The Elusive "Original Text" of Scripture

Evangelical Christians hold that the Scriptures (66 books in the Protestant Canon) are divinely inspired and inerrant in the original autographs. This is seen to be the cornerstone doctrine by many evangelicals. For example see the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Is it possible, though, to identify the words that were present in the “original text”? Or is this an elusive dream?


As a professor of NT Greek, I dabbled some in the science of "textual criticism." Textual criticism is "The study of manuscripts or printings to determine the original or most authoritative form of a text, especially of a piece of literature" (Dictionary.com). The goal of NT textual criticism is to remove spurious readings and identify the "original text" or "autographa" of the New Testament.

A very interesting article questioning this stated goal of textual criticism is The Multivalence of the Term "Original Text" in New Testament Textual Criticism, by Eldon Jay Epp in the Harvard Theological Review , July 1999, Volume 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281. See full article. (Some will jump on the fact that this article is printed on an Islamic website. That's the only place on the web I can find it now. It was published in other places before. Nevertheless, Epp is not a Moslem but rather a very well respected NT textual scholar).

Epp points to a paper read at a conference at Notre Dame University in 1988 as a stimulus that caused him and other textual critics to rethink what they meant by "original text." (He uses the term now only in quotation marks). The paper was presented by Helmut Koester and was entitled: Gospel Traditions in the Second Century. Epp writes:

Koester's discussion of "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century"(32) was introduced by the fully acceptable observation that (except for the fragment [P.sup.52]) no second-century manuscript evidence for the New Testament exists(33) and, therefore, severe problems attend the reconstruction of the textual history of the gospels in the first century of their transmission. Koester then startled many by turning on its head the New Testament textual critics' standard claim that they are fortunate to have so many early manuscripts so close to the time the writings originated. In contrast, he aptly observed that "the oldest known manuscript archetypes are separated from the autographs by more than a century. Textual critics of classical texts know that the first century of their transmission is the period in which the most serious corruptions occur." He then added the provocative note that "textual critics of the New Testament writings have been surprisingly naive in this respect."(34)

Koester went on to say:

[T]he text of the Synoptic Gospels was very unstable during the first and second centuries. With respect to Mark, one can be fairly certain that only its revised text has achieved canonical status, while the original text (attested only by Matthew and Luke) has not survived. With respect to Matthew and Luke, there is no guarantee that the archetypes of the manuscript tradition are identical with the original text of each Gospel. The harmonizations of these two Gospels demonstrate that their text was not sacrosanct and that alterations could be expected ... New Testament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the archetypes of the textual tradition which were fixed ca. 200 CE ... are (almost) identical with the autographs. This cannot be confirmed by any external evidence. On the contrary, whatever evidence there is indicates that not only minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have occurred during the first hundred years of the transmission.(36)

Epp concludes from this:

Whether or not textual critics acquiesce in all of these charges, a strong challenge remains, for they are left not only with text-critical questions--for example, which variants of Mark are most likely original?--but also with penetrating canonical questions, such as, which Mark is original?

Similar issues arise with respect to the composition of the other Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel, the Pauline letters, and other portions of the New Testament. The relation to the Fourth Gospel of the well-known Egerton Papyrus 2 (currently dated ca. 200) is one such example. Although usually understood as a later excerpt from all four gospels, Koester (retaining a dating in the first part of the second century) views the papyrus as representing a text older than John because, "with its language that contains Johannine elements but reveals a greater affinity to the Synoptic tradition, it belongs to a stage of the tradition that preceded the canonical gospels."(37) If so, the gospel of which these surviving fragments were a part would have been read, without question, as authoritative in some early church(es) and possibly also could have played a role in the composition of our gospels. Again, the question arises, what or where is the original Mark? Or Matthew? Or Luke? Or John?

Now, if the goal of textual criticism is to recover the most likely "original" text, what in actuality is the object of textual critics' research--a text of the gospels that is somewhat earlier than but very likely similar to the text of the earliest manuscripts, or a text of even earlier and now largely lost predecessor forms of these gospels'? In other words, textual critics face two or more questions rather than one: first, a prior question as to which Mark (or John, or Corinthian letters, or Ephesians, etc.) is "original," followed by the more traditional inquiry as to which variant readings of a particular work are "original." More clearly than before, the multivalence of the term "original text" emerges and confronts textual critics with its complexity.

Thus, the stated goal of textual criticism, to arrive at the "original text" of Scripture, may in fact be impossible. Why is this important? Because it is the "original text" which is deemed to be inspired and inerrant by most Christians. If one cannot be certain of what constituted the “original text” of Scripture, then one cannot be certain of what constitutes the inerrant Word of God.

Epp concludes his fascinating article by saying that the latest scholarship in Textual Criticism indicates that the goal of textual criticism must be redefined.

As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, reality and maturity require that textual criticism face unsettling facts, chief among them that the term "original" has exploded into a complex and highly unmanageable multivalent entity. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena.

You Don't Need Faith to Believe The Principle of Evolution

Rev. 1. Added link to Evolution 101 podcast.
This is a recent comment in one of the previous articles. It is a frequently offered claim that I want to take a moment to address as an article instead of a comment.
"....when one considers the amount of atheist faith required to believe the scientific theories regarding evolution in light of the absence of any eyewitness, the sort of Christian faith regarding inspired writings shouldn't be all that bizarre....."

People don't need faith to believe the principle of evolution. Scientists are doing experiments using it in labs and observing it in real time in nature. Heres a link to TalkOrigins.org to explore it a little further. Our friend Benny highly recommends this site.

When you have a principle about how something works, you don't need faith, just logic and reasoning to make the inference that allows you to make reliable predictions about the outcome.

For example, I am sure you don't need faith to know that if you leave the bag in your cereal box open the cereal will get stale do you? No, because you know, in principle, that leaving the bag open will facilitate its going stale. In the case where you have a friend make a bowl of cereal for you and you find that it is stale, you can reasonably presume, based on principle, that the bag was left open. Furthermore, you don't need to believe god made them go stale because you know there is a natural mechanism that causes it. And you don't need to be able to describe in detail how the mechanism works to understand it, you just need to know the principle. In this way you can happily go about knowing this principle and using it to make decisions about other things like applying it to your triscuits or a birthday cake. It also helps you to understand with little extra information why you may find a little package of dessicant in something that is vulnerable to damage from moisture and you may even go so far as to properly infer that it is vulnerable to damage from moisture without anyone telling you. In this way you acquire knowledge and build on it to make decisions and acquire more knowledge. As you make inferences you need to watch to see if your inferences are correct, if they are then you can repeat the process of using them to make decisions and acquire more knowledge.

In my view this is just common sense, and basically, the scientific method is just common sense formalized.

If you use common sense on the Bible and try to make predictions or gain knowledge using the principles about God in the bible, or about the state of the world back in the day, there is a lot of room for doubt. If you don't believe it, just ask any theologian.

Recommended Resources
* Evolution 101 podcast, or you can find it in iTunes.

Eyewitness Testimony and Apologetics

Most Christian apologists believe that the case for Christianity is strong because of alleged eyewitness testimony to the life, death and supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ. I say alleged eyewitness testimony because it is not an established fact that we have the actual testimony of eyewitnesses in the Gospels. What we have are second hand accounts from those who claim they spoke with eyewitnesses (Luke 1:5) or we have anonymous writings (all four Gospels) from those who claim to have been eyewitnesses to some of the events. Even if we assume, however, that there is genuine eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, then there is still the question of the reliability of that testimony.


Below is a quote from Oral Tradition as History by Jan Vansina (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985). Vansina is widely recognized as one of the leading authorities on the subject of the oral transmission of history. Here is what he says about eyewitness testimony.

In the best of circumstances, even the best of witnesses never give a movie-like account of what happened, as all accounts of accidents show. Eyewitness accounts are always a personal experience as well and involve not only perception, but also emotions. Witnesses often are also not idle standers-by, but participants in the events. Furthermore, an understanding of what happened cannot occur through mere data of perception. Perceptions must be organized in a coherent whole and the logic of the situation supplies missing pieces of observation. The classical cases of car accidents or purse snatching document this to satiety. A witness reporting a car accident typically first heard a smash, then saw it, then deduced how it happened—how both cars were traveling before the accident after which he or she built up a coherent account of the incident. Usually he did not see the two cars before the accident drew attention to them. Most witnesses cannot resolve themselves to build up a story starting with a noise and the result of the accident first. If a witness was traveling in one of the stricken cars, much of what took place happened at a speed greater than his own reaction time allowed him to perceive. Such persons often only remember one or two images of the accident. Yet when called upon to tell what happened, they must become coherent and build up a tale in which the logic of the situation makes up most of the account. (pp.4-5) Eyewitness accounts are only partly reliable. Certainly it is true that complex or unexpected events are perhaps rarer than simple, expected events. Yet even here the account remains imperfect. The expectation of the event itself distorts its observation. People tend to report what they expect to see or hear more than what they actually see or hear. To sum up: mediation of perception by memory and emotional state shapes an account. Memory typically selects certain features from the successive perceptions and interprets them according to expectation, previous knowledge, or the logic of “what must have happened,” and fills the gaps in perception. (p. 5)

Note several things from Vansina's statements.

