Debate with Jerry McDonald: Round Two

Round two is now complete. Jerry’s second affirmative and my second rebuttal have been posted, and both statements are divided into two parts (because of their length). I'm curious to know what people think.

Meet My New Neighbors

The late Rev. Ike, who coin the phases: “Some people need a checkup from the neck up.” to “The more you pay, the harder I'll pray.”; used to tell Christians listening to his broadcast: “Why wait for a pie in the sky in the sweet by and by when you can have the pie right NOW with ice-cream on top of it!”

Ministry Leader Building $4 Million Home After Cutting Jobs

A Charlotte-area religious broadcaster is building a $4 million home in western South Carolina, as the ministry has cut jobs.
The Charlotte Observer reported Monday that Inspiration Networks’ CEO David Cerullo, is building the 9,000-square-foot home in a gated community that overlooks Lake Keowee.
Inspiration Networks has drawn scrutiny for up to $26 million in incentives it won from South Carolina to move from Charlotte to Indian Land in Lancaster County.
Don Weaver of the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers says given Cerullo’s salary and land holdings, it doesn’t appear the state needs to offer tax breaks.
Employees told the newspaper the ministry began laying off some workers late last year.
News Channel 7 called and email Inspiration Ministries, to speak to Cerullo or a media relations person. So far, we haven’t heard back from them. But those who know Cerullo said people are developing opinions before they know the facts.
Nick Rubio’s parent’s own the company building Cerullo’s home and he said he is working there during construction. He stresses that Cerullo has been involved in many businesses, other than the ministry.
Cerullo’s bio on the ministry website does state he’s worked internationally and had founded a successful advertising and public relations firm, a construction company and a management consulting firm.
“He was a businessman in real estate and he got into that, and developed that company up,“ said Rubio. “He’s a real genuine, sincere guy who loves God and loves the people that he’s helping.“

Some Interesting Sites

Check these out: Atheism: Proving the Negative;
Religious Tolerance;
The Jesus Police;
The Messiah Truth Project, and
The Christian Central-the Antithesis.

Ken Daniels' Review of My Book: "An unremitting battery of helpfully organized arguments against orthodox Christianity"

Former missionary turned agnostic Ken W. Daniels reviewed my book on Amazon. Among some minor criticisms he wrote:

As a former evangelical missionary who lost my faith nearly a decade ago, I am struck by how closely Loftus' arguments against Christianity match those that drove me independently out of the fold. My journey was long and painful; I discovered the flaws of my faith in bits and pieces until the weight of them all tipped the scales against my former position. In retrospect I believe the process could have been cut significantly shorter if John's book had been available to me years before my crisis finally came to a head.

The value of this volume lies not so much in its development of unique arguments as in its bringing together in a single accessible package most of the important criticisms that have been advanced against the Christian faith (and theism in general) since the Enlightenment. To be sure, there are individual books that delve into each topic more deeply than John's, but few if any cover as many bases as Why I Became an Atheist, while at the same time digging as deeply as can be expected for a general audience.

Though I have read many books arguing for and against the reasonableness of the Christian faith, I was rewarded with a number of helpful insights sprinkled throughout the text.

I found Loftus' treatment of the Atonement to be particularly incisive. I have not read a more succinct and effective rejoinder to the penal substitution theory than his...

[It is] an unremitting battery of helpfully organized arguments against orthodox Christianity. There is no denying that Loftus is well read and gifted at consolidating the arguments of a wide variety authors, tying them together with his own thoughtful analysis.

Loftus is superb at anticipating and preempting the counter-arguments of believers. Well done, John!

To read the whole review click here.

FYI: You can find my book as a Kindle Book on Amazon: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

Ken Daniels just informed me he wrote his own book soon to be available on amazon. Ken was a former team member here at DC.

The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid (Part of a Series)

While I try to be respectful and polite with believers who disagree with me, there are just some things I do not tolerate at all: stupid attempts to justify Biblical ethics. I may make this part of an ongoing series titled: "Fundamentalists Say the Stupidest Things" [FSST]. But Alan is at it again...

Although I already trashed him in a previous post he seems undeterred. He cannot even fathom what God could've said differently about rapists, even to the point of thinking that his "Put up or shut up" demand is a debate stopper when asking me to suggest something else. Is that not utterly ignorant?

You can read what he wrote for yourselves in context, but in light of a different post I wrote about the Ten Commandments my answer to him is this:

"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."

There, that was easy. Given that your God is barbaric I am better than God, and you can quote me on that!

Sheesh. Faith seems to go hand in hand with not being able to think. If this is the ignorant kind of reasoning that makes believers then there is no way in hell they can have any assurance they are right. Alan doesn't even know that he's ignorant!

The Top Ten Reasons Why the Bible is Repulsive

The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid: Another Case in Point.

Read what Alan said in defense of the Old Testament commands concerning rape. This is absolutely stupid.

We were discussing these two passages from the Bible:

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Okay so far? Now along comes Alan who writes:

In some cultures today, once a virgin has been raped, she is shunned by society and remains unmarried all of her days. She pines away as an “untouchable”. This is really sad. In such societies, I would love to see action taken against such damnable perpetrators by having them pay money to the father and require at least an offer of marriage and make the law stick such that he can’t divorce her later. Wait a minute… isn’t this what the Biblical law provides?

