through the twists and turns of theo-logic, Jesus getting tortured to death turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to the human race. It’s the way believers escape the fate that awaits the rest of us—and is a part of God’s perfect, loving plan.
"For Christian conservatives," Thistlewaite says, "severe pain and suffering are central to their theology." In evidence, she points to Evangelical enthusiasm for Mel Gibson’s movie, a theologically justified orgy of Hollywood torture. She has a point. Convinced of the film’s salvific merit, my mother’s church bussed in teens and made special arrangement for wheelchair-bound elderly. Wouldn’t want them to miss that half-hour beating scene.Does penal atonement theology lead to torture approval? Could be. A host of other hypotheses were suggested in response to Thistlewaite’s article, most of them none too flattering in their assessment of those Evangelical churchgoers:
--It’s political. They’ve allowed the GOP instead of the gospel to shape their thinking.
--They don’t think. Being a Christian requires you to torture logic every day.
--Christians have a higher duty to protect innocents than prisoners.
--Since God approves of torturing most of the human race for eternity it must be ok.
--Witch drowning, heretic burning, even medieval waterboarding – the Church has a lot of practice at torture.
--Evangelicalism is authoritarian—so is torture.
--Anyone who believes in torture isn’t a true Christian.
--They approve because it’s Muslims who are being tortured.
--The ends justify the means in saving souls; the ends justify the means elsewhere.
--Since Christian leaders are saved, they can do no wrong.
--Evangelical Christianity is a tribal religion, focused on distinguishing in-group from out-group, and out-group actors don’t have rights.
--Christians walk around with an instrument of torture dangling from their necks.
--Many Christians misunderstand the message of Christ.
After spending 10 years watching my tired father twitch in church, I’ll confess to my personal favorite: "Sometimes sermons are such that congregants who cannot fall asleep feel that torture is part of God's plan; this does not imply that they like it."
But one comment actually made me think. It was from a nonbeliever who expressed her dismay, not that so many Christians were willing to condone torture, but that so many nonbelievers did too. Christian fundamentalism may increase tolerance of torture, but if so, it is part of a broader problem.
Scholar Riane Eisler (The Chalice and the Blade,The Real Wealth of Nations) offers a framework that may lend some relevant insights. Eisler proposes that all institutions, ideologies, and relationships can be thought of on a continuum from domination orientation to partnership orientation. In a domination orientation, people are caught up in the business of competing for control. You either eat or are eaten, and given the option, most people would rather be at the top of the food chain. Underlings use what power they do have: manipulation, deceit, passive resistance, even suicide. Those in power do harm, often because they perceive that the alternative is "being done to." Being the torturer is better than having your hands tied behind your back and a hood over your head.
Evangelical Christianity has a strong dominance orientation. The metaphor of "spiritual warfare" is ubiquitous. Onward Christian Soldiers. Dominionists seek to take control of the reins of power to rule the rest of us according to Biblical principles. In the church I grew up in, women were taught to submit, even to abuse. My pastor gave a full sermon on breaking the will of his two year old. Spare the rod . . .
But the rest of us are not immune from this mentality of domination either, which ultimately is a mentality of fear, the fear of exploitation or insufficiency. It’s so—primate. Unless the weaker monkey can sneak, the dominant monkey will eat all the grapes. Unless the weaker chimp can sneak, the dominant chimp will get to mate with all the best females. But even our primate cousins would have impossibly wretched lives without the rudiments of compassion and cooperation. Chimpanzees both seek help from one another and give it. Rhesus monkeys have been willing to starve for a week rather than shocking another monkey to get fed (Hauser, pp. 354-355). Their behavior reflects a complex blend of domination and partnership strategies dictated largely by instinct. But, our intelligence allows us more behavioral flexibility than any other species. We who call ourselves homo sapiens sapiens –wise, wise—have the power to understand fear and domination deeply and to orient our personal relationships and social institutions toward the other end of the continuum.
Even as old an institution as Christianity has the power to learn. That may be one of the most important take-aways from the Pew study. Yes, as many people pointed out, the Church has a history of embracing torture, sanctifying it theologically and using it to defend purity of belief. And yes, those Christians who are still stuck defending the "fundamental" belief agreements made in the Fourth Century may be stuck defending torture as well. But Christians like Thistlewaite who have been willing to re-evaluate the old regula fidei or rules of faith have moved both theologically and morally. Many mainliners center their theology not in "penal atonement" but in radical hospitality. Call it love. Like partnership oriented Humanists, Buddhists and others they teach their children how to think rather than what to think and don’t feel a need to "break" them to control their spiritual quest. If that doesn’t help us to outgrow torture, I don’t know what will.
May 04, 2009
A Letter to the Editor on the Posting of the Ten Commandments
Someone posted the Ten Commandments in a prominent place on his own property in our area. He was subsequently described as "courageous" in a letter to the editor. This is my brief response:
It doesn’t take courage to post the Ten Commandments on private property, as one person recently commented. That’s a right guaranteed by the first amendment which most people enthusiastically support and defend, including me. I wonder though, if this is the symbol Christian people really want to display to reflect their beliefs? There are three versions of the Ten Commandments, which were based to some degree on the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1795 – 1750 BC), and they don’t all agree with each other (Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 4). Which one do you post?
The only commandments relevant to American law are the ones prohibiting homicide, theft and perjury, which are laws almost everyone wants enforced, for good reasons. Who, for instance, in our day wants to prosecute people for worshipping a different god, making a graven image of him, working on the Saturday Sabbath day, taking the Lord’s name in vain, not honoring their parents, committing adultery, or coveting another person’s property? We all know what happened when such laws were enforced by the church, now don’t we? We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and for good reasons. The last one about not coveting reflects the ancient barbaric practice of a thought police, something which is still being enforced in some Muslim countries where people can be prosecuted for what they think!
Besides, what about some other commandments that aren’t listed but could be, like: “Thou shalt not buy, beat or own slaves,” “Thou shalt not treat people differently because of the color of their skin,” “"Thou shalt not treat women as inferior persons, nor shall you rape them or force them to marry a man they do not want to marry," “Thou shalt not kill or torture heretics or witches,” “Thou shalt not conduct Holy Wars,” or “Thou shalt not trap or abuse animals but treat them humanely.” I think those additions would’ve been very helpful down through the ages, don’t you?
Even if we regard the Ten Commandments as moral rules, aren’t they too restrictive? Is there any room for mitigating circumstances or exceptions? The history of ethical thinking reveals there are a great many exceptions to straightforward commands such as these. Is religious art a graven image to avoid? Should we always honor or obey our parents in everything, even if one tells us to do wrong or who molests us? One commandment states we should not kill, yet we see plenty of divinely sanctioned killings in the Bible, even genocide. Should we always tell the truth under all circumstances? I think not, and so do many religious people. I just think better symbols are available, that’s all.
It doesn’t take courage to post the Ten Commandments on private property, as one person recently commented. That’s a right guaranteed by the first amendment which most people enthusiastically support and defend, including me. I wonder though, if this is the symbol Christian people really want to display to reflect their beliefs? There are three versions of the Ten Commandments, which were based to some degree on the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1795 – 1750 BC), and they don’t all agree with each other (Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 4). Which one do you post?
The only commandments relevant to American law are the ones prohibiting homicide, theft and perjury, which are laws almost everyone wants enforced, for good reasons. Who, for instance, in our day wants to prosecute people for worshipping a different god, making a graven image of him, working on the Saturday Sabbath day, taking the Lord’s name in vain, not honoring their parents, committing adultery, or coveting another person’s property? We all know what happened when such laws were enforced by the church, now don’t we? We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and for good reasons. The last one about not coveting reflects the ancient barbaric practice of a thought police, something which is still being enforced in some Muslim countries where people can be prosecuted for what they think!