1. Eyewitness accounts are always a subjective experience and involve not only perception but also emotions.

Witnesses often are not idle standers-by but participants in the events. If there is genuine eyewitness testimony in the Scriptures, it is from individuals who are not unbiased by-standers but individuals who have a "stake in the claim." This automatically makes their testimony somewhat suspect.

2. An understanding of what happened cannot occur through mere data perception but must be interpreted.

Perceptions must be organized in a coherent whole and the logic of the situation supplies missing pieces of observation. If there is genuine eyewitness testimony in Scripture, it is from individuals who had to "make sense" of what they saw. They interpreted what they saw in accordance with their world view, which in the first century, was one in which the supernatural realm (angels, demons, God) regularly invaded the natural realm. So, their testimony is "colored" by their world view, a world-view which is largely rejected since the Enlightenment.

3. The expectation of the event itself distorts its observation.
People tend to report what they expect to see or hear more than what they actually see or hear. In other words, all personal testimony is subjective. People interpret the events in light of their emotional connection to the person(s) involved and in light of what they see as compatible with their overall set of beliefs about a person or an event. As Vansina says: mediation of perception by memory and emotional state shapes an account. Memory typically selects certain features from the successive perceptions and interprets them according to expectation, previous knowledge, or the logic of “what must have happened,” and fills the gaps in perception. (p.5)So, the claim to eyewitness testimony in Scripture, even if true (and that is far from certain), does not guarantee the authenticity of the events. While many apologists seem to think that this alleged eyewitness testimony is the strongsuit of evangelical Christianity, to me it seems more like an achilles heel.

FormerFundy

I am pleased to join John and the others on this new blog. Here is a brief introduction to my background:

I was "saved" at age 18 in a fundamentalist home. My parents had recently converted and I saw a dramatic change in their lives, especially my father. He was 40 years old and had a drinking problem. He immediately stopped drinking and smoking (3 packs a > day) and has never picked it up again (that was 30 years ago). He and my mother are sincere and devout and I would never criticize them. Lets face it Christianity (or any sincerely held belief) does work for some people. That doesn't mean its true (objectively) but, just as perception is reality, if someone holds a belief strongly enough it can change their lives. After getting "saved", I entered a fundamental Baptist college in Atlanta. After 4 years, I graduated with a Bachelors degree in Theology (3.9 > GPA, summa cum laude). In addition to my studies, I was very actively involved in the local church. I worked in a bus ministry. I preached in nursing homes, jails, etc. I attended church three or more times a week.

After graduating with my BA, I went off to Bob Jones University. There I earned a Masters and a Ph.D. in Theology. Whatever you want to say about BJU, and there is a lot to be said, they were in touch academically in a scholastic sense. Namely, the languages were greatly stressed. I passed language exams in Hebrew, Greek, and German in order to get my degree. I wrote a 326 page dissertation. During my time in Greenville, I taught an adult SS class and worked in other various ministries. Lest someone say my faith was only intellectual, let me add that I spent an average of one hour a day in prayer, memorized Scripture, I wept over "lost souls," and "won souls" for the Lord.

Upon graduation from BJU, I took a position as a professor in a small Baptist college in the Western United States. I taught there for 10 years. I taught Greek, English Bible classes, Theology, Church History, and Apologetics. During this time I began to have my first doubts about the validity of my faith. I have never been one who could just accept something without investigating it for myself. The more I studied and the more I thought, the less I believed. I finally came to the conclusion that all religions are man-made and represent wishful thinking on the part of the believers. All of us want to think that there is some meaning in life and that we will see our loved ones again. Religion offers simple answers to those and other deep questions. I can discuss in detail at some future time the specific doubts that eventually led to my "deconversion," but lets just say that the major stumbling block was the whole concept of the atonement. How could someone else be punished in my place and I go free. That strikes against any sense of fairness. We would not allow that in any court of law. Punishment is only valid if it is the guilty person being punished. I have read every major theologian's discussion of the atonement and I have never been satisfied by the various answers.

Since I left Christianity my mind has started to "clear" (from the brainwashing) and I am amazed that I was ever that foolish to believe. Its not a matter of intelligence, though, there are extremely intelligent people who are Christians but there are also intelligent Mormons, Catholics, and members of other faiths as well.

I remain interested in the academic study of the Bible and religion although from a different perspective these days.

FormerFundy

Why Do Christians Believe?

I don’t believe Jesus arose from the dead. I don’t believe the historical evidence is enough for a fair minded person to believe this either. I don’t think Christians believe in Jesus’ resurrection because of the evidence anyway. They believe it because someone they trusted told them Jesus arose.

Several thinkers have offered reasons why people are believers. Marx argued religion is a numbing drug that the rich and powerful use to manipulate the common person. Freud argued that people believe because of a longing desire for a heavenly father figure. Nietzsche argued that religion is for weak people who feel the need for it. These are psychologically based reasons for why someone may believe. What I want to do here is different. I want to trace why a person became a believer--a Christian--in the first place. I think the mind is so impressionable that we have a very strong tendency to believe what we are first taught to believe, and with that belief as our presumption, we have a very strong tendency to argue that it's correct. In doing this, smart people can find reasons to continue believing even if the evidence is against what they believe.

From my own experience and that of nearly every Christian I know, this is the case. Think about this for a moment, Christian. Think back to when you first became a Christian. Someone you liked, or cared for, or trusted, told you about Jesus and his resurrection. With me I never heard anything different from people. Everyone who ever talked to me about it believed. The people who told you about Jesus were believable. And if necessary they pointed you to some books which you read which confirmed what they were telling you, including the Bible. The Bible confirmed some things for you too, that you felt the need for forgiveness. It also tells a wonderful story about a God who loved you in that he became a man and died so you could be forgiven. The gospel offers hope, forgiveness and peace. It also offers a relationship with God. You also seemed to notice that when you prayed, things happened, which confirmed for you God answered your prayers (although people who regularly read their daily Horoscopes claim they are accurate too). Then you got involved in a community of believers who encouraged you and suggested other books to read, which further confirmed your faith.

At this point you had adopted a set of control beliefs which subsequently filtered all of the evidence you were presented with. You wanted it to be true. You wanted to meet this God of yours in heaven. And you were comforted in believing you would be spared from hell when you died.

Now there are people like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton who started out being skeptical and became believers, but I’m not talking about these people. On the other side of the fence there are plenty of others who started out as believers like me, and then became non-believers. This shows people come to their own conclusions, that’s all. It says nothing to you about whether those of us who changed our minds had good reasons for doing so, apart from looking at our reasons. As such, the fact that people change their minds can’t be used as evidence for you to believe or not, apart from looking at our reasons. But I’m speaking to the overwhelming number of Christians in this world, not the exceptions.

You believed prior to examining the evidence. You believed because someone you trusted told you a wonderful sounding story. Never mind for a moment that the person who told you this story neglected to tell you of the ugliness to be found in the Bible. Nevertheless, you believed based upon what someone told you whom you trusted. And that best explains why you are in the denomination you are presently in too, although you might be in one because of someone else you trusted, or something you read too. But this is merely switching rooms in the same house.

And that person whom you trusted believed for the same reasons. Someone he or she trusted told him or her the gospel story which was also believed prior to examining the evidence. I argue this chain of one person passing on that story to the next generation stretches back to the first century, too. But as we get back into the ancient superstitious past, people believed in lots of divinities and miracles based upon no evidence at all—none.

Okay so far?

Here’s the deal. You believe based upon a person you trusted and in the story itself. In doing so it brings you a comforting (but delusional) relationship with God, which includes forgiveness, friends, and saves you from hell. And from that day forward you filter all of the evidence through your faith.