This is an utterly stupid analogy. There is no thought in this analogy at all, NONE! Alan is trying to equate what some cultures do today with the command of a perfectly good God regarding such matters. Again, did Yahweh shape the culture of the Israelites or not with his commands? If not, why not? If so, why wouldn't he have commanded them not to shun women who have been raped in the first place, idiot?

But we're not done yet. Next Alan writes this gem:

If a law forces rapists to marry their victims, then perhaps the number of rapes will decline to near zero.

Hmmmm. Let's pick our wives this way okay? Whom would I choose to marry? Just rape her. This is fucking nonsense. ;-)

What’s more, if the law requires rapists to pay fifty shekels of silver to the father, this could indeed equate to the death penalty if the rapist hasn’t saved toward his bride’s future. Thus, we have narrowed down the field of rapists who marry their victims to only those who have saved for their “brides” future.

Oh, the debtor’s prison, right? Let's have a show of hands in this economy whether people would prefer this barbaric practice? Alan wants to turn back the clock. He wants to live in the ancient world with Madelein Flannagan who likes being treated as women were treated in the Bible. How can I shock these idiots into their senses here? I just don't know, but with every utterly stupid comment they write it makes me more passionate than ever to keep them from getting more control of America. I will stand in the way of these barbaric people who must defend the Biblical ethics in order to continue believing in the barbaric Bible.

But Alan isn't done yet:

If the girl happens to be ugly, he is required to marry her anyway. Again, this stipulation will help narrow the field further since potential rapists will be motivated to think before acting.

Naw. Only pretty women will fear being raped, that's all. But then these women might be forced into marrying some ugly bastard like Alan too, which Alan seems not to care for at all. Such idiocy I don't have the words.

Here's Alan again:

Thirdly, if one “selects” his wife through means of rape, then he’ll never be able to divorce her even if “she” turns out to be a transvestite.

What? Why do I waste my time here?

Alan again:

The law is putting so many roadblocks into the potential rapist’s path, and causing him to think, I would guess most potential rapists would opt for the easier path of waiting for a willing partner.

Here is exhibit "B" of just what it takes to defend Christianity (Madeleine was exhibit "A"). One must defend the indefensible. This is why I say believers are ignorant. Although some of them are also unintelligent, like Alan.

Alan's conclusion :

Thus, such a society could easily exceed the American society in quality by many fold. In America, if a woman is raped, often the rapist is nurtured in a prison and the possible resulting child is killed. Why not kill the rapist and let the child live? Often, another woman is victimized as soon as the rapist is released.

So here he is comparing what a perfectly good God commanded with what we do as an American society. Right. There should be no comparison at all if a perfectly good God is behind the laws in the Bible. What Alan wants is for rapists to be killed, for women not to have the right to choose, and for criminals to be flogged, put on chain gangs, or tarred and feathered. Those days are past and for good reasons. It’s just a good thing Alan was not framed for a crime, or a black man facing a white jury, or a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. Alan, you are stupid! Oh, but what I really mean is that your faith makes you stupid.

Kinda reminds me of that commerical where an egg represents your brain. It's cracked open and thrown into a frying pan then we hear the words: "This is your brain on drugs." Well likewise, here's exhibit "B" of what the Christian drug does to your brains too!

To read what Alan said in the context of exhibit "A" here's the link.

The Christian Faith Made Simple

In the words of that famous Christian hymn: Only Believe. Only Believe. All things are possible. Only Believe!

God the Father; God the son; God the Holy Spirit: These three in One. Very God of Very God being of one substance (Homoousios), begotten not made, True God from True God. This very same True God was born by the creature He created (Theotokos: God Bearer or when the Creator created the creature who, in turn, created the Creator in sinful flesh yet without sin): Mary who herself was impregnated by her own Father God so He could be born into the very fallen world of sin the Creator so detested and cursed the created creatures with. In so doing, He became flesh and dwelt among us, but to correct the very Fallen State the Creator cursed the creatures with, the Creator had Himself killed so He as Very God of Very God could shed His own sinless blood for Himself (Creator-Creature atoning to Creator) in order that He could finally accept the world the Creator created in His perfect mind which the Creator had fully planed with fore-knowledge before the foundations of the earth (Gospel of John Chapter 1). The Creator is now seated at the right hand of Himself while making inter-secession to Himself for the fallen creatures of which he had foreknowledge (Supralapsarianism) of before He created the foundations of the cosmos. He, Himself, will now come again to receive this, His fallen creation, unto Himself by re-creating a New Heaven and a New Earth in which the redeemed fallen creatures will also rule with the Creator in a New Jerusalem filled with the very items (Gold and Emeralds: Revelation 21) which produce the greed and lust of the fallen state of the creature the Creator condemned in the old eternal Covernant now replaced with the new eternal Covernant.

Now dear Christian, just which part of your salvation do you not understand? (Remember, your very soul hangs in the balance between orthodoxy and heresy or between eternal damnation and eternal salvation.)

May God have mercy on your mental state!

Former Christian Michael Shermer's 100th Column: "The Answer is Science."