Besides, what about some other commandments that aren’t listed but could be, like: “Thou shalt not buy, beat or own slaves,” “Thou shalt not treat people differently because of the color of their skin,” “"Thou shalt not treat women as inferior persons, nor shall you rape them or force them to marry a man they do not want to marry," “Thou shalt not kill or torture heretics or witches,” “Thou shalt not conduct Holy Wars,” or “Thou shalt not trap or abuse animals but treat them humanely.” I think those additions would’ve been very helpful down through the ages, don’t you?
Even if we regard the Ten Commandments as moral rules, aren’t they too restrictive? Is there any room for mitigating circumstances or exceptions? The history of ethical thinking reveals there are a great many exceptions to straightforward commands such as these. Is religious art a graven image to avoid? Should we always honor or obey our parents in everything, even if one tells us to do wrong or who molests us? One commandment states we should not kill, yet we see plenty of divinely sanctioned killings in the Bible, even genocide. Should we always tell the truth under all circumstances? I think not, and so do many religious people. I just think better symbols are available, that’s all.
May 03, 2009
Bart Ehrman On if He's Out to "Destroy the Christian Religion"
Ehrman answers this question for the Washington Post. Speaking about the fundamentalist faith in the Bible or in inerrancy he claims:
Throughout most of history most Christian thinkers would have been seen this view as theological nonsense. Or blasphemy. The Bible was never to be an object of faith. God through Christ was. Being a Christian meant believing in Christ, not believing in the Bible. LinkDavid over at the Unreligious Right Blog says this about Erhman's point:
This is also interesting from the atheist perspective, as atheists often attack Christianity by pointing out the many problems with the Bible. Such a line of argument can be effective with Christians who believe in the primacy of Biblical authority, or Biblical inerrancy, but is less compelling to those who hold more liberal versions of Christianity. Link.I agree. That's why my focus is about debunking the ideas that Christians have gained from the Bible rather than the Bible itself. Besides, I have reasons for rejecting liberal Christianity as well.
May 02, 2009
There Will Be Saved Parasites in Heaven!
The Biblical text is clear in that neither Enoch (Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:11), Jesus and maybe even Moses {(Transfiguration (Matt 17:3 and parallels), in the Jewish work, The Assumption of Moses and its likely New Testament preservations in Acts 7:36 and Jude 8 - 9)} died, but were taken up into Heaven clothes, parasites and all!
While the parasites in the guts of Enoch and Elijah never died, but were translated to Heaven with them, the E. coli parasitic bacterium in the gut of Jesus died and were resurrected back to life by God along with the body of Jesus. Theologically not only are we talking about a single bodily resurrection, but millions of parasitic bacterium E. coli who were also bodily resurrected too…Glory! Praise God!
[Since some the resurrection narratives of Jesus are not coherent or expressed whether Jesus arose bodily or in spirit form only, some Gospels (such as Luke 24 below) went out of their way to prove a physical resurrection (To also counter the spiritual only view which later would be considered heretical), Jesus is not only handled by the apostles, but even eats food:
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. (Codex Bezae reads: “they thought they saw a ghost”). 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; (the Textus Receptus better know as the King James adds: and of an honeycomb.) 43 and He took it and ate it before them.]
So, according to Luke 24, Jesus’ E. coli parasites were also alive and still active in Jesus’ holy gut to help break down the fish (and, maybe even the honeycomb) Jesus ate telling us not only did God resurrect Jesus, but God resurrected the holy parasites that dwelled in the promised land of Jesus’ holy gut.
Thus, like the E. coli in the guts of the living Enoch, Elijah; Jesus’ resurrected E. coli were taken up to Heaven with Jesus too and now dwell up yonder only to return again to earth along with Jesus in the Second Coming!
While the parasites in the guts of Enoch and Elijah never died, but were translated to Heaven with them, the E. coli parasitic bacterium in the gut of Jesus died and were resurrected back to life by God along with the body of Jesus. Theologically not only are we talking about a single bodily resurrection, but millions of parasitic bacterium E. coli who were also bodily resurrected too…Glory! Praise God!
[Since some the resurrection narratives of Jesus are not coherent or expressed whether Jesus arose bodily or in spirit form only, some Gospels (such as Luke 24 below) went out of their way to prove a physical resurrection (To also counter the spiritual only view which later would be considered heretical), Jesus is not only handled by the apostles, but even eats food:
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. (Codex Bezae reads: “they thought they saw a ghost”). 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; (the Textus Receptus better know as the King James adds: and of an honeycomb.) 43 and He took it and ate it before them.]
So, according to Luke 24, Jesus’ E. coli parasites were also alive and still active in Jesus’ holy gut to help break down the fish (and, maybe even the honeycomb) Jesus ate telling us not only did God resurrect Jesus, but God resurrected the holy parasites that dwelled in the promised land of Jesus’ holy gut.
Thus, like the E. coli in the guts of the living Enoch, Elijah; Jesus’ resurrected E. coli were taken up to Heaven with Jesus too and now dwell up yonder only to return again to earth along with Jesus in the Second Coming!
May 01, 2009
Some Things of Interest on the Internet
You might want to take a look at Dr. Matt McCormick's post, Putting Odds on Jesus. Really, what are the odds? [BTW He's using my book in his class on atheism]. Ed Babinski sent me a link to the 7 Most Horrifying Parasites On the Planet. God is perfectly good, right? That site has many other interesting things on it you could spend a lot of time reading. William Lobdell's book, Losing My Religion was just recently given a rave review in the NY Times. Congratulations William! My own book will be reviewed by the overseas equivalent, The Literary Times Supplement. Bruce Droppings recently reviewed an interview of Pastor Dave Schmelzer and me where he says he was disappointed. Check it out to see why. Then don't forget to look over my friend James McGrath's hosting of the Biblical Studies Carnival 41. It's interesting to see what people are saying. Lastly I've received notice that some fine folks on Facebook are getting up a petition calling for a debate between my former professor William Lane Craig, and me.
Cheers.
Cheers.
April 29, 2009
Dr. David A. Dunning: "Most Incompetent People do Not Know That They are Incompetent."
On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dr. Dunning has found in studies...are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.While we can all ponder about this I've offered a good reason to think we at DC know what we're talking about right here. For those Bible thumpers out there who think we're ignorant and incompetent simply because they disagree with us, try listening to what your own Christian professors are saying about us. If we're ignorant and incompetent, then what do you say about them when they recommend and use my book in their college classes?
April 28, 2009
Christians Converting Christians to Christianity
From 1983-85 I worked in electronics with a Bob Jones University ministerial graduate who was getting support for the mission field. His country of choice was the Pacific nation of Guam; a country where over 90% of the population is Roman Catholic or, as he put it: Over 90% are lost.
The excerpts below are from several of his news letters to his mission board and supporting churches. In them he shares a few of the burdens the Lord has laid on his heart to win the Catholic false religionist to Christ:
“We have almost finished another door-by-door visit through the village of Agat. Many of the doors are posted with Catholic signs that clearly state that they are not interested in any other “religion”. Never the less we keep sowing, praying and watering and trust the Lord of the harvest to bring forth fruit. We are very thankful for those that He has brought in and rescued from the religion that the devil has used to blind their eyes. Our old folks’ home ministry is also still going well. God keeps the door open though we preach strong doctrinal messages that contradict the predominant religion of the residents. A few have professed faith in Jesus Christ.”
“That village is on the southern tip of Guam and has about 2,000 folks living there. Please pray that the hearts of the folks will be receptive to the gospel since it is very strong Catholic. During the meeting there was one soul saved. In the past month one of our members had the blessing of leading a niece to the Lord and a daughter to confirm her salvation.”
“I am sad to report that a Catholic lady Doris and I had witnessed to many times over the past five to six years went into eternity last week and to our knowledge she had not been saved. What a price to pay to be loyal to a false religion!”