With such a wonderful story you want it to be true. You’re afraid to doubt for fear that you might end up in hell. So you look for ways to confirm that it’s true and that it can be historically verified, even though history cannot verify such things. So you read books that mainly confirms your belief, and surprise, you find that your belief can be justified. How many times when you doubt will you read what a skeptic writes? Not many Christians I know will do this. Instead, if they are having doubts they’ll turn to the trusted writings of a Christian apologist.

Only a few Christians will bother to read blogs like this one because they know in advance what we’re arguing for is false, of the devil, and that we are willfully in denial of the gospel truth. Christians don’t trust us to learn the truth about such things. We’re just wrong. When Christians read what we say here at DC they only do so to prove us wrong. They already know in advance we’re wrong. Christians simply don’t trust us to be correct.

So when it comes to the evidence of the resurrection, Christians think the evidence shows Jesus arose because they are already predisposed to believe it, and they likewise overlook the evidence against the Christian faith.

-----------------------------
An article Former_Fundy stumbled across by Lewis Rambo gives four major components of religious conversion:

1. Religious conversion is deeply personal and takes place almost always through interaction with another human.

"people who convert or change religions usually do so through personal contact, and not through impersonal methods of communication, although that happens sometimes."

2. Religious conversion involves being identified with a whole new sociological group.

"Secondly, what is very clear is that virtually all religious groups emphasize the importance of relationships with the leader of the group, and with members of the group. One of the things that is very striking when you go into a religious group is that there is enormous affection. People in some groups will even address one another as brother and sister, or other terms that communicate that relationships are very important."

3. Religious conversion involves a completely new way of viewing the world.

"they now have an interpretative system that applies to anything and everything."

4. Religious conversion involves a totally new way of viewing one's self and one's role in the world.

"Role is very powerful in shaping peoples’ perceptions and behaviors. When people become a member of a new religious movement, or when they become a passionate Roman Catholic, they have a new perception of themselves that often empowers them to do things, to believe things, and to feel things that they have not have been able to prior to that time."

An Invitation to Atheistfest '07

To whom it may concern...

As everyone knows, there are a lot of atheists here at DC, and we’d like to take this time to invite everyone who is likeminded to come to our next festive event, Atheistfest ‘07 (specific locations and times revealed privately for safety and security concerns).

What is Atheistfest? The yearly meetings (held just after the fourth of July) conducted by the godless for the purposes of worshipping Satan, sacrificing cats, having group sex, and making blood pacts with our glorious father, Lucifer.

What is an atheist? An atheist is a teeth-gritting hater of God who spends great portions of his or her life urinating on crosses, setting churches on fire, and stealing like it’s going out of style. Everyone knows that atheism is just another religion, so let me define for you what our religion is about…

Our earthly idol and hero is none other than Joseph Stalin. Our holy trinity consists of Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Karl Marx. Our goals in life are murder, rape, and, yes, world domination! Our houses of worship are the beds of fornication, awash with every bodily fluid known to man, upon which we sleep till noon on Sundays to spite the Christian God. Our bible is The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, and on a regular basis, we do what all good atheists do: we charge into churches and throw canisters of biohazard over the pews and into the baptistery; we startle Christian women by running up to them and getting in their faces – with our tongues out and our middle fingers extended – as we scream the vilest of obscenities at them; we walk up to random kids on the street and piss on them, sending them screaming back to their mother’s arms; we decorate our houses with the latest and most hip pentagrams on the market; we sodomize sheep, pigeons, and puppies for hours on end in pagan sex rituals wherein we scream out in knee-weakening, erotic delight. Anal rape is our most treasured pastime—and believe me when I tell you, you haven’t lived until you’ve tried baby raping! As we pulverize the seats of our victims, we yell out licentious chants like, “Almighty Prince of Darkness, guide my enormous, throbbing cock!”

Why do we do all this? We conduct ourselves so because we are atheists and have no moral standards, and it is common knowledge that without an angry sky spirit in the clouds, looking down on us and telling us what to do, reminding us that he will torture us if we get out of line, we humans are so recklessly base and primal that we’re bound to do the stuff we atheists do—like invite college-age kids back to our places with the lure of alcohol and porn, where we subdue them, torture them, and consume their flesh in place of a far too ordinary Nighthawk Steak Dinner.

Now you might be saying, “Even if you don’t believe in God, shouldn’t you atheists find at least a few reasons to live good and moral lives?” Nope, there are none! You might think we would learn to love and be happy and have some sense of compassion, but we never do. For some strange reason, we became villainous vipers the very moment we embraced atheism. No one can explain why, but every ounce of goodness suddenly left us, even our home-raising and good manners! Poof! Went right out the window, flew away—all of it, just like that!

We slam our hands down on tables and say,“I hate life. I am an atheist. Damnit, I’m bored! I’m going to stab someone with an ice-pick!” So, as you can see, we are nothing but grumpy, soulless, boneheaded, billy goats, who are way beyond the hope of saving.

You best avoid us…or if you’re one of us in spirit, join us at another fun retreat. This year promises to be even better than last year, where – if we can avoid the authorities – a brunette virgin will be sacrificed when the sun reaches Zenith.

Be there!

Diabolically yours,

(JH)

Atheists Owe Real Christians an Apology!

Over at Atheist Revolution is some more humor.

"Floods are judgment on society, say bishops"

This is shockingly ignorant.
This is a summary of a news article in the Telegraph. According to some senior Church of England bishops, recent storms and flooding that have left thousands homeless are due to “Gods Judgment”, whatever that is. He doesn’t come right out and say that God sent the storms to ravage innocent victims but he does say that he expresses his sympathy and that a problem with “environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate". He asserts that moral decadence and lack of respect for the planet are the catalyst for the cause. He claims that western civilization is ignoring the teachings of the bible, cites homosexual friendly legislation as one example and describes “the Beast” in the bible as institutional power, a euphemism for Government, that sets itself up to control people and their morals.

Praise the Lord and bring on the Theocracy.

The Great Debate, God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence

Keith Augustine announced that Internet Infidels is hosting The Great Debate, God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence, which "aims to bring together nine distinguished philosophers in a series of four debates, each with a different focus on evidence for and against naturalism and theism."

Keith tells us that "The first debate, "Mind and Will," concerns the nature of the human mind and free will as it relates to the truth of naturalism and theism. Readers are encouraged to submit questions to the three contributors participating in this debate, but there is only a small window of opportunity in which to submit questions: about a month from publication. (So all questions concerning "Mind and Will" should be submitted by early August at the latest.) The ability of readers to engage authors directly is a rare opportunity made possible by electronic publishing, so please take advantage of this opportunity while you can."

This looks very very good!

Michael Behe's version of Intelligent Design, Retracing Denton's course? By Edward T. Babinski

This is not strictly speaking an article about "Debunking Christianity," though since Behe and other I.D.ists assume that they can prove the existence of a Designer it is relevant to the topic of Debunking Christianity, though it must be admitted there are plenty of Christian Evolutionists who do not believe that Behe's attempts at finding "proofs" of the existence of a "Designer" by studying genomes will lead anywhere.

The Evolution of Behe's Views: Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human genome project (who is both a Christian and an evolutionist), critiqued Behe's earlier hypothesis (that Behe has since dropped), namely of a "super cell" in the beginning that's frontloaded with excess DNA to be put into use much later as the world evolves. Collins pointed out such a hypothesis did not make sense because if a super cell was indeed filled with tons of information to be used "much later" that information would have to be supernaturally preserved over long periods of time because unused portions of the genome are known to undergo continual mutations.

Behe once wrote, "If random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid [a whale ancestor] and the ancient whale. Where are they?" Behe assumed such forms would not or could not be found, but three transitional species were identified by paleontologists within a year of that statement.

In Darwin's Black Box, Behe posited that genes for modern complex biochemical systems, such as blood clotting, might have been "designed billions of years ago and have been passed down to the present … but not 'turned on'." This is known to be genetically impossible because genes that aren't used will degenerate, but there it was in print. And Behe's argument against the evolution of flagella and the immune system have been dismantled in detail and new evidence continues to emerge, yet the same old assertions for design reappear here as if they were uncontested.

Behe now admits in his latest book, The Edge of Evolution, that almost the entire edifice of evolutionary theory is true: evolution, natural selection, common ancestry. His one novel claim is that the genetic variation that fuels natural selection–mutation–is produced not by random changes in DNA, as evolutionists maintain, but by an Intelligent Designer, The Great Mutator.