This is an except from his 100th column for Scientific American:

What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence does not always coincide. And after 99 monthly columns of exploring such topics (this is Opus 100), I conclude that I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know. I believe that the truth is out there. But how can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is science.

Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise....Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney.

The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it.

Link

Now compare what he wrote to what I wrote here.

Madeleine Flannagan is Happy to be Treated as Women Were in the Bible!

[Written by John W. Loftus] Here's exhibit "A" of the backward thinking of some Christians. This is incredibly ignorant:

"So yes, I...am happy to be treated the same way women were in the Bible."

Link

How much more ignorant can someone be? Although, her husband probably likes it! ;-)

Grassroots Atheism

I met Chris McLaughlin at the Mid-Michigan Atheists and Humanists Meet-up last night. He talked to us about a movement he and other people from Detroit are hoping to get going called Grass Roots Atheism (In the link Chris is on the left of your screen). He'd like to see atheists take to the streets, not as the street preachers do who preach to people, but to simply hand people some literature if they're receptive and to let them know we atheists are good people. It's a worthy goal. Consider learning more and consider doing it in your area.

[Edit 3/3/10. It looks like the link is gone. Perhaps they aren't taking to the streets anymore I don't know. The simply found a prominent place with a poster that said "We are Atheists," and passed out some literature].

Nitpickers Have Started to Attack

The more educated and intelligent a scholar is then the more that scholar argues against the main argument of his opponent. You can actually tell from what they attack whether they are scholarly or not. They do not nitpick at minor points unrelated to the main argument itself, unless they have first dealt with his main argument.

Well, the nitpickers have started attacking my book.

Layman over at Christian Cadre wrote something about a list of professing Christians I claimed who don’t believe in the empty tomb. He disputes some of them, and he may be right, but I don’t think so. Nonetheless my argument in that chapter stands on its own merits and he has said nothing about it. Nothing. Yup, that's right. Nothing was said against the arguments I laid out in that chapter. That's nada, zip, zilch, zero. Big deal if he’s right on a couple of these names. If all that's required is to nitpick a book for errors in a list of names then have at it, as I said.

But some people have come away thinking with Brad Haggard, that I have "no credible sources" and therefore my "whole argument is undercut." And so it must be that "the list was blatant mischaracterization." Why does he conclude this? Because he has not read my book to know what my argument is, that’s why.

My book covers the topics of God, man and the universe, using the disciplines of science, theology, apologetics, philosophy, history, Biblical studies, and so forth. No mere mortal can have a good grasp of it all, as I told Layman in an email. I even admitted that I know I'm wrong about some things, so I'm willing to learn. Whether Layman is correct or not I'm not sure, and that's my final word on it.

Here's what John Beversluis wrote about my book:

"No review can begin to do justice to an ambitious book of this scope or to the sustained theological, philosophical, scientific, textual, and historical critique of Christianity that it contains. Suffice it to say at the outset that I have never read a book that presents such a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity, and I have seldom read a book that marshals evidence (from such a wide variety of disciplines) and documents its claims in such painstaking detail."

But along comes Layman nitpicking about a detail. Others will do likewise. I am a mere mortal. I did the best I could with what I was doing. I do not have to defend the minutia. Deal with my larger case.

My contention is that at best so far, all I have seen are mischaracterizations of my book, personal attacks on me, nitpicking at small details, and sloppy reasoning in trying to refute it.

Another nitpicker is Matt Flanagan who wrote a post about slavery claiming with others that the slavery in the American South was not Biblical and should never have been justified from the Bible. He quotes me in it where I say the results were horrific for Frederick Douglass and his aunt.

You can read our exchange there, but I said this:

What I find interesting, Matt, is that you have not addressed my main question in my book:

“Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?...why didn’t God tell his people, “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves,” and say it as often as he needed to? Why was God not clear about this in the Bible? Just think how Copan’s own arguments would resonate with him if he were born into the brutal slavery of the South! What would he think then as his blood was spilled at the hands of a Bible-quoting master? Sam Harris claims, ‘Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest—and the easiest—moral question our society has ever had to face.’”

Was your God as clear on this issue as he was about murder? Oh, that's not a good analogy because, well, you know, genocide, the witch hunts, heresy trials and the crusades. Hmmmm. Okay, let’s try this one: Was your God as clear about this as he was that we should love our neighbors? Oh, that's not a good analogy because, well, you know, the question was "who is my neighbor?” right? But once you get my point you'll have no good answers to this problem and you know it, so instead you side-step it as you did here. That's what it takes to believe, Matt, side stepping problems because you cannot reasonably explain them. Skeptics say believers are ignorant, and they are, but they’re not unintelligent. It takes a great deal of intelligence to find ways around these types of problems in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance they create.

