{My language below as expressed in the following email to the First Baptist Church is written with Christological terms to convey meaning to a conservative Baptist church and should not imply any religious views on my part.}
Email to First Baptist Church following an evangelical Christmas musical.
Season Greeting to the Talented Staff at First Baptist Church.
(Parts about the musical were not applicable to this post were deleted)
My second reason for this email is to express the bitter-sweet irony I felt as I enjoyed the Living Tree last night.
I could not help thinking to myself as the second half expressed the true meaning of Christmas as a time for humanity to accept the perfect gift of love and forgiveness that God gave the world in His son Jesus that First Baptist is a member of and supports the Southern Baptist Convention; a Convention which runs counter to most everything I heard in song and word at the presentation last night.
By this irony, I mean that the Southern Baptist Convention has itself limited this perfect gift of God’s love and forgiveness in that this Christian Convention has fired all women form faculty positions form teaching men at all their seminaries regardless of their ability to teach or their academic qualifications.
Moreover, after pulling up departments of religion at Anderson University, Charleston Southern University and North Greenville University (a school where Dr. (Pastor) is on the staff), I find that this sentiment is now extended in all S.C. Southern Baptist Universities as well. This action by the Convention is made even more infamous by the fact that one of my undergraduate schools, Southern Wesleyan University, just placed a woman as dean over their departments of Bible and Christian studies.
It is truly a sad time, especially here at Christmas, as I read in the November 12 edition of the New Letter the prayer request: The Living Christmas Tree Pray for all who will present the true meaning of Christmas and all who will hear the good news of God’s love. That women, simply because of their gender, are eternally viewed as un-forgiven in this respect and are made to pay for this in the Southern Baptist Convention based on the Apostles Paul’s miss-understanding of the Genesis 3 account as he expresses it in I Corinthians.
In closing, I sadly find it very hypocritical and counterproductive for the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, to proclaim God’s perfect love in His Son Jesus Christ open to all who will accept it only to attack and fire women under the same evangelical banner for no other reason other than their God given gender.
Thanks for your time and may you enjoy find the true love and forgiveness that makes this time of the year so special.
Sincerely,
Harry H. McCall
Pastor’s Reply:
Harry,
Always good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind feedback on the Tree.
You have a keen eye for hypocrisy and a strong desire to name it when you see it. I affirm you in that.
First Baptist Church is not on a crusade against women. We voluntarily cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention, not because it is perfect or that we agree with every policy or practice, but because we do support the opportunity to cooperate in work that no church can do alone. No family is perfect, but we find ways to love each other and work together.
I teach at North Greenville University and Anderson University from time to time. I know that women serve in very responsible positions at both schools, but I do find it interesting that none teach in the religion department. Since I'm not involved in hiring, I don't know if this is coincidence or merely a result of who has applied. I do know that my wife has been my guest lecturer in the class I teach in pastoral care. She has been well-received by the school and my students. My focus has been to make the most of the opportunities these schools have gracious offered me by teaching with integrity.
I wish that I had seen you face to face at the Tree. Please pass on to your family my wishes for a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Pastor First Baptist
If one truly needs a Biblical God (or any god for that matter) to be ethical and moral, then how was I (as an atheist) able to address this issue with this conservative Baptist church which believes the Bible, especially the New Testament, to be the Word of God while I don't?
Secondly, as an employee of the state of South Carolina, how does the secular state create its internal employee policies based on an ever changing modern secular society and come up with conduct rules such as their Workplace Violence Policy and their Sexual Harassment Policy without God or the Bible? In fact, both policies are not drawn form the Bible, but often run counter to the Biblical codes of morals and ethics? (An example is Jesus Christ in the Book of Revelation retuning to slaughter the evil forces; a retaliation act which would get one fired with the state!)
If what Dr. Craig Blomberg claims as divine guiding principle for modern humanity’s morals and ethics is true, then just how did our secular society outlaw slavery and the subornation of women which are both God directed Biblical principles and which the Bible believing Southern Baptist Convention still use to fire womenand deny their employment?
Finally, I noticed under WikipediA that Dr. Blomberg “…has often been critical of American evangelical scholarship, and he controversially fostered a dialogue with Mormon professor Stephen E. Robinson of BYU, which resulted in the book How Wide the Divide? An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation.”
I personally have had dealings with Professor Stephen Robinson of the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. Although Robinson earned his PhD under James H. Charlesworth at Duke University (now of Princeton), I found that, for a Temple Mormon and Christian educator, Stephen Robinson was a knowingly deceitful liar when I called him to ask for an explanation to a Greek exegetical problem based on the United Bible Society Greek New Testament 4th ed. dealing with the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Mormon.
If what Dr. Blomberg claims is true about the need for God, then, in my next post on the LDS Mormon Church and Professor Stephen Robinson, I would like to hear how his Christian dialogue with this BYU professor is justified.
December 17, 2008
December 16, 2008
Richard Carrier Highly Recommends My Book.
Carrier's review of both John Paulos and my books can be found on his blog. While he offers some fair criticisms of my book he also said some pretty great things about it like...
-----------
[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail.
-----------
[It contains] a treasure trove of sources...
-----------
[John] essentially turns the same leave-no-stone-unturned approach employed by the new apologetics movement (which he was trained in, by Craig no less) against that very movement. He has clearly read extensively and has a firm grasp of contemporary Christian apologetics.
-----------
Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing. In this regard, Loftus is even more in-the-know than I am, tackling issues I know very little about (like contemporary Evangelical doctrines of hell or the trinity--topics that simply don't interest me, but that certainly interest believers and whose intellectual coherence is essential if Evangelical faith is to have any chance at credibility).
------------
In a sense, Why I Became an Atheist is something like an ex-Christian version of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. Where Moreland's aim was to tear down naturalism, Loftus' aim is to tear down Moreland's worldview. And yet, Loftus' work is denser and more erudite than Moreland's, by far. In fact, that may be its principal failing: it's so intellectual and thoroughgoing, I worry most Christians won't even be able to get through a fraction of it. On the other hand, for the more educated and intellectual, this is exactly what they need to read. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal.
------------
[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test (here in chapter 4). Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book.
--------------
[It's] a serious scholarly treatment of Christian apologetics.
--------------
Thanks Richard, coming from you whom I hold in high regard means a lot to me!
To read Richard's criticisms go to the link provided.
-----------
[John's book addresses] almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail.
-----------
[It contains] a treasure trove of sources...
-----------
[John] essentially turns the same leave-no-stone-unturned approach employed by the new apologetics movement (which he was trained in, by Craig no less) against that very movement. He has clearly read extensively and has a firm grasp of contemporary Christian apologetics.
-----------
Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing. In this regard, Loftus is even more in-the-know than I am, tackling issues I know very little about (like contemporary Evangelical doctrines of hell or the trinity--topics that simply don't interest me, but that certainly interest believers and whose intellectual coherence is essential if Evangelical faith is to have any chance at credibility).
------------
In a sense, Why I Became an Atheist is something like an ex-Christian version of J.P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. Where Moreland's aim was to tear down naturalism, Loftus' aim is to tear down Moreland's worldview. And yet, Loftus' work is denser and more erudite than Moreland's, by far. In fact, that may be its principal failing: it's so intellectual and thoroughgoing, I worry most Christians won't even be able to get through a fraction of it. On the other hand, for the more educated and intellectual, this is exactly what they need to read. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal.
------------
[O]ne of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test (here in chapter 4). Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book.
--------------
[It's] a serious scholarly treatment of Christian apologetics.
--------------
Thanks Richard, coming from you whom I hold in high regard means a lot to me!
To read Richard's criticisms go to the link provided.
Frank Zindler, J.P. Holding and I Debate the Existence of Jesus
Enjoy, and chime in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.
What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.
For a link just to my arguments see here, (then click to the right for the next argument, and so forth).
For a link just to Dr. Zindler's arguments see here, and do likewise.
For a link just to Holding's arguments see here, and do likewise. On this site they won't let Holding speak with his usual ad hominems against people who disagree, or so I was told. That eliminates most of his arguments! ;-)
What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.
For a link just to my arguments see here, (then click to the right for the next argument, and so forth).
For a link just to Dr. Zindler's arguments see here, and do likewise.
For a link just to Holding's arguments see here, and do likewise. On this site they won't let Holding speak with his usual ad hominems against people who disagree, or so I was told. That eliminates most of his arguments! ;-)
December 15, 2008
Guest Post Written by Dr. Craig Blomberg on "Why I Am Still a Christian."
I invited Dr. Blomberg to write a post to challenge us at DC, and he's graciously responded in the interests of a fair discussion of the ideas that separate us. No disrespectful skeptical response to such a respected scholar will be published.
Response to Dr. Blomberg
Dr. Blomberg’s view of altruism is flawed in light of recent primatological research.
I thank Dr. Blomberg for posting his commentary on Debunking Christianity. Here, I would like to respond to his argument for theism based on altruism. In addition to being a trained biblical scholar, I am also formally trained as an anthropologist (B.A., University of Arizona, 1982 + 1 year of graduate work). I have had a longstanding interest in the evolution of morality.
