Lessing's Ugly Broad Ditch

[Written by John Loftus] Read and try to respond to German critic Gotthold Lessing's (1729-1781) argument regarding miracles and history:

“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles…[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”

Lessing, just like G.W. Leibniz before him, distinguished between the contingent truths of history and the necessary truths of reason and wrote: Since “no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths.” That is, “the accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”

He continued: “We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable? Who, in consequence of this belief, would forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief? Certainly not I. But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry.”

Someone might object that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are “more than historically certain,” because these things are told to us by “inspired historians who cannot make a mistake.” But Lessing counters that whether or not we have inspired historians is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. This, then, “is the ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.” “Since the truth of these miracles has completely ceased to be demonstrable by miracles still happening now, since they are no more than reports of miracles, I deny that they should bind me in the least to a faith in the other teachings of Christ.” (“On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power,” [Lessing’s Theological Writings, (Stanford University Press, 1956, pp. 51-55)].

[First posted Feb. '06]

"Everything That We See in the World Today is Exactly What We Would Expect if Evolution Were True" - Dawkins

Watch this short video of his new book here.

Top Ten Atheist Songs

My friend Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has chosen the top ten atheist songs.

See what you think.

Sacrilegious Graphic (Comic) Books For the Young

Last night a young friend showed me a couple of great looking and very funny R rated graphic books he's beginning to collect. They are sacrilegious, extremely well done, and funny. Check them out: Battle Pope; and Jesus Hates Zombies. There is a generation of young people who think the Pope and Jesus are objects for ridicule. No argument here. Just ridicule. And they find these books funny. To me THAT is funny. We no longer have to debunk Christianity with arguments. Just get them hooked on these books! ;-)

Robert G. Ingersoll's Vow

This is my vow as well!

When I became convinced that the universe is natural-that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world-not even in infinite space.

I was free-free to think, to express my thoughts-free to live to my own ideal-free to use all my faculties, all my senses-free to spread imagination's wings-free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope-free to judge and determine for myself-free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past-free from popes and priests-free from all the "called" and "set apart"-free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies-free from the fear of eternal pain-free from the winged monsters of the night-free from devils, ghosts, and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought-no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings-no chains for my limbs-no lashes for my back-no fires for my flesh-no master's frown or threat-no following another's steps-no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain-for the freedom of labor and thought-to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs-to those whose flesh was scarred and torn-to those by fire consumed-to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still. Link.

If you have been freed from religious dogma then join him. "[G]rasp the torch that [he] had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still." What can you do on behalf of skepticism today?

HT: Andrew Atkinson

History, Faith and the Real William Shakespeare

There are some parallels with the quest for the historical Shakespeare and the quest for the true historical faith.

My First Debate on the Problem of Suffering

Six years ago I was sort of browbeaten into debating a handicapped Walmart clerk named Nick, whom I didn't want to beat up on. The proposition to be resolved was this one: The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God. I've since become sort of an an expert on this issue. But in preparing for that debate I saw how powerful the case against God from suffering was. I'm Doubting John. What d'ya think?. If you've read my book (which will be available again mid-October) then you have my most developed thinking on this issue, which I gained later in preparation for a debate on the same issue with Dr. David Wood. The debate with Dr. Wood can be viewed here.

Harvard Professor Michael Sandel on Justice

For Christians who think the Bible has the answer please get and read Michael Sandel's book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. In this link is a video where you can see him ask some difficult questions. How does the Bible answer them? Is the Bible even helpful? Be sure to get and read his book of readings too.

At 55 Today I'm Wondering If I Can Book This Guy in Advance to Sing at My Funeral! LOL

Since I'm getting blasted in the comments below, supposedly because I may have made fun of a person with a mental disability, let me respond.

I found this video posted on Facebook by a well-respected Christian scholar, so if you blast me then blast him too.

Besides, I never said exactly what it was that I found to be funny about this guy who can't sing, so let me spell it out now.