I find your post absolutely pathetic. Oh, that's right, everyone should've seen the truth about slavery as you do based on hindsight. Does this require that believers should be able to study the Hebrew and Greek? They had the King James Version. They came to their own conclusions as Protestants without requiring Catholic ecclesiastical interpretive authority. So, what does God require here?...that they become scholars and figure out by hindsight like you have on these issues? Yeah, right. In fact. I'll bet you think your views on women, heresy trials and the crusades should’ve been plainly obvious to the historic church too. They were just stupid on a par with a rock, right? No, better ease your mind with the idea that they just did not care to follow God, that they purposely twisted the Bible knowing they were wrong for, oh, three centuries when it came to the witch trials. No, they weren't sincere, were they, or Christians, because Christians always understand the truth and they always behave godly, right? Yes, there are insincere professing Christians, but in my experience people agonized over knowing what God's will was for them--the overwhelming majority did. And given the threat of hell why wouldn't they? And let’s not forget that the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit just did not do his job.

Would You Like to See a Debate Between Dinesh D'Souza and Myself?

Given the failure of Dr. Craig to step up and debate me, Dinesh D'Souza has agreed to do so. D'Souza is the author of What's So Great about Christianity. The students at Virginia Commonwealth University are in the planning stages of this now. Chief organizer Larry M wrote about it in a message to people on Facebook:

Outside of the many attempts from Loftus to get Craig to debate him, others have tried to weigh in. Landon has asked Craig to debate Loftus three times and Craig has denied. We even tried to get Tony from Biola University to ask some of Craig's colleagues to weigh in and they did not put much weight on this.

So, we will keep this group going and hopefully growing for now. Maybe we can convince Craig to a debate as more people join in.

In the mean time... We have an agreement from Dinesh D'souza to debate Loftus. Dinesh has read Loftus' book and was going to write a review...but never did, according to Loftus.

I'm working, as we speak, to get this debate going. I will keep everyone up to date on the progress. The only issue here is that Dinesh requires 10 grand plus travel expenses. Although I find this objectionable, I am working on finding funds for him. Loftus is requiring 2 grand plus travel.

We will try to have this debate at Virginia Commonwealth University, sponsored by the United Secular Alliance (affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance, the Atheist Alliance International, and the Rational Response Squad) and any other christian student club from VCU that would like to help, if money permits. Loftus and D'souza are in agreement and I'm going to try to meet with some Deans at VCU for funding as well as try to lobby some christian groups on campus to fork up some money. If you know anyone who would like to contribute, please contact me. Thank you.

In the meantime, spread the word.

Please do.

An Email of Appreciation and My Response

I get these types of emails from time to time. This one I thought I'd share with readers of DC.

The name of the person who wrote to me is Esteban Roth from Newport Beach, CA. What he wrote is in quotes below.

Kudos on the book and blog. Thus far you've been the ONLY author to convince a number of friends and acquaintances to reassess their beliefs. That you caused such a challenge for them is remarkable considering that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Russell provided my pals with no uncertainty!

Really!? That's fantastic! Please spread the word.

What is also surprising me about your book is that I have yet to see a reputable Christian blog or 'name' attack it (there may have been some but I haven't seen them). Groups like Reformation21 and Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds have been silent regarding you. Which is both surprising and not. Surprising in that the Reformed tradition prides themself on being intellectually superior and having a ready response. No mention of you by D.A. Carson, the Westminster Theological Seminary crew, Albert Mohler, etc. Not surprising in that they seem to avoid serious threats to the faith by either ignoring the threats or engaging in strawman tactics (see the treatment of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks).

I'm not really well-known, that's probably why. My book is scheduled for review in the London Times Literary Supplement though, so they won't be able to ignore it for long. ;-)

My question: Are you surprised that the Reformed crowd is ignoring you thus far? (By 'Reformed Crowd' I mean those who have degrees, teaching positions, and some level of 'fame' in the theological world...not their delusional fans whose education consists of apologetics books and nothing more.)

My book is being used in both Christian and secular college classes on atheism and apologetics. Still, I'm rather unknown at this point. We'll see in the future.

I think you DESERVE their attention as you have the best contemporary critique around. I'd be interested in how someone like Timothy Keller, K. Scott Oliphint, D.A. Carson or Carl Trueman would respond to your work. Unfortunately, I can imagine their underwhelming response (despite the mentioned men being rather intelligent).

Thanks so much! Silence can sometimes be the best response. I think this is the real reason William Lane Craig won't debate me, because by doing so it would make people aware of me and my book, which he just doesn't want to do. Maybe it's just better not to let people know of it. Dinesh D'Souza got my book and read it when it first came out in August. He told me he was planning on writing a review of it. But the last I heard from him about it in September he said "it contained some new thoughtful stuff I hadn't considered before," and he never wrote that review! Again, silence can sometimes be the best response.

There are Christians who are responding by personally attacking me, however. These believers never actually engage my arguments. It's as if they can't deal with them so they think attacking me is the next best thing. One Christian just recently nitpicked at a small detail and made a big deal about it without also dealing with the case I presented in a particular chapter. Big deal. To him I say nitpick away if it makes you feel better.

Your book is quite popular at the local library here in Newport Beach, CA. It's often checked out and with several hold requests following it. And some people are fond of putting your book in the center of the "Atheist" section at the local Barnes and Noble. It's often blocking other books in the "Religious" section as well! Small moves that show people are interested in and promoting you.

Well, isn't that interesting!

Thanks for writing. Let me know how your friends are dealing with my book.