I thank Dr. Blomberg for posting his commentary on Debunking Christianity. Here, I would like to respond to his argument for theism based on altruism. In addition to being a trained biblical scholar, I am also formally trained as an anthropologist (B.A., University of Arizona, 1982 + 1 year of graduate work). I have had a longstanding interest in the evolution of morality.
The Outsider Test for No Faith and A Response to Dr. Craig Blomberg
This is a response to some of the thoughts Dr. Craig Blomberg kindly offered to John and to DC in general. In this post I also include a brief thought about John's "Outsider Test" applied to the position of atheism (or any brand of nontheism, if you'd like).
Before I begin addressing Dr. Blomberg's post, I would first like to comment on John's outsider test for faith, which expresses to a believer to test his or her worldview from the point of skepticism (not atheism). As such, John has defined clearly that his proposed method should be attempted by the religious, but since the test presumes agnosticism, it would seem logical for the atheist to satisfy that particular worldview from skepticism.
Three good categories of questions for atheists from the skeptical point of view should be:
1) If atheism is true, can the atheist justify this? Can he prove the nonexistence of God? If the atheist claims he is not burdened with such proof, is this properly justified?
2) Since God is not the source of morals, where do morals come from, if they in fact exist with any ties to reality whatsoever?
3) Has the atheist properly analyzed and rejected all definition of God (or gods) offered by the various faiths? What is the atheist's reasons for rejecting these Gods and the faith claims of the major religions? Should the atheist consider the possibility of a God or Gods of a definition that is either not yet known or not yet in wide acceptance?
John and I discussed these questions (and many more) on our trip to the conference of the Evangelical Society last month. Even at the ETS, the two of us spoke and listened to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, and many other well-known Christians, and were challenged by the tough questions they posed. There's no better way to take the "outsider test" for "no faith" than to discuss our position with the greatest scholars outside of our own views and test our positions against theirs. I would invite all skeptics reading this blog to not only continue to challenge the tenants of faith, but also to listen and seriously consider the critiques offered by the best of those outside us who are willing to hold civil discourse.
Who knows? Some of you may join us in the future in jumping into the "lion's den" of the brightest outside your points of view at welcoming conferences such as the ETS! You may even make a friend or ten, as we did, and nothing can be better than to have a friend with whom you can constantly share important challenges but maintain the kindness that comes with an honest analysis of truth beyond the character and particular beliefs of the person with whom you disagree.
One of these important figures outside of our worldview, Dr. Craig Blomberg, offered a testimony in response to John's call for critique. In the spirit of analyzing truth, I will offer my own thoughts to what Dr. Blomberg has written.
I find it interesting that Dr. Blomberg regards theistic evolution and Old-Earth Creationism as valid positions. I would, however, wonder what his view of man is - particularly of Adam and Eve - and whether it is consistent with this position. Did God create humans separately, and if so, why all the extra hullabaloo with the slow, painful evolution of the "lower" animals? And if man is God's pinnacle of this mode of creation, in what way did God breathe life into Adam and Eve, who are described in Genesis as beings who are created and life-breathed from the dust as both male and female, separated by Adam's rib, and from whom all humanity has descended? I have never seen a consistent perspective; since I am not interested in creation vs. evolution, I have not read many perspectives (especially Theistic Evolution), so I would be interested in hearing how his view is consistent with his belief in Scripture.
I find it interesting that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Blomberg quotes C.S. Lewis: 'First, there will be three surprises in heaven: who’s there, who’s not there, and there I’m there! Second, there are only two kinds of people in the world—those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “thy will be done.”' For Dr. Lewis' first point, I've always wondered - even while I read him as a Christian - why there should be any surprise at all that one is in Heaven. As a Lutheran, I'm certain Dr. Blomberg would agree that the grace of God is an undeserved gift sent free from consideration of the depravity of the believer, but Lewis does not look at this from a worldly point of view - he looks at it from the point of view of being in Heaven. If one is to hold to the eternal security of the salvation of believers through the effect of God's sovereign will and grace, one should not at all be surprised in a heavenly position.
Furthermore, Lewis' second point holds some troubling theological concepts. Ultimately, I do realize that it is the Reformed position (such as Luther's) to maintain that the bondage of the will to sin is what damns the sinner, but ultimately, the sovereign choice of God, according to e.g. Romans 9, is what decides the fate of the damned. Ultimately, the pots made for common use destined for wrath that Romans 9 describes do not make themselves; God is the potter, man is the clay, and Paul is explicit and clear about this when he illustrates with the example of Pharaoh: "for this reason I have raised you up." So, ultimately, Christ would say to those on both his left and right hand side: "My will be done."
This is the Bible's solution to the problem of evil that troubles Dr. Blomberg, and I would wonder how he would respond to this Reformed interpretation that Luther shared. Ultimately, evil action was decreed by God for the purposes of demonstrating His wrath and justice, as the potter/clay analogy demonstrates. Although the Reformers make clear that man is the autonomous source of this evil (so as to save God from directly working it), it is ultimately God's decree of man's bondage to sin through the fall of Adam that causes evil, and man by no power of his own choice - due to his totally depraved nature, of which Dr. Blomberg agrees - can free himself from this predicament. This even blocks the free choice of Christ, made clear by Luther in "Bondage of the Will," and in John 6, in which the throng of 5000 witnessing the miracles of Christ are whittled to twelve somewhat befuddled disciples through Christ's declaration that none may come to Him unless it is first granted by the Father.
Evil itself is even created by God, as Isaiah 45:7 declares (and before anyone harps on the "calamity" translation, the Hebrew in question is used elsewhere to describe every sin in the Ten Commandments, and fits the contrast between "peace"- which translates "peace with God" and is contrasted with the sense of "evil" implied, since calamity does not contrast properly in the context of the verse). I would be interested in seeing how this is reconciled with a good God and a God of love as described elsewhere Biblically; even resorting to the necessity of God's desire to demonstrate His justice, as Paul does in Romans, can't work, because it seems quite inconsistent logically with another part of God's identity as described in the Bible.
On his question of atheistic evolution and morality, doesn't the point Dr. Blomberg raises commit the (logical) genetic fallacy? Why can't evolution produce moral beings from nonmoral beings, just as it produced beings that lived (even partially) on land versus beings that lived in water?
I am interested in the Christian response to what I have written - and even the Skeptic response, since I know that John challenges (even as a fellow nonbeliever) my Reformed view of the Bible versus an Arminian view. I appreciate the civility shown in my earlier posts, and am looking forward to a like lively and respectful discussion following this post.
Before I begin addressing Dr. Blomberg's post, I would first like to comment on John's outsider test for faith, which expresses to a believer to test his or her worldview from the point of skepticism (not atheism). As such, John has defined clearly that his proposed method should be attempted by the religious, but since the test presumes agnosticism, it would seem logical for the atheist to satisfy that particular worldview from skepticism.
Three good categories of questions for atheists from the skeptical point of view should be:
1) If atheism is true, can the atheist justify this? Can he prove the nonexistence of God? If the atheist claims he is not burdened with such proof, is this properly justified?
2) Since God is not the source of morals, where do morals come from, if they in fact exist with any ties to reality whatsoever?
3) Has the atheist properly analyzed and rejected all definition of God (or gods) offered by the various faiths? What is the atheist's reasons for rejecting these Gods and the faith claims of the major religions? Should the atheist consider the possibility of a God or Gods of a definition that is either not yet known or not yet in wide acceptance?
John and I discussed these questions (and many more) on our trip to the conference of the Evangelical Society last month. Even at the ETS, the two of us spoke and listened to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, and many other well-known Christians, and were challenged by the tough questions they posed. There's no better way to take the "outsider test" for "no faith" than to discuss our position with the greatest scholars outside of our own views and test our positions against theirs. I would invite all skeptics reading this blog to not only continue to challenge the tenants of faith, but also to listen and seriously consider the critiques offered by the best of those outside us who are willing to hold civil discourse.
Who knows? Some of you may join us in the future in jumping into the "lion's den" of the brightest outside your points of view at welcoming conferences such as the ETS! You may even make a friend or ten, as we did, and nothing can be better than to have a friend with whom you can constantly share important challenges but maintain the kindness that comes with an honest analysis of truth beyond the character and particular beliefs of the person with whom you disagree.
One of these important figures outside of our worldview, Dr. Craig Blomberg, offered a testimony in response to John's call for critique. In the spirit of analyzing truth, I will offer my own thoughts to what Dr. Blomberg has written.
I find it interesting that Dr. Blomberg regards theistic evolution and Old-Earth Creationism as valid positions. I would, however, wonder what his view of man is - particularly of Adam and Eve - and whether it is consistent with this position. Did God create humans separately, and if so, why all the extra hullabaloo with the slow, painful evolution of the "lower" animals? And if man is God's pinnacle of this mode of creation, in what way did God breathe life into Adam and Eve, who are described in Genesis as beings who are created and life-breathed from the dust as both male and female, separated by Adam's rib, and from whom all humanity has descended? I have never seen a consistent perspective; since I am not interested in creation vs. evolution, I have not read many perspectives (especially Theistic Evolution), so I would be interested in hearing how his view is consistent with his belief in Scripture.