What I find hilarious is that the church allowed him to sing before the congregation in the first place. That's it! They knew how he would sing on camera before he sang and they let him sing anyway! That's the hoot! So no, I would not want him to sing at my funeral for the same reasons the church leadership should not have let him sing before the faithful. Why? Because it’s painful to hear him sing. He can’t sing! Do I need to be any clearer?

If a Christian wants to respond that God doesn't care how talented someone is when it comes to worshipful praise, and that sincere faith is all God asks, then let's do a review. People have gifts. Christians say believers have spiritual gifts. This guy’s gift is NOT singing. So a responsible church leadership should not let him sing and/or lead the congregation in song. Any church leader who was this irresponsible should be fired. I know. I taught a church leadership class for a Christian college. This is not indicative of good church leadership. Not only is it not edifying to the congregation but it can also harm the guy who sang who will be ridiculed afterward.

Think of it this way. If sincere faith is all that's important then why doesn’t the church hire this guy to be their preacher and listen to him every week? Why not make him the treasurer of the church? Why not make him the choir director? You see, sincerity is not enough when it comes to placing the right people with the right gifts in the right place. Church leadership must be more responsible than this in identifying and properly placing people with the right gifts.

And that’s it. I find this incident absolutely hilarious for those reasons. It has nothing to do with whether or not this guy has a mental handicap. If he does I sympathize for him much more than that church did, for I would never have placed him in this situation in the first place. As a result, people would not be making fun of him in public like they are now.

So, let's have some more fun with this for the reasons I just stated.

Richard Dawkins vs. Karen Armstrong: "Where Does Evolution Leave God?"

In the recent issue of the Wall Street Journal former nun Karen Armstrong claims we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence, while Richard Dawkins claims evolution leaves God with nothing to do. See what you think. You know where I stand. In the coming days after I get both books I plan on reviewing Armstrong's latest book The Case for God and the recent book by Dawkins titled, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. As always I'd appreciate any financial help in buying and reviewing books like these (see the "Donate" button in the sidebar).

The Christian and Biblical Scholarship

Many Christians who comment at DC seem all too willing to offer platitudes to defend their faith. So let me try to rectify this problem by challenging them to become more informed.

Christian, what skeptical and/or liberal books have you read? Have you read my book? [It will be available again after a reprinting around October 8th]. Have you read any of the ones in the Debunking Christianity Challenge? Have you read any of the ones linked to in the sidebar from evangelicals? Have you considered what one Mormon wrote?

I'm curious because only someone who has not done so could make your case so blithely without a clear understanding of the issues.

Alvin Plantinga himself admits that the results of biblical criticism could show him wrong. The problem is that he does not show an awareness of knowing anything much about biblical criticism. He's a philosopher defending as best as he can what he was raised to believe based upon conservative biblical scholarship. Well, the conservatives have finally caught up in some ways to critical scholarship.

Critical scholarship is what we should all try to attain. Critical scholars “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.”

Do you disagree with this? Are you prepared to look into these issues in a greater detail with that attitude? This is what my Outsider Test for Faith calls upon you to do.

Save this comment for future reference. Let it provoke you to do your own investigation of the issues. Read all of the links. Tell me about the books you've read and then proceed to read those books I recommend. Start with Kenton Sparks evangelical book, then read Peter Enns book.

Investigate, don't simply regurgitate these pat answers.

Cheers.

Davies: Biblical Ethics not the Basis of our Civilization

The renowned biblical scholar agrees with the New Atheists, at least in part.

In a post that is drawing fire from Christian biblical scholars, Philip Davies argues that biblical ethics have little to do with our western values. See Philip Davies’ post

Davies' conclusions are not really that different from my argument that the Bible is largely irrelevant to modern society in terms of its ethical values (The End of Biblical Studies [2007]). But I would add that the appeals to biblical authority are still causing a lot of ethical problems in modern society.

Are "Emotional" Reasons to Leave the Faith Legitimate Reasons?

Yes, if these reasons are relevant to the question of the truth. So says one Christian Blogger named Joshua, who answers the accusation against me that I left the Christian fold merely for "emotional" reasons. He gets it!!