Best,
John W. Loftus

Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 5 of 6

How Viral Ideas Hook Us

Did you know that Temple Baptist Church was built on land that sold for 57 cents, the amount saved by a little girl that had been turned away from their Sunday school? Did you hear about the guy who died in his sleep, killed by his own farts? Can you believe that racist jerk Elvis Presley once said: "The only thing a nigger can do for me is buy my records and shine my shoes." And,guess what--Scholars at the Smithsonian have found Nostradamus predictions that relate to Barack Obama!

As you may have guessed, the above statements are false. But that hasn't kept them from circulating the internet for years. Each of them is part of a viral email message, which means that each has some quality that makes people forward it, over and over and over.


The first is a kind of message commonly known as "glurge," too-sweet-to-be-true stories that give people a warm feeling or even chills. The second makes us laugh and piques our sense of curiosity. The third plays with our contradictory fascination with celebrities, which includes a desire to tear them down. The fourth appeals to our yearning for magic. These stories all are drawn from the urban legends fact-finding site, Snopes.com. What is the common theme? Emotional arousal.

Comparing religion to chain mail seems crass, but the kinship is real. And as Francis Bacon said, "The eye of the understanding is like the eye of the sense; for as you may see great objects through small crannies or holes, so you may see great axioms of nature through small and contemptible instances."

Viral email has a variety of reproductive strategies. Like computer viruses, many chain mail messages contain explicit "copy-me commands." Some promise us good luck if we forward the message to ten people before the day is up - or a week of happiness, or even prosperity. Some threatens us with bad luck if we don't. Some tries to shame us: "If you care about your friends, you'll send this information about cervical cancer/visa fraud/brown recluse spiders . . ." But most viral emails simply contain something that makes us want to pass them on. They may make us laugh or feel validated and righteous. Many delight us. A few tap our sense of magic or mystery or transcendence.

The term "viral marketing" has itself gone viral recently, popularized by books like Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, or Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath. Corporations have discovered that their best sales staff are satisfied customers, and they've been experimenting. Can we figure out the formula for starting a fad? Can we seed the virus with a few hired hands who create buzz? The Heath brothers offer communications professionals a simple formula which they call the "Six Principles for SUCCESs:" SIMPLE UNEXPECTED CONCRETE CREDIBLE EMOTIONAL STORIES. Look at the formula. Now think back about what I said regarding the boundaries of supernaturalism and the born again experience. The fit is remarkably tight.

In the field of medicine, epidemiologists study patterns of contagion. They might track, for example, how an influenza virus spread across one region and how it jumped from country to country in the bodies of specific carriers. Based on the way infections fan out, they may even be able to identify the “epicenter” of a disease. Some of the tools of epidemiology are now being applied to study the spread of viral ideas. But whereas diseases spread passively, meaning people rarely try to infect each other, viral ideas, also known as “memes” spread by harnessing the human desire to share what we know and to learn from each other. Memes get transmitted through established social networks. They spread horizontally within a generation, and vertically from generation to generation. That is why specific religions are concentrated in one part of the world or another and children tend to have the same religion as their parents.

For developmental reasons, children are particularly susceptible to simply accepting the ideas of their parents and community. If a parent says stoves burn you, cars can squish you, and bathing keeps you from getting itchy, kids tend to do best if they simply trust what their parents say. Nature has designed children to be "credulous." This allows them to learn from the mistakes of their elders. It makes them more efficient in acquiring valuable information and adapting to cultural norms. It is also why evangelical parents are encouraged to convert their children. Research on identity development shows that if children can be contained within an enveloping religious community through their transition into young adulthood, few will ever leave. Bring up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)

A successful religion needs to have the qualities of a successful virus. In a changing environment, this means it must have the ability to mutate and adapt. In the past, religions were spread largely by edict and conquest. This is how Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and into the Americas. Today, though, religion is perceived as an individual choice and religions must gain share by attracting adherents. This is why, today, the religions that are gaining mindshare are those that have good marketing, high birthrates, and what economists call “appealing club goods”. In the current environment, Christianity has been able to produce offshoots that need no edict or conquest.

Significantly, the religions that are growing right now are ones with strong copy-me commands. Evangelical Christianity is centered on what Christians call the Great Commission: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost." In addition, just as the Roman church latched onto the strategy of competitive breeding (keep women home, sanctify a high birth rate), so Evangelicals have begun to explicitly add this form of copy-me command to the mix. By contrast, modernist Christianity is more often centered on what Christians call the Great Commandment: "Love the Lord your god with all your heart, soul and mind, and . . . love your neighbor as yourself." In a straight up competition, the copy-me command wins out, and in fact, evangelicals are gaining mindshare, while modernists are losing it.

One of the fastest changing aspects of our world is the growth of information. As knowledge grows, some varieties Christianity accept new scientific or historical findings and reinterpret their sacred texts and traditions in light of our best understanding of the world around us. Tangentially, this is the approach taken by Tibetan Buddhism. The 14th Dalai Lama has said, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." This kind of adaptation is common for forms of Christianity that, like Buddhism, are more centered in praxis (practice) than belief. For those that are centered in belief, adapting to new knowledge is more difficult, and the survival strategy more often is a sort of fundamentalist retrenchment. Karen Armstrong's book, The Battle for God, describes this retrenchment in the Abrahamic religions.