The excerpts below are from several of his news letters to his mission board and supporting churches. In them he shares a few of the burdens the Lord has laid on his heart to win the Catholic false religionist to Christ:
“We have almost finished another door-by-door visit through the village of Agat. Many of the doors are posted with Catholic signs that clearly state that they are not interested in any other “religion”. Never the less we keep sowing, praying and watering and trust the Lord of the harvest to bring forth fruit. We are very thankful for those that He has brought in and rescued from the religion that the devil has used to blind their eyes. Our old folks’ home ministry is also still going well. God keeps the door open though we preach strong doctrinal messages that contradict the predominant religion of the residents. A few have professed faith in Jesus Christ.”
“That village is on the southern tip of Guam and has about 2,000 folks living there. Please pray that the hearts of the folks will be receptive to the gospel since it is very strong Catholic. During the meeting there was one soul saved. In the past month one of our members had the blessing of leading a niece to the Lord and a daughter to confirm her salvation.”
“I am sad to report that a Catholic lady Doris and I had witnessed to many times over the past five to six years went into eternity last week and to our knowledge she had not been saved. What a price to pay to be loyal to a false religion!”
Why The “Minimal Facts” Model in Defending the Resurrection of Jesus is Unpersuasive
You can find this critique over at Evaluating Christianity by clicking here.
April 26, 2009
Educated People Can Disagree Agreeably and Learn From One Another
I received yet another email from a Christian professor who is planning on using my book in his classes. Here is what he said about my recent decision not to allow any more comments [Edit by popular demand we're now moderating comments]:
So what's the difference? Why is it that educated Christians and professors want to truly engage our arguments in a thoughtful and mostly mutual respectful manner but that ignorant Christians do not?
I think I have an answer. Only ignorant people (on both sides, by the way) think that whoever disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant and dumb. We can see this almost everywhere. An ignorant person not accustomed to fine wine, classical music, art, or the classic novels of the day simply cannot appreciate them. They have to be educated to see why such things are indeed on a higher level than cheap wine, rap music, graffiti or romance novels. What we fail to understand we also think is unworthy or undignified and that people who enjoy them are stupid, ignorant or dumb. But educated people know differently, even if on some levels they can still appreciate other expressions of these kinds of things.
[Full disclosure, I like cheap wine. I like some rap music and I don't listen to classical music much. I also think some graffiti is amazing, even if it's illegal. I dislike novels, even classical ones for the most part, especially romance novels (from what I understand romance novels are a woman's kind of pornography anyway). But then I am not claiming to be knowledgeable about these kinds of things. I lack the refinement of these tastes, but then I know that I do and I will never tell people with these more refined educated tastes they are ignorant or stupid for having them. I just don't think there is any comparison with the music of a Beethoven, Back, Chopin or Brahms with Vanilla Ice and some others, although many rappers are really creative. For instance, have you heard Wanna be a Baller by Lil' Troy? ;-)]
In the first few months after becoming a Christian I was dispensationalist. I remember reading through my Scofield Bible Study Bible notes as if these notes were as authoritative as the Bible text itself. I didn’t know any better. No alternative view was presented to me. So when I ran across a Christian who questioned this eschatology I had a hard time thinking that other person believed the Bible! I was ignorant. I later learned that Christian people had such disagreements. In fact, on issue after issue where I found disagreement among other Christians the more and more I learned that Christians can believe a wide variety of things and still believe the Bible. But this process took some time. As I became better educated I could embrace more and more Christians as Bible believers.
The same thing went for many different kinds of arguments I found at first thought ot be repelling, especially as I began studying philosophy. If you have ever thought that someone was completely ignorant to think there is no material world then just wait until you get into a Ph.D. program and take seriously George Berkeley’s arguments on behalf of Idealism. Then you will no longer think such an argument is stupid or absurd, even if you might still find it wrongheaded, if you do.
Here’s the point. As one becomes educated, truly educated, then the absurd doesn’t sound absurd anymore. You'll probably still think certain ideas are wrong, of course, but you cannot say of most any idea defended by an educated scholarly person that it is so completely out of whack that anyone who believes and defends it is just stupid, ignorant, or dumb. In fact, since none of us has a corner on the truth (and there is disagreement among philosophers about what truth is) then even those ideas we thought of initially as absurd might be correct after all.
Only the ignorant think that people who disagree are ignorant simply by virtue of the fact that they disagree. People who are educated will use the opportunity of interaction mainly as a time to learn from one another and then to disagree agreeably.
There’s something else. An educated person knows when someone else is educated. S/he can see it in how the argument is expressed, how much force is claimed for the argument, whether the person pontificates about things for which it isn’t possible to pontificate on, and so forth. For instance, when someone starts out an essay or comment claiming to "refute" a certain philosophical argument, that is a very large claim to make and is unlikely to happen (within certain restrictions, or course). Educated people know that the larger the claim is then the harder that claim is to defend. Educated people look for these kinds of things and they can tell when the person they are discussing something with is educated or not. The ignorant haven’t a clue. All they see is disagreement, and where they find it they automatically present their opponents a screwball award because they cannot recognize these clues. And they most emphatically cannot understand that the other person simply cannot say all that s/he knows in one short comment, one short posting, one short summary of an argument, or even one book. We all know more than we can say, although some people are better at saying it than others. So we must always assume the other person has more to say on a topic, and not assume that this is all he can say about it.
The ignorant person may also suggest some silly stupid objection to what a person writes as if this objection will end the debate. The ignorant person may even think such an objection has not even been considered before. The educated person offers better objections and asks whether it has been considered before. And an educated person will usually just ask of another recognized educated person what his response is to the objection.
Sometimes the best thing is for an educated person, who is on your side of the issue, to tell the ignorant people on his side, that this is what he sees when he reads the arguments of the person on the other side of the issue.
Educated Christians are saying that they appreciate our type of atheism here at DC, for the most part. And professors in both Christian and secular colleges are using my book in their classes on apologetics and atheism. This should be a clue to the ignorant Christians out there that educated Christians take me and this Blog seriously, that we know what we're talking about, and that we are worthy opponents, despite the fact that they still disagree. That's because educated people can disagree agreeably and learn from one another, although even educated people falter from time to time in the heat of a debate, which does happen, because we still disagree.
I wish the ignorant Christians who comment here would understand this, but then to do so they must become educated. I can only hope that barring a good education they will listen to the educated Christians and engage us in respectful debates about theses issues, instead of name calling, slander and charges of stupidity, ignorance and of being dumb. This only reveals THEIR ignorance, for they are saying something different than their own professors in Christian colleges are saying when they choose my book as a textbook for their classes on atheism and apologetics.
Q.E.D.
I have really appreciated reading your DC blog the past couple of months after very carefully reading, highlighting, and writing in the margins of Why I Became an Atheist. (I agree with your suggestion that it merits a second and third reading.) I was disappointed when I read about your decision to no longer allow general comments. I understand that you must get frustrated by the many banal comments of those who just want to argue rather than discuss intelligently.This is what I have wanted my Blog to be from the beginning despite the attention getting name (once again, it's main purpose is to grab people's attention), although I don't claim to be open to Christianity at this point even if I AM willing to have an open dialog about it (which may be what he meant). But there are ignorant Christian trolls who comment here to try to disrupt and derail this discussion/debate.
I am planning to use your book in a couple of courses I teach, one undergrad and one grad class, and was hoping to use the blog as a way for my students to interact with you and others in the blogosphere. I would enjoy finding a venue by which that could still happen.
I figured you were getting some annoying and hateful posts. My concern is that there are so few places anywhere, including cyberspace, for genuine, thoughtful conversation between open-minded people on both sides of the theism fence.
So what's the difference? Why is it that educated Christians and professors want to truly engage our arguments in a thoughtful and mostly mutual respectful manner but that ignorant Christians do not?