There is plenty of theology floating around that indicates that the church and people with God’s spirit “inside” of them will have certain features, and that the church will not be merely nominal in nature. So bad experiences are more epistemically relevant than you and many others might like to think. After all, doesn’t this approach what Jesus suggests when he says that people will know his disciples by their love? Indeed, only if we could rely solely on esoteric argumentation, and not our lives, to be a witness and sustainer of faith. Link.

If one must lie for Jesus in order to defend Jesus then that should be a clear indication that one is not being honest with the evidence for Jesus.

There are believers who personally attack me based on some personal information I relate in my book. These people are believers. I’m attacking their personal invisible friend in their minds. End of story for them. So there must be something wrong with me. Nevermind for the moment that on some occasions they lie for Jesus in attacking me by exaggerating and purposely mischaracterizing exactly what I said. If one must lie for Jesus in order to defend Jesus then that should be a clear indication that one is not being honest with the evidence for Jesus. But then they are blinded by their faith.

Debunking Islam

People have repeatedly asked me when I'm going to debunk Islam. My answer is that I don't have the expertise to do so. I can only do what I know best and I know best about Christianity. For a debunking of Islam I recommend the books of Ibn Warraq, who I heard give a talk yesterday. While I lack the expertise to properly evaluate his case, it seems that it doesn't get any better than this. See also the story told by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her amazing book Infidel.

Lord Krishna, Human Manifestation of God, 3000 years before Jesus

Hindu is the oldest religion known to man so far. It has been argued that Christianity borrowed heavily from Hinduism. Lord Krishna was the physical manifestation of one of the Gods of the Hindu Trinity who is named Vishnu. Vishnu came to earth as a Human 5000 years ago to battle evil and show people the right way to live. This is an introduction to Lord Krishna, the human manifestation of the God Vishnu.

Folklore Typologies: Similarities between Krishna and Biblical Characters
There are striking similarities between the stories in the Christian Bible and the Stories that make up the Scriptures of Hinduism. Here is a link to ReligiousTolerance.org where they discuss Similarities between Jesus and Krishna. I will explore this topic in a follow on article done in parallel with this one.

Hare, Hare, Hare! Step right up and hear about Lord Krishna!
I was exposed to the Hindu Scriptures as a Christian pre-teen living in Europe. At that time, I supposed that since Hinduism was so much older, and Israel was so far away from India, that Christianity must be a result of a misunderstanding of Hindu Scriptures and Ideas carried over from India by visitors. I was almost converted. I realized that the Jews didn't think Jesus was the messiah because he didn't qualify and it was uncharacteristic for Yahweh to diminish himself to become a human. No-where in Christian scripture does Jesus unambiguously declare that he is Yahweh in human form, however, it is a characteristic of Vishnu to appear in human form periodically. In my young mind I thought, Jesus was a strikingly different "person" than the Yahweh of the old Testament, Jesus was similar to Krishna and the teachings of Jesus were similar to Hinduism. Therefore, Christianity should be an extension of Hinduism rather than Judaism.

However, since everyone I knew, especially every adult I knew, was a Christian, I was persuaded that Hinduism was mythology, Christianity was "A Religion", Jesus was the one and only God in Human Form. As a Christian adult, I revisited the Hindu Scriptures to see what was so compelling about them, but I didn't feel the same pull towards Hinduism as I did as a child. Maybe our Psychologist Contributors Valerie or Marlene can elaborate on that phenomena.

The Bhagavata Canto 10, The Story of Lord Krishna, and The Birth of Lord Krishna
The Primary reference I used was Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 10, (Bhagavata Purana) but since then they have begun improvements to the site and the links are no longer available. They do provide an alternate site which you can reach from site above or from the links I provided below.

The Bhagavata Wiki
The Bhagavata Wiki, Canto 10-1
Be patient, it takes a while to load. Also there is a link on that page to a site that claims that Jesus Christ was an Incarnation of Vishnu. Good luck disproving that, evangelical.