The need to adapt may seem at odds with the recent success of fundamentalism, but in actual fact, fundamentalism is an adaptation to a changing world. Rather than revising dogmas, fundamentalists develop stronger defenses against external threats to a traditional homeostasis. An extreme example of this can be seen in the case of the Amish or Hassidic Jews: the belief system sustains itself relatively unchanged by engaging people to re-create an ancestral environment in which the belief system emerged.

But most theological fundamentalists have a more hybrid approach. They protect their children from external influence by home schooling or parochial schools, but don't mind accessing creationist materials from interactive websites. They expand in-house social services that include pop psychology. They promote hierarchy and sexism but are willing to have women and children as spokespersons for these views. They play up the risks of inquiry and doubt and use scientific findings and follies to make their arguments convincing. Fundamentalist populations resist ideological change, but they have learned to exploit popular culture, best business practices, new technologies, and even scholarship itself to maintain the survival of their beliefs.

Since a virus and host fit together like a lock and key, understanding viral ideas helps us to understand the human mind, and vice versa. Retro-viruses and influenza mutate rapidly, which makes it hard to develop immunizations against them. On the spectrum of religions, Christianity shows a similar flexibility, regularly spinning off new sects, denominations, and even non-denominational renegades. And yet each of these taps a familiar range of emotions and social mechanisms and is constrained by the cognitive structures that place bounds on human supernaturalism. Christianity has adapted to a broad range of human minds and cultures, a strategy that has resulted in success beyond the wildest visions of the patriarchs.

Learn More:
Memetic Lexicon
Richard Brodie - Virus of the Mind
Chip Heath & Dan Heath, Made to Stick:Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die (New York: Random House, 2007), 253-257.

If you don't want to miss any of this series, subscribe to Valerie Tarico at this blog or send email to vt at valerietarico.com and request to be added to her weekly articles list. Missed 1-4? Past articles can be found at www.spaces.live.com/awaypoint.

Debate with Jerry McDonald: Round One

Round one is completed: each round consists of one statement from my opponent and one statement from me. My first rebuttal, which I submitted for approval last night, is now up. Because of the length, my response is divided into two parts -- read it through and see what you think.

Michael Jackson, Allah, and Why Certain People Should be the First to Reject Christianity

Upon the sudden death of Michael Jackson, his brother Jermaine announced his death and closed by saying, "May Allah be with you, Michael, always."

I wonder why African Americans would ever embrace Christianity given their history as slaves in Christian America. The same thing goes for Native Americans who were conquered by American Christians (ala Manifest Destiny), as well as Mexican and Hispanic Christians who believe what they do because of the Spanish Conquistadors who killed, raped and plundered their ancestors. Why would anyone like them embrace such a faith? I know I wouldn't.

Ionian Spirit Has a Page for DC Posts!

I hope I'm not jumping the gun but it looks like we're ready to go with the new discussion forum for DC posts at Ionian Spirit, which Joe E. Holman started a few years ago. On it there is a page dedicated to commenting on DC posts right here. I've posted a few of the ones you find on the front page so far. This will allow people who don't have Blogger accounts to discuss our ideas. Joe has a dedicated staff there so I expect things will go smoothly. The link takes you to the DC page but don't forget to click on the banner to discuss and/or start threads of your own. To register click on the link in the upper left hand corner. For now we'll also allow comments here at DC for regular Bloggers. This is a test run. See what you think.

Robert M. Price to Speak on his New Book: Inerrant the Wind

He'll do so in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, see link, about his new book, Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority. I'll be there too. Hope to see ya.

Bob and I were interviewed together in Ft. Wayne last summer, see link.

Listen to the Craig v. Hitchens Debate

Download an mp3 of the Christopher Hitchens vs. William Lane Craig debate that was held at Biola University in April, 2009. Go to the bottom of the page and click on "Download Link."

HT: Luke of Common Sense Atheism.

Manic Street Preacher on the Craig v. Hitchens Debate

Whilst it is true that Hitchens wasn’t on his usual top form, he actually acquitted himself very well. Reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated. Link.

Debate with Jerry McDonald: Did God raise Jesus from the dead?

Tomorrow, Jerry McDonald is scheduled to post his opening statement affirming the debate resolution: It is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The debate will occur here, and I'll have two weeks to compose a rebuttal. There will be a total of five rounds plus one concluding brief statement from the affirmative side. This debate, I promise you, will not be a typical resurrection debate: for interested readers, I plan on using arguments along these lines in my rebuttals. Stay tuned.

The Genealogies of Jesus and the Laws of Logic

This is a follow-up to my last post "The Gospel of Matthew Debunks the Messiahship of Jesus." There is nothing like applying the standards of logic to a hopelessly irrational target like the genealogies of Jesus.

As a reference, I will re-state the laws of logic below

A is A: This is the law of identity:
For a proposition, if it is true, then it is true.
For a thing, it is what it is. A thing is itself.

A or non-A: This is the law of the excluded middle:
For a proposition, it is either true or it is false.
For a thing, it is either A or it is non A, itself or not itself.

A and non A: This is the law of contradiction:
For a proposition, it cannot be both true and false.
For a thing, it cannot be both itself and not itself. Either-or.