I think I have an answer. Only ignorant people (on both sides, by the way) think that whoever disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant and dumb. We can see this almost everywhere. An ignorant person not accustomed to fine wine, classical music, art, or the classic novels of the day simply cannot appreciate them. They have to be educated to see why such things are indeed on a higher level than cheap wine, rap music, graffiti or romance novels. What we fail to understand we also think is unworthy or undignified and that people who enjoy them are stupid, ignorant or dumb. But educated people know differently, even if on some levels they can still appreciate other expressions of these kinds of things.
[Full disclosure, I like cheap wine. I like some rap music and I don't listen to classical music much. I also think some graffiti is amazing, even if it's illegal. I dislike novels, even classical ones for the most part, especially romance novels (from what I understand romance novels are a woman's kind of pornography anyway). But then I am not claiming to be knowledgeable about these kinds of things. I lack the refinement of these tastes, but then I know that I do and I will never tell people with these more refined educated tastes they are ignorant or stupid for having them. I just don't think there is any comparison with the music of a Beethoven, Back, Chopin or Brahms with Vanilla Ice and some others, although many rappers are really creative. For instance, have you heard Wanna be a Baller by Lil' Troy? ;-)]
In the first few months after becoming a Christian I was dispensationalist. I remember reading through my Scofield Bible Study Bible notes as if these notes were as authoritative as the Bible text itself. I didn’t know any better. No alternative view was presented to me. So when I ran across a Christian who questioned this eschatology I had a hard time thinking that other person believed the Bible! I was ignorant. I later learned that Christian people had such disagreements. In fact, on issue after issue where I found disagreement among other Christians the more and more I learned that Christians can believe a wide variety of things and still believe the Bible. But this process took some time. As I became better educated I could embrace more and more Christians as Bible believers.
The same thing went for many different kinds of arguments I found at first thought ot be repelling, especially as I began studying philosophy. If you have ever thought that someone was completely ignorant to think there is no material world then just wait until you get into a Ph.D. program and take seriously George Berkeley’s arguments on behalf of Idealism. Then you will no longer think such an argument is stupid or absurd, even if you might still find it wrongheaded, if you do.
Here’s the point. As one becomes educated, truly educated, then the absurd doesn’t sound absurd anymore. You'll probably still think certain ideas are wrong, of course, but you cannot say of most any idea defended by an educated scholarly person that it is so completely out of whack that anyone who believes and defends it is just stupid, ignorant, or dumb. In fact, since none of us has a corner on the truth (and there is disagreement among philosophers about what truth is) then even those ideas we thought of initially as absurd might be correct after all.
Only the ignorant think that people who disagree are ignorant simply by virtue of the fact that they disagree. People who are educated will use the opportunity of interaction mainly as a time to learn from one another and then to disagree agreeably.
There’s something else. An educated person knows when someone else is educated. S/he can see it in how the argument is expressed, how much force is claimed for the argument, whether the person pontificates about things for which it isn’t possible to pontificate on, and so forth. For instance, when someone starts out an essay or comment claiming to "refute" a certain philosophical argument, that is a very large claim to make and is unlikely to happen (within certain restrictions, or course). Educated people know that the larger the claim is then the harder that claim is to defend. Educated people look for these kinds of things and they can tell when the person they are discussing something with is educated or not. The ignorant haven’t a clue. All they see is disagreement, and where they find it they automatically present their opponents a screwball award because they cannot recognize these clues. And they most emphatically cannot understand that the other person simply cannot say all that s/he knows in one short comment, one short posting, one short summary of an argument, or even one book. We all know more than we can say, although some people are better at saying it than others. So we must always assume the other person has more to say on a topic, and not assume that this is all he can say about it.
The ignorant person may also suggest some silly stupid objection to what a person writes as if this objection will end the debate. The ignorant person may even think such an objection has not even been considered before. The educated person offers better objections and asks whether it has been considered before. And an educated person will usually just ask of another recognized educated person what his response is to the objection.
Sometimes the best thing is for an educated person, who is on your side of the issue, to tell the ignorant people on his side, that this is what he sees when he reads the arguments of the person on the other side of the issue.
Educated Christians are saying that they appreciate our type of atheism here at DC, for the most part. And professors in both Christian and secular colleges are using my book in their classes on apologetics and atheism. This should be a clue to the ignorant Christians out there that educated Christians take me and this Blog seriously, that we know what we're talking about, and that we are worthy opponents, despite the fact that they still disagree. That's because educated people can disagree agreeably and learn from one another, although even educated people falter from time to time in the heat of a debate, which does happen, because we still disagree.
I wish the ignorant Christians who comment here would understand this, but then to do so they must become educated. I can only hope that barring a good education they will listen to the educated Christians and engage us in respectful debates about theses issues, instead of name calling, slander and charges of stupidity, ignorance and of being dumb. This only reveals THEIR ignorance, for they are saying something different than their own professors in Christian colleges are saying when they choose my book as a textbook for their classes on atheism and apologetics.
Q.E.D.
Praise God for the Coming Swine Flu Pandemic!
As a bit of sarcasm that Voltaire would appreciate let's all praise God for the coming Swine Flu pandemic! It's been long overdue. A state of emergency has been declared by the US which you can read about right here. On NBC's Nightly News the word pandemic was bandied about as a real possibility.
If the Swine Flu is a punishment sent by God then God's punishments are good, aren't they? We're all sinners so we deserve to drown in our own bodily fluids as our lungs fill up with water, even children, right? People deserve what happens to them because Adam and Eve sinned, or because our parents sinned, or because of original sin (whatever that can possibly mean in this context for children). God's goodness and glory are displayed in the sufferings and deaths of its victims along with the grieving surviving family members. In any case, it's disasters like these that God sends to draw people to him, sort of like beating your wife in order to get her to love you, right? God is perfectly good. Glory be to God! He always does that which is perfectly good. So this is not a tragedy, not a disaster, not an "evil". This is all good! Praise God! Evil is nothing but a privation anyway, according to Augustine. It doesn't really exist!
In addition, the Swine Flu can be considered as a perfectly good divine method of population control. Every once-in-a-while God just has to do this because populations get out of hand and because of this they might upset the so-called perfectly fine tuned ecosystem he created. Never mind for a moment that a more humane way to control population is to control our sex drives, or female ovulation cycles, so that we don't even have a population control problem in the first place. And never mind that there is no reason for a miracle working God to be concerned with such a fine tuned ecosystem when he could sustain the world and control population growth by means of several perpetual miracles such that the coming Swine Flu isn't needed at all in his perfectly good plan. No, God knows what he's doing and his ways are the very best. We cannot even fathom how good God's ways are since he's omniscient and knows best. He has perfectly good reasons why he remains hidden. We know this by faith because we certainly cannot figure it out using the rational powers he created in us even given his perfectly good revelation in the Bible.
Anyway, those damned Catholics are not really Christians anyway, so the Swine Flu started in Mexico where it belongs. No wonder they don't have divine protection. We know that our version of Christianity is true because we were born into it. But wait, it's infecting Protestant Evangelical Christian America too? Oh well, forget about the facts. Who needs facts when the high road is to have faith? And any true Christian who dies in this pandemic will go to heaven anyway.
Besides, Jesus told us that when we see such things we should look up into the sky dome of heaven and be thankful, for this is yet another sign that Jesus is coming. Just ignore the many other pandemics that took place, like the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and the failed apocalyptic predictions that came with it of the end of the world. In fact, let's hope and pray things get worse because we'd rather be in heaven than here on earth. And ignore also the fact that if the world comes to an immediate end there are still billions of non-Christians who have not yet been reached with the saving knowledge of Jesus, many of whom could still be reached if God grants them more time. Ignore also that these people will burn in hell forever. God's patience cannot last forever. Who cares if he calls a halt to this world whenever he does? I don't. I only care about me. I want to go to be with God soon, today if possible. The people who wind up in hell deserve what they get, even those who die in this coming Swine Flu pandemic. Let them burn. I'm just thankful that in God's graciousness toward me he didn't end the world before I got saved. Isn't God so full of it [grace]? It's simply amazing!