The links above are a little hard to follow since it is a translation, so the references below are a little more "Layman Friendly".

Simplified Story of the Life of Lord Krishna from YouTube
Short Video
Radhekrishn.com


Longer Video of the birth of Lord Krishna


Article on the historicity of Lord Krishna
Here is an article on the Historical Krishna where the following summary is derived in part. "Search for the Historical Krishna", Prof. N.S. Rajaram

Summary taken from the article

"In summary, we may safely conclude that technical and literary evidence from several independent sources point to the traditional Kali date of 3102 BC as being close to the actual date of the Mahabharata War. We have therefore overwhelming evidence showing that Krishna was a historical figure who must have lived within a century on either side of that date, i.e., in the 3200-3000 BC period."

Summary of the story of Lord Krishna
Lord Krishna is regarded by Hindus and the incarnation of the God Vishnu. They believe that Vishnu is one of the Gods that make up the Hindu Trinity and is believed to be the lord of the universe who takes human form and is the lord of all creation, all things, all time. Through him people will know what is real, meaning comes only from god. Whenever there is too much evil in the world he takes human form to deal with it.

If you watched the video above, and you know your bible, you probably noted quite a few similarties to the stories in the Christian Bible. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the ones I noticed. The simplest explanation of how the stories can be so similar is if they are Folklore, in other words, the same story structure with the details changed to suit the audience.

- Evil king will be overthrown by a savior (The Messiah)
- The Birth of God on Earth prophesied (Various Biblical Prophesies)
- Virgin birth [depending on the Hindu "denomination"] (Mary)
- Devaki was the mother of Krishna and therefore all divinity (Mary)
- The Kings killing of the sons to attempt to kill the God-Child (Herods action)
- Escape of the central characters with the help of God (Acts 5 and 12)
- Receding of the waters during an escape (Red Sea)
- Talking Snake (Adam and Eve)
- Baby was raised by foster mother (Moses)
- Baby raised by peasants (Moses and Jesus)

Other Similarities outside the scope of the Video that are part of the Krishna Story
- Mischevious boy (Similar to Jesus going to temple as a boy and non-canonical stories of Jesus as a child)
- River associated with Holiness and cleanliness (Baptism in the river)
- Krishna wrestled a snake by the river and won (by the river Jacob wrestled an angel, God or his brother depending on how its interpreted)
- Sacrifice out of love (similar to teaching of Christ)
- Picking up a mountain (to hold over his followers as shelter to protect them from heavy rains caused by another angry God, Faith can move mountains)
- Killing a Giant Serpent (Yahweh slaying the Leviathan)
- Krishna would return when things got bad (Second Coming)
- Krishna was Pierced, killed, and taken up to Heaven (Jesus Stabbed by soldier, body disappearing, later taken up to heaven)

Any form of an argument a Christian can use to defend Christianity can be used interchangeably to defend Hinduism and Lord Krishna.
However, it is more likely that since the stories about Krishna predate Judeo-Christian scripture, then it seems that the similarities in the stories about Moses, Jesus and in Acts are pre-existing folklore structures with the details changed to suit the audience.

Below is an incomplete list of events in Lord Krishnas life with my notes as to the Chapter and verse in the Bhagavata Canto 10.
I only noted enough to make my case and leave the rest as an exercise for those interested in comparative religion studies.

Chapter 1, verses are listed above the line

1:29
- Princess Devaki got married to Vasudeva

1:30
- Her Evil Brother Prince Kamsa drove the coach on thier wedding day

1:34
- While driving the coach, a spiritual voice told Prince Kamsa that "Devaki will have eight sons and the eighth son will kill him"

1:65-66
- He put his sister Devaki and her husband Vasudeva in prison

- They had sons in jail and each one was killed by Kamsa to prevent Lord Krishna from being born.

1:69
- Prince Kamsa overthrew his father put him in prison and took the throne,

Chapter 2:8-9
- Vishnu says he will put himself in the womb of Devaki to be born.