For the record, I do not believe that either the genealogy of Jesus as offered in the Gospel of Matther or the one offered in Luke are an accurate genealogy of either the figure of Joseph or Jesus as the case may be. It is my opinion that they were independently concocted by later interpolators for apologetic reasons. Note that the Gospel of Luke which first has attestation in the hands of Marcion (mid 2nd century) did not contain a genealogy, birth stories, or childhood stories. It began with the appearance of Jesus at the Jordan, just like the Gospel of Mark on which it was based.

That said, I will still subject the genealogies Jesus/Joseph as given by Matthew and Luke to the laws of logic.

A is A: A genealogy is the pedigree of a person running through generations of individuals related by normal parentage. If I were to describe the genealogy or pedigree of my Pug, I would list its genetic forbears for as many generations back as possible. If my Pug's grandfather was adopted by a family owning another Pug generated from a previous champion, could I call the genetic line of the champion part of the pedigree of my Pug? Of course not, that would be fraud. But it would also break the meaning of "genealogy." It is important to clarify a concept to be identified as "A". Once that is done, it is what it is. A genealogy is a genealogy. DNA from DNA.

In the case of Matthew's Gospel, the opening chapter purports to be the "genealogy of Jesus, son of David". Though the current form of Matthew does not specifically say that Joseph fathered Jesus, it may have originally, only to be cleaned up by orthodox theologians of the fourth century. Even lacking that statement, it still claims to be the genealogy or pedigree of Jesus linking him as an heir to David through Joseph obviously carrying the implication that Joseph fathered Jesus. Otherwise as a "genealogy" of Jesus, it has no purpose. Since it is claimed to be the Genealogy of Jesus, then it is meant to be the genealogy of Jesus.

In the case of Luke's Gospel, the genealogy runs from Jesus (supposedly fathered by Joseph) back to David. It is a genealogy intending to show that Jesus was descended from David with a royal claim.

A or non-A: If in fact these genealogies are intended to accurately link Jesus or Joseph to David, they must either really be genealogies or they are not really genealogies. The problem exists because the genealogies are entirely different. They link two individuals by Pedigree, David and Joseph. Yet they show lines of descent with no common links. Matthew's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Solomon down to Joseph. Luke's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Nathan down to Joseph with a completely different set of intermiary names. Simply put, both genealogies cannot be true. Both lists of ancestral fathers without commonality cannot be the pedigree of the same individual. One or the other is excluded.

A and non-A: This is an either-or consideration. At least one of the genealogies is bogus. Both might be bogus, but at least one must be bogus and excluded by the law of contradiction.

This has caused no little consternation for biblicists. For the skeptic, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The lists are irreconcilable. Logic prohibits two divergent lists of pedigree as belonging to the same person. Therefore, while both could be false, one certainly is.

The job of the systematic theologian (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is to find a plausible explanation to reconcile the contradiction. Since no actual contradiction can be tolerated,the systematic theologian inserts the word "apparent" before "contradiction." In his mind, there must be a way to smooth over the mountain of logic. In the event of the problem at hand, the ingenious theologian simply redefines the concept. Though both genealogies clearly state that the line descends from David to Joseph, and since both lists cannot be the ancestors of the same individual, one must posit that they are both genealogies of Jesus, but one (Matthew's) is the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke's is the genealogy of Mary. That way, all the problems are smoothed over. The worried believer can rest in the peace that greater minds have overcome the obstacles and that biblical inerrancy has once again triumphed over the powers of reason.

However, this can only be done by assuming that both genealogies of Jesus are true (they just have to be because the Bible says so) and that the introduction of Mary as the true descendent of the genealogy, cleverly disguised as Joseph so as not to offend partiarchal sentiments, is the best way to outmaneuver the laws of logic.

Read the words of the systematic theologian, Dr. William Smith, "They are both the genealogies of Joseph...Mary, the mother of Jesus WAS IN ALL PROBABILITY the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband...(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary). Mary's name was omitted because 'ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." emphasis supplied.

What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true. By suggesting a probability with no textual support whatsoever and quoting that some scholars "take the ground" that Mary (unmentioned in the text as part of the genealogy) and not Joseph (who is actually mentioned in the text as the descendent) the systematic theologiann amasses the appearance of solid argumentation built upon nothing more than a pious imagination meant to fool the average dupe in the pew into thinking that the Bible has once again been successfully defended against the wiles of satan (logic).

Is Fundamentalism the Problem That Leads to Atheism?

Many people think this is true. Professor Dan Lambert thinks so as well. He wrote: "I have become more and more convinced that Christian fundamentalism has led more people to turn away from Christ and His Church than any anti-Christian belief or group ever could."

Is this correct?

Dr. Lambert can't actually say this is the case, only that 27 years of experience leads him to think so. But I think anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. Until someone funds a scientific exit poll on ex-Christian atheists then we really don't know the backgrounds of the former Christians who become atheists.

As unusual as this might sound, perhaps evangelicals as a whole care more about their faith than most Catholics or liberals. Perhaps they think more deeply about the issues precisely because their faith means everything to them. And if this is the case it would stand to reason more evangelicals become atheists precisely because they care and think deeply about their faith. I think Christian people will more likely reject their religious faith once they care about it and think deeply about it. Evangelicals are more prone to do this so they are more likely to reject the Christian faith.