I find it interesting that, as a Lutheran, Dr. Blomberg quotes C.S. Lewis: 'First, there will be three surprises in heaven: who’s there, who’s not there, and there I’m there! Second, there are only two kinds of people in the world—those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “thy will be done.”' For Dr. Lewis' first point, I've always wondered - even while I read him as a Christian - why there should be any surprise at all that one is in Heaven. As a Lutheran, I'm certain Dr. Blomberg would agree that the grace of God is an undeserved gift sent free from consideration of the depravity of the believer, but Lewis does not look at this from a worldly point of view - he looks at it from the point of view of being in Heaven. If one is to hold to the eternal security of the salvation of believers through the effect of God's sovereign will and grace, one should not at all be surprised in a heavenly position.
Furthermore, Lewis' second point holds some troubling theological concepts. Ultimately, I do realize that it is the Reformed position (such as Luther's) to maintain that the bondage of the will to sin is what damns the sinner, but ultimately, the sovereign choice of God, according to e.g. Romans 9, is what decides the fate of the damned. Ultimately, the pots made for common use destined for wrath that Romans 9 describes do not make themselves; God is the potter, man is the clay, and Paul is explicit and clear about this when he illustrates with the example of Pharaoh: "for this reason I have raised you up." So, ultimately, Christ would say to those on both his left and right hand side: "My will be done."
This is the Bible's solution to the problem of evil that troubles Dr. Blomberg, and I would wonder how he would respond to this Reformed interpretation that Luther shared. Ultimately, evil action was decreed by God for the purposes of demonstrating His wrath and justice, as the potter/clay analogy demonstrates. Although the Reformers make clear that man is the autonomous source of this evil (so as to save God from directly working it), it is ultimately God's decree of man's bondage to sin through the fall of Adam that causes evil, and man by no power of his own choice - due to his totally depraved nature, of which Dr. Blomberg agrees - can free himself from this predicament. This even blocks the free choice of Christ, made clear by Luther in "Bondage of the Will," and in John 6, in which the throng of 5000 witnessing the miracles of Christ are whittled to twelve somewhat befuddled disciples through Christ's declaration that none may come to Him unless it is first granted by the Father.
Evil itself is even created by God, as Isaiah 45:7 declares (and before anyone harps on the "calamity" translation, the Hebrew in question is used elsewhere to describe every sin in the Ten Commandments, and fits the contrast between "peace"- which translates "peace with God" and is contrasted with the sense of "evil" implied, since calamity does not contrast properly in the context of the verse). I would be interested in seeing how this is reconciled with a good God and a God of love as described elsewhere Biblically; even resorting to the necessity of God's desire to demonstrate His justice, as Paul does in Romans, can't work, because it seems quite inconsistent logically with another part of God's identity as described in the Bible.
On his question of atheistic evolution and morality, doesn't the point Dr. Blomberg raises commit the (logical) genetic fallacy? Why can't evolution produce moral beings from nonmoral beings, just as it produced beings that lived (even partially) on land versus beings that lived in water?
I am interested in the Christian response to what I have written - and even the Skeptic response, since I know that John challenges (even as a fellow nonbeliever) my Reformed view of the Bible versus an Arminian view. I appreciate the civility shown in my earlier posts, and am looking forward to a like lively and respectful discussion following this post.
December 13, 2008
Could the Rapture Have Already Occurred?
The picture is of a cemetery headstone I photographed in the grave yard of a Baptist church.
According to the epitaph, William Orr died at age 73 and either Lethe has the Methuselah gene as Mrs. Orr is now 154 years old or she has been raptured out of this world to be with Jesus.
The bottom of the tombstone states clearly: Gone but not forgotten. And a closer inspection proved that only Mr. Orr’s grave had been used.
Now I ask; is it just possible that Mr. Orr was unsaved and his body is still in the grave while his soul is in Hell awaiting the final judgment while Mrs. Orr was raptured out?
Or do you think that Lethe is still alive and kicking at 154 years old because she has the Methuselah gene ?
Anyway, this is some theological food for thought and a point for discussion on the lighter side here at DC.
According to the epitaph, William Orr died at age 73 and either Lethe has the Methuselah gene as Mrs. Orr is now 154 years old or she has been raptured out of this world to be with Jesus.
The bottom of the tombstone states clearly: Gone but not forgotten. And a closer inspection proved that only Mr. Orr’s grave had been used.
Now I ask; is it just possible that Mr. Orr was unsaved and his body is still in the grave while his soul is in Hell awaiting the final judgment while Mrs. Orr was raptured out?
Or do you think that Lethe is still alive and kicking at 154 years old because she has the Methuselah gene ?
Anyway, this is some theological food for thought and a point for discussion on the lighter side here at DC.
A Pastor and Apologetics Instructor Says My Book is "Top Notch."
Neal Pumphrey is that Pastor who also teaches Philosophy, Apologetics, and Logic at Central Arkansas Baptist Bible Institute. He wrote:
In Chapter 4 of Why I Became an Atheist, John W. Loftus, proposes the outsider test for faith. He defines the outsider test for religious faith as simply "a challenge to test one's own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider (Why I Became an Atheist, p. 66)." This chapter is being heralded by his peers and has gained Loftus a place of honor among the new Atheists. I would have to concur that the entire work, and this chapter in particular, is top-notch work among all his contemporaries. Until this point, I considered Hitchens to be the best read among the atheists because of his humor and style, but Loftus seems to put forth better arguments that stay on task and address relevant points. I assume this is due to his experience and knowledge gained from once being on the inside.To read more here is the Link.
Christianity Fails the Insider Test for Faith Too!
I've defended the Outsider Test for Faith here at DC and in my book, but when compared to that test the Insider Test for Faith is a much stronger one, and Christianity also fails THAT test! You must read this well-written story of a Christian who lost his faith even as an insider. My question is why God would allow so many insiders like us to lose our faith? Why, for instance, if the evidence favors Christian theism, do so many of us leave it even when approaching it from an insider's perspective (or presumption) that it's true? We can just forget about the outsider test. Christianity doesn't even pass the insider test! In any case, this is a heart wrenching story (notice him struggle!). Here are some interesting quotes from it:
There’s just something about explaining theological concepts to a hostile audience that reveals just how convoluted the arguments are. By the end of the summer, when I thought about religion, neither of us had to open our mouths for my faith to get stomped – the internal skeptic in me was stronger than the Christian in me.
I began taking an online theology class that switched me from presuppositional apologetics to evidential apologetics. You mean I don’t have to assume the Bible is true a priori, but there’s actual evidence for it? Hallelujah!
While I had suspected I was losing my faith off and on for over three years, I didn’t think there was a chance I actually would, even up until the moment it happened. I sincerely believed it was true, and thus I believed that sincerely seeking the truth would lead me to God in some way.
On April 19, 2008, I went to see the movie “Expelled.” I was unsurprised to see ID propaganda, but what surprised me was how many arguments for atheism were presented and how good they looked when paired with Christianity’s most foolish tenants. As far as I was concerned, the movie ended when Dawkins was asked what he would say to God were he to meet him after death. Dawkins replied, “Why did you take such pains to conceal yourself?” This retort was crushing as I thought about my lack of a relationship with God.
When I finally de-converted, I could best describe it as the final scene in a mystery movie, where the detective has been following the bad guy for a while, and finds the smallest clue out of place. A montage follows as he remembers the dozens of times something was amiss, and one-by-one, puts the clues in the proper position and sees he has enough evidence to convict the real villain several times over. After I de-converted, my first thought was “Wow … What took me so long?”
But my second thought was that I had just lost something very dear to me. My identity and purpose for living have been ripped violently away. I have to completely reforge what I think about everything. “Why don’t I just kill myself” was a thought that went through my mind – not that I was actually suicidal, but why not? Instead of protecting myself socially from ungodly influences, I have to find a way to re-enter the world without God.
But the more I know about a secular view of the world, the better it gets. I no longer need a belief in a second life to make this first one precious. Far from being nihilistic, I care about humanity with a passion that I seldom had as a Christian. God isn’t helping us – the only peace and justice to be found in this world are the peace and justice we fight for. I’m finding in free thought more morality and purpose than I ever found in Christianity.
The Flat Earth, the Firmament, and the Three Storied Hebrew Universe
Below are a few great online resources to study the Biblical concept and history of the flat earth, the firmament, and the three storied Hebrew Universe.
The first four are written by Biblical scholar Dr. Paul Seely:
The Three-Storied Universe.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 1.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 2
The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10.
On the the history of the concept of a flat earth see these two books:
Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood
[Thanks to Anthony for these great resources].
Ed Babinski has also done some nice work in this same area:
Flat Earth Assumptions of the Biblical Authors
Flat Earth and Flood Geology
You can see a diagram of how the Hebrews thought of their universe here:
A Diagram of the Hebrew Universe
The first four are written by Biblical scholar Dr. Paul Seely:
The Three-Storied Universe.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 1.