Chapter 3:31
- One evening during thunder and lightning, the eighth child was born and they saw that it was the lord Vishnu as vishnu said he would do in Chapter 2:8-9

3:48
- Since the child was in danger of being killed, Vishnu put the guards to sleep and freed the father

3:49
- The father took the baby out into the stormy night and the great serpent accompanied them spreading its hood over them to protect the child

3:50
- As the father approached the river Jumna, it parted to let the father cross,

3:51
- The father went to a house where a woman had just given birth, and the father switched the babies, and Vishnu was raised by the family never knowing the difference.

[MISCHEVIOUS BOY: Similar to Jesus leaving his parents to go the temple]
- The boy was mischievous, he stole sweet milk and distributed it to the other people and animals in the town
[MISCHEVIOUS BOY]

[HEROD: Event similar to and event related to Herod]
- But Kamsa summoned and demons and spirits to search for the child
[HEROD]

[LEVIATHAN, HOLY RIVER: Similar to an event related to a story about Yahweh slaying Leviathan in Job, similar to the event where Jacob wrestled an Angel, God or his brother (depending on the interpretation) and similar to Jesus going into the river to be Baptized, similar to the tradition to the belief that baptism is a sort of rebirth, cleansing, new beginning or relinquishing the bad and accepting the good]
- One day, wrestling and playing by the river, they saw that the river was poisoned, so Krishna jumped in to kill the Giant Serpent that was poisoning the river.
- He danced on the serpents head and set if free, cleaning up the river making the river Holy once again.
- Kamsa saw the giant serpent and its children in the river and knew that it had been defeated by Krishna,
[LEVIATHAN, HOLY RIVER]

[HOLY RIVER]
- Krishna made the land around the Holy River beautiful. Krishna went down by the river and danced with all the women that were there.
[HOLY RIVER]

[SACRIFICE OUT OF LOVE]
- One day Krishnas surrogate father was preparing a sacrifice to Indra the rain god in order to bring rain. The people were afraid that Indra was angry at them. Krishna said that people should sacrifice out of love not fear, so the sacrifice was not appropriate and would be better spent if it were directed to worship the things they love and to sacrifice to the cows and mountains
[SACRIFICE OUT OF LOVE]

[MOVING THE MOUNTAIN]
- So they did and Indra got angry and sent a terrible storm, so Krishna lifted the mountain and used it as an umbrella for the town.
[MOVING THE MOUNTAIN]

- After the storm Krishna got the invitation and he went with his friend Bellarama.
- Krishna and Bellarama killed the combatants and ordered the guards to kill them, so Krishna killed the evil king and returned the real king to power.
- Krishna battled many evils during his lifetime

[VISHNU WOULD RETURN WHEN THINGS GOT BAD]
- Krishna vowed to return to fight evil whenever it occurs.
[HE WOULD RETURN WHEN THINGS GOT BAD]

[PIERCED, KILLED AND TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN]
- There were many other events in the life of Krishna but the last thing Krishna did was to meditate under a tree in the forest, before being shot by mistakenly by a hunter and taken up to heaven.
[PIERCED, KILLED AND TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN]

Other references, related links

Google Videos Search for the story of Lord Krishna

List of Videos about Krishna on Google

Information about the Hindu Trinity, Hindu Trinity

Video about Dwarka, City of Krishna. Hindu pilgrims go there to worship. Hindu scripture says that the original Dwarka was destroyed by the sea. Archeologists think they have discovered parts of it extending 19 miles offshore of present day Dwarka, just like scriptures described.

The Uniqueness of the Approach Used in My Book

A University of Michigan graduate in Philosophy and Biblical Studies is reviewing my book. He starts out by writing:

Unlike reviewing polemical works by someone like Richard Dawkins, engaging Loftus is more interesting to me...The epistemology of religion developed by William Abraham and shared by Loftus (p. 56) is indeed the best – and, luckily, most descriptively accurate – way of dealing with issues like rationality and justification in the context of religious belief. As far as I know, Loftus is the only major published atheist to explicitly argue in this fashion.