Behe's current situation reminds me of a similar situation in the past that the true father of the I.D. movement, Michael Denton, got himself into. After he wrote his first anti-evolutionary book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, he was praised by the folks at Access Research Network (editors of the flagstaff I.D. publication, Origins & Design), and became a member of the Discovery Institute. Then Denton admitted in an interview that he had not even known about the fossil evidence of inbetween species, like mammal-like reptiles. He also wrote his book before the various genome identification projects had taken off. Denton's views were altered significantly by the time he wrote his second book, Nature's Destiny, in which he admitted that the genetic distance between species even between humans and chimpanzees was relatively small (as I like to point out, that genetic distance between humans and chimps is smaller than the genetic distance between near identical sibling species of fruit flies), and so Denton now accepts that evolution has taken place. He also had his name removed as a member of the Discovery Institute.

Christian and biologist, Ken Miller, responds to Behe

The continuing dismemberment of Behe (Links to reviews of his new book)

Pushing Behe over the edge

Malaria according to Nat. Geog. (& Behe)

Behe blows it

Silence over Behe's book

We don’t have an intelligent designer (ID), we have a bungling consistent evolver (BCE). Or maybe an adaptive changer (AC). In fact, what we have in the most economical interpretation is, of course, evolution.
—Lisa Randall, physicist

A Review of J.L. Schellenberg’s The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism

This book argues for “complete religious skepticism,” known to most of us as agnosticism. He argues against any belief in “ultimism,” which based upon religious claims that entail “there is an ultimate and salvic reality.” (p.3). In his words, “the categorical skepticism I am defending, as the name suggests, is doubt that embraces any and all religious claims,” whether it’s “religious belief” or religious disbelief.” (p. 50)

This book contains three parts and is not as technical as one would think. You won’t find any symbolic logic to worry about deciphering. The arguments are understandable to the college student. You might first have to wade through the “Introduction” where he defines various terms he uses, although, if you’ve read his previous book, Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca: Cornell, 2005), you would already be familiar with them.

In Part One he argues for religious skepticism based on four distinct categories of thought called “modes,” which he later combines into one. In the “Subject Mode” the author argues that human beings are limited in understanding. There is available evidence that is neglected and/or inaccessible to us. There is unrecognized evidence that is undiscovered and undiscoverable by all of us. In the “Object Mode” the author argues that it’s probably beyond finite humans beings to understand Ultimate reality, since it must be “something infinitely profound.” (p. 51) As such, we may have inadequate and incoherent conceptions of it.

In the “Retrospective Mode” the author considers the human past with regard to religious claims. The human past is too brief, (“only a few thousand years old”) and we have been occupied by other things for us to conclude we have arrived at a final understanding. There have been moral, psychological and social factors which were actively against religious improvements to our understanding. There has been hubris (or self-importance) and greed, jealously and envy, which taken together led to dogmatism, hostility and rivalry among people of different understandings. “Because religious belief is wrapped up with this ultimate concern, it has tended to go hand in hand with a rather fierce loyalty. Nothing less than complete devotion is appropriate where such a reality is involved.” ‘How, for example, can one remain loyal to God if one allows oneself to be seduced by objections to the belief that there is a God?...she is likely rather to become stubborn and intransigent, because of a well-intentional but misplaced loyalty.” “When they notice that others disagree, they tend not to think of this as an opportunity for dialogue and growth toward deeper understanding, but rather feel impelled to insist on fundamental error in the opposing views.” (p. 76-78). Furthermore, “the more attached one becomes to one’s beliefs, the more difficult it is to remain open to their falsity and to engage in investigations that might show them to be false” (p. 84), which in turn has been “inimical to creative and critical thinking” about the Ultimate.

In the “Prospective Mode” the author “considers what may lie ahead rather than what lies behind us.” (p. 91). If we survive on this planet we have 1 billion years to come up with better solutions to understanding the Ultimate, especially since we’ve just entered an era of unprecedented access to digital information that may all be categorized and placed into a hand held iPod someday. Science will progress into the future as well. People will increasingly be forced to get to know others who have a different religious perspective with a global economy and travel, and we will learn from each other and become more tolerant and assimilating of these views with a healthy exchange of information.

The author finally combines these four into one called “The Presumption Mode,” which builds on everything he said before. He argues that “human beings are both profoundly limited and profoundly immature.” (p. 117). Lacking any pragmatic reasons to counter his truth-oriented arguments, he concludes that “religious skepticism is positively justified.” (p. 129).

In a short Part Two, Schellenberg applies these modes to the argument for naturalism and the argument from religious experience. He argues that “both sides are mistaken”: “These sources of religious and irreligious belief do not have it in them to justify such belief.” (p. 132).

In Part Three of his book Schellenberg focuses his arguments against “traditional theism—the claim that there is a personal God,” since this view of Ultimism “looms large in all contemporary discussion.” (p. 191). Here is where he argues from divine hiddenness and the problem of evil that we should be skeptical of traditional theism. He also combines them to add even more force to his arguments.

I think he makes his case with regard to religious skeptisicm. But not when it comes to being an agnostic. Even though we should be skeptical of all religious claims, there is nothing wrong with arguing from what we know today that there are no believable gods, like I do, as an atheist. He deals with this objection, unsuccessfully on pages 105-107, and 124-128).

According to Schellenberg, it's possible a god might reveal himself in the future. But why should we believe that a future possibility will become a probabity, when the probabilities at this current juncture in history say its improbable that a god exists? We can only go by current probabilities, not future possibilities. Current probabilities say X, therefore we should accept X. If there is a god who waits to reveal himself and explain his silence during the centuies of witch-hunts, the centuries of slavery, along with the millions killed during the Holocaust, then reasonable people should wait until he does. Until that time we should follow the probabilities and say such a god does not exist.

Readers should come to grips with what he says, and so must everyone who is interested in these issues, or who has a stake in their outcome.

My Interview With Infidelis Maximus

Recently I was interviewed over at Infidelis Maximus. You might want to take a look at it and the blog as a whole. It's a pretty cool Blog!

How to Dissipate Anti-religion Activism

Food for thought from Nick, a commenter at Radio Open Source.

How to make Chris Hitchens and his ‘neo-atheist’ cabal lose interest in their current anti-religion activism. Imagine a new global, ecumenical convocation of the three Abrahamic faiths. All of them, from Branch Davidians to Greek Orthodoxy, from Hassidim to Islamists. And they end their massive convention by issuing the following statement:

We are appalled by the violence and intolerance our beliefs and faith-institutions have engendered, enabled, and otherwise promoted throughout the history of monotheism. We not only regret this, we seek, now, and admittedly belatedly, to atone. We recognize that the harm rises plainly from our claims to certain knowledge of the deity we purport to speak for—and we now candidly admit the implicit and explicit conceit of these claims. We have long claimed humility – but falsely – for surely mere humans cannot humbly claim to know the mind of the universe’s creator.We therefore renounce our claims to certainty.

Instead of conviction we offer hope: hope that our belief in an immortal soul is neither vain nor mere vanity masquerading as religiosity. Hope that the God we have long believed listens to our self-obsessed entreaties might actually exist in the cosmos beyond our minds’ capacity for imagination and outside of our hearts’ yearnings for the comforts of parental love and approval.

But we no longer promise this to the young we hope to influence. We will instead become, for the first time in monotheism’s troubled and troubling existence, authentically humble.We confess our abject ignorance.

We confess our dismay that so many more prayers prove futile than those that seem to have been postively answered as articulated. We admit that double-blind prayer experiments yield not a whit of difference in the lives of those prayed for.We will no longer pretend that our child recovered from a sickness because a Deity favored us and our prayer while apparently ignoring the even more devoutly offered prayers of parents and children living in dire poverty and in barbaric, hostile circumstances.We admit that such beliefs are unconscionable conceits.And we apologize.

We hope for something more, though: we hope to inspire greater love within the hearts of our co-religionists: not for themselves but for all others – even those others who do not share our beliefs and our hopes. We will no longer demand that human love be personified in our venerated mythological figures, but will hereafter allow and encourage love to be venerated as a good in and of itself. We will remodel our temples, churches, and mosques to reflect this – and will then invite non-believing others to share their stories of the profoundly transforming power of unpersonified love. Because, in our new and earnest humility, we confess that those outside our faith traditions might have profoundly valuable lessons of love to share with us.

And we will edit and revise our sacred texts to reflect this historical reformation from insufferable arrogance and the cocksure certainty of faith to genuine humility and plainly confessed hope.

Any religion or sect that cannot or will not make such a concession to reason, to humankind, and to its own parishioners fully deserves the scorn of Hitchens, Dawkins and the rest of us non-believers too. And why must it fall to plebeian skeptics like me to have to point this out?