The Firmament and the Water Above Part 2
The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10.
On the the history of the concept of a flat earth see these two books:
Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood
[Thanks to Anthony for these great resources].
Ed Babinski has also done some nice work in this same area:
Flat Earth Assumptions of the Biblical Authors
Flat Earth and Flood Geology
You can see a diagram of how the Hebrews thought of their universe here:
A Diagram of the Hebrew Universe
Care to Comment on Our Recent Polls?
Here they are for comment.
How Do You Rate Our Blog Based on Our Goals?
A + One of The Best on the Web 59 (22%)
A It Does A Superior Job 55 (20%)
B+ Much Better Than Most Sites 41 (15%)
B It's a Really Good Site 36 (13%)
C + A Bit Better Than Average 9 (3%)
C It's A Good Site. 10 (3%)
D Not Good At All: I'm A Christian 6 (2%)
F Terrible: I'm A Christian 48 (18%)
Why Do You Visit Our Site?
I'm Testing My Beliefs 31 (11%)
To Show You're Wrong at DC 11 (4%)
I'm Here to Help Our Common Cause 59 (22%)
I'm Doing Some Research 54 (20%)
I Like Interacting With the Authors 14 (5%)
DC Treats My Views With Respect 12 (4%)
I'm A Glutton for Punishment 5 (1%)
I Like the Challenge of Arguing My Case 19 (7%)
It's Informative; I Learn From it 182 (69%)
How Do You Rate Our Blog Based on Our Goals?
A + One of The Best on the Web 59 (22%)
A It Does A Superior Job 55 (20%)
B+ Much Better Than Most Sites 41 (15%)
B It's a Really Good Site 36 (13%)
C + A Bit Better Than Average 9 (3%)
C It's A Good Site. 10 (3%)
D Not Good At All: I'm A Christian 6 (2%)
F Terrible: I'm A Christian 48 (18%)
Why Do You Visit Our Site?
I'm Testing My Beliefs 31 (11%)
To Show You're Wrong at DC 11 (4%)
I'm Here to Help Our Common Cause 59 (22%)
I'm Doing Some Research 54 (20%)
I Like Interacting With the Authors 14 (5%)
DC Treats My Views With Respect 12 (4%)
I'm A Glutton for Punishment 5 (1%)
I Like the Challenge of Arguing My Case 19 (7%)
It's Informative; I Learn From it 182 (69%)
A Homily on Marriage on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Dearly beloved, it is with the Sacrament of Reconciliation that I bring you greeting in the Holy name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Beloved, the Lord hath burden my heart with a new homiletic epiphany on marriage as first based in the Old Covenant:
The following two verses are from this Old Covenant when our Heavenly Father wanted men and women to be joined in the flesh for creation of the human race: “God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28).
Again, we are told by the inspirited writer of Genesis (Moses) that “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage. Now, let us turn our attention and notice what the New Covenant tells us as revealed by our Lord Himself relating to women and marriage as He Himself set our example:
“But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matthew 19: 11-12).
And the most Holy Apostle Paul: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman….But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (I Corinth. 7: 1, 8, & 9).
And finally our Lord again emphasizes his divine requirements for us to be holy even has He is holy and unmarried in the Apocalypse: “ Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” (Revelation 14: 1-5).
Beloved, I ask you to examine your sinful life while you are here in your temporary earthen vessel of clay in light our beloved Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostle Paul and the 144,000 virgin men who followed the Lamb in Revelation and to renounced any sexual sin as a venal sin by which you can make it into Heaven but, as St. Paul says “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (I Corinth. 3: 13 - 15).
Now, may the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe be an example before Christ for us. Amen
Beloved, the Lord hath burden my heart with a new homiletic epiphany on marriage as first based in the Old Covenant:
The following two verses are from this Old Covenant when our Heavenly Father wanted men and women to be joined in the flesh for creation of the human race: “God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28).
Again, we are told by the inspirited writer of Genesis (Moses) that “ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
However, Beloved, this is the Old Covenant of Moses where we were yoked up under the Law and marriage. Now, let us turn our attention and notice what the New Covenant tells us as revealed by our Lord Himself relating to women and marriage as He Himself set our example:
“But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matthew 19: 11-12).
And the most Holy Apostle Paul: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman….But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (I Corinth. 7: 1, 8, & 9).
And finally our Lord again emphasizes his divine requirements for us to be holy even has He is holy and unmarried in the Apocalypse: “ Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.” (Revelation 14: 1-5).
Beloved, I ask you to examine your sinful life while you are here in your temporary earthen vessel of clay in light our beloved Savior Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostle Paul and the 144,000 virgin men who followed the Lamb in Revelation and to renounced any sexual sin as a venal sin by which you can make it into Heaven but, as St. Paul says “each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” (I Corinth. 3: 13 - 15).
Now, may the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe be an example before Christ for us. Amen
December 11, 2008
Another One Gives Up His Christian Faith From Reading My Book!
To All Christian Apologists: I have issued a challenge to debate all of you, one at a time. You can read my challenge directly below this post. I have recently decided to go on the offensive.
One reason is because I'm tired of some of the skeptical arguments I've seen. Another reason is because I'm getting more and more feedback almost every single day from Christian people who have read my book and say they cannot adequately deal with it. One seminary trained pastor said my book only leaves open the possibilty of some sort of religious mysticism. And today I learned that yet another well-read Christian has lost his faith from reading just one book, mine. He had read Michael Martin's book, The Case Against Christianity, and David Ramsay Steele's book, Atheism Explained (both great books), but his faith was not affected at all until he read mine. [Edit: This morning my book was ranked #1 on the blog titled Failing the Insider Test (check it out! This Blog seems to be a spin-off from my Outsider Test for Faith). He says my book is "Head and shoulders" above the rest.].
Still another reason is that many Christians hate me anyway. If you do, it's not my problem. I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to help you take back your brainwashed selves. I have Christian Blog terrorists at my feet sooner or later whenever I leave the door open for a free and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. And I've decided that I really don't care if other skeptics agree with how I argue. I am not writing for them! They are not my target audience. You are! Mine is an arrogance about the arguments. I have them. You don't. [Plenty of other skeptics have great arguments too, so don't get me wrong about this].
Just to be sure, there is no personal animosity toward Christians as the good people I think most of you are. I like most Christians. That's not the issue. My claim is that not a single one of you can effectively and honestly deal with every argument in my book, any one of which is fatal to your faith (and I mean conservative Christians). Call me arrogant if you will. I don't care. Bring it on. Every day you wait, another soul might be lost from reading my book.
I don't revel in knowing some Christian people will probably suffer pain as the result of agonizing over their faith along with the social repercussions from leaving it. I'm only interested in educating people about Christianity. It's a delusion. You are deluded. And I am here to help you get over it.
One reason is because I'm tired of some of the skeptical arguments I've seen. Another reason is because I'm getting more and more feedback almost every single day from Christian people who have read my book and say they cannot adequately deal with it. One seminary trained pastor said my book only leaves open the possibilty of some sort of religious mysticism. And today I learned that yet another well-read Christian has lost his faith from reading just one book, mine. He had read Michael Martin's book, The Case Against Christianity, and David Ramsay Steele's book, Atheism Explained (both great books), but his faith was not affected at all until he read mine. [Edit: This morning my book was ranked #1 on the blog titled Failing the Insider Test (check it out! This Blog seems to be a spin-off from my Outsider Test for Faith). He says my book is "Head and shoulders" above the rest.].
Still another reason is that many Christians hate me anyway. If you do, it's not my problem. I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to help you take back your brainwashed selves. I have Christian Blog terrorists at my feet sooner or later whenever I leave the door open for a free and respectful discussion of the ideas that separate us. And I've decided that I really don't care if other skeptics agree with how I argue. I am not writing for them! They are not my target audience. You are! Mine is an arrogance about the arguments. I have them. You don't. [Plenty of other skeptics have great arguments too, so don't get me wrong about this].
Just to be sure, there is no personal animosity toward Christians as the good people I think most of you are. I like most Christians. That's not the issue. My claim is that not a single one of you can effectively and honestly deal with every argument in my book, any one of which is fatal to your faith (and I mean conservative Christians). Call me arrogant if you will. I don't care. Bring it on. Every day you wait, another soul might be lost from reading my book.
I don't revel in knowing some Christian people will probably suffer pain as the result of agonizing over their faith along with the social repercussions from leaving it. I'm only interested in educating people about Christianity. It's a delusion. You are deluded. And I am here to help you get over it.
South Carolina Approves Christian License Tag
A group that supports separation of church and state wants a federal judge to stop South Carolina from issuing Christian-themed license plates.
Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State will ask a judge during a hearing Thursday for a preliminary injunction to keep the state Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing plates that depict a stained-glass window with a cross and carrying the words I Believe.