Q. Why Do Liberals Still Profess to be Christians? A. Because "Religion is Not About God"

That's what liberal Timo S. Paananen argues. In addition he gives six reasons he finds compelling enough to continue to be a worshiping liberal Christian. See what you think. I do have a certain affinity toward liberals since we stand together against ignorant evangelicals, yes. But I am not a sympathetic atheist, unless one means by this someone who understands how easy it is to be brainwashed to believe and/or someone who sympathizes with believers, because I do.

Am I Obsessed with William Lane Craig?

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism expresses many of my answers to this question since I too focus on Dr. Craig much of the time. Link.

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 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?

James F. Sennett Can Sing Too!

I've written about my friend Dr. Sennett before. [FYI: He maintains he's still a believer]. Well it looks like he's got another possible career in music going for him. Listen to him singing an awesome song he wrote about the love of his new wife.

Did Anthony Reject his Faith Because it Didn't Allow for Any Mystery, or Because There Was Just Too Much Mystery?

Darrel Falk on Belief.net wrote a post called Saving Anthony about a former Blogger at DC who still regularly comments here. Why did Anthony reject his faith? Falk writes:

Consider, for example, the story of Anthony outlined in his autobiographical essay which is posted at a blog-site for former Christians. Anthony had little room for mystery in his theology. Everything had to be nailed down tightly and he built his life around being-in-the-know about everything related to God. When he found that his tight theology didn't mesh with the facts, he thought he had no choice but to give it all up. So steeped was he in a theology where all the pieces had to fit together, that when he found some which didn't, there was nothing left for him except atheism itself. So Anthony, a former believer who wanted nothing more than to know God, has now decided that there is no God; he has rejected all faith, and he is a regular contributor in the comments section of atheistic blog-sites. There are likely thousands like Anthony, people who no longer think they can have a relationship with their Creator because they find pieces that don't fit into their once-neat theology.

A Comparison With the So-Called New Atheists and Some Christian Apologists

The Christian Century recently reviewed William Lobdell's book where Valerie Weaver-Zercher made an interesting comparison:

"Either you don't believe in God or you're a dope." This is how Newsweek's Lisa Miller sums up the thinking of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Lobdell's deconversion narrative, Losing My Religion, refrains from both bombast and suggestions of dopiness. By his very choice of genre—memoir rather than apologia—Lobdell enters a different territory of the new atheism, one already inhabited by several other counter conversion narrators, including John Loftus...and Dan Barker. Link.

There are people on both sides of this debate who claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope." My contention is that anyone who claims this is himself ignorant! Check out this post of mine and this one too. Yes, there are ignorant people on both sides of the fence. But just because someone disagrees does not mean that person is ignorant at all.

As I argue in my book [which is presently being reprinted], it's about seeing things differently along with WHY we should see things differently.

It might make someone feel good to think the other side is ignorant. It might make someone appear to be intelligent and also help him gain many followers. But to claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope" is the height of ignorance in my opinion. I would never follow someone who made such a claim. I would never follow someone so cocksure of himself when ignorance is the rule and knowledge is the exception.

Now yes, I happen to agree with the so-called New Atheists and I appreciate all they have done to open up a debate on the issues. But my goal is to reach believers, not to chide them or to rally the skeptical troops (both worthy goals in and of themselves). Again. My aim is to reach believers, like Barker, Lobdell and others are attempting to do.

The Atonement and Forgiveness

This is a re-dated post from Feb 13, '06.

One way to catch my attention is to comment on something I have written, so here comes triablogue who responded to my earlier post: Why Was Jesus Punished?

triablogue:
For God to simply forgive a person apart from the cross would be an unjust act. It would be an unrighteous act. It would be an unholy act. It would fail to satisfy his wrath. Going back to the illustration of the courts, it is not the duty of the court to forgive the offender. The same is true with God.

Poppycock! Absolute poppycock. The fact that I once touted this crap is a surprise to me now.