Book Review: Why I Rejected Christianity

Rooted in biblical studies and a transformative encounter with Jesus, John Loftus lived a life of an Evangelical minister. During years of study and ministry he rigorously researched and publicly expounded a fundamentalist world view. Like most ex-Christians, Loftus had to first encounter a life situation that created emotional dissonance before he could do a rational recalc on his beliefs. His story is not an unusual one. What is unusual is Loftus’s breadth and depth of research in defense of the Christian faith before finally calling it quits.

“Recalc” is nerd-speak for re-running the numbers: dusting off old dogmas and evidence, adding any updates, and re-computing the conclusions. Once personal weaknesses and human hypocrisies opened the door, Loftus applied himself to this process with the same intellectual rigor he had applied to defending the faith.

Because of this rigor, Why I Rejected Christianity offers a window into a vast array of arguments relating to orthodox Christian assertions about the nature of God and reality. It is thoroughly referenced and quotes extensively from scholars on many sides. This makes it a great launching point for someone who is a relative newcomer to apologetics.

Approaching the text as a psychologist as well as an ex-fundamentalist, I found many of the arguments fascinating on multiple levels.

One was the logic and evidence in play. Particularly interesting were discussions about the historicity of biblical texts and demon-haunted world in which they were written. Glimpsing this world, one realizes quickly that superstitions of all sorts abounded: meteorological signs and wonders, virgin births, magical cures, resurrections, ghostly apparitions . . . . Most of us look with patronizing bemusement at the many superstitions of the Medieval Europeans, and yet we are taught that the perceptions of our Bronze Age spiritual ancestors should be taken at face value. Loftus brings together a chorus of experts and erases the double standard.

At another level, I found myself marveling at the impressively contorted reasoning used by apologists through the ages in defense their received traditions. Arguments on behalf of the “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit” and the incarnation are extraordinary in this regard. These arguments are testimony to the power of the human mind when we are determined to make the evidence fit a preconceived story line---or when we are determined to hold an appealing belief despite being backed into an evidentiary corner. They are worth reading from the standpoint of cognitive psychology alone.

Why I Rejected Christianity opens weakly, I think, with a personal narrative that is more confessional than it needs to be. Loftus lays out both his failings and his credentials as if to head off critics. He doesn’t need to. As a writer, he hits his stride when he enters the arena of scholarly discourse. His encyclopedic knowledge speaks for itself.

Norman Geisler's Review of My Book.

As I have said, Norman L. Geisler, known to many as "the dean of Christian apologetics," is recommending my book. Not that he agrees with it. He actually thinks it will confirm the faith of his seminary students (isn't that strange?). Anyway, if anyone would like to read his review you can order the Spring 2007 issue of the Christian Apologetics Journal, or check it out in a library. He titled it, "From Apologist to Atheist: A Critical Review" (pp. 93-110). At least he thinks it deserved a separate article rather than one in the usual "Book Reviews" section of the journal.

Dr. Geisler began his review by saying some very positive things about my book:

"First it is an honest and open account of how a Christian became an atheist. Seldom are unbelievers so candid and open. Second, every Christian--let alone Christian apologists--can learn some valuable lessons from it on how to treat wayward believers. Third, it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face. Indeed, some of his criticisms are valid. In particular I would single out his critique of the subjective argument from the alleged self-authenticating 'witness of the Holy Spirit' by Loftus' former teacher William Lane Craig." (pp. 93-94)

Thanks Dr. Geisler. I appreciate you saying these things, even if you disagree with my over-all case.

But I have some concerns with Geisler's review. While I was indeed candid in telling of the experiences that provoked my thinking, I also gave the reasons for why I rejected Christianity. He seems to latch unto the experiential reasons for why I became an atheist. In a few places he says things like this: "one thing is certain: It was not evidence and rational arguments that led him (me) to atheism." (p. 101). However, this is a one sided presentation of my book. To the contrary, for me it wasn't an either/or proposition, but a both/and one (both experiences AND arguments). It's not unlike how Christians describe their own conversions to Christianity. Geisler admitted this about Christian conversions when he wrote: "There is more than reason, arguments, and evidence involved in people coming to faith as well as in people leaving the faith." (p.97). Yes there are, but to claim my rejection of Christianity is almost all experiential does not do my arguments justice, nor is it doing justice to what I said about the weight of my experiences in the book itself. He would object in a like manner if I claimed his faith was adopted almost purely because of experiential reasons, although, in a way I did, since I argued that he adopted the faith he was raised in. ;-)

In several places Geisler used an argument I had already dealt with in my book, just as if I hadn't dealt with it at all! Take for instance the argument I made about the problem of evil. Geisler claims such an argument is "circular," "for how can one know God is ultimately...just for allowing evil unless he knows what is ultimately just? And how can he know there is an ultimate standard of justice, unless there is an absolute Moral Law Giver?" (p. 101) But in that same chapter on evil I had answered such an objection in these words:

Some theists like C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, will argue from the start that there can be no evil with out absolute goodness (God) to measure it against. "How do you know a line is crooked without having some knowledge of what a straight line is?” In other words, I need some sort of objective moral in order to say something is evil. But the word “evil” here is used both as a term describing suffering and at the same time it’s used to describe whether or not such suffering is bad, and that’s an equivocation in the word’s usage. The fact that there is suffering is undeniable. Whether it’s bad is the subject for debate. I'm talking about pain...the kind that turns our stomachs. Why is there so much of it when there is a good omnipotent God? I’m arguing that it’s bad to have this amount of suffering from a theistic perspective, and I may be a relativist, a pantheist, or a witchdoctor and still ask about the internal consistency of what a theist believes. The dilemma for the theist is to reconcile senseless suffering in the world with his own beliefs (not mine) that all suffering is for a greater good. It’s an internal problem for the theist. (pp. 245-246)

My question is whether he just didn't see what I wrote, ignored it, or thought it was too trivial to respond to? I'll let our readers decide for themselves on this.

Geisler did the exact same thing with regard to my Outsider Test for Faith, where I make some statements defending the fact that a believer ought to test his or her faith from an outsider's perspective. Geisler claims: "Loftus does not seem to be aware of their self-defeating nature." "The truth," he writes, "is that the outsider test is self-defeating since by it every agnostic should be agnostic about his agnosticism and every skeptic would be skeptical of his own skepticism." (p. 105) But I had already acknowledged and dealt with this type of argument in that same chapter, when I wrote:

Four) One final objection asks whether this is all circular. Have I merely chosen a different metaphysical belief system based upon different cultural factors? Maybe it is in some sense, but it’s definitely not viciously circular. For I have very good initial grounds for starting out with skepticism.(p. 46)

I further argued...

“Do my cultural conditions overwhelmingly ‘determine’ my presumption of skepticism? If so, then others don’t have much of a reason to adopt the skeptical stance. If not, then why do I think I can transcend culture, but a Christian theist can’t transcend her culture?” In answer I say that if it’s the case that “the accidents of birth” overwhelmingly determine our religious beliefs, especially in those areas where there is no mutually agreed upon empirical tests to decide between them, then that’s a sociological fact everyone must wrestle with when thinking about such matters. Let’s say this is the case, i.e., that whatever we believe about the origin of this universe is overwhelmingly determined by when and where we are born. I am much more willing to accept the consequences of this than a great majority of people who have religious faith and are so dogmatic about their faith. If this is the case, then we agree that what we believe is based upon when and where we're born.

If true, this does not undercut what I'm saying at all--it supports it. I'm arguing that cultural conditions have an extremely strong influence on us to believe in a given communally shared religious faith in a primary sense. And although cultural influences also apply in a secondary sense with regard to non-communal metaphysical beliefs, if I am a skeptic because of these cultural conditions, then I'm right that cultural conditions lead us to believe these things after all. And while I might be wrong about what I believe, such an admission doesn't undercut the main reason for the Outsider Test and the skeptical presumption that goes with it. If cultural factors overwhelmingly cause us to believe what we believe, then we should all be skeptical of what we believe.

The best that could result from this admission is agnosticism. But this doesn’t grant the believer any ground. For to be agnostic would again be admitting the basis for testing between beliefs that cannot be decided upon empirical grounds, and that is to be skeptical all over again, which once again is something I’m asking of believers. So I don't object to being skeptical of my own skepticism. But it's redundant from my perspective, and so it merely reinforces itself. (pp. 45-46)

How Dr. Geisler can say that I'm not aware of this objection astounds me, even if in the end he disagrees with me.