Americans United has sued state officials, saying the plates amount to state sponsorship of a particular faith. Legislators passed a law authorizing the tag this year. The DMV said last month it has enough paid orders to begin making the plates.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP)
Published: December 11, 2008
December 10, 2008
a pound of silver
The punishments for rape are perhaps the most disturbing regulations in the Bible.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
While God ensures that the authors list it as a crime under most circumstances, we must realize that there are two contrasting conditions to consider in the event that a Hebrew woman is sexually violated: whether the victim is married (or engaged) or a virgin. The fine for committing one of the most heinous acts imaginable against a virgin woman without God’s permission is a pound of silver paid to her father and a forced marriage to the victim. (Deut 22:28-29) Yes, God’s idea of justice for the raped woman is to be horrendously punished again by forcing her to marry the man who savagely attacked her. This disgusting rule is nowhere near what most people would consider an ethical resolution, and it’s certainly not a decision rendered by any court I would like to be facing. On the other hand, a man who rapes an engaged virgin or a married woman will be stoned to death, not because he committed a brutal atrocity against the woman, but because he “violated another man’s wife.” (Deut 22:24-25)
Note the shamefully sharp contrast in disciplinary action between raping a woman with a husband and raping a woman without a husband: death versus a pound of silver. Since being raped is certainly all the same to the woman, it now becomes clear that God feels the husband is the one who is the victim of the attack. Raping a woman of your choice who does not have a husband allows you to marry the woman of your choice, but raping a woman who already belongs to another man warrants the death sentence. I could talk for days without overstating the evil absurdity of these rules. I simply cannot have any respect for any Christian who reads these regulations, acknowledges them, and makes excuses for them because they are part of the Old Testament. At no time should this philosophy have been law.
It has been asserted by Christian apologists that Deut 22:28-29 speaks of consensual sex, and not rape. There are several reasons why I believe this is unfeasible. The argument that "to take (taphas) and lay with (shakab)" do not refer to rape is invalidated by Genesis 34:2, in which "to take (laqach) and lay with (shakab)" is long understood to be a case of rape. Strong's confirms that Taphas and Laqach (and Chazaq in Deut 22:25 for that matter) are closely related synonyms. The idea that this isn't rape because the author didn't reuse Chazaq (from 22:25) in Deut 22:29 also does not hold up because one could make the same argument that Chazaq doesn't imply rape because Laqach (from Gen 34) wsn't reused in Deut 22:25 and again in Deut 22:29. The clear meaning of taphas, laqach, and chazaq when used in conjunction with shakab is to take/handle/hold by force (granted that chazaq appears to be stronger than either taphas or laqach, but laqach (Gen 34) is no stronger than taphas (Deut 22). Cases of pure adultery in Deut 22 do not mention any sort of "taking" or "forcing," only "laying with." The only argument left for the apologist is to suggest that Dinah was not raped in Genesis 34:2, but the context from later in Genesis 34 casts doubt on this hypothesis. And we know women were possessions in the OT, so let's not pretend otherwise.
Comments appreciated but my time will be limited this week.
Michael Shermer Discusses Darwin and Religion with Karl Giberson
Link. Giberson wrote the book Saving Darwin. Shermer wrote the book Why Darwin Matters.
December 09, 2008
Press Release: "Quest for the Historical Jesus Begins Anew"
Amherst, New York (December 08, 2008)—Scholars gathered this past weekend, December 5-7, in Amherst, New York, for the inaugural meeting of The Jesus Project in a renewed quest for the historical Jesus. The project, sponsored by the secular think tank Center for Inquiry and its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), is an effort by historians, biblical scholars, and theologians to determine what can be reliably recovered about the historical figure of Jesus, his life, his teachings, and his activities, utilizing the highest standards of scientific and scholarly objectivity.
An earlier inquiry, "The Jesus Seminar," founded by Professor Robert Funk in 1985, concerned itself primarily with the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and related sources. Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and CSER, said that the "The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered."
The project has drawn together a diverse and rich group of scholars, including, among others Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, David Trobisch, Bruce Chilton, Dennis MacDonald, and R. Joseph Hoffmann.
At the session this past weekend, participants agreed that a rigorous scientific inquiry was needed, and that the Project would be committed to a position of neutrality towards the sources used as "evidence" for the Jesus tradition. Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor's argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive. "Jesus remains after 2,000 years the most fascinating figure of Western civilization," said James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. "Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archaeological record." Tabor says that scholars today find themselves uniquely positioned to examine the issue of who Jesus was in new and challenging ways. During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that "the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions." All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.
The Project has outlined a set of priorities for its next meetings, including a "consistent" translation of the Gospels, an inquiry into the causes of the canonization of the existing New Testament documents, parallels between Islam and early Christianity in delineating its sacred books, and the need to carve a middle path between what Hoffmann describes as "Da Vinci Code sensationalism and the truly fascinating story that underlies the history of Christianity."
Papers delivered at the conference will be published under the title "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry," by Prometheus Books in 2009. The Project's next conference is scheduled tentatively for May 2009 in Chicago.
*Listen to Robert Price interview about The Jesus Project on WBFO, Buffalo's NPR affiliate.
An earlier inquiry, "The Jesus Seminar," founded by Professor Robert Funk in 1985, concerned itself primarily with the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and related sources. Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project and CSER, said that the "The Jesus Seminar had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members. Its agenda was not exclusively, but in large measure theologically driven. Its conclusions and methods raised more questions than they answered."
The project has drawn together a diverse and rich group of scholars, including, among others Gerd Lüdemann, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, David Trobisch, Bruce Chilton, Dennis MacDonald, and R. Joseph Hoffmann.
At the session this past weekend, participants agreed that a rigorous scientific inquiry was needed, and that the Project would be committed to a position of neutrality towards the sources used as "evidence" for the Jesus tradition. Participants represent a wide variety of perspectives, ranging from Tabor's argument that there is substantial evidence that the tomb of the family of Jesus has been located, to the view that the evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure is not persuasive. "Jesus remains after 2,000 years the most fascinating figure of Western civilization," said James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty: A New Historical Investigation of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. "Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archaeological record." Tabor says that scholars today find themselves uniquely positioned to examine the issue of who Jesus was in new and challenging ways. During the closing conference round-table, Tabor was quick to emphasize that "the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions." All members of the project share a common commitment to the importance of applying scientific methodologies to the sources used to construct the Jesus tradition.
The Project has outlined a set of priorities for its next meetings, including a "consistent" translation of the Gospels, an inquiry into the causes of the canonization of the existing New Testament documents, parallels between Islam and early Christianity in delineating its sacred books, and the need to carve a middle path between what Hoffmann describes as "Da Vinci Code sensationalism and the truly fascinating story that underlies the history of Christianity."
Papers delivered at the conference will be published under the title "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry," by Prometheus Books in 2009. The Project's next conference is scheduled tentatively for May 2009 in Chicago.
*Listen to Robert Price interview about The Jesus Project on WBFO, Buffalo's NPR affiliate.
Arguments for and Against the Historical Jesus, Written by AIGBusted
I am writing this to discuss whether or not the evidence we have (the Bible and other historical documents) shows Jesus was a real person or a myth. To begin with, I want to note that no one piece of the evidence we have seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed, but when taken together it looks more likely than not that Jesus existed. In this post, I am going to begin with some arguments which I think support a historical Jesus, then move on to bad or feeble arguments for a historical Jesus (This is intended to a series of posts, each looking at different arguments concerning Jesus’ historicity.
Good Arguments for a historical Jesus:
1. In Mark 15 Jesus’ last words are recorded: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”, which is Aramaic for “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?”
Why is this signifigant? Well, you have to remember that Mark was written in Greek even though first century Judeans spoke Aramaic. It would make sense for Jesus’ followers to want to preserve his exact words, untranslated and as he spoke them. Yet it would not make sense to record this if Jesus had been viewed as a cosmic, supernatural figure who never walked the earth.
2. Paul calls Jesus the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). What Paul seems to be saying (reading the passage in context) is that Jesus was the first of the dead to be resurrected (It was thought that in the end times all the dead would be raised) and that the end times were now. This implies Jesus was a man of flesh and blood and lived recently.
Bad/Feeble Arguments for a Historical Jesus
The argument (or rather, arguments, as this involves many scriptures) we will consider is the argument from the Pauline epistles. This argument contends that
1. The letters of Paul were written in the 50’s (This is not doubted by even non-Christian scholars).
2. Paul Speaks of Jesus as a Historical Person (This is disputable, as we will see, many people misinterpret Paul as speaking literally when, read in context, he speaking figuratively. I know of only two Pauline passages which clearly point to a historical Jesus and I have mentioned them above).
3. No one would invent a figure who lived so recently (less than 20 years prior) in Judea and contended that they knew his siblings and had those who had known him during his life. (I have no truck with this conclusion so long as the premises are sound).
Let’s take a look at the passages John posted in one of his blog posts about the historical Jesus:
Jesus descended from Abraham (Gal. 3:16);
Let’s look at the passage:
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”
We notice right off the bat that the connection between Jesus and Abraham is probably not a literal, flesh and blood relationship, at least in this context: There was something about Jesus which made him a successor to Abraham, something which was beyond DNA (Since the Jewish people were not also considered to be Abraham’s “seed” in the same sense that Jesus was). We also need to pay attention to the metaphor in use here, which I will discuss shortly: In Galatians 4 Paul also discusses how Sarah and Hagar, the wife and concubine of Abraham, should be thought of figuratively and how the Christians are the sons of Sarah, the free woman.