So let's thank God and do nothing to prohibit the Swine Flu from spreading because it's God's will. And let's look to the sky for Jesus and help raise money for doomsday ministries that tell the world of the coming disaster upon the heathen, atheists, homosexuals, criminals and child molesters for whom this disaster is being sent. We'll be raptured out of this mess, and even if not, his grace is sufficient for us. We know where we'll go when the time comes.
Be thankful and praise God in all things!
If the Swine Flu is a punishment sent by God then God's punishments are good, aren't they? We're all sinners so we deserve to drown in our own bodily fluids as our lungs fill up with water, even children, right? People deserve what happens to them because Adam and Eve sinned, or because our parents sinned, or because of original sin (whatever that can possibly mean in this context for children). God's goodness and glory are displayed in the sufferings and deaths of its victims along with the grieving surviving family members. In any case, it's disasters like these that God sends to draw people to him, sort of like beating your wife in order to get her to love you, right? God is perfectly good. Glory be to God! He always does that which is perfectly good. So this is not a tragedy, not a disaster, not an "evil". This is all good! Praise God! Evil is nothing but a privation anyway, according to Augustine. It doesn't really exist!
In addition, the Swine Flu can be considered as a perfectly good divine method of population control. Every once-in-a-while God just has to do this because populations get out of hand and because of this they might upset the so-called perfectly fine tuned ecosystem he created. Never mind for a moment that a more humane way to control population is to control our sex drives, or female ovulation cycles, so that we don't even have a population control problem in the first place. And never mind that there is no reason for a miracle working God to be concerned with such a fine tuned ecosystem when he could sustain the world and control population growth by means of several perpetual miracles such that the coming Swine Flu isn't needed at all in his perfectly good plan. No, God knows what he's doing and his ways are the very best. We cannot even fathom how good God's ways are since he's omniscient and knows best. He has perfectly good reasons why he remains hidden. We know this by faith because we certainly cannot figure it out using the rational powers he created in us even given his perfectly good revelation in the Bible.
Anyway, those damned Catholics are not really Christians anyway, so the Swine Flu started in Mexico where it belongs. No wonder they don't have divine protection. We know that our version of Christianity is true because we were born into it. But wait, it's infecting Protestant Evangelical Christian America too? Oh well, forget about the facts. Who needs facts when the high road is to have faith? And any true Christian who dies in this pandemic will go to heaven anyway.
Besides, Jesus told us that when we see such things we should look up into the sky dome of heaven and be thankful, for this is yet another sign that Jesus is coming. Just ignore the many other pandemics that took place, like the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and the failed apocalyptic predictions that came with it of the end of the world. In fact, let's hope and pray things get worse because we'd rather be in heaven than here on earth. And ignore also the fact that if the world comes to an immediate end there are still billions of non-Christians who have not yet been reached with the saving knowledge of Jesus, many of whom could still be reached if God grants them more time. Ignore also that these people will burn in hell forever. God's patience cannot last forever. Who cares if he calls a halt to this world whenever he does? I don't. I only care about me. I want to go to be with God soon, today if possible. The people who wind up in hell deserve what they get, even those who die in this coming Swine Flu pandemic. Let them burn. I'm just thankful that in God's graciousness toward me he didn't end the world before I got saved. Isn't God so full of it [grace]? It's simply amazing!
So let's thank God and do nothing to prohibit the Swine Flu from spreading because it's God's will. And let's look to the sky for Jesus and help raise money for doomsday ministries that tell the world of the coming disaster upon the heathen, atheists, homosexuals, criminals and child molesters for whom this disaster is being sent. We'll be raptured out of this mess, and even if not, his grace is sufficient for us. We know where we'll go when the time comes.
Be thankful and praise God in all things!
The Problem of Evil; What Can God Do?
Here's a redated post of mine from April '06:
It's time once again to discuss what is known as the bedrock of atheism, the problem of evil. As my springboard let's start with David Hume:
A fatal heart attack could’ve been sent to Saddam Hussein before our war with Iraq, stopping it dead in its tracks. The poison that Saddam threw on the Kurds a decade ago could have simply “malfunctioned” by being miraculously neutralized. Sure it would puzzle Saddam, and it would not be explainable by science, but there are a great many things that take place in our world that are not explainable, so this wouldn’t necessarily lead him to believe that the laws of nature were suspended, revealing God behind it all. The same thing could have been done to the Zykon-B gas pellets dropped down into the Auschwitz gas chambers. Even if Nazi's did conclude that God performed a miracle here, what’s the harm done?
Why did God allow the earthquake that sent the tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people in Asia? Did he not have the power to restrain that earthquake? No one would know that he kept it from happening. The same goes for the predicted San Andreas Fault and the earthquake that will send Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean. No seismic scientist would ever discover God as the reason why it doesn’t do this.
Why couldn’t something have happened to all nine hijackers of those planes on that fatal 9/11 day? One could trip and fall to his death, or a broken limb. Three others could’ve gotten in a car accident on the way. One other could’ve had a heart attack. Still another could have been robbed by a New York pair of thugs and killed (there’s utilitarianism at its best!). Another could have been reminded of something by God that would weaken his will, maybe intense doubts like those who walk down the wedding aisle. Another could have been spotted at security by a different officer, while another’s take-on-bag might have spilled open revealing his knife. And so on. These things would all occur on that morning stopping the terrorist attacks dead on. But none of these things happened, did they? God allowed the destruction of nearly 3500 lives that day even though there were means at his disposal to stop it.
And even if by changing these things in the world God would “eradicate the laws of nature,” which I seriously doubt, the Christian would still have to argue that these things are impossible for God to do. Who says that the laws of nature must be fixed and unalterable, anyway? David Hume first questioned this. The ordering of the world by general laws “seems nowise necessary” to God. If by changing something requires some adjustment that does not accord with any known laws of nature, so what? The Christian claims God can do miracles, then why not a perpetual one that doesn’t affect anything else in his creation?
It's time once again to discuss what is known as the bedrock of atheism, the problem of evil. As my springboard let's start with David Hume:
A deity who knows the secret springs of the universe might easily, by particular volitions, turn all accidents to the good of mankind and render the whole world happy, without discovering himself in any operation. A fleet whose purposes were salutary to society might always meet with a fair wind. Good princes enjoy sound health and long life. Persons born to power and authority be framed with good tempers and virtuous dispositions. A few such events as these, regularly and wisely conducted, would change the face of the world, and yet would no more seem to disturb the course of nature or confound human conduct than the present economy of things where the causes are secret and variable and compounded. One wave, a little higher than the rest, by burying Caesar and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have restored liberty to a considerable part of mankind.” [Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part XI].Here are some more things God could’ve done: One childhood fatal disease like the Spanish Flu of 1918 could have killed Hitler and prevented WWII. One actual attempt on Hitler’s life by some people, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, could have ended his reign after the war started. A different police officer could have discovered a naked boy who had briefly escaped Jeffrey Dahlmer’s clutches, and upon investigating further could’ve saved that boy’s life. Timothy McVeigh could have had a fatal vehicle crash while driving to Oklahoma, or a crash that would reveal what was inside his truck. McVeigh could also have been killed while in combat before coming back to the states.
A fatal heart attack could’ve been sent to Saddam Hussein before our war with Iraq, stopping it dead in its tracks. The poison that Saddam threw on the Kurds a decade ago could have simply “malfunctioned” by being miraculously neutralized. Sure it would puzzle Saddam, and it would not be explainable by science, but there are a great many things that take place in our world that are not explainable, so this wouldn’t necessarily lead him to believe that the laws of nature were suspended, revealing God behind it all. The same thing could have been done to the Zykon-B gas pellets dropped down into the Auschwitz gas chambers. Even if Nazi's did conclude that God performed a miracle here, what’s the harm done?