Besides, there are more evangelical (my term) Christians in America, so it stands to reason more people in America start out as evangelicals. Of the ex-Christians who become atheists more of them will be former evangelicals, by virtue of the demographics alone.

The evangelical critique of the liberals is that they have no reasonable place to stand, and as such, they might as well become complete secularists/atheists. Liberals too are becoming atheists.

In my own case I started out as an evangelical but when the underpinnings of it fell through the floor I took a step up in the direction of liberalism, but at that point I felt the force of the evangelical critique of liberalism. Having already rejected evangelicalism there was no place left to go but to agnosticism and then on to atheism.

I suspect many Christian people go through this same process. I suspect many of us travel the same road we see reflected in the history of modern western thought. First we accept evangelicalism on our Mama’s knees, then later we move on to deism, then to existentialism then on to agnosticism and atheism. Some others move on to pantheism and other sorts of things.

But until that scientific poll is done we will not know.

Edward Feser, Dr. Tiller's Murder, and Free Speech Rights.

[Written by John W. Loftus] Earlier I called for Edward Feser to be fired from his teaching post for writing inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric whereby he argues that the recently murdered abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller, forfeited his right to life by being an abortionist. Feser argues Tiller was “worse” than Jeffery Dahmer, who killed and/or ate 17 human beings. You can see the progression of events here, and some final unanswered points about it right here.

I stepped into this debate by arguing Feser Should Be Fired From His Teaching Post!. Lucky for Feser he’s tenured so this will not happen. Still a few people think I had gone too far, citing free speech, first Amendment rights, and such things. Or, that I haven’t taken into consideration his whole argument where he also condemns vigilantism against abortionists, which he does.

I was claiming Feser ought not to say what he did in the most vocal way I can, precisely because I find it reprehensible in the worst way. How would he feel, as unlikely as it would be, that someone kills an abortionist and upon being arrested quotes him? I think he would feel terrible. That's the point. We must tone down such inflammatory incendiary rhetoric on occasions like these, because of what it could lead to. One is indeed responsible for the repercussions of the rhetoric they use. One must be careful not to use such inflammatory rhetoric when it comes to human beings who simply disagree on the issue of abortion. It’s like pouring gas on the fire.

As an aside, one cannot fail to notice Feser’s blog is subtitled Dispatches from the 10th Crusade, which is another use of inflammatory rhetoric since there were only nine Medieval crusades. Feser is a crusader. A crusader is a killer. Who in his right mind would want to identify with the word “crusade” if he knew the history of them, which I'm sure as a Catholic he does?

Since Feser is immune from firing I’m not pressing that issue any longer. But I do want to address some of the questions that have surfaced in response to my post.

As far as free speech goes, there have been many people fired for expressing chauvinism, racism and homophobia in academia, as sportscasters, and as pundits. Hate speech is not something the law tolerates, nor do employers. Whether you like it or not this is "politically incorrect" speech, which I applaud. One cannot call an African American the "N" word nor a woman the "B" word, for those words have a history of oppression to them in the English language.

In an article for TIME magazine in 1989 called In Praise of Censure by conservative columnist Garry Wills, a good case was made for the same things I agree with today. Follow the link to page three where the money quote is:

"It is a distortion to turn "You can express any views" into the proposition "I don't care what views you express."

This article for TIME was provoked by some “pornographic” art that was partially funded by our government. When the government is involved and when we are the government, we have a say in what we want to allow and support.

And just in case you are not aware, there is no such thing as free speech. It’s a political prize won by the diligent, so argues Stanley Fish, in his brilliant and thought provoking book. That's why there is something called "politically correct speech" in the first place!

Can Feser really be more certain that abortion is unjustifiable murder when we reasonably consider the arguments to the contrary?...Enough to say Tiller was worse than Dahmer? I think not, not by a long shot. Not even close. What motivates him, is the need to feel divinely certain about this. Nothing less than divine certainty will do for you. There can be no room for doubt with religious fanatics like Feser, even though he'll deny being one. Doubt will cause Feser to tone down his rhetoric. And doubt will lead to fewer people being killed.

Nothing inspires the faithful but being divinely assured of what God thinks or wants them to do, and I find this completely abhorrent to thinking people who can only at best come to probable, not divinely certain conclusions about such things. A divinely certain conclusion does not need thought. It only needs action.

Feser’s kind of rhetoric can potentially lead to more murders, for there is nothing stopping someone who embraces the first part of Feser’s argument, that Tiller is more evil than Dahmer, to also reject the second part where murdering Tiller is wrong.

I just wonder what abortionist providers (and their families) might feel like after Feser’s post in a Christian dominant society, when he said they have lost the moral right to life. I think they would fear for their lives, and their fear would be justified, just as Feser would be afraid for his life if he lived in that atheist dominated society and the analogous words were spoken about his profession. Feser is therefore fear mongering. He’s trying to scare abortionists into stopping the helpful service they provide for many people who need and request it. And I find that reprehensible in the worst possible way. He should be ashamed of himself.