[Jesus] was born of a woman and lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4);
Allow to provide a lengthy excerpt from an essay by Rook Hawkins, who explains this passage much more clearly than I am able:
Those out to verify the historical Jesus are quick to jump on this verse without considering what Paul is actually saying here. This verse is taken for granted, presupposed to be about a person which Paul never knew. For Jesus was not born at all but made (genomenon), specifically, under the law. What is the law? Paul actually tells us what “the law” (tou nomou) means. “It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (mesitou).” (Gal. 3:19) Paul clarifies for us, “For we know that the law (ho nomos) is spiritual (pneumatikos), but I am of the flesh (sarkinos), sold under sin.” (Rom. 7:14) To Paul, what comes from the flesh is corruption and sinful. “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.” (Rom. 7:18) The law is the spiritual custodian (ephrouroumetha) of the flesh, a teacher by which Paul feels leads one to life. It is through this custodian, the spirit, per Paul, that we are also saved. There is also an underlining allegory to this passage that most scholars seem to ignore.[28] Do those who want to understand Paul so easily forget the allegory of the two women, Sarah and Hagar, for which we are all a part of?[29] This chapter (Galatians 4) is not about Jesus at all. It is entirely about the law and how to be saved under the law.[30]
“Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the handmaid was made according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was made through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, "Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband." Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman." So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman.” – Paul, Galatians 4:21-31
The context is very important. Jesus is made under the law—the spiritual custodian—by a “woman” or specifically, “the Jerusalem above” (hê de anô Ierousalêm), which also happens to allegorically be the mother to everyone. Not everyone in a worldly sense, Paul makes this clear, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16) But Paul was speaking specifically to everyone who is adopted into the death of Jesus Christ, “but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:15) And here the understanding of the parable comes back around. We die, the same way Jesus dies. We call out to our father, allegorically, as we become kin with Jesus through the spirit. But through this death we are saved, from the flesh which is corrupt, through a rebirth. This rebirth is of this allegorical woman in the same way that Paul’s Jesus is born through the same allegorical woman. Indirectly we, like Jesus, are born again spiritually by way of the heavens, or directly, by God.
[Jesus] was the son of David (Romans 1:3);
In order to keep this article’s length to a minimum, I ask you to read the essay linked above as it also has the answer to this passage: It is an allegory intending to portray Jesus as one who treated Jews and Gentiles according to their deeds, just as David did.
[Jesus] had a brother named James (Gal. 1:19) and other brothers (I Cor. 9:5).
Both of these passages use the phrase “brother of the Lord” or “brothers of the Lord” which seems to me to indicate a spiritual relationship rather than a genetic one (Why not simply call James, ‘the brother of Jesus’). I also must note the words of early church father Origen:
"Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother; [Gal. i. 19.] which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said, that it happened for the sake of Jesus."
Of course, I also need to note that I have discussed this with Dr. James McGrath and he told me that by the third century some Christians believed Mary remained a virgin her whole life and thus they sought to explain away the references to Jesus’ siblings as symbolic. But think about this: Would it make more sense for the perpetual virgin dogma to spring up from a sect which believed (originally, at least) in a spiritual Christ, or would it make more sense to think that one day Christians decided Mary had to be a virgin and so they’d just explain away all the references to her other children? Of course, religious dogmas rarely make sense, so perhaps it is the latter.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-25); was betrayed (I Cor. 11;23);
It does not tell us where or when Jesus was killed, and so this does not affect the Jesus myth theory as I present it: Jesus may have appeared to Paul in a vision with a cup of wine and a loaf of bread and instituted the eucharist for all we know.
[He] was killed by the Jews of Judea (I Thess. 2:14-15),
This is very likely an interpolation (See here). Although the link I give is to one of those “conservative Christian” sites, there is a reasonable discussion of why this is thought to be a later addition to the text. In the end, however, I must disagree with the author’s conclusion that we need a text without the offending passage to make up our minds about its authenticity. The earliest manuscripts of Paul’s letters date to well over 100 years after Paul wrote, and we know that scribes made alterations to Biblical texts they copied (See Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman). So there may be a lot of interpolations which we will never be able to prove (using manuscriptural evidence) are interpolations. We are stuck looking for clues within the text.
[H]e was buried and seen as resurrecting (I Cor. 15:4-8).
Again, where and when? In the New Jerusalem or somewhere on earth 20 years ago?
-- AIGBusted
Good Arguments for a historical Jesus:
1. In Mark 15 Jesus’ last words are recorded: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”, which is Aramaic for “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?”
Why is this signifigant? Well, you have to remember that Mark was written in Greek even though first century Judeans spoke Aramaic. It would make sense for Jesus’ followers to want to preserve his exact words, untranslated and as he spoke them. Yet it would not make sense to record this if Jesus had been viewed as a cosmic, supernatural figure who never walked the earth.
2. Paul calls Jesus the “first fruits” of those who have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). What Paul seems to be saying (reading the passage in context) is that Jesus was the first of the dead to be resurrected (It was thought that in the end times all the dead would be raised) and that the end times were now. This implies Jesus was a man of flesh and blood and lived recently.
Bad/Feeble Arguments for a Historical Jesus
The argument (or rather, arguments, as this involves many scriptures) we will consider is the argument from the Pauline epistles. This argument contends that
1. The letters of Paul were written in the 50’s (This is not doubted by even non-Christian scholars).
2. Paul Speaks of Jesus as a Historical Person (This is disputable, as we will see, many people misinterpret Paul as speaking literally when, read in context, he speaking figuratively. I know of only two Pauline passages which clearly point to a historical Jesus and I have mentioned them above).
3. No one would invent a figure who lived so recently (less than 20 years prior) in Judea and contended that they knew his siblings and had those who had known him during his life. (I have no truck with this conclusion so long as the premises are sound).
Let’s take a look at the passages John posted in one of his blog posts about the historical Jesus:
Jesus descended from Abraham (Gal. 3:16);
Let’s look at the passage:
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”
We notice right off the bat that the connection between Jesus and Abraham is probably not a literal, flesh and blood relationship, at least in this context: There was something about Jesus which made him a successor to Abraham, something which was beyond DNA (Since the Jewish people were not also considered to be Abraham’s “seed” in the same sense that Jesus was). We also need to pay attention to the metaphor in use here, which I will discuss shortly: In Galatians 4 Paul also discusses how Sarah and Hagar, the wife and concubine of Abraham, should be thought of figuratively and how the Christians are the sons of Sarah, the free woman.
[Jesus] was born of a woman and lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4);
Allow to provide a lengthy excerpt from an essay by Rook Hawkins, who explains this passage much more clearly than I am able:
Those out to verify the historical Jesus are quick to jump on this verse without considering what Paul is actually saying here. This verse is taken for granted, presupposed to be about a person which Paul never knew. For Jesus was not born at all but made (genomenon), specifically, under the law. What is the law? Paul actually tells us what “the law” (tou nomou) means. “It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator (mesitou).” (Gal. 3:19) Paul clarifies for us, “For we know that the law (ho nomos) is spiritual (pneumatikos), but I am of the flesh (sarkinos), sold under sin.” (Rom. 7:14) To Paul, what comes from the flesh is corruption and sinful. “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.” (Rom. 7:18) The law is the spiritual custodian (ephrouroumetha) of the flesh, a teacher by which Paul feels leads one to life. It is through this custodian, the spirit, per Paul, that we are also saved. There is also an underlining allegory to this passage that most scholars seem to ignore.[28] Do those who want to understand Paul so easily forget the allegory of the two women, Sarah and Hagar, for which we are all a part of?[29] This chapter (Galatians 4) is not about Jesus at all. It is entirely about the law and how to be saved under the law.[30]
“Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don't you listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free woman. However, the son by the handmaid was made according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was made through promise. These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, "Rejoice, you barren who don't bear. Break forth and shout, you that don't travail. For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband." Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. However what does the Scripture say? "Throw out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid will not inherit with the son of the free woman." So then, brothers, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the free woman.” – Paul, Galatians 4:21-31
The context is very important. Jesus is made under the law—the spiritual custodian—by a “woman” or specifically, “the Jerusalem above” (hê de anô Ierousalêm), which also happens to allegorically be the mother to everyone. Not everyone in a worldly sense, Paul makes this clear, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16) But Paul was speaking specifically to everyone who is adopted into the death of Jesus Christ, “but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Rom. 8:15) And here the understanding of the parable comes back around. We die, the same way Jesus dies. We call out to our father, allegorically, as we become kin with Jesus through the spirit. But through this death we are saved, from the flesh which is corrupt, through a rebirth. This rebirth is of this allegorical woman in the same way that Paul’s Jesus is born through the same allegorical woman. Indirectly we, like Jesus, are born again spiritually by way of the heavens, or directly, by God.
[Jesus] was the son of David (Romans 1:3);
In order to keep this article’s length to a minimum, I ask you to read the essay linked above as it also has the answer to this passage: It is an allegory intending to portray Jesus as one who treated Jews and Gentiles according to their deeds, just as David did.