Why did God allow the earthquake that sent the tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people in Asia? Did he not have the power to restrain that earthquake? No one would know that he kept it from happening. The same goes for the predicted San Andreas Fault and the earthquake that will send Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean. No seismic scientist would ever discover God as the reason why it doesn’t do this.
Why couldn’t something have happened to all nine hijackers of those planes on that fatal 9/11 day? One could trip and fall to his death, or a broken limb. Three others could’ve gotten in a car accident on the way. One other could’ve had a heart attack. Still another could have been robbed by a New York pair of thugs and killed (there’s utilitarianism at its best!). Another could have been reminded of something by God that would weaken his will, maybe intense doubts like those who walk down the wedding aisle. Another could have been spotted at security by a different officer, while another’s take-on-bag might have spilled open revealing his knife. And so on. These things would all occur on that morning stopping the terrorist attacks dead on. But none of these things happened, did they? God allowed the destruction of nearly 3500 lives that day even though there were means at his disposal to stop it.
And even if by changing these things in the world God would “eradicate the laws of nature,” which I seriously doubt, the Christian would still have to argue that these things are impossible for God to do. Who says that the laws of nature must be fixed and unalterable, anyway? David Hume first questioned this. The ordering of the world by general laws “seems nowise necessary” to God. If by changing something requires some adjustment that does not accord with any known laws of nature, so what? The Christian claims God can do miracles, then why not a perpetual one that doesn’t affect anything else in his creation?
April 25, 2009
"Most people understand that the Bible is full of allegories, metaphors and symbolism."
This criticism was once directed toward me for ridiculing the first chapter of Genesis. I responded by saying...
Not really. For every person who believes that a certain story is allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic, I guarantee that I could find another person who believes it is entirely literal. I further guarantee that each person could use hermeneutics to find textual justification for their respective positions. What does this say? How can one definitively determine literal from figurative? Is the resurrection of a dead man allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic? If not, why not? “Most people understand that the resurrection is full of allegories, metaphors, and symbolism.” How is that statement less valid than the one above?
The fact of the matter is that those who argue that the Bible is an allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic book belong to a generation that has merely retreated from the position of their predecessors. Apologists for religion have changed over the years, just as apologists for other pseudoscientific disciplines have incorporated new interpretations for more recent evidence that debunks their disciplines. The first ghost photographer was found to be a fraud when living people started showing up in his pictures, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent ghost photographs. The first spirit-rapper confessed that the otherworldly sounds in her sessions were the popping of a joint in her big toe and not communications from the dead, but this doesn’t discourage the field from continuously pressing the validity of subsequent ghost whisperers. The first footage of Bigfoot was admitted to be a hoax by the man who made the suit and the man who wore the suit, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent films. The first verifiable crop circles were made by two men who confessed to having invented the whole idea in a pub, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent crop circles. Abductees alleged that the first space aliens told them that they came from Mars and Venus, but once scientists determined those worlds to be inhospitable to life, abductees talked of subsequent abductors hailing from far away solar systems. In this same manner, once science destroyed a literal reading of the Bible, the book retreated into the realm of symbolism and other such explanations.
Not really. For every person who believes that a certain story is allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic, I guarantee that I could find another person who believes it is entirely literal. I further guarantee that each person could use hermeneutics to find textual justification for their respective positions. What does this say? How can one definitively determine literal from figurative? Is the resurrection of a dead man allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic? If not, why not? “Most people understand that the resurrection is full of allegories, metaphors, and symbolism.” How is that statement less valid than the one above?
The fact of the matter is that those who argue that the Bible is an allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic book belong to a generation that has merely retreated from the position of their predecessors. Apologists for religion have changed over the years, just as apologists for other pseudoscientific disciplines have incorporated new interpretations for more recent evidence that debunks their disciplines. The first ghost photographer was found to be a fraud when living people started showing up in his pictures, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent ghost photographs. The first spirit-rapper confessed that the otherworldly sounds in her sessions were the popping of a joint in her big toe and not communications from the dead, but this doesn’t discourage the field from continuously pressing the validity of subsequent ghost whisperers. The first footage of Bigfoot was admitted to be a hoax by the man who made the suit and the man who wore the suit, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent films. The first verifiable crop circles were made by two men who confessed to having invented the whole idea in a pub, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent crop circles. Abductees alleged that the first space aliens told them that they came from Mars and Venus, but once scientists determined those worlds to be inhospitable to life, abductees talked of subsequent abductors hailing from far away solar systems. In this same manner, once science destroyed a literal reading of the Bible, the book retreated into the realm of symbolism and other such explanations.
April 24, 2009
Calling for a Debate with William Lane Craig
Let me make a request to all skeptics as well as many Christians who visit DC. My request is a simple one. I would like skeptics and Christians alike to call for a debate between myself and Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic, Is Christianity more probable than atheism? Use your Blogs and websites to issue this call if you would.
Never mind for the moment that my friend and former professor Bill Craig has basically said he won’t debate me. If people were stopped so easily from pursuing their goals this world would be a different place. He can change his mind. People do all of the time especially when pressure is put on them to do so. On a recent poll many people think I would win such a debate, even if most think I will lose it. About that poll I wonder if some of the Christians who voted I would lose probably just think that since the skeptics are wrong then there is no way any skeptic can win a debate against any Christian apologist. And I wonder if many of the naysaying voters have read my book or seen me debate against David Wood on the problem of suffering, seen here, which most people think I won. Keep in mind that in the debate I had with Wood I did not know in advance how he would argue. But when it comes to Bill Craig I have been a student of his works and debates and I pretty much know his arguments inside and out. He would have to come up with something completely new to surprise me. But I think I could surprise him with a debate strategy I won’t reveal until the time comes to debate him, if it comes. I have watched Craig’s debates enough to know what to say and I want to surprise him with something so different he’ll be taken aback. I am sort of an expert on Craig. I’ve followed him for years, first as a student, and now as a skeptic. I probably know Craig and his work better than most other skeptics.
Many skeptics are now hesitant to encourage debates with Craig because of the recent losses coming from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Carrier, who said: “As I had predicted, I didn't win the debate.” Carrier debated Craig even though he admitted he expected to lose. I do not expect to lose. At the very minimum I expect to hold my own, and I think I could win. I have a habit of succeeding when others tell me I cannot do something.
Eddie Tabash is actually calling for a debate between Craig and me even though he watched in person as Hitchens lost the debate with Craig. I’d like for others to join Tabash if you think one of the premier skeptical debaters on our age knows what he’s talking about.
When it comes to debate experience I think I’ve had more of it than most of the skeptics who debate Craig. Most all of the skeptics that Craig has debated probably never debated before, and some of them win, like most recently Shelly Kagan. The only skeptics who have had a great deal of experience in formal debates are probably Eddie Tabash, Michael Shermer, Dan Barker and Hitchens. So even though I don’t have as much formal debate experience as they do, it may not matter since I'm sort of an expert on Craig. Besides, I’ve been winning debates ever since I won an argument against my 7th grade math teacher and all of the other students in that class over a math problem. And I debate these issues every single day here at DC.
The reason I’m Blogging about this is to try to get Bloggers all over the web to call for this debate, from both skeptical and Christian Blogs. If you’re a Christian why wouldn’t you want to see such a debate? And if you think I’ll be trashed then why wouldn’t you want to see me eat my words?
The saying goes, “if you build it he will come,” and I think if you Blog it Craig will come around. Is he scared of me or something?