In this case the person primarily offended by our sins is God. He is the primary offended party. While others on a horizontal plane might feel slighted by comparison, God is the primary one offended. In this case, there doesn’t need to be any punishment between offender and offended, even though God is also the judge. Why? If God is a person at all then he responds towards us as a person does, a father, and even as a creator who cares for us, not a harsh and demanding judge.

Your Christian God is primarily a judge and not a father. He’s an aloof potentate who rules his people like the Kings of old did over the serfs and peasants. The very image bespeaks of a God who doesn’t really love us, but cares more for administering punishment to offenders in a kingdom of serfs. But the Christian God wants to be known as a father, a person, a lover, and even as a friend of sinners--in Jesus.

It would be like living in a kingdom where we slightly offend each other from time to time (the horizontal plane). But none of us would ever want any of our worst enemies to be punished in ways that the King will do when he's offended by the very same actions that have merely slighted us(on the vertical plane). We would all desire that our enemies were all completely forgiven, including us ourselves, than suffer under the wrath of that aloof potentate who only cares about a infinite tit for a finite tat. None of us would be happy about such a king at all, nor that he would have had to punish his own Son (himself?), when none of us would have wanted anyone to be punished at all. We would think such a God is a monster, a weirdo, and even retarded.

All I am saying is that forgiveness between persons does not logically involve punishment, or retaliation, repentance, or reparations. Show me the logical and rational relationship between punishment and forgiveness between persons. That's all you have to do.

And I'll say that our methods of punishment today are much more humane today by comparison; that all humane punishment should be for the purpose of rehabilitation anyway; and that God should give up on no one--no one.

And I'll say that the more I understand someone, the easier it is for me to forgive them. That's why mothers seem to always love their sons no matter what they do. Does God not understand why we do the very deeds we do? Then he understands like no one else. If he understands, then he cannot be angry. Unless, of course, he's an aloof potentate who simply doesn't care.

While I may want someone who hit me to spend a few months in jail, or someone who stole from me to spend up to a year in jail, I would never want my worse enemies to be treated as Jesus suffered, nor spend eternity in hell, however conceived. I would want everyone who has ever done anything to wrong me to eventually be forgiven. All is eventually forgiven anyway, in time. Why doesn't God do this, since he apparently has all the time in the world?

To Moderate or Not to Moderate...

Based on my own judgment we'll continue to moderate comments here at DC. The recent polls are not that accurate of a measuring stick of the people who actually comment regularly at DC.

When I shut the polls down here were the results:

On Moderating Comments at DC -

Except for Extreme Abuses Let There be a Free For All 45 (35%)
Continue Moderation As Is 49 (38%)
Be Flexible Depending on the Threat 34 (26%)

A Reader Poll on Comments -

Only Prohibit X-Rated Comments 44 (37%)
Prohibit X And R-Rated Comments 4 (3%)
Prohibit X, R-Rated Comments And Personal Attacks 24 (20%)
Prohibit All the Above Plus Ignorant or Troll Comments 35 (29%)
Prohibit All Comments 10 (8%)

My detractors want their cake and eat it too. If I allow a free for all, they'll spam up the combox to the point where no reasonable discussion can take place. There will be personal attack after personal attack, personal charges and counter-charges. That's the nature of the beast when there exists such a potent force like this site with these contributors who speak on the level of the average person for the most part.

If instead we moderate comments, my detractors will claim that I'm censoring speech by prohibiting some very important refutations of our arguments. This is not true nor has it ever been true. We follow a reasonable comment policy.

A third option that I and/or other team members should monitor comments 24 hours a day (or even most of the day) is simply unacceptable.

What my detractors must do is to provide reasons to suggest this Blog would not degenerate as described if there was a free for all, or else they must provide evidence that we have not followed our comment policy.

My goal is to have a reasonable discussion of the ideas that separate us. That's all I have ever wanted. Some people do not share this goal.

Until later, happy surfing!

Oh, and check out a couple of new books linked in the sidebar.