[Jesus] had a brother named James (Gal. 1:19) and other brothers (I Cor. 9:5).
Both of these passages use the phrase “brother of the Lord” or “brothers of the Lord” which seems to me to indicate a spiritual relationship rather than a genetic one (Why not simply call James, ‘the brother of Jesus’). I also must note the words of early church father Origen:
"Now this James was he whom that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, said he had seen as the Lord’s brother; [Gal. i. 19.] which relation implies not so much nearness of blood, or the sameness of education, as it does the agreement of manners and preaching. If therefore he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said, that it happened for the sake of Jesus."
Of course, I also need to note that I have discussed this with Dr. James McGrath and he told me that by the third century some Christians believed Mary remained a virgin her whole life and thus they sought to explain away the references to Jesus’ siblings as symbolic. But think about this: Would it make more sense for the perpetual virgin dogma to spring up from a sect which believed (originally, at least) in a spiritual Christ, or would it make more sense to think that one day Christians decided Mary had to be a virgin and so they’d just explain away all the references to her other children? Of course, religious dogmas rarely make sense, so perhaps it is the latter.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-25); was betrayed (I Cor. 11;23);
It does not tell us where or when Jesus was killed, and so this does not affect the Jesus myth theory as I present it: Jesus may have appeared to Paul in a vision with a cup of wine and a loaf of bread and instituted the eucharist for all we know.
[He] was killed by the Jews of Judea (I Thess. 2:14-15),
This is very likely an interpolation (See here). Although the link I give is to one of those “conservative Christian” sites, there is a reasonable discussion of why this is thought to be a later addition to the text. In the end, however, I must disagree with the author’s conclusion that we need a text without the offending passage to make up our minds about its authenticity. The earliest manuscripts of Paul’s letters date to well over 100 years after Paul wrote, and we know that scribes made alterations to Biblical texts they copied (See Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman). So there may be a lot of interpolations which we will never be able to prove (using manuscriptural evidence) are interpolations. We are stuck looking for clues within the text.
[H]e was buried and seen as resurrecting (I Cor. 15:4-8).
Again, where and when? In the New Jerusalem or somewhere on earth 20 years ago?
-- AIGBusted
December 08, 2008
Having Fun With a Church Sign Generator
This is cute. While not real, churches do dispute such things.
Opposing Views Debate Site
I am now considered an "expert" over at Opposing Views. This is an interesting site with decent rules of debate over many different issues.
December 07, 2008
Presuppositions, Assumptions, Worldviews and Control Beliefs.
In my book I explicitly state that some skeptics may not like the way I argue. One of the reasons is because I talk about presuppositions, assumptions, worldviews, and control beliefs. In one of my posts a discussion flared up about this starting with author Jeffrey Mark’s comment. While he wasn’t responding directly to anything I had written let me respond.
I think scientifically minded and theologically or philosophical minded people go head to head over these ideas. As a philosophical minded person let me try to explain this to scientifically minded people, if I can.
The definitions of these words are similar but not exactly the same. They apply differently depending on the particular subject at hand. And they involve different things depending on whether the context is a discussion with someone else, or simply describing what we believe to be the case.
Let’s say we are discussing or debating an idea with someone else. When we engage in any argument we all have our presuppositions and assumptions. Those beliefs are the ones we presuppose and are assumed to be true. These beliefs are not presently on the table at the moment. They are presupposed for the sake of further conversation. If two Christians are debating over Arminianism and Calvinism they do not need to begin by arguing whether or not God exists or whether the Bible is God’s word. They are presupposing them in this context. If two philosophers are arguing about the existence of God they must presuppose that they are communicating with each other in a real material world, and that the discussion is an important one. If two scientists are arguing about something the same thing applies with regard to the importance of science, the reliability of induction and their senses.
Any presupposition or assumption can be laid on the table though, and discussed. A Christian Arminian would be frustrated in discussing Christian theology with someone who didn’t accept the Bible as the word of an existing God. A philosopher may be frustrated in having to continually revisit whether there is a material world before he can argue other things with other philosophers about other topics. A scientist would abhor having to go back and revisit the reliability of his senses with a pantheist who might require it, since the pantheist believes everything is maya, or an illusion. So some discussions between people who see things differently might be extremely frustrating, for they don’t agree on some basic common beliefs. That’s why Christian philosopher James Sire’s book is called, The Universe Next Door. Some of us see things so differently we live in different intellectual universes. There is even debate among theologians, philosophers and philosophers of science whether or not there is common ground between people who live in these different intellectual universes. Philosophers of science debate whether differing scientific paradigms are commensurable or incommensurable (ala Thomas Kuhn). Applied scientists are usually not informed about this kind of debate.
When it comes to what we believe, our problem is to try and isolate one of our particular assumptions for analysis. It’s extremely difficult if not impossible to do. For all assumptions and presuppositions we hold to are placed within the context of a whole worldview. We try to make consistent sense of our beliefs about God, the universe, ethics, politics, history, death, and so forth. A worldview is our particular way of making all of our beliefs cohere into a single consistent system of thought. Since it's impossible to lay our whole worldview on the table for analysis we can only isolate and analyze one or two particular beliefs at a time within it. But when we do so the other beliefs that form our worldview play a part in our analysis of that one particular belief we are trying to isolate for analysis. These other beliefs are called background beliefs. Our background beliefs consist of everything we have ever experienced and everything we have ever come to believe (minus that one particular belief we are trying to analyze). These background beliefs of ours control how we evaluate that particular belief in question, so I call them control beliefs. They control how we view that one particular belief in question. These control beliefs can actually explain away the evidence if they are strongly held ones. This is little different than the differing stories that a prosecutor and defense attorney might tell based upon the available evidence, one showing the defendant guilty and the other one showing that he is innocent. The evidence is the same. How do you decide?
An additional and telling problem is that no one has probably analyzed all of his beliefs. There are beliefs we have assumed are true based upon early childhood experiences that we have never placed on the table. Analyzing all of our beliefs is probably impossible otherwise we’d have to revisit every book we’ve ever read, every conversation, and every experience. So we all have unexamined beliefs we assume to be true, all of us. Some beliefs are more important and controlling than others, some have less evidence for them than others, and some are so well founded in our minds that we cannot question them, but we all have them. And they control how we see things, everything, for they are all placed within our own particular worldview. Furthermore, every belief we have is disputed by someone else in the world who can offer his reasons for doing so, even if we may disagree. Throughout history you will find this the case as well. No matter what you believe there has been a scholar, a philosopher, or a scientist who believed differently. That’s why philosopher/scientist A. N. Whitehead wrote, “Some assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know that they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”
I haven’t covered everything on this topic but for the record I do think we should follow the evidence and I do trust the reliability of our senses and the scientific method as the only possible way out of this quagmire of beliefs. And I think it is intellectual dishonesty to assume with any kind of certainty a whole worldview like the presuppositionalists do. To do that is to be impervious to all outside criticism. It is to lock oneself inside an ivory tower in the sky that never has to touch down on earth. I do not assume my whole worldview web of beliefs are all true with any degree of certainty. Some beliefs form the center of my web, like logic and my senses, while those in middle and on the periphery become less and less firmly held ones. And I must continually isolate one belief after another for analysis, even I cannot give up those that are closer and closer to the center of my web because I have solid reasons for trusting in them.
In any case I acknowledge the problem. So when it comes to my critique of the Christian theistic worldview I spend over half of my book arguing for my particular set of skeptical control beliefs. I do not assume them when crossing over into a different intellectual universe such as Christianity. As an outsider I shouldn’t do this if I want to be heard. I must first argue for them. To anyone who attempts to critique a different worldview he must argue for why he sees things differently. In the case of Christianity he must argue why he trusts science, rather than assuming it, and he must argue for why he adopts a skeptical set of control beliefs, rather than merely assuming a skeptical position. He must truly engage their worldview by understanding it. And he must start by critiquing their supernatural assumptions and their belief in the Bible as God's word.
I think scientifically minded and theologically or philosophical minded people go head to head over these ideas. As a philosophical minded person let me try to explain this to scientifically minded people, if I can.
The definitions of these words are similar but not exactly the same. They apply differently depending on the particular subject at hand. And they involve different things depending on whether the context is a discussion with someone else, or simply describing what we believe to be the case.
Let’s say we are discussing or debating an idea with someone else. When we engage in any argument we all have our presuppositions and assumptions. Those beliefs are the ones we presuppose and are assumed to be true. These beliefs are not presently on the table at the moment. They are presupposed for the sake of further conversation. If two Christians are debating over Arminianism and Calvinism they do not need to begin by arguing whether or not God exists or whether the Bible is God’s word. They are presupposing them in this context. If two philosophers are arguing about the existence of God they must presuppose that they are communicating with each other in a real material world, and that the discussion is an important one. If two scientists are arguing about something the same thing applies with regard to the importance of science, the reliability of induction and their senses.