Never mind for the moment that my friend and former professor Bill Craig has basically said he won’t debate me. If people were stopped so easily from pursuing their goals this world would be a different place. He can change his mind. People do all of the time especially when pressure is put on them to do so. On a recent poll many people think I would win such a debate, even if most think I will lose it. About that poll I wonder if some of the Christians who voted I would lose probably just think that since the skeptics are wrong then there is no way any skeptic can win a debate against any Christian apologist. And I wonder if many of the naysaying voters have read my book or seen me debate against David Wood on the problem of suffering, seen here, which most people think I won. Keep in mind that in the debate I had with Wood I did not know in advance how he would argue. But when it comes to Bill Craig I have been a student of his works and debates and I pretty much know his arguments inside and out. He would have to come up with something completely new to surprise me. But I think I could surprise him with a debate strategy I won’t reveal until the time comes to debate him, if it comes. I have watched Craig’s debates enough to know what to say and I want to surprise him with something so different he’ll be taken aback. I am sort of an expert on Craig. I’ve followed him for years, first as a student, and now as a skeptic. I probably know Craig and his work better than most other skeptics.
Many skeptics are now hesitant to encourage debates with Craig because of the recent losses coming from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Carrier, who said: “As I had predicted, I didn't win the debate.” Carrier debated Craig even though he admitted he expected to lose. I do not expect to lose. At the very minimum I expect to hold my own, and I think I could win. I have a habit of succeeding when others tell me I cannot do something.
Eddie Tabash is actually calling for a debate between Craig and me even though he watched in person as Hitchens lost the debate with Craig. I’d like for others to join Tabash if you think one of the premier skeptical debaters on our age knows what he’s talking about.
When it comes to debate experience I think I’ve had more of it than most of the skeptics who debate Craig. Most all of the skeptics that Craig has debated probably never debated before, and some of them win, like most recently Shelly Kagan. The only skeptics who have had a great deal of experience in formal debates are probably Eddie Tabash, Michael Shermer, Dan Barker and Hitchens. So even though I don’t have as much formal debate experience as they do, it may not matter since I'm sort of an expert on Craig. Besides, I’ve been winning debates ever since I won an argument against my 7th grade math teacher and all of the other students in that class over a math problem. And I debate these issues every single day here at DC.
The reason I’m Blogging about this is to try to get Bloggers all over the web to call for this debate, from both skeptical and Christian Blogs. If you’re a Christian why wouldn’t you want to see such a debate? And if you think I’ll be trashed then why wouldn’t you want to see me eat my words?
The saying goes, “if you build it he will come,” and I think if you Blog it Craig will come around. Is he scared of me or something?
New Book: 10 Things I Hate About Christianity
You can check it out right here. This is an interesting title written by Jason T. Berggren who is an ex-punk rocker and professing Christian. He was interviewed recently by ABC News. Who says titles don't sell books? I wonder if I shouldn't write one like that from an atheist's perspective.
April 23, 2009
Pastor Turned Atheist Talks to Atheist Turned Pastor
Dave Schmelzer, a former atheist who now pastors a large church in the shadow of Harvard and MIT, and myself, a former pastor who, according to the show's producers, is now "one of atheism’s top 'apologists,'" discuss the influence of our experience, thinking, and the evidence as our paths took opposite directions. Dave speaks from his book, Not the Religious Type, and John from his, Why I Became an Atheist. We were interviewed on the popular and somewhat prestigious Christian talk show "The Things That Matter Most." Enjoy. I've previously critiqued Schmelzer's main thesis in his book right here.
April 22, 2009
Stephen R. Kingsley's The Easter Answer, Is No Answer At All.
I have recently read Stephen R. Kingsley's booklet, The Easter Answer, and my conclusion is that it not only contains a great deal of ignorance about how the gospels were written in the first place (see Luke 1:1-4; he even quotes from the discredited longer ending of Mark), but also that the scenario he presents is quite flawed in several places. It's no answer at all to harmonizing the Gospel accounts of the resurrection stories of Jesus.
Kingsley is attempting to answer Dan Barker’s Easter Challenge offered in his book, Losing Faith in Faith. It’s a challenge that a skeptic named Ralph Nielsen offered $1,000 if anyone could meet it. Basically the challenge asks the believer to “go to your Bible and put together the various resurrection stories into one consistent narrative. Read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20 & 21. Read also Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. List all the events from the resurrection to the ascension of Jesus without omitting any detail. If you can do this with no contradictions I will pay you a $1000 reward.”
Kingsley’s answer fails miserably, I think.
Take for example Matthew 28:1-7:
The problems are inherent just in these short verses, for when reading Matthew they are meant to describe a flow to the events he narrates. These events in Matthew's Gospel are supposed to be taken in order right after each other. It requires Kingsley to rewrite the Gospel to produce one of his own, which as it stands disagrees with all four of them individually. As Bart Ehrman argues, what happened that morning depends on which Gospel we read!
Kingsley has Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb four times, telling the disciples on three separate occasions about it, and having Peter run to discover the empty tomb not once, but twice. On Mary’s third visit to the empty tomb she encounters Jesus himself and touches him (John 20:10-17). But on her fourth visit to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1-2) Mary Magdalene goes with other women to anoint the dead body of Jesus and unbelievably keeps silent that she already knew Jesus had arisen and the tomb was empty! Kingsley suggests Mary kept silent presumably because Peter and the other disciples told her to (without any Biblical support), or that Jesus ONLY told her to tell the “brethren” and did not require her to tell women, or because the other women might have been jealous and accused her of a delusion, even though she was emphatically NOT afraid of telling men who would’ve been more skeptical of her testimony as a woman!
Kingsley also tries to harmonize the five appearances of Jesus to his disciples in the four Gospels with Paul's completely different chronological list of six appearances in I Corinthians 15. To do this Kingsley merely combines them together to make eleven appearances, ignoring the fact that Paul intends to provide not just a list of appearances but a chronology of appearances. And Paul's chronology does not accord with Kingsley's chronology either, when we consider that Paul never mentions any appearances to women at all (Kingsley claims Paul didn't recount them because of their social status, but then why did the Gospel writers do so?). Furthermore, the four Gospels never make mention of the 500 hundred people whom Paul boasted in I Corinthians as having seen the resurrected Jesus at one time, even though this fact would’ve been an astounding confirmation of the Gospel writer's claims.
I think Kingsley should take heed of what several Christian scholars said about attempting such a project, as quoted by him on page 20: Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary said: “No plausible solution has presented itself.” Dr. J. Lyle Story, of Regent University said, “I do know that it’s next to impossible to provide the sequence of events in the post-Resurrections…there’s no way that they can all be harmonized.” Dr. Donald Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary said the problem is a “notorious” one.
Kingsley has emphatically not harmonized the accounts by far. His attempted harmonization is far fetched and as such no answer at all. He does not deserve the $1,000 dollars from Ralph Nielsen.
I will say though, that it was very interesting for me to see the extent a believer will go to prove his faith true. I think it's high time such an attempt is abandoned entirely. It's time that evangelical believers look at the phenomena of the Bible and then only afterward construct a theory about inspiration, rather than continuing to allow their preconceived inerrant theory about the Bible to force the phenomena of the Bible into a Procrustean Bed. Let the Bible do it's own talking. Stop forcing it to fit your preconceived inerrant theory due to ignorant assumptions picked up in Sunday School when you were kids. Grow up. Learn. Question. That's what adults do in most every other area, except unfortunately, when it comes to religion.
Kingsley is attempting to answer Dan Barker’s Easter Challenge offered in his book, Losing Faith in Faith. It’s a challenge that a skeptic named Ralph Nielsen offered $1,000 if anyone could meet it. Basically the challenge asks the believer to “go to your Bible and put together the various resurrection stories into one consistent narrative. Read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20 & 21. Read also Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. List all the events from the resurrection to the ascension of Jesus without omitting any detail. If you can do this with no contradictions I will pay you a $1000 reward.”
Kingsley’s answer fails miserably, I think.