Of my book he says "there is nothing really new here that has not already been answered elsewhere." (p. 100). And then he proceeds to ask questions of my arguments that I think I have already addressed in the book itself! While I appreciate him as a friend and wish him the very best, I'd have to say of his review, as he said of my book, that there is nothing really new here that has not already been answered...in my book! ;-)

---------------
To read FormerFundy's Review of Geisler's review see here.

Why This Universe?

Edward T. Babinski pointed out an article in the Skeptic e-magazine titled Why This Universe?, by Robert Lawrence Kuhn. I haven't read it yet but it looks like a very good read.

An Atheistic Ethic: A Concluding Thought

I’m going to cut short my defense of an atheistic ethic for now. I think I’ve already argued enough for people to get a rudimentary view of it. Let me sum it up so far and then conclude with a thought.

I previously said here that we need an ethic that is based upon some solid evidence about who we are as human beings and why we act the way we do. I also argued that the Christian ethic is practically impossible to obey, and the motivation for obeying must be judged to be based upon self-interest, which is basically the same ethic I argue for, without the barbarisms in the Bible.

Then I argued there is solid evidence that people want to be happy here, and that non-rational people do not want those things that make for happiness.

I dealt with the book of Ecclesiastes here, which claims we cannot find ultimate happiness without God.

I distinguished between selfishness and rational self-interest here.

I further argued there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do, certainly with our over-all life-plan itself, which is the position of modified psychological egoism, better called "predominant egoism." To show this I took some of the toughest scenario’s and explained that there may be an element of rational self-interest in them.

I answered the Christian question of why we shouldn’t kill someone when we think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages by claiming there will never be such a scenario for a rational person here.

Let me just close this off by talking about the kind of character that rational self-interested people need to be happy. It must be a stable character.

The late Louis P. Pojman argued that it is reasonable to choose and to act upon an over-all “life plan,” even though there will be many times where I may have to act against my own immediate or short-term self-interest in keeping with that plan. “To have the benefits of the moral life—friendship, mutual love, inner peace, moral pride or satisfaction, and freedom from moral guilt—one has to have a certain kind of reliable character. All in all, these benefits are eminently worth having. Indeed, life without them may not be worth living.” “Character counts,” Pojman wrote, and “habits harness us to predictable behavior. Once we obtain the kind of character necessary for the moral life--once we become virtuous--we will not be able to turn morality on and off like a faucet.” With such an understanding “there is no longer anything paradoxical in doing something not in one’s interest, for while the individual moral act may occasionally conflict with one’s self-interest, the entire life plan in which the act is embedded and from which it flows is not against the individual’s self-interest.” [Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong 5th ed. (p. 188)].

Times/Harris Poll: 1/4th of Us Could Be Either Agnostic or Atheist

Source: The Nation [from the June 25, 2007 issue]

"We commonly hear that only a tiny percentage of Americans don't believe in God and that, as a Newsweek poll claimed this spring, 91 percent do. In fact, this is not true. How many unbelievers are there? The question is difficult to assess accurately because of the challenges of constructing survey questions that do not tap into the prevailing biases about religion."

"According to the American Religious Identification Survey, which interviewed more than 50,000 people, more than 29 million adults--one in seven Americans--declare themselves to be without religion. The more recent Baylor Religion Survey ("American Piety in the 21st Century") of more than 1,700 people, which bills itself as "the most extensive and sensitive study of religion ever conducted," calls for adjusting this number downward to exclude those who believe in a God but do not belong to a religion."

"Contrast this with a more recent and more nuanced Financial Times/Harris poll of Europeans and Americans that allowed respondents to declare agnosticism as well as atheism: 18 percent of the more than 2,000 American respondents chose one or the other, while 73 percent affirmed belief in God or a supreme being."

"A more general issue affects American surveys on religious beliefs, namely, the "social desirability effect," in which respondents are reluctant to give an unpopular answer in a society in which being religious is the norm. What happens when questions are framed to overcome this distortion? The FT/H poll tried to counteract it by allowing space not only for the customary "Not sure" but also for "Would prefer not to say"--and 6 percent of Americans chose this as their answer to the question of whether they believed in God or a supreme being. Add to this those who declared themselves as atheists or agnostics and, lo and behold, the possible sum of unbelievers is nearly one in four Americans."

"All this helps explain the popularity of the New Atheists--Americans as a whole may not be getting too much religion, but a significant constituency must be getting fed up with being routinely marginalized, ignored and insulted. After all, unbelievers are concentrated at the higher end of the educational scale--a recent Harris American poll shows that 31 percent of those with postgraduate education do not avow belief in God (compared with only 14 percent of those with a high school education or less). The percentage rises among professors and then again among professors at research universities, reaching 93 percent among members of the National Academy of Sciences. Unbelievers are to be found concentrated among those whose professional lives emphasize science or rationality and who also have developed a relatively high level of confidence in their own intellectual faculties. And they are frequently teachers or opinion-makers."

Thanks to Edward T. Babinski for finding this.

Another Review of My Book

I'm sorry to bore people with the reviews of my book, but another 5 star review of it appeared today here on amazon (scroll down to Pilgrim). The author wrote:

John W. Loftus' book is a great read for anyone confused by Christianity's many contradictions. As a former paster himself, Loftus' position lends extra credibility to his conclusions.

Here are four reasons why this book is superior to many similar texts:

1. Loftus is well-read in the Christian apologist realm, and he cites these authors' works frequently. Anyone in the "Zondervan school of thought" will quickly become comfortable in his context, even if he/she is in total disagreement with his point.

2. The book reads without even a hint of condescending tone towards his former faith. It is obvious that the man is simply sincere, and he resorts to no personal attacks on any level. This is more than can be said of most current atheist authors.

3. The level of research and brutal logic applied to the Bible is absolutely stunning, as is the sheer number of examples given. Loftus mentions several of the most popular Biblical contradictions, but goes so much further, offering reasons why even many of the simple stories found in the Bible defy any logic.

4. There is "no stone unturned", as Loftus takes on nearly every apologist angle ever conceived. Science vs. religion debate? It's here. ID people knocking on your door? Read this book. Historical evidence issues? Loftus tackles them head-on.

On the back cover, the book is critiqued by Dr. James Sennett, who is credited as a Christian philosopher and author. One of Dr. Sennett's quotes (taken out of context here) is, "Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe." This book will give more insight into this "scholarly unbelief" than you ever thought possible.

An Atheistic Ethic: The Christian Debate Stopper

salvationfound voiced what I was waiting for a Christian to say. He or she wrote:

If someone wants to kill and they feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages why shouldn't they kill?

I'm assuming here that sf is talking about a premeditated unlawful and unjust killing of another human being. My answer?

Under these circumstances then he will kill, because that's why people get murdered in the first place by others who kill them. Since I'm arguing that every human being is motivated to act from self-interest, then if these conditions obtain for someone, they will therefore kill. And it doesn't matter what a person's religious or non-religious beliefs are at that point, because these beliefs also factor into whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Whether one is a Christian or not, people will kill under these circumstances.

There is no ethic that can stop someone from killing under these circumstances...none. Since Christianity numberically dominates in American society then a whole lot of Christians are killing other people. Men kill their wives. Women kill their husbands and children. Others kill while stealing. Men kill after raping a woman. Who do you think are doing most of the killing here? Christians. Why do they do this? Because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Some do so while in an irrational rage, or because of paranoia, or due to drugs or alcohol. But they do it. And so do atheists and agnostics.

Christians will say that the Christians who kill others are not "real Christians." What can we make of this? According to such a definition a Christian is someone who obeys the Bible? But how does that follow from the contrary idea that we cannot earn our way into heaven? How can they have it both ways? Deeds mean little to the evangelical mind in front of a merciful God. Evangelicals will claim there is no deed God cannot forgive, so murder should be no problem for God. Christians say a person must repent before he can be forgiven, but does that mean they can fall away from God's grace, or that their repentence must be perfect before God can forgive them? And does this mean they should search out every possible sin and daily repent of it before God will forgive? Surely not. Lewis B. Smedes [in his book Mere Morality] makes a strong case that God can and does forgive suicide, and there can be no repentence after such a deed is committed.

Christians can have an excuse whenever they want to do wrong. I know. As a former Christian I knew God would forgive me if I did something wrong. So, when I felt the advantages outweighed the disadvantages I did it knowing full well God would forgive me.

Having said all of this, I dispute the basis of the question sf asked. I claim that the advantages will never outweight the disadvantages in unlawfully and unjustly killing someone, period. Give me a scenario and I doubt that rational self-interest will ever conclude the right thing to do is to kill someone (except in self-defense). My position is that people who kill are not acting rationally.