Any presupposition or assumption can be laid on the table though, and discussed. A Christian Arminian would be frustrated in discussing Christian theology with someone who didn’t accept the Bible as the word of an existing God. A philosopher may be frustrated in having to continually revisit whether there is a material world before he can argue other things with other philosophers about other topics. A scientist would abhor having to go back and revisit the reliability of his senses with a pantheist who might require it, since the pantheist believes everything is maya, or an illusion. So some discussions between people who see things differently might be extremely frustrating, for they don’t agree on some basic common beliefs. That’s why Christian philosopher James Sire’s book is called, The Universe Next Door. Some of us see things so differently we live in different intellectual universes. There is even debate among theologians, philosophers and philosophers of science whether or not there is common ground between people who live in these different intellectual universes. Philosophers of science debate whether differing scientific paradigms are commensurable or incommensurable (ala Thomas Kuhn). Applied scientists are usually not informed about this kind of debate.
When it comes to what we believe, our problem is to try and isolate one of our particular assumptions for analysis. It’s extremely difficult if not impossible to do. For all assumptions and presuppositions we hold to are placed within the context of a whole worldview. We try to make consistent sense of our beliefs about God, the universe, ethics, politics, history, death, and so forth. A worldview is our particular way of making all of our beliefs cohere into a single consistent system of thought. Since it's impossible to lay our whole worldview on the table for analysis we can only isolate and analyze one or two particular beliefs at a time within it. But when we do so the other beliefs that form our worldview play a part in our analysis of that one particular belief we are trying to isolate for analysis. These other beliefs are called background beliefs. Our background beliefs consist of everything we have ever experienced and everything we have ever come to believe (minus that one particular belief we are trying to analyze). These background beliefs of ours control how we evaluate that particular belief in question, so I call them control beliefs. They control how we view that one particular belief in question. These control beliefs can actually explain away the evidence if they are strongly held ones. This is little different than the differing stories that a prosecutor and defense attorney might tell based upon the available evidence, one showing the defendant guilty and the other one showing that he is innocent. The evidence is the same. How do you decide?
An additional and telling problem is that no one has probably analyzed all of his beliefs. There are beliefs we have assumed are true based upon early childhood experiences that we have never placed on the table. Analyzing all of our beliefs is probably impossible otherwise we’d have to revisit every book we’ve ever read, every conversation, and every experience. So we all have unexamined beliefs we assume to be true, all of us. Some beliefs are more important and controlling than others, some have less evidence for them than others, and some are so well founded in our minds that we cannot question them, but we all have them. And they control how we see things, everything, for they are all placed within our own particular worldview. Furthermore, every belief we have is disputed by someone else in the world who can offer his reasons for doing so, even if we may disagree. Throughout history you will find this the case as well. No matter what you believe there has been a scholar, a philosopher, or a scientist who believed differently. That’s why philosopher/scientist A. N. Whitehead wrote, “Some assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know that they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”
I haven’t covered everything on this topic but for the record I do think we should follow the evidence and I do trust the reliability of our senses and the scientific method as the only possible way out of this quagmire of beliefs. And I think it is intellectual dishonesty to assume with any kind of certainty a whole worldview like the presuppositionalists do. To do that is to be impervious to all outside criticism. It is to lock oneself inside an ivory tower in the sky that never has to touch down on earth. I do not assume my whole worldview web of beliefs are all true with any degree of certainty. Some beliefs form the center of my web, like logic and my senses, while those in middle and on the periphery become less and less firmly held ones. And I must continually isolate one belief after another for analysis, even I cannot give up those that are closer and closer to the center of my web because I have solid reasons for trusting in them.
In any case I acknowledge the problem. So when it comes to my critique of the Christian theistic worldview I spend over half of my book arguing for my particular set of skeptical control beliefs. I do not assume them when crossing over into a different intellectual universe such as Christianity. As an outsider I shouldn’t do this if I want to be heard. I must first argue for them. To anyone who attempts to critique a different worldview he must argue for why he sees things differently. In the case of Christianity he must argue why he trusts science, rather than assuming it, and he must argue for why he adopts a skeptical set of control beliefs, rather than merely assuming a skeptical position. He must truly engage their worldview by understanding it. And he must start by critiquing their supernatural assumptions and their belief in the Bible as God's word.
December 06, 2008
Robert M. Price v. Gregory Boyd Debate Whether Jesus Existed
Since DC readers have asked for more on this question, here is the link. Bob is a friend of mine who wrote the book, Deconstructing Jesus. With Paul Rhodes Eddy, Greg co-wrote the book, The Jesus Legend.
Skeptics, We Need a Long Term Strategy!
Given the fact that skeptics are only making meager progress toward our common goals in society let's think together about a long term strategy. Do we have one? Does anyone? Care to discuss this?
As a former minister I know that Christians have several long term strategies with strong organizations. Maybe we can learn from them?
Their first strategy is to reach children. They target children in the home and the church. The younger the better. There is a group called Childhood Evangelism, which seeks to convert kids as young as they can. Richard Dawkins calls things like this "child abuse." There are bus ministries geared toward getting kids to church. Norman L. Geisler, who is considered the "dean of apologetics," was raised in an atheist home but was converted as the result of a bus ministry that brought him to church every Sunday for ten years!
Then there are college campus ministries like Bill Bright's Campus Crusade for Christ. William Lane Craig is involved with this group. There are even rich Christian benefactors who have bought up hundreds of thousands of copies of Josh McDowell's books which are distributed for free on college campuses!
Then on the cultural level there is the important Samaritan Strategy, where by doing good works in the name of Jesus they influence our society.
Christians have legal groups to protect their rights as well, like The Christian Legal Society.
There are other things Christians do to reach people and inflence society. Are we as skeptics interested in doing likewise? I know we don't have the numbers or means to do as much as Christians do, but are we serious about changing society and influencing minds, or not? I think most people who become skeptics simply get on with life, since after all, this is the only life they will ever have. Only a small minority of them become passionate to change minds and change society.
As an agnostic, Robert G. Ingersol was probably the most powerful orator in the 19th century, speaking to standing room only crowds. He was rich and he was powerful. He could speak out as he desired, and he did. There are many books available that contain his speeches. As such, he could've financed a national atheist/agnostic organization to influence American society. Our movement could've been started much earlier if he had. But he didn't. Now we have several of these organizations. Are YOU involved in any of them?
Is there more we can do? Is there more YOU as a skeptic can do?
The biggest problem might just be fear, and some of this is justified. There is the fear of coming out of the so-called closet. If you have not yet done so, at least seriously consider doing this. There is power in numbers. You realize, don't you, that in numbers we may be the second largest denomination in America behind Catholics! One in four Americans may be either agnostic or atheist. The more of us who tell the people we know what we think, the better. Just think of it this way. There have been a great many people who went before us and suffered a great deal so that we have the freedom to speak out, some of whom were burned at the stake. Don't trample on their blood. If they did this for us then we should do it for those who come after us.
Any other thoughts?
As a former minister I know that Christians have several long term strategies with strong organizations. Maybe we can learn from them?
Their first strategy is to reach children. They target children in the home and the church. The younger the better. There is a group called Childhood Evangelism, which seeks to convert kids as young as they can. Richard Dawkins calls things like this "child abuse." There are bus ministries geared toward getting kids to church. Norman L. Geisler, who is considered the "dean of apologetics," was raised in an atheist home but was converted as the result of a bus ministry that brought him to church every Sunday for ten years!
Then there are college campus ministries like Bill Bright's Campus Crusade for Christ. William Lane Craig is involved with this group. There are even rich Christian benefactors who have bought up hundreds of thousands of copies of Josh McDowell's books which are distributed for free on college campuses!
Then on the cultural level there is the important Samaritan Strategy, where by doing good works in the name of Jesus they influence our society.
Christians have legal groups to protect their rights as well, like The Christian Legal Society.
There are other things Christians do to reach people and inflence society. Are we as skeptics interested in doing likewise? I know we don't have the numbers or means to do as much as Christians do, but are we serious about changing society and influencing minds, or not? I think most people who become skeptics simply get on with life, since after all, this is the only life they will ever have. Only a small minority of them become passionate to change minds and change society.
As an agnostic, Robert G. Ingersol was probably the most powerful orator in the 19th century, speaking to standing room only crowds. He was rich and he was powerful. He could speak out as he desired, and he did. There are many books available that contain his speeches. As such, he could've financed a national atheist/agnostic organization to influence American society. Our movement could've been started much earlier if he had. But he didn't. Now we have several of these organizations. Are YOU involved in any of them?
Is there more we can do? Is there more YOU as a skeptic can do?
The biggest problem might just be fear, and some of this is justified. There is the fear of coming out of the so-called closet. If you have not yet done so, at least seriously consider doing this. There is power in numbers. You realize, don't you, that in numbers we may be the second largest denomination in America behind Catholics! One in four Americans may be either agnostic or atheist. The more of us who tell the people we know what we think, the better. Just think of it this way. There have been a great many people who went before us and suffered a great deal so that we have the freedom to speak out, some of whom were burned at the stake. Don't trample on their blood. If they did this for us then we should do it for those who come after us.
Any other thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)