Take for example Matthew 28:1-7:
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.Kingsley disagrees with the majority of today's translators on verse 1 and instead goes with the 1971 New American Standard Bible where it begins "Now late on the Sabbath..." So Kingsley claims verse 1 describes events that took place, not after the Sabbath day was over, but instead late on the Sabbath day, at say, 5:45 PM. Then Kingsley claims verses 2-4, the angel's rolling away of the stone, took place several hours later between 12 midnight and 3:00 AM. And finally he claims verses 5-7 describes the events that took place at 6:30 AM when women first discover the tomb was empty.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
The problems are inherent just in these short verses, for when reading Matthew they are meant to describe a flow to the events he narrates. These events in Matthew's Gospel are supposed to be taken in order right after each other. It requires Kingsley to rewrite the Gospel to produce one of his own, which as it stands disagrees with all four of them individually. As Bart Ehrman argues, what happened that morning depends on which Gospel we read!
Kingsley has Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb four times, telling the disciples on three separate occasions about it, and having Peter run to discover the empty tomb not once, but twice. On Mary’s third visit to the empty tomb she encounters Jesus himself and touches him (John 20:10-17). But on her fourth visit to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1-2) Mary Magdalene goes with other women to anoint the dead body of Jesus and unbelievably keeps silent that she already knew Jesus had arisen and the tomb was empty! Kingsley suggests Mary kept silent presumably because Peter and the other disciples told her to (without any Biblical support), or that Jesus ONLY told her to tell the “brethren” and did not require her to tell women, or because the other women might have been jealous and accused her of a delusion, even though she was emphatically NOT afraid of telling men who would’ve been more skeptical of her testimony as a woman!
Kingsley also tries to harmonize the five appearances of Jesus to his disciples in the four Gospels with Paul's completely different chronological list of six appearances in I Corinthians 15. To do this Kingsley merely combines them together to make eleven appearances, ignoring the fact that Paul intends to provide not just a list of appearances but a chronology of appearances. And Paul's chronology does not accord with Kingsley's chronology either, when we consider that Paul never mentions any appearances to women at all (Kingsley claims Paul didn't recount them because of their social status, but then why did the Gospel writers do so?). Furthermore, the four Gospels never make mention of the 500 hundred people whom Paul boasted in I Corinthians as having seen the resurrected Jesus at one time, even though this fact would’ve been an astounding confirmation of the Gospel writer's claims.
I think Kingsley should take heed of what several Christian scholars said about attempting such a project, as quoted by him on page 20: Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary said: “No plausible solution has presented itself.” Dr. J. Lyle Story, of Regent University said, “I do know that it’s next to impossible to provide the sequence of events in the post-Resurrections…there’s no way that they can all be harmonized.” Dr. Donald Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary said the problem is a “notorious” one.
Kingsley has emphatically not harmonized the accounts by far. His attempted harmonization is far fetched and as such no answer at all. He does not deserve the $1,000 dollars from Ralph Nielsen.
I will say though, that it was very interesting for me to see the extent a believer will go to prove his faith true. I think it's high time such an attempt is abandoned entirely. It's time that evangelical believers look at the phenomena of the Bible and then only afterward construct a theory about inspiration, rather than continuing to allow their preconceived inerrant theory about the Bible to force the phenomena of the Bible into a Procrustean Bed. Let the Bible do it's own talking. Stop forcing it to fit your preconceived inerrant theory due to ignorant assumptions picked up in Sunday School when you were kids. Grow up. Learn. Question. That's what adults do in most every other area, except unfortunately, when it comes to religion.
If the Bible Were Law, Would You Qualify for the Death Penalty?
This week the Supreme Court declined to review a Texas murder case in which a juror brought a Bible into the sentencing process – showing that the Book recommends death for anyone who kills another person with an iron rod (Numbers 35:16).
Let me say for the record that I’m not against the death penalty, and in this case it sounds like the defendant fit my criteria, too. I know I'm ruining my liberal credentials here, but I frankly don’t have any moral problem with the jury condemning him to death. However, to do so based on the sanctification of a Bronze Age legal code is somewhat horrifying—especially given the list of other "crimes" that are recommended for capital punishment in the Bible.
Yes, yes, the court assures us that even though bringing the Bible into the sentencing was improper, there is no evidence that it swayed the jury. Rest assured that when the Bible and other authorities (like our judicial system ) are at odds, we can trust Texas jurors to ignore the Bible and do what is right. Even though half the country believes that God made humans in their present form because the Bible says so—we can count on Texans (school boards excepted) to follow the evidence and the constitution.
All the same, just in case an issue like this should come up in your state, thirty six different offenses in the Bible qualified for capital punishment. Do any of these apply to you?
Cursing Parents
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9
Working on the Sabbath
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15
Premarital Sex (girls only)
. . .If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, Deuteronomy 22:20
Disobedience (boys only)
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18
Worshipping any god but Yahweh
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that . . . hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; . . .Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
Witches
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18
Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?)
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
Loose Daughters of Clergy
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9
Girls who are Raped within the City Limits
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city . . . But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25
Blasphemers
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16
Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers
If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," . . . you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6
Men who Lie With Men
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
Adulterers
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12
Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15
So. Are you up for the death penalty (along with all those Kiwi sheep)?
Just so you know, it could be worse. As I am reminded by people who want me to make nice, this list represents an advancement from mob justice. They are right, and the Levitical Code would a fascinating window into human moral history were it not for the fact that juries in Texas, politicians in Colorado, and clergy in Africa all advocate the death penalty for one person or another on the basis of these texts (murderers, homosexuals, and child witches respectively).
When people put God’s name on Bronze Age documents, and then make those documents a golden calf, they get stuck with Bronze Age moral thinking. Maybe it’s time to take the Bible down off of its pedestal, and acknowledge the obvious human handprints on the texts. Maybe it's even time to do again what Thomas Jefferson did: cut the book apart, keep the parts that are worth keeping, and leave the rest on the floor in the cutting room of history.
Let me say for the record that I’m not against the death penalty, and in this case it sounds like the defendant fit my criteria, too. I know I'm ruining my liberal credentials here, but I frankly don’t have any moral problem with the jury condemning him to death. However, to do so based on the sanctification of a Bronze Age legal code is somewhat horrifying—especially given the list of other "crimes" that are recommended for capital punishment in the Bible.
Yes, yes, the court assures us that even though bringing the Bible into the sentencing was improper, there is no evidence that it swayed the jury. Rest assured that when the Bible and other authorities (like our judicial system ) are at odds, we can trust Texas jurors to ignore the Bible and do what is right. Even though half the country believes that God made humans in their present form because the Bible says so—we can count on Texans (school boards excepted) to follow the evidence and the constitution.
All the same, just in case an issue like this should come up in your state, thirty six different offenses in the Bible qualified for capital punishment. Do any of these apply to you?
Cursing Parents
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9
Working on the Sabbath
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15
Premarital Sex (girls only)
. . .If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, Deuteronomy 22:20
Disobedience (boys only)
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18
Worshipping any god but Yahweh
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that . . . hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; . . .Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
Witches
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18
Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?)
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
Loose Daughters of Clergy
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9
Girls who are Raped within the City Limits
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city . . . But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25
Blasphemers
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16
Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers
If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," . . . you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6
Men who Lie With Men
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13
Adulterers
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12
Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15
So. Are you up for the death penalty (along with all those Kiwi sheep)?
Just so you know, it could be worse. As I am reminded by people who want me to make nice, this list represents an advancement from mob justice. They are right, and the Levitical Code would a fascinating window into human moral history were it not for the fact that juries in Texas, politicians in Colorado, and clergy in Africa all advocate the death penalty for one person or another on the basis of these texts (murderers, homosexuals, and child witches respectively).
When people put God’s name on Bronze Age documents, and then make those documents a golden calf, they get stuck with Bronze Age moral thinking. Maybe it’s time to take the Bible down off of its pedestal, and acknowledge the obvious human handprints on the texts. Maybe it's even time to do again what Thomas Jefferson did: cut the book apart, keep the parts that are worth keeping, and leave the rest on the floor in the cutting room of history.
Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig v. Shelly Kagan
Even some Christians think Dr. Craig lost this debate.
Is God Necessary for Morality? from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)