An Atheistic Ethic

This is a continuation of an atheistic ethic that I’m arguing for.

I think there is an element of self-interest in almost every act we do, which is the position of modified psychological egoism, and might be better called "predominant egoism." I view altruistic acts and self-interested acts on a continuum, with one side representing acts that are almost completely self-interested ones, and the other side representing those acts we would call altruistic but which nearly all contain some self-interest in them. Let me present my case.

To show this let me take some of the toughest scenarios, then in a later post I'll deal with some objections to what I’m saying.

1) How do you deal with the obvious counterevidence against psychological egoism provided by, say, the firefighters on 9/11. What does it mean to say that their actions, which apparently resulted in their risking their lives for others, were really selfish?

In the first place I'm not saying their actions were selfish. As I argued earlier, I made a distinction between selfish acts and rational self-interested acts. Selfish acts do not gain a person happiness in the long run.

These firefighters have been trained to do a job. Their reputation is on the line. They have accepted the challenge of seeing how many people they can save. They did not think they would die in the process. Besides, people do risky behavior all of the time, most of it for fun. People enjoy taking risks and accepting challenges, especially if they can get paid for it. They also love the mutual respect from other firefighters (and policemen) for being a part of an organization that saves lifes.

Of course, some of them may have been operating from the delusion that God will reward them in heaven. But if this life is all there is, and we will die one way or another, then why not be remembered for doing great deeds? For the egoist that might be the only way for your life to count. If however, someone shirks in the face of responsibility, and saves his life while letting others die, he is known as a coward from that day onward. Sometimes in such a situation as this, it's better to die and be remembered as a great person than to live with the social shame and loss of employment in the only job said person ever wanted to do.

2) The "Freedom Rider" who went south to work for civil rights at the potential -- and actual -- risk of his life to benefit people he did not know, and in so doing expanding their own political power and rights, lessening his own or those of his family and friends.

What must be understood is that human beings enjoy a challenge. They enjoy fighting a good fight and winning, like any contest. They also have a need to belong. So they join causes to belong. Life would be boring if they didn’t. Those who fought and won can say they accomplished something great in this life. Why was this considered a good fight? Because whenever the rights of some people can be denied in a democracy then the rights of all people are at risk. Many of them did so because they had friends who were black, so it was personal with them. Many of them did so because they couldn’t stomach their own country. They might’ve thought, “If this was my country, and I am a part-owner of its policies, then I object to what I am allowing to happen, since I value freedom for all. I don’t like who I am for allowing it.” To deny anyone rights is to deny everyone's rights to some degree. It's about the kind of country they wanted to live in, and they valued the rights of everyone, because everyone includes themselves and their kin.

Why should they care about anyone else? Largely because they care for themselves. How many times have you heard that in order to love others you must first love yourself? Once people do care for themselves, in the rational self-interested sense I've previously argued for, they will quite naturally love others.

3) The soldier who sees the war he is fighting is lost, but who continues to fight on and even go on a 'suicide mission' out of a sense of honor or duty.

Once a soldier is in an army he gives up his rights to his own life. At that point he’s already committed to the possibility he might die. He was either forced into the army (in other countries) or he volunteered. If he volunteered he didn’t volunteer to die, although some volunteers are not acting rationally in that they just may want to die. He volunteered for the challenge. Some of these volunteers saw no better option, given the fact that they needed structure in their life and couldn’t do well out in a free society. Some wanted the hope of an education. Some are raised in military families who highly prize their service in defense of their country, so they might not know anything different. Seeing how his family highly values military service, he will probably do so as well. As a soldier he is also trained to follow orders and it’s terribly difficult to disobey such a command, since his mission may help save other soldiers in the field, and since being a deserter brings shame upon him and his family as a punishable crime. No one knows for sure it’s a suicide mission, either. And no one knows for sure the war is lost, since a soldier on the field doesn’t have all of the information needed to make that judgment. He’s defending his homeland, his family and his friends, even if the war is in fact “lost.” And since we are all going to die anyway, what better way to die than to be a hero, since being remembered well is the only thing a man has to live on after he dies.

4) The soldier who falls on a grenade to save his fox hole buddies.

Once the grenade hits the dirt this soldier is dead anyway, one way or another. If he chooses to run away, his life will never be the same, even if he does get lucky to save his own skin, and that's not sure. The guilt will be unbearable if he lives. Like Sophia in the movie "Sophia's Choice," she died the day she chose to save one of her children while letting the Nazi take the other one away. So why not do what the soldier was trained to do and save others by falling on the grenade? In the process he will be remembered as a hero, and by saving others who will continue to fight he will help protect those who will remember him back home.

5) Why should we care for pets? Because they give us pleasure. It makes us feel loved. They make us laugh. To hurt them is not acting rational. It would betray a hatred for oneself, and that’s not acting out of rational self-interest.

An Atheistic Ethic

This is a continuation of a discussion about an atheistic ethic. I've already argued that any ethic must be based on who we are as human beings, and that Christians obey God because of self-interest. Then I argued that what we humans want above all else is to be happy. I also dealt with the book of Ecclesiastes which seems to claim we cannot find happiness without God. I'm arguing that rational self-interest can be a sound basis for an atheistic ethic.

I will not be arguing for selfishness as a basis for an atheistic ethic. My dictionary defines selfishness as being “concerned with your own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others.” It implies that a person is out for himself alone. It implies the unholy trinity: me, myself, and I. Rational self-interest is something different. A selfish person will lack things that make him happy. A selfish person will not gain the things in the list I mentioned earlier that make for happiness. Being short-sighted, he is only interested in instant gratification, not in the long-lasting benefits of being a good friend of others. A selfish person will usually reap what he sows. He will experience loneliness, anxiety, guilt, self-destructive tendencies, few trustworthy friends, depression, fear, paranoia, disappointment with life, possible jail time, and a short life. To the degree he is selfish he will be alone. He will be ostracized, and even banished from society. He will not work well with others and probably be fired for laziness, or for not getting along with co-workers. So he will probably not reap the financial rewards he wants to make him happy.

What I’m arguing for is different. It’s a rational self-interest that seeks the long lasting benefits of happiness. This means denying oneself instant gratification for those better, more beneficial, long lasting goods.

Next time I’ll argue that everything we do contains an element of self-interest to it.

If God Wanted Us to Believe...

aboveandbeyond said: If God is God, then couldn't he create a 4.5 billion year old planet in six days? I'll do it in six seconds. #=Geo-what, status: planet, age: 4.5 billion years old.
Time it took to create: six seconds.

Yes, and if God wants us to believe in him then he could've made his creation so haphazard that we couldn't even begin to explain the origin of the species. The separate species could be so far apart and distinct from each other that there would be no fitting the pieces together like scientists have done.

In fact, the creation of the law of predation among all creatures on earth is absolutely horrible. Something has to die for another animal to eat. With the existence of several species of vegetarians and the fact that human beings themselves could be vegetarians, I see no reason for creating meat eaters at all. In fact, I see no reason why God created animals at all, since they have no eternal purpose and there are no moral lessons that animals must learn. To see more of what God could've done see what would convince me Christianity is true.

Homosexuality Is An Indicator Of Lack Of Divine Participation In The Creation Of Scripture

Note: I was working on this in the 'drafts' and it got published by accident. I'll stop working on it now and consider it published.

My presumption about the bible is that if it is to be called divinely inspired, then there must be some quality of divinity about it. I presume that if there were a holy spirit, and it can inhabit and influence all people who believe, then that spirit would be able to provide Quality Assurance to the writings that make up the Bible. This Quality Assurance about the internal consistency of the content of the Bible would be an indicator of aspects of its divinity.

And now, at the risk of "Political Incorrectness" I present my presumptions about homosexuality. I presume that it is like my heterosexuality. I presume that they didn't have any more choice about their sexual preference than I did. I presume that since most people are heterosexual, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

With these presumptions I intend to show that the treatment of Homosexuality in the bible most likely does not have any divine aspects about it. The following are some important passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible.

* Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

* Leviticus 20:13 (New American Standard Bible)
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 (New American Standard Bible)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

In summary, it is an abomination, it is detestable and they shall be put to death, and they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But research into human sexuality casts doubt on the 'Righteousness' of biblical principles regarding homosexuality. In the recent edition of Scientific American (June 2007) there is an article called "Going Beyond X and Y" by Sally Lehrman. Dr. Eric Vilain researches the phenomena of babies born with mixed sex organs. He has discovered new information that modifies traditional thinking about how developing babies sex is determined. He has discovered that it has genetic factors that are more complicated than previously thought. I am paraphrasing but he is researching the likelihood of competing genes that affect the organs, genitalia and brain development. He says that the gender effects in the brain happen before the organ effects. 1 in 4500 babies wind up with mixed sex organs. When this happens, the doctor makes a best guess on what the sex of the infant should be and performs surgery to facilitate it. Dr. Vilain has proposed that it be classified as DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development). In America, out of 300 million people, that comes out to be 66,666 people. It is a predictable rate. God is very consistent or he has nothing to do with it. Because of rushed gender assignment surgery to the infant, you will have cases where a woman is "trapped" in a mans body or vice versa.

Homosexuals shouldn't be considered an abomination, detestable or punishable by death and assignment to hell. Furthermore, we should be able to assume that some of that complex process will get mixed up to a lesser degree and result in a mans sexuality in a womans body and vice versa to include bi-sexuality.

Dr. Vilain recommends waiting on the sex assignment surgery, carrying out psychological counseling and classifying this as a clinical disorder. That seems pretty compassionate of him. He could just kill the baby in accordance with Leviticus if it weren't illegal by secular law, thank god [ ;-) ]

Does God do it on purpose or does it happen naturally? If he does it on purpose, then to what purpose? What value does it add? As a christian my justification that Homosexuality was an abomination was because logically, it would mean the end of the human race. But it doesn't happen enough to make this facet significant. As it stands, according to The Bible, it happens either naturally or divinely and then the subject should be killed or at least detested. If it happens naturally and God doesn't have anything to do with it, what is the principle by which Homosexuals are condemned? What is the principle in either case? Am I missing something? Where is the sense?

But homosexual behavior is exhibited in nature in other species. This means that it is not a specifically human trait. It spans species. This is the type of thing that is predicted by evolution. There is a museum exhibit in Norway that details the 1500 species that homosexual behavior has been observed in. I observed two camels doing something homosexual the last time I went to the zoo. One camel evidently was a cunning linguist. [ ;-) ]

I assert that the fact that there are biological determinants to human sexuality discredit the christian presumption that Homosexuality is a sin. It may be a disorder, but evil?
Is color blindness evil? Is dwarfism evil? Is a curved spine evil? Are they an abomination, detestable, punishable by death and assignment to hell?
No to all of the above. And neither is Homosexuality.

The attitude in the bible is simply an example of Bias against those that don't fit the standards for the group. It is human fear. Human Homophobia. Otherizing. It is obviously not very divine.

Note: Otherizing is
"(s)tereotyping…is part of the maintenance of social and symbolic order. It sets up a symbolic frontier between the ‘normal’ and the ‘deviant’, the ‘normal’ and the ‘pathological’, the ‘acceptable’ and the ‘unacceptable’, what ‘belongs’ and what does not or is “Other”, between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, Us and Them. It facilitates the ‘binding’ or bonding together of all of Us who are ‘normal’ into one ‘imagined community’; and it sends into symbolic exile all of Them —“the Others’—who are in some way different--- ‘beyond the pale” (Hall, 1997, 258).

Since Alfred C. Kinsey published his seminal research, Research into Human Sexuality has suffered setbacks due to the influence of the religious right. "Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society. Many in the Christian Right found their religious and socially conservative views in conflict with Kinsey's methods and underlying principles. They saw his supporters as dissolute libertines and his work as morally corrupting. Even today, Kinsey's name can elicit partisan rancor." Many of Kinseys general conclusions have been verified by other research and are now considered valid by the scientific community. (Wikipedia, Alfred Kinsey)

Further Reading/References:

This paper discusses problems in Education regarding "Otherizing".

Hall, Stuart. ed.(1997). Representation : Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Open University.

Here is a link to a story of one families effort to force a son to be a girl after a circumcision tragedy. It didn't turn out too well. He didn't seem to be able to willfully change his sexuality.

Here is a link to more information on Homosexuality
Alfred C. Kinsey
Some other DC articles that discuss Homosexuality:
Was Jesus Left Handed?
Homosexuality Bible vs Nature
Homosexuality and the Christian

Is There a God? Go Ask Alice

David Koepsell wrote the following article in The Free Inquiry magazine:

A recent study conducted at Johns Hopkins sought to explain the neurological effects of psilocybin, the active ingredient in the Psilocybe genus of mushrooms. While millions of amateur researchers have been investigating the subjective effects of so-called magic mushrooms for decades, and they've been used in Native American ritual for perhaps thousands of years, the psychopharmacological studies conducted by the researchers were intended to explore the potential therapeutic use and effect of the drug. Such studies have been conducted before, including significant studies in the sixties and seventies regarding the use of another popular compound, MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as ecstasy), in psychotherapy. Of course, these studies have typically been frowned upon in the context of the ongoing and largely fruitless "war on drugs"-which is why, perhaps, the latest results have been cast in the light of "spirituality."

The investigators of the magic mushrooms took pains to couch their findings in the language of spirituality, describing the effects as a "full mystical experience." Researchers also noted that a good majority of the subjects used in the study described feelings of well-being that lasted for months after they ingested the drug. About a quarter of the subjects, however, experienced depression, anxiety, and other negative effects. Nonetheless, the study offers interesting promise for potential therapeutic uses of psilocybin, or at least for considerable further study. Two things are striking about this study: the language used by researchers in describing the results and the rather odd reaction from some theologians.

Naturally, the notion that mystical experiences could be chemically induced threatens those believers who insist that direct experience of a deity is not simply a brain state. Linking supernatural or spiritual events to natural causes (rather than vice versa) undermines theology. This is perhaps why, in reaction to the results of the study, some theologians felt it necessary to alert people that magic mushrooms are not the ticket to a bona fide religious experience: "All this did was stimulate that part of the human personality that produced certain feeling states and altered states of consciousness," said theologian Dave Reed, a professor at the University of Toronto. "Those are no criteria for an authentic encounter with God" (CBC News, July 12, 2006).

Of course, we are left to ponder what would qualify as an "authentic" encounter with God, given that accounts of such encounters from saints and prophets are generally as trippy as those of your average stoner. Take, for example, the words of St. Teresa of Avila, who wrote in The Interior Castle that, during her mystical experiences, the soul "is utterly dead to the things of the world, and lives solely in God . . . I do not know whether in this state she has enough life left to breathe. It seems to me she has not; or at least that if she does breathe, she is unaware of it." What did she eat for lunch, do you suppose?

In fact, mystical experiences are not uncommon. The naturalist philosopher/psychologist William James described some common elements such experiences often share. He was also known to induce them chemically in experiments on himself. The common elements he noticed were: (1) ineffability: they involve emotive rather than intellectual components and are difficult to describe or understand; (2) noetic quality: they involve a transcendence of time and space; (3) transiency: they ebb and flow quickly and cannot be held onto for long; and finally (4) passivity: the experiencer is overcome, swept up in the state beyond control and beyond exertion of his or her will.

Neuroscience has actually shown a number of ways in which these experiences can be induced, including by electromagnetic fields and low-oxygen environments, in connection with which near-death experiences are also routinely noted. It is thus surprising that the scientists associated with the study felt compelled to back off any conclusions regarding the applicability of their study to a scientific understanding of the weight of the evidence for the existence of God based upon chemically induced mystical experiences: "We're just measuring what can be observed," said Roland Griffiths . . . who led the study. "We're not entering into 'Does God exist or not exist.' This work can't and won't go there" (CBC News, ibid.).

In fact, isn't one of the obvious conclusions of this and similar studies that mystical experiences are chemically or environmentally induced brain states and that no alleged encounter with God can be deemed any more or less authentic than ones brought about by hallucinogenic drugs or a lack of oxygen to the brain? A fair and honest path of further exploration, based upon this and other similar studies, would be to delve into the neurochemical basis for all mystical experiences, even so-called authentic ones, rather than to dismiss automatically, without such study, the potential that all experiences of this sort arise from brain states.

What seems likely at this stage, because of the potential of such studies to undermine traditional mystical theology and our nation's aversion to legitimizing therapeutic uses of drugs that are commonly abused, nothing further will come of this study, despite its interesting promise. In the meantime, we should feel comfortable with some preliminary confirmation of a thesis many of us hold: that mystical experiences do in fact occur, that they are completely naturalistically based, and that there is no basis to view those occurring in convents or seminaries as any more legitimate than those that occurred on the corner of Haight and Ashbury back in its heyday.

David Koepsell is the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism and an assistant research professor at the University at